Sane interpretation of no-self: the self is an illusion, so I don't have to believe thoughts derived from having one.
Real-world interpretation of no-self: the self is an illusion, so if you use personal pronouns or have personal preferences, this means you are not awakened.
Conversation
Replying to
Most of the Western takes on no-self are about as enlightened as stating that because a film, really, is just a collection of still images with an audio track, you'd be deluded to enjoy it.
1
7
Luckily for me, I've long since stopped caring about anyone's half-baked reading of canon and even-less-cultivated real-world ideas of practice.
1
"Then why mention them at all?"
Because I enjoy talking shit. It's fun, and they have it coming. :)
1
1
Replying to
Putting quotes around the words “I”, “me”, and “mine” proves you’re enlightened.
2
2
Vinay's definition is basically detachment: "never born, never lived, never to die". He would say that, for example, energy body definitions are just magic games, not enlightenment. Useful, not the thing itself.
1
1
Show replies
Uncle Al would say that this is not experienced as a change in the HGA from something personal to something universal, but rather that the HGA is a scaffolding which supports getting the full, continuous experience of the nondual without becoming a total weirdo mystic
1
Note that I keep saying “experienced as” because I am wary of making ontological claims here which are too strong
A few people, yeah. It is rare.
Uncle Al claims that the HGA is determined to bring one to enlightenment. I think that is wrong. Awakening is plenty for most people who achieve it.