The nature of the separate self, duality
-
The nature of the separate self, duality
Some of what I am posting here might already have been posted one way or another before... but just like to write down some notes about the nature of what we call ‘self’.
Self is merely a mental construct...it is the belief that there is this central entity that is thinking, doing, experiencing and watching things. The belief in the self as the central agent, thinker, doer, experiencer, watcher, existing separately from existing objects (‘things’ being done, thought, witnessed) etc.
For all unenlightened beings, there is the belief in the story of 'me' and that i am my body, and my mind and my story, which also comes with the fear and the protection of the self-image and self's 'possessions'.. and which craving for more possessions arise... forming greed, hatred, ignorance, and all the countless sufferings.
Why is that so? As stated earlier it is the fundamental flaw of seeing a subject-object duality. we see entities separate from ourselves, and from this comes the whole ‘outward movement’ -- we try to seek outside or even into the future in an attempt to grasp and obtain things (called craving), or we push it away and distance from our ‘self’ (aversion/hatred), or we tune them out all perhaps due to boredom and unpleasantness (ignorance), or we grow fear, etc.. while trying to protect, sustain and satisfy our false identity. All these are due to duality and the sense of self -- there is always a self and object-other-than-self relation, and because of the power of our karmic propensities we are blinded to see this as real, and this causes sufferings and samsara.
And when we drop our belief and simply SEE what is arising, what is it that we always called ‘Self’, we can realise that it really is just a process of 5 skhandas (form, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness) – and it is perfectly luminous and empty, an expression of our Buddha Nature. Therefore we can’t seek Buddha Nature apart from manifestation – as my Taiwanese teacher recalled a statement by my Master and said, as he himself has observed... many teachers out there teaches the dharma wrongly as they describe Emptiness as some sort of formlessness, and think that phenomena and manifestation are to be avoided while emptiness is to be sought or attained – but in reality, a real practitioner is to SEE the EMPTINESS within all PHENOMENA, and we cannot realise Emptiness APART from phenomena!
As Nagarjuna said, "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvana." And as David Loy said so nicely in The Difference between Samsara and Nirvana: There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Samsara is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvana is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Madhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakirti: "Nirvana or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction" ), but which Yogacara nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature" and so forth.
Let's get back to topic. The 5 skhandas (which are the aggregation of the apparent 'self') are just passing clouds happening in the light of awareness that simply shines like the sun, and no self can be found, what really exist is self1, self2, self3, self4, self5, etc made up of our karmic and mental factors. Each moment is spontaneous and complete, and passes as it arises, never staying a moment, never leaving a trace. They arise like everchanging patterns of weather -- there is no entity called 'weather' that you can point to -- it is merely a concept! No fixed existing thing called "Weather" can be found or located, the word simply points to an everchanging process of conditionings -- just like the 'self'.
And there is NO subject-object duality, for the observer is the observed, the doer is the being done, the thinker is the thought.
This seeming fixed and separate self is simply a series of discrete, disjoint, completely brief YET complete/whole and spontaneous conditioned arising.
But when we review our past doings, and then due to our karmic and habitual momentum, we chain them up with the sense of a continuous agent behind them -- a 'doer', a 'thinker', an 'observer', a self. But can it ever be found? Or is it merely a belief and a thought due to recalling, referencing and chaining? Moment to moment simply arise and happen, no self is doing them. Airplane pass by, you heard it, but it is not 'you' who heard it, the airplane and the hearing happens by itself effortlessly whether or not you want to hear it. No 'you' has control over the hearing and the airplane passing, though you might think otherwise. It simply has no role in it, because it's in reality it is illusory.
Can we see that surprisingly the 'self' thought arises ONLY after a deed is done, or something is seen or experienced, and then we when we recall them we think that there is this something called 'ME', this 'SELF', that has done it, has watched it. But during the act of doing, the watching, the thought that there was a 'self' wasn't there, was it? So can we see that it is merely a concept that has no substantial reality and only occurs due to the poverty of our analytical mind and tries to chain up and attribute everything to a false agent (self)?
Can we see that the solid sense of an observer, doer, thinker, experiencer, any sense of a fixed agent and self behind our doings, thinkings, and experiencing, is simply an illusion? That in reality the observer is the observed -- this so called self, observer, doer is merely made up of a series of disjoint, brief yet complete arising of our karmic and mental factors called 'rebirth'. No fixed self can ever be found or located! It is empty. Moment to moment 5 skhandas arise due to conditions, including our moment to moment of thoughts that are really no different from our heart beat -- they simply happen without a doer or thinker.
Can we see that the idea of a self is simply a mental construct, being a self-imposed boundary and yet due to the power of our karmic propensities to blind, the mind believes it to be as ultimately real. It is the belief in the solidity, concreteness, graspable-ness of the self and the world, the mind that sees what is empty as 'entities' with inherent existence.. due to the lack of insight into its self-liberating and empty nature.
Do you notice that when we drop that (the mental construct of the ‘self’) and simply rest in the wonder of presence... there is an expansion...a spacious and all pervading quality, because boundaries simply drop away. This presence is life spontaneous playing out itself, the whole universe spontaneously arising by itself with no one at the center living the life... it is life without a center. In this presence seeing sees, but the central entity, 'me', 'the watcher' is absent... hearing simply hears and there is no hearer... hands are typing, no one is doing it.. the whole universe is one whole process. Deeds are done but there is no doer... thinking happens, but there is no thinker. Thoughts are too seen to be simply clouds passing in the sky... mere appearance, dream-like and empty. They are not 'me' and there is no 'thinker'... they are also simply a dharma of conditioned arising not unlike our heart beat, self arising and self liberating. Each moment of thought (Which includes all our 6 senses in function) is transient yet complete... thus being no movement. Does anyone knows why is it that when we drop the observer/center and simply experience ‘as’ everything, we can walk without the sense of walking... move without movement?
The 3 dharma seals or the 4 seals must be witnessed in a single moment and not by theory, in order that we gain insight into the essence of buddha's teachings. We must know that the whole of buddha's teachings takes place in THIS moment. Are we witnessing it now or are we lost in believing in our illusory mental constructs of our self and the world? And that is the practise the Buddha told us -- to observe moment to moment reality and derive intuitive insight from there.
I'll be posting some articles that I find quite helpful, may all be benefitted from it. -
http://www.springwatercenter.org/teachers/packer/articles/whatisme/
What Is The "Me"?
The following article was adapted from a talk by Toni Packer on Day 4 of the August 1997 retreat.
A somber day, isn't it? Dark, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. Amazing, this whole affair of "the weather!" We call it "weather," but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding, wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amidst darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice-covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So — what is "weather" other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings, and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No entity "weather" to be found except in thinking and talking about it.
Now — is there such an entity as "me," "I," "myself?" Or is it just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," "Toni," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I think and believe I am? Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of "myself" from moment to moment? Is this, maybe, the essence of retreat work? Exploring ourselves minutely beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding. Coming upon clarity about this deep sense of separation which we call "me," and "other people," without any need to condemn or overcome.
Most human beings take it totally for granted that I am "me," and that "me" is this body, this mind, this knowledge and sense about myself which so obviously feels separate from other people. The language in which we talk to ourselves and to each other inevitably implies separate "me's," and "you's" all the time. All of us talk "I" and "you" talk, we think it, write it, read it, and dream it with rarely any pause. There is incessant reinforcement of the sense of "I," "me," separate from others. Isolated. Insulated. Not understood. How is one to come upon the truth if separation is taken so much for granted, feels so common sense?
The difficulty is not insurmountable. Wholeness, true being, is here all the time, like the sun behind the clouds. Daylight is here in spite of cloud cover.
What makes up the clouds?
Can we begin to realize that we live in conceptual, abstract ideas about ourselves? That we are rarely directly in touch with what actually is going on? Can we realize that thoughts about myself — I am good or bad, I'm liked or disliked — are nothing but thoughts — and that thoughts do not tell us the truth about what we really are? A thought is a thought, and it triggers instant physical reactions, pleasures and pains throughout the bodymind. Physical reactions generate further thoughts and feelings about myself — "I'm suffering," "I'm happy," "I'm no good." Feedback that implies that all this is me, that I have gotten hurt, or somehow feel good about myself, or that I need to defend myself, or get more approval and love from others. When we're protecting ourselves in our daily interrelationships we're not protecting ourselves from flying stones or bomb attacks. It's from words we're taking cover, from gestures, from colorations of voice and innuendo.
Just now words were spoken, ". . . we're protecting ourselves, . . . we're taking cover." In using our common language the implication is constantly created that there is someone real who is protecting and someone real that needs protection.
Is there someone real to be protected from words and gestures, or are we merely living in ideas and stories about me and you, all of it happening on the stage of the on-going audio/video drama of ourselves?
The utmost care and attention is needed to follow the internal drama fairly accurately, dispassionately, in order to express it as it is seen. What we mean by "being made to feel good" or "being hurt" is the internal enhancing of our ongoing me-story, or the puncturing and deflating of it. Enhancement or disturbance of the me-story is accompanied by pleasurable energies or painful feelings and emotions throughout the organism. Either warmth or chill can be felt at the drop of a word evoking memories, feelings, passions. Conscious or unconscious emotional recollection of what happened yesterday or a long ago surge through the body-mind, causing feelings of happiness or sadness, affection or humiliation.
Right now words are being spoken, and they can be followed literally, intellectually. If they are fairly clearly and logically put together they can make sense intellectually. Perhaps at first it's necessary to understand what is going on in us intellectually. But that's not the whole thing. The words that are spoken point to something that may be directly seen and felt, inwardly, as the talk proceeds. And as we go along from moment to moment, now and after the talk is over, (and after retreat) can we experience freshly, wakefully, directly, when hurt or flattery are taking place? What is happening? What is being hurt? And what keeps the hurt going? Can there be some awareness of defenses arising, fear and anger forming, or withdrawal taking place, all accompanied by some kind of storyline? Can the whole drama become increasingly transparent? And, in becoming increasingly transparent, can it be thoroughly questioned? What is it that is being protected? What is it that one thinks got hurt? Me? What is me?
It is amazing. A spark of awareness witnessing one spoken word arousing pleasure or pain all over. Can the connection become clear? The immediacy of it, and no I-entity there directing it, even though we say and believe we are doing all that. But we also say that we don't want to do that. Words and reaction proceed along well-oiled pathways and interconnections. A thought of loss comes up and the solar plexus tightens in pain. Fantasy of love-making occurs and an ocean of pleasure ensues. Who does it? Thought says, "I do!" To whom is it happening? Thought says, "To me of course!" But, where and what is this I, this me, aside from all the thoughts and feelings, the palpitating heart, painful and pleasurable energies circulating throughout the organism? Who could possibly be doing it all with such amazing speed and precision? Thinking about ourselves and triggering physiological reactions take time, but present awareness brings the whole drama to light instantly. Everything is happening on its own. No one is directing the show!
Right this moment wind is storming, branches are creaking and leaves quivering. It's all here in the listening — but whose listening is it? Mine? Yours? We say, "I'm listening" or, "I cannot listen as well as you do" and these words befuddle the mind with feelings and emotions learned long ago. You may be protesting that "my hearing isn't yours. Your body isn't mine." We have thought like that for eons and behave accordingly, but presently, can there be just the sound of swaying trees and rustling leaves and fresh air blowing through the window cooling the skin? It's not happening to anyone. It's simply present for all of us, isn't it? -
Do I sound as though I'm trying to convince you of something? The passion arising in trying to communicate simply, clearly, may be misunderstood for a desire to influence people. That's not the case. There is just the description of what is happening here for all of us. Nothing to be sold or bought. Can we simply listen and test out on our own what is being offered for exploration from moment to moment?
What is the "me" that gets hurt or attracted, flattered, time and time again, the world over? In psychological terms we say that we are identified with ourselves. In spiritual language we say, that we are attached to ourselves. What is this "ourselves?" Is it feeling myself existing, knowing what I am, having lots of recollections about myself — all the ideas and pictures and feelings about myself strung together in a coherent story? And knowing this story very well — multitudes of memories, some added, some dropped, all inter-connected — what I am, how I look, what my abilities and disabilities are, my education, my family, my name, my likes and dislikes, opinions, beliefs, etc., etc. The identification with all of that, meaning, "This is what I am." And the attachment to it, meaning, "I can't let go of it."
Let's go beyond concepts and look directly into what we mean by them. If one says, "I'm identified with my family name," what does that mean? Let me give an example. As a growing child I was very much identified with my last name because it was my father's and he was famous — so I was told. I liked to tell others about my father's scientific achievements to garner respect and pleasurable feelings for myself by impressing friends. I felt admiration through other people's eyes which may not even have been there. It may have been projected. Perhaps some people even felt, "What a bore she is!" On the entrance door to our apartment there was a little polished brass sign with my father's name on it and his titles: Professor, Doctor Phil. The Phil impressed me particularly, because I thought it meant that my father was a philosopher, which he was not. I must have had the idea that a philosopher was a particularly imposing individual. So I told some of my friends about it and brought them to look at the little brass sign at the door. This is one meaning of identification — enhancing one's sense of self by incorporating the ideas about other individuals or groups, or one's possessions, achievements, transgressions — anything — and feeling that all of this is "me." Feeling important about oneself generates amazing, addictive energies.
To give another example from the past: I became very identified with my half-Jewish descent. Not openly in Germany, where I mostly tried to hide it rather than display it, but later on after the war ended, telling people of our family's fate, and finding welcome attention, instant sympathy, and nourishing interest in the story. One can become quite addicted to making the story of one's life impressive to others and to oneself, and feed on the energies aroused by that. So that's a bit of what identification and attachment are about. And when that is disturbed by someone not buying into it, contesting it or questioning it altogether, there is sudden insecurity, physical discomfort, anger, fear, hurt, whatever.
Becoming a member of the Zen Center and engaging in spiritual practice, I realized one day that I had not been talking about my background in a long while. And now, when somebody brings it up — sometimes an interviewer will ask me to talk about it — it feels like so much bother and effort. Why delve into old stuff? I want to talk about listening, the wind, and the birds. [Laughter] Are you listening too, interviewer? Or are you more interested in identities and stories?
At times people bring up the question about why I don't call myself a teacher when I'm so obviously engaged in teaching. Somebody actually brought it up this morning — the projections and mental as well as psychological associations aroused in waiting outside the meeting room and then entering nervously with a pounding heart. The images of teacher and student offering themselves automatically like clothes to put on and roles to play in these clothes. In giving talks and meeting with people the student-teacher imagery is not there — it belongs to a different level of existence. If images do come up they're in the way like clouds hiding the sun. Relating without images is the freshest, freest thing in the universe.
So, what am I and what are you — what are we with- out images clothing and hiding our true being? It's un-image-inable, isn't it? And yet there's the sound of wind blowing, trees shaking, crows cawing, woodwork creaking, breath flowing without need for any thoughts. Thoughts are grafted on top of what's actually going on right now, and in that grafted world we happen to spend most of our lives.
And yet, every once in a while, whether one does spiritual work or not, meditating or not, the real world shines wondrously through everything. What is it when words fall silent? When there is no knowing? When there is no listener and yet there is listening, awaring, without any separation?
A moment during a visit with my parents in Switzerland comes to mind. I had always had a difficult relationship with my mother. I was very afraid of her. She was a very passionate woman with lots of anger. But also love. Once during that visit I saw her standing in the dining room facing me. She was just standing there, and for no known reason or cause I suddenly saw her without the past. There was no image of her, and also no idea of what she saw in me. All that was gone. There was nothing left except pure love for this woman. Such beauty shone out of her. And our relationship changed, there was a new closeness. It just happened.
Someone said that seeing a shattered image caused grief. But the shattering of self-image need not cause suffering. Truly seeing that the "me" is nothing but a habitual mental construct is freeing beyond imagination. -
Some additional comments and sharings:
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Here is an excerpt from The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana:
And when we drop our belief and simply SEE what is arising, what is it that we always called ‘Self’, we can realise that it really is just a process of 5 skhandas (form, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness) – and it is perfectly luminous and empty, an expression of our Buddha Nature. Therefore we can’t seek Buddha Nature apart from manifestation – as my Taiwanese teacher recalled a statement by my Master and said, as he himself has observed... many teachers out there teaches the dharma wrongly as they describe Emptiness as some sort of formlessness, and think that phenomena and manifestation are to be avoided while emptiness is to be sought or attained – but in reality, a real practitioner is to SEE the EMPTINESS within all PHENOMENA, and we cannot realise Emptiness APART from phenomena!
As Nagarjuna said, "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvana." And as David Loy said so nicely in The Difference between Samsara and Nirvana: There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Samsara is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvana is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Madhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakirti: "Nirvana or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction" ), but which Yogacara nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature" and so forth.
"A. Mind in Terms of the Absolute
The Mind in terms of the Absolute is the one World of Reality (dharmadhatu) and the essence of all phases of existence in their totality.
That which is called "the essential nature of the Mind" is unborn and is imperishable. It is only through illusions that all things come to be differentiated. If one is freed from illusions, then to him there will be no appearances (lakshana) of objects regarded as absolutely independent existences; therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness. All explanations by words are provisional and without validity, for they are merely used in accordance with illusions and are incapable of denoting Suchness.
The term Suchness likewise has no attributes which can be verbally specified. The term Suchness is, so to speak, the limit of verbalization wherein a word is used to put an end to words. But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness."Each moment of thought (Which includes all our 6 senses in function) is transient yet complete... thus being no movement. Does anyone knows why is it that when we drop the observer/center and simply experience ‘as’ everything, we can walk without the sense of walking... move without movement?
I recently wrote in another forum (partial excerpt):
...Also, there actually is already no movement in the midst of change.
Why? Because each moment is disjoint and complete. Moment to moment arise, disjoint, complete, no movement. Self1, Self2, Self3, they don't join up together! They are not in any way chained -- phenomena simply arise and liberates every moment (and each moment is complete and spontaneous).
There is change, but no changing thing! Like my wise friend wrote, "In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change."
So brief, so short and yet complete. When something is gone instantaneously and complete by its own, is there movement?
Reality is already so... but we solidify, chain up what is empty into a subject and object, believing in movement and time, thinking there is an agent where in reality there isn't.
As my wise friend used to say, "There is really nothing to alienate as the fundamental cause of suffering is not the inherent existence of evil in the transient but ignorance; ignorance of the true nature of things."...
So now we know what is wei wu wei - action without action.
I just changed my signature: "That is not an action, that is a happening."
There is no doer, no doing, and no action. There is only apparent, spontaneous and complete-by-itself happenings but no doer to be found. -
For all unenlightened beings, there is the belief in the story of 'me' and that i am my body, and my mind and my story, which also comes with the fear and the protection of the self-image and self's 'possessions'.. and which craving for more possessions arise... forming greed, hatred, ignorance, and all the countless sufferings.
Craving includes any sort of attached seeking in the future, and discontentment with the present. We are anticipating to gain something. Aversion includes any sort of negative reactions to events and persons, and 'I' feel offended, etc. 'I am angry at you', subject (I) object (you) duality.
Why is that so? As stated earlier it is the fundamental flaw of seeing a subject-object duality. we see entities separate from ourselves, and from this comes the whole ‘outward movement’ -- we try to seek outside or even into the future in an attempt to grasp and obtain things (called craving), or we push it away and distance from our ‘self’ (aversion/hatred), or we tune them out all perhaps due to boredom and unpleasantness (ignorance), or we grow fear, etc.. while trying to protect, sustain and satisfy our false identity. All these are due to duality and the sense of self -- there is always a self and object-other-than-self relation, and because of the power of our karmic propensities we are blinded to see this as real, and this causes sufferings and samsara.
But as we discussed previously, emotions is not to be suppressed because suppression is not the way of liberation. We should not react against it. What we can do is to simply give bare attention/mindfulness to the emotion and the nature of the emotion (which is empty), to be aware of the self-liberating nature of the thoughts and emotions... and then those emotions or thoughts will actually be as insubstantial as wind itself, or as clouds passing by in an infinite blue sky, and is not separate from the sky itself.
Self-arising wisdom is the base.
The five negative emotions are manifested energy.
Seeing emotions as mistaken is an error.
Letting them be in their nature is the method.
To find the non-dual state of Liberation.
Overcoming hope and fear is the result.
Actually what happens (which is ultimately not a 'problem' either -- it just happens, suffering just happens, an apparent happening that is empty) is that whenever we are caught in emotions, what is perpetuating it is that we are not noticing what is present and real, and instead we are always noticing what is not real, which means dwelling in stories. We are noticing all that is not present, and miss all that is present and real. There is no need to modify any behavior and emotions, we just have to notice what is present rather than what is imaginary. All of the mind stuff is imaginary and false, just wake up from that dream into the only thing that ever 'exist' (which actually is empty too): This. Now.
There is only this -- the world apparently happening, all there is is this, all there is is what is apparently happening -- sitting on a chair, hearing, breathing, thoughts and emotions arising, physical sensations running through the body in reaction to the emotions, and it is happening to no one.
note: (Self-liberation does not mean that a self liberates himself or herself from delusorily valued thoughts or delusory experiences; what it means is that delusorily valued thoughts and delusory experiences liberate themselves spontaneously (which may take place in three main ways).) -
Hi AEN,
It is a a good summary attempted to link non-dual experience (enlightenment) to the basic teachings of Buddha -- the dharma seals, 5 aggregates, 18 dhatus, dependent origination and emptiness nature. Many tend to ignore the basics and are easily fascinated by the ‘deeper and more profound’ teachings of Buddhism. This is a bad habit and this attitude also blinds us from experiencing the profundity of Buddha’s wisdom.
The experience of enlightenment (non-duality) is found all over the place in the most basic teachings of Buddha. In fact the basic is most significant. Anyone that experienced non-duality will realize the precise description when Buddha taught the 5 aggregates. With the teaching of anatta of the 5 aggregates Buddha is, in truth, conveying an experience of how enlightenment is like while propensity is still in action taking the form of mental formation; but even with the presence of mental formation and perceptions, that does not make the experience of non-duality any less valuable. Subsequent stages of non-dual experience requires the freeing of the mental-construct-superimposition on ‘what is’. It turns out that when a non-dualist is thoroughly free from mental construction and the habitual tendency to divide wholeness, he is undergoing an experiential shift from seeing reality as the 5 aggregates into the raw experience of 18 dhatus. This ultimate experience of purity also reveals that Consciousness is indeed, the All.
You spoke of the DO of all phenomenon, any idea how it helps and what role it plays in the experience of non-duality? Why Buddha placed such importance in it?
-
Related excerpts from 'Everyday Zen' by Charlotte Joko Beck:
"Who is there?" asks God.
"It is I."
"Go away," God says...
Later...
"Who is there?" asks God.
"It is Thou."
"Enter," replies God.
..................
I have been asked, "Isn't observing a dualistic practice? Because when we are observing, something is observing something else." But in fact it's not dualistic. The observer is empty. Instead of a separate observer, we should say there is just observing. There is no one that hears, there is just hearing. There is no one that sees, there is just seeing. But we don't quite grasp that. if we practice hard enough, however, we learn that not only is the observer empty, but that which is observed is also empty. At this point the observer (or witness) collapses. This is the final stage of practice, we don't need to worry about it. Why does the observer finally collapse? When nothing sees nothing, what do we have? Just the wonder of life. There is no one who is separated from anything. There is just life living itself: hearing, touching, seeing, smelling, thinking. That is the state of love or compassion: not "It is I," but "It is Thou."
..................
And to substitute one conditioning for another is to miss the point of practice. The point is not that a positive emotion is better than a negative one, but that all thoughts and emotions are impermanent, changing, or (in Buddhist terms) empty. They have no reality whatsoever. Our only freedom is in knowing, from years of observation and experiencing, that all personally centered thoughts and emotions (and the actions born of them) are empty. They are empty; but if they are not seen as empty they can be harmful. When we realize this we can abandon them. When we do, very naturally we enter the space of wonder.
This space of wonder - entering into heaven - opens when we are no longer caught up in ourselves: when no longer "It is I," but "It is Thou." I am all things when there is no barrier.
..................
What does it mean to shatter our usual way of seeing our life? My ordinary experience of life is centered around myself. After all, I am experiencing these ongoing impressions - I can't have your experience of your life. I always have my own. And what inevitably happens is that I come to believe that there is an "I" central to my life, since the experiences of my life seem to be centered around "I". "I" see, "I" hear, "I" feel, "I" think, "I" have this opinion. We rarely question this "I." Now in the enlightened state there is no "I"; there is simply life itself, a pulsation of timeless energy whose very nature includes -or is - everything.
..................
To talk on the razor's edge is to do that; we have once again to be what we basically are, which is seeing, touching, hearing, smelling; we have to experience whatever our life is, right this second. If we're upset we have to experience being upset. If we're frightened, we have to experience being frightened. If we're jealous we have to experience being jealous. And such experiencing is physical; it has nothing to do with the thoughts going on about the upset.
..................
It's not that "I" hear the birds, it's just hearing the birds. Let yourself be seeing, hearing, thinking. That is what sitting is. It is the false "I" that interrupts the wonder with the constant desire to think about "I." And all the while the wonder is occurring, the birds sing, the cars go by, the body sensations continue, the heart beating - life is a second-by-second miracle, but dreaming our I-dreams we miss it. So let's just sit with what may seem like confusion. Just feel it, be it, appreciate it. Then we may more often see through the false dream which obscures our life. And then, what is there?
..................
Since we can only live our lives through our minds and bodies, there is no one who is not a psychological being. We have thoughts, we have hopes, we can be hurt, we can be upset. But the real solution must come from a dimension which is radically different from the psychological one. The practice of nonattachment, the growth of no-self, is the key to understanding. Finally we realize that there is no path, no way, no solution; because from the beginning our nature is the path, right here and right now. Because there is no path our practice is to follow this no-path endlessly - and for no reward. Because no-self is everything it needs no reward: from the no-beginning it is itself complete fulfillment. -
Originally posted by Thusness:
Thanks for the comments..
[b]Hi AEN,
It is a a good summary attempted to link non-dual experience (enlightenment) to the basic teachings of Buddha -- the dharma seals, 5 aggregates, 18 dhatus, dependent origination and emptiness nature. Many tend to ignore the basics and are easily fascinated by the ‘deeper and more profound’ teachings of Buddhism. This is a bad habit and this attitude also blinds us from experiencing the profundity of Buddha’s wisdom.
The experience of enlightenment (non-duality) is found all over the place in the most basic teachings of Buddha. In fact the basic is most significant. Anyone that experienced non-duality will realize the precise description when Buddha taught the 5 aggregates. With the teaching of anatta of the 5 aggregates Buddha is, in truth, conveying an experience of how enlightenment is like while propensity is still in action taking the form of mental formation; but even with the presence of mental formation and perceptions, that does not make the experience of non-duality any less valuable. Subsequent stages of non-dual experience requires the freeing of the mental-construct-superimposition on ‘what is’. It turns out that when a non-dualist is thoroughly free from mental construction and the habitual tendency to divide wholeness, he is undergoing an experiential shift from seeing reality as the 5 aggregates into the raw experience of 18 dhatus. This ultimate experience of purity also reveals that Consciousness is indeed, the All.
I wrote in another forum some days back,
First of all... There is really no agent called Life. No-self is a Dharma Seal -- a characteristic of phenomena. This means that at all moments, all Dharma is Anatta! There is no-self whether or not you have realised it, whether or not you have gotten rid of ego, etc etc. But yes, ignorance drives the whole momentum going... Also you can't get rid of the fundamental illusion of self/duality by purging it -- what is needed is a quantum leap of perception. Insight practises in all Buddhist traditions aims to bring about this sudden leap of perception in reality. When there is insight into the non-dual (no subject-object) nature of reality, the old way of perceiving dualistically is naturally dropped.
That is when one realises that there is no Observer apart from the Observed, and that no watcher is needed (or existed), the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga. Or in terms of Mahayana's 'One Mind'... all manifestation is the spontaneous self-luminous manifestation of the One Mind.
(That said, as my wise friend tells me, some amount of the sense of personality, sense of self and perceptions can still continue after this leap of perception -- and this is where practise is done to transform the 5 skhandas into the 18 dhatus, where the layer of perception and volition is further deconstructed. Strangely as it may sound, one who had deconstructed much of his 'personality' may not have have the quantum leap of perception, but one who had the insight may not have deconstructed the subtle layers of the workings of self.) *snipped*You spoke of the DO of all phenomenon, any idea how it helps and what role it plays in the experience of non-duality? Why Buddha placed such importance in it?
To experience the full dynamics of manifestation and all the factors of a moment of arising as a single process?
To penetrate the illusion of locality and entities with inherent existence?
To reach the understanding of what Godfrey Devereux says "fundamental nonseparateness" --
http://www.yogadarshana.com/pages/shunyata.htm
...This immediately changes within yogapostures. The requirements of comfortable stability are such that attentionmust eventually be extended into the whole of the functioning of the body relative to the posture. The solidity and objectness of the body are inferred through the experience of solidity in its active parts. Each different action reveals an aspect of the bodyÂ’s solidity. The separateness of the parts of the body are experienced. This is known as the realisation of functional separateness.
As a yogaposture stabilises, and the inevitable internalisation of attention deepens, the relationship between these functional parts changes. It becomes clear, in action rather than analysis, that an action taking place in one part can be felt in another. What is done in the hands is felt in the lungs. What is happening in the pelvic floor is experienced in the cranium. Grounding the feet releases tension in the face. This is known as the realisation of operational connectedness.
The connectedness of the different parts one to another soon deepens into a more subtle elucidation. The connections between one part of the body and another begin to extend in awareness. This extension reveals direct operational connection between each individual part and every other part. This is known as the realisation of dynamic or relational interconnectedness.
As the body relaxes and a deeper stability becomes possible the relationship between the parts of the body undergoes a further change. Within the awareness of interconnectedness the sense of the separateness of individual parts of the body, their actions and impacts, dissolves. It is no longer possible to make a distinction between the experience of one part of the body and the experience of other parts. They are felt and eventually understood to be simultaneously occurring aspects of the same process or activity. This is known as the realisation of fundamental nonseparateness... -
When life is seen as just an effortless, choiceless happening, one might as well burst into laughter.
All there is is this. That is how radical, and yet ordinary, things are. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
and what is "SEE the EMPTINESS "?
[b]The nature of the separate self, duality
And when we drop our belief and simply SEE what is arising, ...... a real practitioner is to SEE the EMPTINESS within all PHENOMENA, ...........[/b] -
See through all concepts of duality, of self and the world, of solidity and permanency and of seeing 'entities' (with inherent existence), and realising the signlessness, imagelessness, emptiness of all phenomena.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and what is "SEE the EMPTINESS "?
Then, the 'suchness' of all phenomena reveals itself as thus. -
so your SEE means "UNDERSTAND"?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:See through all concepts of solidity and permanency and of seeing 'entities' (with inherent existence), and realising the signlessness, imagelessness, emptiness of all phenomena.
Then, the 'suchness' of all phenomena reveals itself as thus. -
If you mean conceptual understanding, then no.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:so your SEE means "UNDERSTAND"?
If you mean intuitive leap of perception, then yes. -
How does one get an "intuitive leap of perception"?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:If you mean conceptual understanding, then no.
If you mean intuitive leap of perception, then yes. -
and by the way, what is an "intuitive leap of perception"?
-
When the thought of "me" wanting to get an intuitive leap of perception is seen to be just a presently arising thoughtOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:How does one get an "intuitive leap of perception"?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:When the thought of "me" wanting to get an intuitive leap of perception is seen to be just a presently arising thought
-
we are back to square one.... what is see/seen in is seen to be just a presently arising thought
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
we are back to square one.... what is see/seen in [b]is seen to be just a presently arising thought[/b]
-
over here I asked you:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
and here your answer is :Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and what is "SEE the EMPTINESS "?
and your answer to what is an "intuitive leap of perception"?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:If you mean intuitive leap of perception, then yes.
is:
Which is a round about way to get back to square one. Back to see/seen.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:When the thought of "me" wanting to get an intuitive leap of perception is seen to be just a presently arising thought -
Which means you haven't answered the question:
and you cannot answer by saying SEE is SEE lah! or go by a round about (get to square one way) to say: SEE is SEE lah!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and what is "SEE the EMPTINESS "? -
What remains is the Isness/Suchness of this moment of experience.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Which means you haven't answered the question:
and you cannot answer by saying SEE is SEE lah! or go by a round about (get to square one way) to say: SEE is SEE lah! -
Post typed by: Bhikkhu Samahita
Topic: No Agent is Inside!
Friends:
Impersonal Processes: Action without an Actor:
- Neither Agent nor Actor exists, only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! -
Ask Not 'Who' but 'What'!
Who feels ? - Nobody feels !
What feels ? - Feeling itself feels !
What does feeling feel ?
Feeling feels pain, pleasure & neutral indifference...
Who perceives ? - Nobody perceives !
What perceives ? - Perception itself perceives !
What does perception perceive ?
Perception perceives forms, colours, sounds, smells,
tastes, touches and ideas, thoughts & mental states...
Who (re)cognizes ? - Nobody cognizes !
What cognizes ? - Consciousness itself cognizes !
What does consciousness recognize ?
Consciousness cognizes feelings, perceived experiences
and all the other various mental states as joy, anger etc...
These imprints arise & cease incessantly. Observable is this!
No lasting same 'self' can ever 'reside' or 'remain' within this!
In this passing flux of discrete mental states - exactly like when
the single still pictures of a rolling film, momentarily passes in between
the lens & lamp, causing a blinking projection to appear as ‘real’ or ‘here’
neither a 'feeler' nor a 'experiencer' as an 'Observing Agent'
can be found, assumed, constructed, concluded or deposited...
No-one is ‘in’ or ‘behind’ neither the film nor the mental projection…
Just this blinking projection itself - IS – for a short moment!
Feeling itself does not per se imply any 'feeler', as often assumed!
Perception does not itself imply any 'experiencer', as often assumed!
Just like we cannot conclude from the 2 facts:
1: That there is a cinema.
2: There is a film projected inside this cinema.
That there actually are anybody 'inside' that cinema !!!
As the external cinema very well may be all empty of any ‘audience’,
then this 'internal cinema' of mere experience, is also empty of any 'Self',
empty of any 'Person', empty of any 'Soul', empty of any 'Entity'
apart from the projected passing experience itself... !!!
________________________________________________________
Where – actually – is or resides this adored yet imaginary Ego?
Is the self identical with the body ? - No !
Is the self hidden inside the body ? - No !
Is the self outside or apart from the body ? - No !
Does the self own & posses a body ? - No !
Does the body own & posses a self ? - No !
There is just this frame of a body, but no self as controller...
Is the self identical with the feeling ? - No !
Is the self hidden inside the feeling ? - No !
Is the self outside apart from the feeling ? - No !
Does the self own & posses a feeling ? - No !
Does the feeling own & posses a self ? - No !
There is just this sensation of feeling, but no self as feeler...
Is the self identical with the experience ? - No !
Is the self hidden inside the experience ? - No !
Is the self outside & apart from experience ? - No !
Does the self own & posses an experience ? - No !
Does the experience own & posses a self ? - No !
There is just this moment of a experience, but no self as experiencer...
Is the self identical with the mental construction ? - No !
Is the self hidden inside the mental construction ? - No !
Is the self outside apart from mental construction ? - No !
Does the self own & posses a mental construction ? - No !
Does the mental construction own & posses a self ? - No !
There is just this activity of mental construction, but no self as constructor...
Is the self identical with the consciousness ? - No !
Is the self hidden inside the consciousness ? - No !
Is the self outside apart from consciousness ? - No !
Does the self own & posses a consciousness ? - No !
Does the consciousness own & posses a self ? - No !
There is just this aware consciousness, but no self ‘being’ conscious...
Why not ?
Because all these phenomena arise, change & cease...!!!
If the proposition of a self is taken as affirmed, then the:
'The Identical, Same & Unchanging Self' should arise, change
and cease in every moment... Which is absurd, contradictory, and
inconsistent with any concept, which we identify with as 'my self'...!!!
How can a so-called ‘same’ self arise as new and cease in each moment?!?
If the self is not ‘same’, is it then changed into ‘another’… ???
Any 'self' who is 'another' is clearly absurd... !!!
Is the self then a collective conglomerate of body, feeling,
experience & consciousness ? - No !
Why not ?
If self is not found within any of the parts, it cannot either
ever be found within any collection of the very same part -
(continued)
In Conclusion:
All 'Egoism' is based on an assumed & long cherished & reinforced idea
of an 'agent inside' labelled as a self, which does not exist except
as a mental construction which we fall in love with and violently defend...
This ‘auto-romance’ has taken place in all the prior rebirths also when animal!
This falsehood is more than fatal! Why so? Because it drags beings back into
rebirth and thus also repeated deathÂ… The assumed 'self', 'agent', 'identity',
'soul' or 'personality' does not exist as an unchanging entityÂ… Or realityÂ…
Freed of such self-Obsession, one is freed of the first hindrance
blocking all ways to Nibbana: Personality-belief!
Buddha once said:
Blissful is solitude for one who is content, learned & who see the True Dhamma.
Blissful is harmlessness towards all beings without exception.
Blissful is freedom from any sensual urge whatsoever.
Yet, the supreme bliss, is the elimination of the abysmal conceit “I am”!’
Udana – Inspiration: II – 1
This -the Buddha's doctrine of No-Self- is called Anatta.
May all come to see & be calmed thereby.
Subtle & complex, yet true & freeing.
More on the counter-intuitive impersonality, egolessness, or no-self (Anatta):
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/What_passes_on_by_Rebirth-Linking.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/First_I-dentification_then_Enmity.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Who_or_what_is_the_Agent.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/No_Substance_'Out_There'.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Clinging_to_the_notion_I_Am.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Neither_Agent_nor_Actor.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_Egolessness.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Cause_of_Identity_View.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Selfless_Camera.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Input_'I'-dentification.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/No-Agent_but_Dependence.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Just_Passing_Bubbles.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Anatta_Doctrine.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Smoke_of_Self.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Non-'I'-dentification.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Leaving_Wrong_View.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Who_is_the_Creator.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Solo_Self-Deception.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Uprooting_Egoism.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Mistaken_Refence.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Anatta_No_Self.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Empty_of_What.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Egoless.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Prison_of_Pride.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Double_Problem.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Sandcastles.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Not_Yours.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Ego-Projection.htm
Ownerlessness is a universal characteristic of being!
Impersonal are all states & phenomena! -
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
Phagguna Sutta
"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."
After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:
"Who, O Lord, consumes1 the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.'2 If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?'3 And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness4 is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence;5 when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"6
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.7
"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;8 through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."