Seeing
-
1. seer........ seeing......... seen
2. seer ------> seeing <------ seen
3. seeing
4. seeing = seen5. | seen | | seen | | seen |
6. | seen | | seen | | seen |
-
Can you explain so we can better understand?
-
-
First we have the ordinary deluded sense of an observer inside observing the world outside.
Second we realize ourselves to be an infinite awareness that contains all objects.
Third we realize that there is no objects, only awareness and appearances of awareness, or awareness appearing as everything, which is to say there is only awareness.
Fourth we realize that awareness is really only manifestation and perception.
Fifth we realize that perceptions are disjoint, unsupported, and experience release every moment without leaving traces.
Sixth we realize that perceptions are empty like a mirage, like an illusion but not an illusion, like a dream but not a dream, looks there but not really there, merely dependently originated.
-
what an innovative way of presenting!!
simple and straight to the point, cheers!
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
btw whats this?
-
seeing is believing..
-
Originally posted by geis:
what an innovative way of presenting!!
simple and straight to the point, cheers!
Have to admit, the originator is Richard Herman, an experienced Zen practitioner.
He wrote the first 3, I added the last 3.
-
Originally posted by geis:
btw whats this?
A mirage...
-
Originally posted by QX179R:
seeing is believing..
Seeing stops believing... and starts Knowing.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1. seer........ seeing......... seen
2. seer ------> seeing <------ seen
3. seeing
4. seeing = seen5. | seen | | seen | | seen |
6. | seen | | seen | | seen |
Quite a creative way of presentation.
Indeed it is important to have the keen eye to discern correctly the difference between 4 and 5. Even after the realization that a background never really existed and what left is just the 'world', practitioner even after maturing the experience of no-mind can still be attached to the a ground in the 'here and now'. This too must be thoroughly seen through that it is no more than another subtle attachment to a 'center'. When this is further penetrated, whatever arises will turn disjoint and unsupported. Before that, experience maybe said to be luminous, present and blissful but not exactly liberating. After that, it is more about 'liberation' than being 'blissful'.
One point I would like to add is about 'wrong view' vs 'right view'. In many of your recent posts, although you have described quite clearly the experiences and the realizations you have undergone, the aspect that how 'wrong view' has contributed to the refication/personification of a non-conceptual non-dual experience isn't clear.
The view that the nature of all things relies not upon their 'essence' and 'substance' but upon supporting conditions is unique in Buddhism. Why must there be a 'source' and a 'starting'? It comes from this latent tendency of 'inherent view' that runs deep. This 'inherent view' is the cause that practitioners got stuck in ur diagram 1,2,3 as they rely their view on 'substance' rather then dependent origination.
The subtlety of the latent tendencies of our dualistic and inherent view cannot be under-estimated. Do not rush into any experiences but refine our understanding of the view. Before we mature our insights, it is advisable to hold firmly to the right view and not to discard it too early in the name of direct non-conceptual experiences. All views will dissipate in their own accord when our momentary experience turns blissful and liberating.
Just my 2 cents. :)
-
i see... thanks :)
-
Just received my Taiwanese teacher's reply to my essay (which I wrote two months ago) today.
He told me to look into Emptiness, the unfindability and ungraspability of all dharmas, and said
真æ£æœ€é«˜çš„境界，是诸相平ç‰ï¼Œè¯¸æ³•å¹³ç‰ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥è¦�诸相
归性，诸法寂ç�，所以è§�æ— æ‰€è§�ï¼Œæ‚Ÿæ— æ‰€æ‚Ÿï¼Œæ‰�能入诸法平ç‰çŽ°è±¡(The highest state, is the equality of all appearances, the equality of all dharmas, therefore we must return all appearances to its nature, all dharmas are quiescent cessation [Nirvana], therefore see that there is nothing [inherent] to-be-seen, realize that there is nothing [inherent] to-be-realized, only then can you enter the phenomenon of the equality of all dharmas.)
Think it is good advice for me...
p.s. my essay only wrote until the fourth phase - 'seeing is just the seen' based on my experience then
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Just received my Taiwanese teacher's reply to my essay (which I wrote two months ago) today.
He told me to look into Emptiness, the unfindability and ungraspability of all dharmas, and said
真æ£æœ€é«˜çš„境界，是诸相平ç‰ï¼Œè¯¸æ³•å¹³ç‰ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥è¦�诸相
归性，诸法寂ç�，所以è§�æ— æ‰€è§�ï¼Œæ‚Ÿæ— æ‰€æ‚Ÿï¼Œæ‰�能入诸法平ç‰çŽ°è±¡(The highest state, is the equality of all appearances, the equality of all dharmas, therefore we must return all appearances to its nature, all dharmas are quiescent cessation [Nirvana], therefore see that there is nothing [inherent] to-be-seen, realize that there is nothing [inherent] to-be-realized, only then can you enter the phenomenon of the equality of all dharmas.)
Think it is good advice for me...
p.s. my essay only wrote until the fourth phase - 'seeing is just the seen' based on my experience then
No. You did not quote the more relevant part of your taiwan master's reply therefore you have not understood what he meant.It is important to have a direct intuitive glimpse of what your master is trying to convey to you otherwise you already missed the essence of his reply.
-
Aren't these similar to the stages in jhanas?
Eg.
THE MIND-BASE OF NEITHER PERCEPTION NOR NON-PERCEPTION
Within the perception of nothingness lies the perception of not even nothing! If the mind is subtle enough to see this feature" then the perception of nothingness disappears and is replaced by the perception of neither perception nor no perception. All that one can say about this Fourth Immaterial Attainment is that it is, in fact, a perception (AN 9's, 42). In the simile of the thousand petalled lotus, this state is represented by the 1,000th layer of petals, still dosed, with all the 999 other layers of petals fully open. The l000th petal is almost a non-petal, being the most subtle and sublime of all. For it clasps within its gossamer fabric the famous"Jewel in the heart of the lotus," Nibbana.
NIBBANA, THE END OF All PERCEPTION
For within the perception of neither perception nor no-perception lies the end of all perception, the cessation of all that is felt or perceived, Nibbana. If the mind attends to this, the mind stops. When the mind starts again one gains the attainment of Arahant or Anagami, these are the only possibilities.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm
-
Originally posted by Pegembara:
Aren't these similar to the stages in jhanas?
Eg.
THE MIND-BASE OF NEITHER PERCEPTION NOR NON-PERCEPTION
Within the perception of nothingness lies the perception of not even nothing! If the mind is subtle enough to see this feature" then the perception of nothingness disappears and is replaced by the perception of neither perception nor no perception. All that one can say about this Fourth Immaterial Attainment is that it is, in fact, a perception (AN 9's, 42). In the simile of the thousand petalled lotus, this state is represented by the 1,000th layer of petals, still dosed, with all the 999 other layers of petals fully open. The l000th petal is almost a non-petal, being the most subtle and sublime of all. For it clasps within its gossamer fabric the famous"Jewel in the heart of the lotus," Nibbana.
NIBBANA, THE END OF All PERCEPTION
For within the perception of neither perception nor no-perception lies the end of all perception, the cessation of all that is felt or perceived, Nibbana. If the mind attends to this, the mind stops. When the mind starts again one gains the attainment of Arahant or Anagami, these are the only possibilities.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm
No these are not jhanas... these are realizations. First one is ordinary being's perception. Second one is the realization of I AMness. (Thusness Stage 1 & 2) Third one is the realization of Non Dual (Thusness Stage 4) Fourth one is the realization of Anatta (Thusness Stage 5, Second Stanza of Anatta) Fifth one is the realization of Anatta (Thusness Stage 5, First Stanza of Anatta) Sixth one is the realization of Emptiness, Dependent Origination.
To understand the context, please read the following two articles:
-
Originally posted by Thusness:
No. You did not quote the more relevant part of your taiwan master's reply therefore you have not understood what he meant.It is important to have a direct intuitive glimpse of what your master is trying to convey to you otherwise you already missed the essence of his reply.
Hi AEN,
do you mind sharing the whole or the relevant reply? it might be helpful for our understanding... thanks
-
ignorant --- aware ----wise ----
wise----wiser-----know not enough
-
see
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-taiwanese-teachers-reply-to-my-two.html -
All perceptions are necessarily dualistic.
Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touch and thoughts presumes a perceiver and the perceived.
Only the process of objectless seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching and thinking is non dual.
[" Consciousness simply is. It can't exist without the matter and matter can't exist without the consciousness. Even if matter existed without consciousness nobody could prove it/experience it. In order for a material collection to know its own existence (to experience some of its properties) there has to be consciousness. This means no practical experiments can be done which will show otherwise (or even remotely point to anything else). All experiments (and everything experienced) are experienced consciously. On the other hand there's no consciousness without the object of experience. The objects of experience can be called matter in general. Whether we experience an objects shape/form/color, sounds it makes, touching sensation it produces (and so on) these all can be called matter. And even if consciousness could be an independently existing entity it would not know of its own independence since knowing or experiencing anything would be to experience the object of consciousness."]
"Now tell me, friend Sariputta: is consciousness self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or — without self-making or other-making, does it arise spontaneously?"
"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness."
“Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-and form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.
“If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
SN 12.67 Nakalapiyo Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.htmlConsciousness without feature,[1] without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html#gods -
" . . . . . . . Suppose, monks, a magician or a magician's apprenticeshould hold a magic-show at the four cross-roads; and a keen-sightedman should see it, ponder over it and reflect on it radically. Even ashe sees it, ponders over it and reflects on it radically, he would find itempty; he would find it hollow; he would find it void of essence.What essence, monks, could there be in a magic show?Even so, monks, whatever consciousness --- be it past, future orpresent, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,far or near -- a monk sees it, ponders over it and reflects on itradically. And even as he sees it, ponders over it and reflects on itradically, he would find it empty; he would find it hollow; he wouldfind it void of essence. What essence, monks, could there be in aconsciousness ? . . . . . . ”Form is like a mass of foamAnd feeling--but an airy bubble.Perception is like a mirageAnd formations a plantain tree.Consciousness is a magic-show,A juggler's trick entire.All these similes were made knownBy the 'Kinsman-of-the-Sun.S. III 142.
-
Conscousness is never dualistic (see: bahiya sutta and kalaka sutta). Consciousness is by nature non dual, and by that I do not mean the Advaitic notion of there being a monistic consciousness subsuming all phenomena, but rather I mean that there never was a perceiver or perceived to begin with. From the beginning, there already never was an 'I'. Consciousness is dependently originated, but without a perceiver and perceived. It is essential to note here that the non-duality of subject and object, and the truth of anatta, concerns a fact about existence. Anatta is a dharma seal, it is a characteristic of all dharmas, it is not a state of achievement or experience. In other words, all phenomena, all dharmas, are already anatta, and by being anatta, the non duality of subject and object is already implicit. From the start, the seeing is just the seen, the hearing is just the heard, there never was an agent, perceiver, or self. It is not that we have to make the self or duality go into abeyance, it is that we have to realize no such self or duality is found to exist to begin with... Reality is already so. Not realizing that consciousness is a manifestation that dependently originates, we falsely take consciousness to be a perceiver and we falsely take the object of consciousness to be an object external to the perceiver. In reality, consciousness is not a perceiving entity. It is simply a manifestation of cognition due to dependent origination. What is it dependent on? It depends on nama rupa, which actually means more like mind and matter than name and form (buddha defines it as mental constituents like feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention, and the physical constituents which are the four elements). The six sense organs and the six sense objects meet and manifest consciousness... Along with the presence of the mental factors such as what I have mentioned above. What is important to note here is that the six sense objects of smell, taste, touch... Etc are not being denied. It is merely that the construct of there being an agent, a perceiver, a controller, a creator, and a dualistic relationship of a perceiving subject and a perceived object that is denied. The aggregation of such factors led to the manifestation of cognizance/consciousness. Consciousness, being mere manifestation, is not a perceiver, and needless to say without a perceiver there can be no seperation of inner and outer, there is no external object. There is just an act of cognizance... Not done by me (self-made), not created by some others like a God (other-made), nor does it arise spontaneously without conditions. Rather it is the universe that interdependently originates and manifests as the cognizance of that moment. Not having a quantum shift in view on this matter, we continue to be ignorant caught up in a net of false views, unable to be liberated. This is why sariputta stressed so much on this. In the state of parinirvana, the final cessation, or the cessation without residue, residue being the eighteen dhatus of sensory function, the arhant no longer takes birth or experience the re emergence of consciousness, nama rupa has ended for him.
-
substantialist non dual subsumes all dharmas and objects into a monistic substance or awareness. it reduces objects into the subject such that there is no more a subject and object division, only one awareness, yet that awareness is taken to have inherent existence, therefore termed as substantialist non dual this is thusness stage four
anatta reduces awareness by realizing awareness is empty of self nature, realizes the lack of an agent and reduces awareness into the multiplicity of objects, perceptions, by realizing that 'awareness' is a mere label collating the myriads of experiences and thus reducing 'awareness' into its phenomenal constituents. it reduces subject into objects. it is the first fold emptiness, the emptiness of self, aka thusness stage 5
sunyata further deconstructs the self-existence of dharmas by penetrating into the unlocatability of an essence in dharmas, by penetrating deeply into dependent origination. it is the second fold emptiness, the emptiness of objects, aka thusness stage 6
one must not be confused about these phases
-
According to Buddhism. a normal person usually views existence as permanent, satisfactory and having an essence. But reality is some thing quite different and is somewhat counterintuitive.
Our senses tell us that things are substantial and real but is this “reality”.
Let us try a thought experiment the way Einstein did with his theory of relativity.
Imagine that we are viewing things and events happening on Earth from a distant planet. We know that light takes time to travel and scientists have informed us that some stars are only detected long after the original stars have died out. If we are not aware of this fact, we would think that those stars are still there. Suppose the same thing happened to Earth.
So we see all the events taking place on Earth, the wars, famines, births, deaths, marriages, the World Cup, etc. Even the trees, mountains, lakes etc appear real and substantial. But the “reality” is all these things that we know to be true from seeing and hearing are an illusion. The Earth is gone but we remain convinced that this is not so. We see our families and friends doing their things. We have moments of joy, happiness, anger and sadness, getting involved in things. But in reality they don’t even exist anymore!
You see. Our senses deceive us into believing that the world and everything in it truly exist. We grab on to existence as though it is something permanent and substantial whereas in truth everything is slipping away and nothing is substantial. There is nothing we can hold on to as real. All that we can perceive can only come through our senses. There is a time lag between contact of our retina and form, eardrums and vibrations and the actual process of seeing or hearing. Everything that we see or hear no longer exist. There is nothing that we can hold on to as permanent in such a world.
The world of our senses is neither existent or nonexistent but is dependent on the activity of our senses.
In this experiment what is real becomes unreal. What we “know” to be substantial and permanent is in fact a conjuror’s trick.
The actual process of seeing or hearing takes place in microseconds between for example the light travelling from an object to reach the retina and eventually registering in the brain as visual consciousness. But the underlying principle is similar.
The objects for sights, sounds, smells, taste and sensations are no longer there by the time they register in our consciousness. They have already slipped away.
This is the one meaning of impermanence(anicca). When we are convinced that this is so, we become disillusioned as our reality fades (viraga) and finally disappears(nirodha). We know now that nothing whatsoever is to be clung to. We begin to give up things that we previously thought was important(patinisagga)
-
Erwin Schrödinger, the discoverer of the fundamental quantum equation, for instance, came to the conclusion that:
Mind has erected the objective outside world … out of its own stuff.
More recently, in an article in the New Scientist (23rd June 2007) Michael Brooks, commenting on quantum entanglement experiments carried out by teams led by Markus Aspelmeyer of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna, tells us that the conclusion reached by the physicists involved is that:
… we now have to face the possibility that there is nothing inherently real about the properties of an object that we measure. In other words measuring those properties is what brings them into existence
The greatly admired physicist John Wheeler wrote that:
The universe does not ‘exist, out there,’ independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe.