Emptiness and No-Self
-
This topic is created in continuation of my discussions on Emptiness and No-Self with TheGoodEarth, but it is my hope that it will benefit everyone regardless who. The previous discussions covers on the meaning of Emptiness and No-Self, and how it relates to Middle Way beyond extremes. It was more of a theoretical understanding, though it is essential and has implications on our practise and our liberation. (See my replies to TheGoodEarth starting from 25 July 2007 · 01:20 AM at questions about the "source")
Here, I would like to share more about the implications on the teachings of No-Self and Emptiness. Why is it being taught? Obviously not just for mental stimulation, food for thought, etc. It has very very real implications in Buddhist practise.
In fact, to attain enlightenment and liberation requires realisation of Emptiness, interdependent origination, impermanence, no-self, etc. Such realisations will break our bondage, attachment to our delusions that is the cause of endless sufferings.
However, to truly know Emptiness is not about coming to a logical conclusion, but it must be through insight practise. If we put in effort in practising it, it can eventually bring real intuitive insights (real enlightenment), and that is what makes a difference. A quantum leap of perception in reality.
As Thusness said,
(12:21 AM) Thusness: what is the role of insight meditation?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: why bare attention?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: why naked awareness?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: when insight meditation is taught and buddha said when hearing jsut the sound...this and that...
(12:23 AM) Thusness: what buddha wanted is to experience directly what awareness is, the arising, the ceasing, the clarity, the non-dual nature
(12:23 AM) Thusness: in DO
(12:24 AM) AEN_____: icic..
(12:24 AM) Thusness: not to note it with thought or place any conclusion on any experience.
(12:25 AM) Thusness: "this is impermanence" is not about noting and place any conclusion about an phenomenon arising.
(12:26 AM) Thusness: but experience impermanence directly, not in words
(12:26 AM) AEN_____: icic.. yea
(12:26 AM) Thusness: be impermanence and know what is it really...
(12:26 AM) Thusness: see what clarity is, not what it should be
(12:27 AM) Thusness: it is luminous and yet empty...experience it directly...it is so.
(12:27 AM) AEN_____: icic..
(12:27 AM) Thusness: break the solidity until there is no holding simply thus. -
Here's a very good article regarding practising Mindful Awareness and seeing Impermanence, No-Self through practise by a highly realised teacher:
www.shambhalasun.com/Archives/Features/2002/May02/packer.htm
What is This Me?
by Toni Packer
Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of ‘myself’ from moment to moment?
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 and wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amid 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 real entity weather exists anywhere except in thinking and talking about it.
Now, is there such an entity as me or I? Or is it just like the weather—an ongoing, ever-changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creation and destruction, that thought keeps calling I, me, Toni, and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I merely 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 this work? Exploring ourselves attentively, beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding occasionally? Coming upon an amazing insight into this deep sense of separation that we call me and other people, me and the world, without any need to condemn or overcome?
Most human beings take it for granted that I am me, and that me is this body, this mind, this knowledge and sense of myself that feels so obviously distinct and separate from other people and from the nature around us. 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 me, separate from others. Isolated, insulated me. Not understood by others. How are we to come upon the truth if separateness is taken so much for granted, feels so commonsense?
The difficulty is not insurmountable. Wholeness, our true being, is here all the time, like the sun behind the clouds. Light 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 in touch directly with what actually is going on? Can we realize that thoughts about myself—I'm 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 not as bright, as good-looking as the others."
That feedback implies that all this is me, that I have gotten hurt, or 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 inter-relationships we're not protecting ourselves from flying stones or bomb attacks. It's from words we're taking cover, from gestures, from coloration of voice and innuendo.
"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 who 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 in the ongoing audio/video drama of ourselves?
The utmost care and attention is needed to see 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 "getting 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 that evokes memories, feelings, passions. Conscious or unconscious emotional recollections of what happened yesterday or long ago surge through the bodymind, causing feelings of happiness or sadness, affection or humiliation.
Right now words are being spoken, and they can be followed literally. If they are fairly clear and logical they can make sense intellectually. Perhaps at first it's necessary to understand intellectually what is going on in us. But that's not completely understanding the whole thing. These words point to something that may be directly seen and felt, inwardly, as the words are heard or read.
As we wake up from moment to moment, can we experience freshly, directly, when hurt or flattery is 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 story-line? 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 gets hurt or flattered? Me? What is me? Is it images, ideas, memories?
It is amazing. A spark of awareness witnessing how one spoken word arouses pleasure or pain throughout the bodymind. Can the instant connection between thought and sensations become palpable? The immediacy of it. No I-entity directing it, even though we say and believe I am doing all that. It's just happening automatically, with no one intending to "do" it. Those are all afterthoughts!
We say, "I didn't want to do that," as though we could have done otherwise. Words and reaction proceed along well-oiled pathways and interconnections. A thought about the loss of a loved one comes up and immediately the solar plexus tightens in pain. Fantasy of lovemaking occurs and an ocean of pleasure ensues. Who does all that? Thought says, "I do. I'm doing that to myself."
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, the 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 the triggering of physiological reactions takes time, but present awareness brings the whole drama to light instantly. Everything is happening on its own. No one is directing the show!
Right at this moment wind is storming, windows are rattling, tree branches are creaking, and leaves are 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, "My hearing isn't yours. Your body isn't mine." We have thought like that for eons and behave accordingly; but at this moment can there be just the sound of swaying trees and rustling leaves and fresh air from the open 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 mistaken 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 needs to be sold or bought. Can we simply listen and investigate what is being offered for exploration from moment to moment? -
What is the me that gets hurt or 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 of 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 interconnected—what I am, how I look, what my abilities and disabilities are, my education, my family, my name, my likes and dislikes, opinions, beliefs, and so on. The identification with all of that, which says, "This is what I am." And the attachment to it, which says, "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. It 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 plate with my father's name engraved 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 personage. 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 ideas about other individuals or groups, or one's possessions, achievements or transgressions, anything, and feeling that all of this is me. Feeling important about oneself generates amazingly 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. And when that sense of identification and attachment is disturbed by someone not buying into it, contesting it, or questioning it altogether, there is sudden insecurity, physical discomfort, anger, fear and hurt.
Becoming a member of a 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 memory stuff? I want to talk about listening, the wind, and the birds.
Are we listening right now? Or are we more interested in identities and stories?
We all love stories, don't we? Telling them and hearing them is wonderfully entertaining.
At times people wonder 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 the associations aroused in waiting outside the meeting room and then entering nervously with a pounding heart. Do images of teacher and student offer 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 does not have to be 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 without 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.
Yet every once in awhile, whether one does meditation or not, the real world shines wondrously through everything. How is it when words fall silent? When there is no knowing? When there is no listener and yet there is listening, awaring in utter silence?
The listening to, the awaring of the me-story is not part of the me. Awareness is not part of that network. The network cannot witness itself. It can think about itself and even change itself, establish new behavior patterns, but it cannot see itself or free itself. There is a whole psychological science called behavior modification that, through reward and punishment, tries to drop undesirable habits and adopt better, more sociable ones. This is not what we're talking about. The seeing, the awaring of the me movement is not part of the me movement.
A moment during a visit with my parents in Switzerland comes to mind. I had always had a difficult relationship with my mother. I had been 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 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. No one changed it. It just happened.
Truly seeing is freeing beyond imagination.
Toni Packer began studing Zen in 1967 with Roshi Philip Kapleau at the Rochester Zen Center. In 1981, she founded the Springwater Center for Meditative Inquiry in Springwater, New York. From The Wonder of Presence and the Way of Meditative Inquiry, by Toni Packer. Published by Shambhala Publications. © 2003 by Toni Packer. -
Back to a more discussions on Emptiness, No-Self, Impermanence and Dependent Co-Arising.
I wrote a 3 post reply to "dharmabum" at http://www.bswa.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=ASC&topic_id=2765&forum=2
My first reply is talking more about the No-self, Impermanent and Non-dual nature of existence. My second reply is more about the spell of Karmic Propensities. My third reply is more about the nature of Dependent Co-Arising/Emptiness.
His questions:
----------
confused about "self"
In my meditation yesterday I began to have thoughts about self. Who is watching the breath? Where is the watcher? Who is the watcher?
This led me to some thoughts, which is probably where the problem is: that I was thinking instead of meditating...
But it went something like this:
Where is the "I" that is watching the breath?
Is it my brain? My mind?
What is my brain?
Is it not more or less a computer, programmed from birth by karma and society and experience?
Is it not this computer program that is watching the breath?
This "computer program" (brain/mind) is what we call "I", isn't it?
And how is it programmed, who programs it?
It is programmed by experiences, teachings, society, parents, etc...
But Who wrote the program?
***************
This is where I stopped...
I know that Buddhism promotes the idea that there is no "self". But if there is no self, then what is it that watches the breath?
The "self" is conditioned by the five aggregates, right?
I understand the idea that the "self" is conditioned, that it is not permanent, that it changes, that it rises and falls away... But still, there IS the self.
If there was no self, then who would watch the breath?
I'm a bit confused about all this... -
My first reply post:
Vis.M. XVI:
"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.
No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.
No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all."
- Visuddhimagga XVI 90
But there's more:
There is seeing, but no seer
There is hearing, but no hearer
There is smelling, but no smeller
There is tasting, but no taster
There is feeling, but no feeler
There is thinking, but no thinker
Please contemplate this simple yet profound statement:
No watcher needed, the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga.
-----
This is not a matter of placing it under conclusion. It is not about understanding it intellectually. It is about moment to moment EXPERIENCE the truth -- there is hearing, no hearer, seeing, no seer.
Not to entertain our conceptual thinking mind and linear analysis mind (including asking "Who is breathing?") and just mindfully experience moment to moment, experience the Processes and Activities, to see it as it is.
There is NO Watcher or a fixed Self, only Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, made up of karmic and mental factors, arising and passing, arising and passing. 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 ("thing" is merely a mind made concept), only change.
Practising this way will give rise to true insights and realisations of Reality.
To summarise: There is Awareness/Knowingness, but the Awareness and Knowingness is not apart from the flow of phenomenality.
From deep meditative observation, the sense of a Witness/Watcher is realised to be just an impression that is caused by subtle knowingness and sequential observation. Moment to moment arises in lightning fast speed. The second moment got a subtle imprint of the recently preceded one. This sequential change causes the sense of Subtle Witnessing mistaken to be an Eternal Witness/Watcher.
As my friend further elaborates in one of his articles:
The sense of self is caused by the impression of continuity and connectivity of thoughts that gives the impression of coherence and personal-willing. In another word, the sense of self IS the sequence of thoughts itself... that is interspersed with the intelligence that make coherent meaning of this sequence of thoughts.
This can be realised within deep meditation, when the arising of thoughts are clearly perceived... In such meditation, one will discover that there is really NO observer of these thoughts. The subsequent thoughts that arise after the previous thought are the 'observation' of their predecessors. All these are happening at lightning-fast rate, and therefore is perceptible only under deep clarity.
So in reality, there is no permanent unchanging Witness or Observer, but ever changing moment to moment arising, awareness/knowingness. -
My second reply post:
There is also another point I want to mention... the spell of our Karmic Propensities/deep conditionings, and the futility of our dualistic Enquiry system -- including asking 'Who is watching the breathe?'
This is an article I wrote before (slightly edited here) as a summary based on some of my conversations with a highly experienced, enlightened meditator/friend:
Karmic Propensities is what blinded us from seeing the ultimate reality. Our entire mind is affected by karmic propensities such that our entire system of enquiry, even when we want to inquire on reality, we cannot know beyond "Who", "When", "What", "Where". Our mind is always thinking dualistically, in terms of subject and object (an I and a Not-I/an Observer apart from the Object of Observation, which cannot be found in reality). It is a momentum that cannot be located, yet it can be directly felt and experienced, and the momentum arises every moment and affect the entire way we see things. When we are affected by momentum the mind cannot know the ultimate reality (Emptiness).
Because our momentum is at work, we will always assume a subject-object duality. That is, there is a Self, an Agent, and observer, doer, thinker of thoughts. A self that persists in time in a connected way... experiencing things... It blinds us into seeing self and objective world as 'entities', as 'things' with inherent existence, as a separate and permanent 'me'.
So when momentum is in action, we cannot help but react with our karmic patterns. If we were to ask, "If you lost your shoe, are you still you?" or "If u lost ur hands, do u still exist?". It almost seems certain to say "Yes, of course I am still I." because we always assumed there is a truly existing "Self" experiencing changes.
Because it is our habit energy that made us think that way, we are so used to thinking in terms of subject object duality that it has become so deeply part of us, deeply imprinted into our consciousness.
If we were to eliminate this bond, then we can begin to realise, there is no "Self". In reality, there is only Self1, Self2, Self3, moment to moment our mental and karmic factors arise spontaneously but not in a connected way. We are not a permanent self, we are momentary selves and nothing stays, everything is ever flowing.
Without seeing things as 'entities', we can begin to realise the nature of Dependent Co-Arising, Conditionality, Interdependence, etc, i.e Emptiness. The nature is always so, but our karmic propensities obscure us from seeing the truth, distorting the way we see things, enquire things, and perceive things. It is this bond that bonds us life after life in Samsara.
To eliminate the bond we have to feel it, feel the power of the bond, experience it. To eliminate the bond is a matter of insights, the insight into our true nature, the insight into self-liberation, etc. Not only must we eliminate the bond, we must be able to see how "Propensities" blinds us, and that is through naked awareness.
How can naked awareness lead to the insight of our "Propensities"?
Space, time, life, death, in and out are all ‘deeply held’ impressions. We are seldom aware of the “deeply held” until we are able to rest adequately in naked awareness. The nakedness creates the big contrast that provides us the condition for the arising of the insight of the 'deeply held'. The insight into the full power of our ‘propensities’ and resting in naked awareness are both equally crucial in our understanding of our non-dual (no subject-object duality, no separate permanently existing self) and non-local/empty nature.
To consciousness 'propensities' (deep conditioning or imprints) are all that matters. It is the only 'force' that blinds, bonds and prevents a liberating experience. Once formed it remains latent and only surface when conditions are riped for fruition. We are unable to get rid of it by will. Therefore to know consciousness, it is also to know the impact of deep conditioning, how it is formed and how it subsides. There is really no 'why', it is just how consciousness works.
To drop the bondage/deep conditionings, the mind MUST realise that another way of 'knowing' is possible; an effortless, total sensing and experience of wholeness. Next the experiences of the joy, bliss and clarity of wholeness. Without the insight into the possiblity and the experience of the positive factors, the mind will not release itself from holding.
Even open pure and innocent inquiry is a deep conditioning. Makes the mind chatters incessantly. Every what, when, where and why by itself is a distancing from start. Freeing itself from such mode of inquiry aka 'knowing', the mind rests. The joy of this resting must be experienced for the 'willingness' to arise.
So anyway, meditation is important. -
My 3rd reply post:
In addition to the previous two posts that i made, I want to mention a little about what the Buddha taught regarding the nature of conditioned arising/dependent co-arising.
First of all, the Buddha never taught that there was a watcher or a self or entity, but rather, all conditioned phenomena, feelings, sensations and perceptions and other experiences are interdependently-co-arisen. It does not mean that conditioned arising is cause and effect in a linear and causal manner, but rather, simultaneously inter-dependent arising with no separateness at all (between cause and effect). Everything is just interdependently arisen as a wholeness.
If you understood the reality of Dependent Co-Arising, you will not ask 'Who'. The truth of Dependent Co-Arising will dissolve your dualistic mode of enquiry, seeing Time and Space, asking 'Who', 'When', 'Where', 'What', etc.
The principle of Dependent Origination as taught by Buddha:
When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
The Mahayana Visual metaphor of the Net of Indra is a good way to understand it:
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=214669 (see the first post)
There is absolutely no agent behind all conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned phenomena are empty of any separate, inherent, permanent existence. They are empty, but not empty as in void as opposed to existence, but rather, they are empty of inherent, separate and permanent existence: they are transient and interdependently co-arisen phenomena as one wholeness.
The truth of interdependent co-arising may sound simple but its implications is actually very deep.
Thus far, the doctrine of dependent arising may seem clear and obvious. If so, it is only because one does not yet understand it in all of its implications.The Buddha’s attendant, ananda, once said to his master, “It is surprising, sir, it is wonderful, sir, how profound this dependent arising is and how profound is its illumination. Yet it seems to me as if very simple.” “Say not so, ananda, say not so,” admonished the Buddha in reply. The theory is abstruse and its ramifications vast.
My understanding of dependent origination may be like a drop of water compared to the vast ocean. But I am trying to share what I know. (as above) But do look deeper into the teachings, and my understanding is also very limited, and is what I can thus far absorb from other practitioners I know who have reached the higher realisations and shared their realisations with me. I have personally no direct experience/realisation of this truth yet, though it is still quite important to establish the Right View, even at least conceptually at first.
Dependent origination is about the emptiness nature of reality. It is said in the Suttas that those who see dependent origination sees the Dhamma. And those who sees the Dhamma sees the Buddha. Our Buddha Nature that pervades everything is the empty (empty, transient, non-local, dependently co-arising nature) yet intrinsically luminous (aware) nature of all phenomena.
Please read the following great Sutta by the Buddha on this subject:
Source:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.than.html
Phagguna Sutta
To Phagguna
Dwelling at Savatthi. "Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second; intellectual intention the third; and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.
When this was said, Ven.-Moliya-Phagguna said to the Blessed One, "Lord, who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feeds.' If I were to say 'feeds,' then 'Who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'Consciousness-nutriment for what?' And the valid answer is, 'Consciousness-nutriment for the production of future coming-into-being. When that has come into being and exists, then the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.'"
"Lord, who makes contact?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'makes contact.' If I were to say 'makes contact,' then 'Who makes contact?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes contact?' And the valid answer is, 'From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.'"
"Lord, who feels?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feels.' If I were to say 'feels,' then 'Who feels?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?' And the valid answer is, 'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.'"
"Lord, who craves?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'craves.' If I were to say 'craves,' then 'Who craves?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes craving?' And the valid answer is, 'From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.'"
"Lord, who clings?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'clings.' If I were to say 'clings,' then 'Who clings?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes clinging?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.1
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of the six sense media2 comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering." -
I remembered something from my Dharma class. It goes something like this:
What is Today?
Today is defined by yesterday and tomorrow.
If there is no yesterday and no tomorrow,
There will be no Today.
-
Very true! Let us not attach ourselves to notions of past present and future, and be utterly traceless, not even attached to the presentOriginally posted by oldkid:I remembered something from my Dharma class. It goes something like this:
What is Today?
Today is defined by yesterday and tomorrow.
If there is no yesterday and no tomorrow,
There will be no Today. Gone as it arise! -
My reply to Raaj, another forummer there:
Hi Dharmabum,
That's right. I just wrote this in my Buddhist forum days back:
The question you are asking is almost the same as the unanswered question in Buddhism about whether there is a soul or not. According to Buddhism both views that say ‘there is’ or ‘there isn’t’ are extreme views and Buddhism rejects both these views as misguided and the question itself as a useless question.
Those who have said there is “No self’ on this thread are preaching the above extreme view. What is said in Buddhism is that the 5 aggregates are Not-self or Un-self (Un –atta). It doesn't say there is NO Self. Emptiness in Buddhism only means ‘empty of self’. It does not mean ‘empty of all conceivable thing’ or ‘nothing’.
I can quote suttas in support of this if you need but by the way haven’t you too heard AB using his Cambridge Physics to promote ‘Nothingness” ? Adding to the confusion !
(slightly edited)
Hi TheGoodEarth, welcome to our forum.
I agree careful usage of the words 'no-self' or 'non-self' or 'not-self' or any sort of variations is needed, and if need to, explanations must be given.
Because there are a few ways to understand it... if you say 'not-self', then naturally there will be the question 'if this is not-self, then naturally there must be something else that is the self, right?'
In reality, Anatta is taught in order to 'negate' our false conceptions, but no other propositions is given to establish another 'self' apart from 'not-self'. If someone teaches a 'self' apart from 'not-self', he is holding onto the eternalist teachings of the Hindus.
Reality does not necessary has to go with rationality. If all is 'not-self' then there must be a 'True Self' is a logical deduction. An inherent assumption due to the dualistic mechanism of our thinking mind. No-self is teaching to break this routineness and experience what Awareness and Reality as it is not what should it be according to rationality.
As the Buddha taught about the emptiness of both self and not-self duality: Tuvataka Sutta (Sn 4.14):
[W]hen a person is inwardly quiet there is nowhere a "self" (atta) can be found. Where then, could a "non-self" (niratta) possibly be found?
On the other hand, for a more thorough and seemingly ridiculous examination about the True Self teachings and how it relates to Non-Duality (of Subject & Object), please read: No-Self vs True Self
On the other hand, if we say 'No-Self', which I often use this term, some of us may think that it is saying that the Self is non existing, the nihillistic understanding.
Actually, the point Buddha is trying to make is that the separate, constantly existing Self acting as an Agent (observer, doer, thinker, etc) cannot ultimately be found, and 'self' is merely just transient aggregates arising spontaneously out of conditioned arising. If the 'self' cannot ultimately be found as an entity, it is not right to say whether the self is 1) existing, 2) non-existing, 3) both existing nor non-existing, 4) neither-existing and non existing.
Precisely because he still sees 'Self' as an entity, and not empty, utterly transient and conditioned aggregates, he is still holding onto a false view 'Self DOES exist!' or 'Self does NOT exist'!
One who still thinks that 'self does not exist' as if self is an entity that do not exist, is still holding on 'a thicket of [false] views':
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."
p.s. I found this article contains a very good metaphor to see 'Self' -- as Weather! A powerful way to understand Self as NOT being a 'fixed entity' with inherent existence that can be found anywhere, but rather, as activities and processes happening moment to moment. It also shows how the practise of mindfulness observing moment to moment reality can lead to the understanding of Anatta, intuitively and directly.
http://www.shambhalasun.com/Archives/Features/2002/May02/packer.htm
...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 and wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amid 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 real entity weather exists anywhere except in thinking and talking about it.
Now, is there such an entity as me or I? Or is it just like the weather—an ongoing, ever-changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creation and destruction, that thought keeps calling I, me, Toni, and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I merely 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 this work? Exploring ourselves attentively, beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding occasionally? Coming upon an amazing insight into this deep sense of separation that we call me and other people, me and the world, without any need to condemn or overcome?... -
Whoever taught you in that Dhamma class was wrong.Originally posted by oldkid:I remembered something from my Dharma class. It goes something like this:
What is Today?
Today is defined by yesterday and tomorrow.
If there is no yesterday and no tomorrow,
There will be no Today.
What is Today? Here is my definition:
Today is the Yesterday of Tomorrow.
There will always be Today.
If there is no Today, there can be no Yesterday and no Tomorrow!
Read carefully, and compare the two definitions. -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Thanks for sharing your view!
Whoever taught you in that Dhamma class was wrong.
What is Today? Here is my definition:
[b]Today is the Yesterday of Tomorrow.
There will always be Today.
If there is no Today, there can be no Yesterday and no Tomorrow!
Read carefully, and compare the two definitions.[/b]
-
Why are you showing me your teeth? Don't you have something to say about my definition?Originally posted by oldkid:Thanks for sharing your view! -
I have no comments on your definition.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Why are you showing me your teeth? Don't you have something to say about my definition?