where is this mind ?
-
Hello all,
I could like to touch on the concept of duality.
Define/what is thought projection ?
Why duality actually create suffering ?
Question: When we are watching the movie ?
Where is this mind ?
A) It is in ourselves ( is it at the base of the heart ? )
B) It is on the movie screen when we are watching the movie
C) Neither and where and why ??
-
it is typing this post
-
Originally posted by D.E.M.O.N.S.W.O.R.D:
it is typing this post
To be more precise, your fingers are typing this post.
-
your fingers are your mind
-
Originally posted by D.E.M.O.N.S.W.O.R.D:
your fingers are your mind
Yes yes and i'm reading this quote with my mind but where exactly is the mind ? -
Originally posted by Isis:
Yes yes and i'm reading this quote with my mind but where exactly is the mind ?
you're reading this quote with your eyes -
Originally posted by D.E.M.O.N.S.W.O.R.D:
you're reading this quote with your eyes
Where is the mind that read this quote ? -
Originally posted by Isis:
Where is the mind that read this quote ?
it is wondering where it is now -
Originally posted by D.E.M.O.N.S.W.O.R.D:
it is wondering where it is now
Hmm i have to agreed with youand the mind isn't the brain.
-
Originally posted by Isis:
Hello all,
I could like to touch on the concept of duality.
Define/what is thought projection ?
Interesting topic.
Longchen posted two very good articles at Very good articles on mental activities last , and one of them is dealing with that question you are asking. I highly recommend that you read through the article. The article related here is: 1. Recognizing Different Levels of Mental Activity and Appearance-Making
To put it very shortly, we project on whatever appearances arises. And as the site explains,
"The conceptual categories that conceptual cognition fabricates are cognitive representations snang-ba, mental appearances) not only of what things are (words, meanings, wholes, continuums, objects, kinds of things, and so on), but also of things truly existing in that way. Truly existing (bden-par grub-pa), here, means really existing in that way, independently of imputation."
And because we think that they are truly existing in the 'really-out-there' kind of way, independent of imputation, instead of everything being merely manifestation of the Mind (and I mean our true nature -- luminous-emptiness), we perceive duality. And this projection is hypnotic, we believe that it is absolutely true, just as within a dream we believe the dream to be true and the objects involved in the dream to be absolutely true.
Why duality actually create suffering ?
It is the split, the separation that causes suffering as well the arising of desire, as well as clinging.
Without the insight that there is no-split, the mind continues to divide. Desire is an inner deficiency of the mind created to bridge the gap of separation. But it is precisely this attempt to bridge the gap that is perpetuating the gap, and so we suffer. Aversion is the inner deficiency of the mind created that negatively reacts with or seeks to escape/widen the gap/split from a perceived object due to falsely projecting reality on 'external objects' deemed as unpleasant, etc... but that will never work because the split doesn't exist, but the way we hold our minds as we try to get away from that side is painful. There is only ever the present appearance of life, with no one at its core who could ever escape even if they wanted to. Indeed, all attempts to escape merely serve to reinforce suffering and separation.
When Anatta and Anicca is fully seen, it is seen there is no phenomena graspable nor is there a separate subject/self that can pursue or reject something apparently 'external to himself', which he/she can have a relation with or be at the mercy of the pain... and hence, Dispassion arises. Hence freedom from suffering is achieved, illusion of separation and split ended. The three poisons of desire, aversion, and ignorance is ended.Question: When we are watching the movie ?
Where is this mind ?
A) It is in ourselves ( is it at the base of the heart ? )
B) It is on the movie screen when we are watching the movie
C) Neither and where and why ??
This is exactly the same as asking, where is my self? Non-duality tells you that there is no self/perceiver apart from the perceived. When watching movie, there is just the seeing of the movie, and that seeing is inseparable from colours, from the known. There is no seer that sees, the images sees. And that is Mind. Everything is Mind, but 'where' does not apply, because 'Mind' is not an entity that is located anywhere.
Even to say 'everything' is also a conventional way to put it -- not to be mistaken that there is truly a 'something', cos there is really nothing graspable! All appearances are simply in a state of constant be-coming, evolving according to conditions, like rain falling, wind blowing, river flowing, 'everything' has no essence, no 'thingness'. Rain has no essence, there is only falling, wind has no essence, it is just blowing, river has no essence, there is just flowing. A constant state of evolving according to conditions. Merely a luminous-empty appearance. And that is all there is, all are the manifestation of Mind.
As Thusness said in http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/262408
The reason they said Awareness (Mind), is because Awareness is not an entity. It is not a thing. It is just a point of luminous clarity. It is just clarity. But because we are so accustomed to thinking things in terms of object and subject, we always take Awareness as something. It must be somewhere inside, residing somewhere. Even if it is not residing inside the body it must be somewhere, someplace. This is the problem, you see. So when you say that let’s be aware. We always think of “how?” How to be aware? When we say “where is awareness”, they always look for a place, they always look for a something. This is how the mind react, this is what I call a momentum. They always behave this way. They do not know how to say “Just do nothing. Everything is expressing itself by clarity.” They always want to react, you see what I mean?
Anyway, the following is written by Ajahn Amaro on the teachings of Non-Duality by Buddha, as well as being a great description of Stages 5 & 6 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience
Ancient Teachings on Nonabiding
This principle of nonabiding is also contained within the ancient
Theravada teachings. It wasn’t just Ajahn Chah’s personal insight
or the legacy of some stray Nyingmapa lama who wandered
over the mountains and fetched up in northeast Thailand 100
years ago. Right in the Pali Canon, the Buddha points directly
to this. In the Udana (the collection of “Inspired Utterances”
of the Buddha), he says:
There is that sphere of being where there is no earth,
no water, no fire, nor wind; no experience of infinity
of space, of infinity of consciousness, of no-thingness,
or even of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; here
there is neither this world nor another world, neither
moon nor sun; this sphere of being I call neither a coming
nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor
a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution, and no
support: it is the end of dukkha. (ud. 8.1)
Rigpa, nondual awareness, is the direct knowing of this. It’s
the quality of mind that knows, while abiding nowhere.
Another teaching from the same collection recounts the story
of a wanderer named Bahiya. He stopped the Buddha on the
street in Savatthi and said, “Venerable Sir, you are the Samana
Gotama. Your Dharma is famous throughout the land. Please
teach me that I may understand the truth.”
The Buddha replied, “We’re on our almsround, Bahiya. This is
not the right time.”
“Life is uncertain, Venerable Sir. We never know when we are
going to die; please teach me the Dharma.”
This dialogue repeats itself three times. Three times over, the
Buddha says the same thing, and Bahiya responds in the same
way. Finally, the Buddha says, “When a Tathagata is pressed
three times, he has to answer. Listen carefully, Bahiya, and
attend to what I say:
In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
Upon hearing these words, Bahiya was immediately enlightened.
Moments later he was killed by a runaway cow. So he was
right: life is uncertain. Later Bahiya was awarded the title of
“The Disciple Who Understood the Teaching Most Quickly.”
“Where” Does Not Apply
What does it mean to say, “There is no thing there”? It is talking
about the realm of the object; it implies that we recognize that
“the seen is merely the seen.” That’s it. There are forms, shapes,
colors, and so forth, but there is no thing there. There is no real
substance, no solidity, and no self-existent reality. All there is,
is the quality of experience itself. No more, no less. There is just
seeing, hearing, feeling, sensing, cognizing. And the mind naming
it all is also just another experience: “the space of the
Dharma hall,” “Ajahn Amaro’s voice,” “here is the thought,
‘Am I understanding this?’ Now another thought, ‘Am I not
understanding this?’”
There is what is seen, heard, tasted, and so on, but there is no
thing-ness, no solid, independent entity that this experience
refers to.
As this insight matures, not only do we realize that there is
no thing “out there,” but we also realize there is no solid thing
“in here,” no independent and fixed entity that is the experiencer.
This is talking about the realm of the subject.
The practice of nonabiding is a process of emptying out the
objective and subjective domains, truly seeing that both the
object and subject are intrinsically empty. If we can see that both
the subjective and objective are empty, if there’s no real “in
here” or “out there,” where could the feeling of I-ness and meness
and my-ness locate itself? As the Buddha said to Bahiya,
“You will not be able to find your self either in the world of this
[subject] or in the world of that [object] or anywhere between
the two.”
There is a similar and much lengthier exchange between the
Buddha and Ânanda in the Shurangama Sutra, which is a text
much referred to in the Ch’an school of the Chinese tradition.
For pages and pages the Buddha asks Ânanda, in multifarious
ways, if he can define exactly where his mind is. No matter how
hard he tries, Ânanda cannot establish it precisely. Eventually
he is forced to the conclusion that “I cannot find my mind anywhere.”
But the Buddha says, “Your mind does exist, though,
doesn’t it?”
Ânanda is finally drawn to the conclusion that “where” does
not apply.
Aha!
This is the point that these teachings on nonabiding are trying
to draw us to. The whole concept and construct of where-ness,
the act of conceiving ourselves as this individual entity living
at this spot in space and time, is a presumption. And it’s only by
frustrating our habitual judgments in this way that we’re forced
into loosening our grip.
This view of things pulls the plug, takes the props away, and,
above all, shakes up our standard frames of reference. This is
exactly what Ajahn Chah did with people when he asked, “If you
can’t go forward and you can’t go back and you can’t stand still,
where can you go?” He was pointing to the place of nonabiding:
the timeless, selfless quality that is independent of location.
Interestingly enough, some current scientific research has
also reached a comparable conclusion about the fundamental
nature of matter. In the world of quantum physics, scientists
now use such terms as “the well of being” or “the sea of potential”
to refer to the primordial level of physical reality from
which all particles and energies crystallize and into which they
subsequently dissolve. The principle of non-locality in this realm
means that the “place where something happens” cannot truly
be defined, and that a single event can have exactly simultaneous
effects in (apparently) widely separated places. Particles can
accurately be described as being smeared out over the entirety of
time and space.
Terms like “single place” and “separate places” are seen to
apply only as convenient fictions at certain levels of scale; at the
level of the ultimate field, the sea of quantum foam, “place” has
no real meaning. When you get down into the fine, subatomic
realm, where-ness simply does not apply. There is no there there.
Whether this principle is called nonabiding or non-locality, it’s
both interesting and noteworthy that the same principle applies
in both the physical and mental realms. For the intellectuals and
rationalists among us, this parallel is probably very comforting.
I first started to investigate this type of contemplation when I
was on a long retreat in our monastery and doing a lot of solitary
practice. It suddenly occurred to me that even though I might
have let go of the feeling of self—the feeling of this and that
and so on—whatever the experience of reality was, it was still
“here.” There was still here-ness. For several weeks I contemplated
the question, “Where is here?” Not using the question to
get a verbal answer, more just to illuminate and aid the abandonment
of the clinging that was present.
Recognizing this kind of conditioning is half the job—
recognizing that, as soon as there is a here-ness, there is a subtle
presence of a there-ness. Similarly, establishing a “this,” brings
up a “that.” As soon as we define “inside,” up pops “outside.”
It’s crucial to acknowledge such subtle feelings of grasping; it
happens so fast and at so many different layers and levels.
This simple act of apprehending the experience is shining the
light of wisdom onto what the heart is grasping. Once the defilements
are in the spotlight, they get a little nervous and uncomfortable.
clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function properly.
In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom around.
Clinging operates best when we are not looking. When
clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function properly.
In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom around. -
Originally posted by D.E.M.O.N.S.W.O.R.D:
your fingers are your mind
If that's the case if I chop off your fingers you'll be mindless
-
Originally posted by D.E.M.O.N.S.W.O.R.D:
it is wondering where it is nowThat 'it' is the thought. There is no thinker, only thoughts. That thought is self-aware without a separate watcher.
Actually to say there is no mind but only mental activities is also equally valid. There is no fixed entity/mind/'it'/self, only momentary arising and ceasing.
But then we can also say that quality of experiencing -- seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, is Mind. Mind is not a separate knower apart from known, but instead, observer is the observed.
-
Originally quoted from AEN:
It is the split, the separation that causes suffering as well the arising of desire, as well as clinging.
Without the insight that there is no-split, the mind continues to divide. Desire is an inner deficiency of the mind created to bridge the gap of separation. But it is precisely this attempt to bridge the gap that is perpetuating the gap, and so we suffer. Aversion is the inner deficiency of the mind created that negatively reacts with or seeks to escape/widen the gap/split from a perceived object due to falsely projecting reality on 'external objects' deemed as unpleasant, etc... but that will never work because the split doesn't exist, but the way we hold our minds as we try to get away from that side is painful. There is only ever the present appearance of life, with no one at its core who could ever escape even if they wanted to. Indeed, all attempts to escape merely serve to reinforce suffering and separation.
When Anatta and Anicca is fully seen, it is seen there is no phenomena graspable nor is there a separate subject/self that can pursue or reject something apparently 'external to himself', which he/she can have a relation with or be at the mercy of the pain... and hence, Dispassion arises. Hence freedom from suffering is achieved, illusion of separation and split ended. The three poisons of desire, aversion, and ignorance is ended.From my experience and with my limited usage of english language capability, I could like to describe my personal experience of what i have experienced by duality ( or so i think, pls correct me if im wrong ). I have experienced both "pushing and pulling" sensation, where there seems to be presence of a force - I could assume that it is projected by the mind as it is nowhere to be physically found.
Where is the source of this force?
-
Originally posted by Isis:
Originally quoted from AEN:
It is the split, the separation that causes suffering as well the arising of desire, as well as clinging.
Without the insight that there is no-split, the mind continues to divide. Desire is an inner deficiency of the mind created to bridge the gap of separation. But it is precisely this attempt to bridge the gap that is perpetuating the gap, and so we suffer. Aversion is the inner deficiency of the mind created that negatively reacts with or seeks to escape/widen the gap/split from a perceived object due to falsely projecting reality on 'external objects' deemed as unpleasant, etc... but that will never work because the split doesn't exist, but the way we hold our minds as we try to get away from that side is painful. There is only ever the present appearance of life, with no one at its core who could ever escape even if they wanted to. Indeed, all attempts to escape merely serve to reinforce suffering and separation.
When Anatta and Anicca is fully seen, it is seen there is no phenomena graspable nor is there a separate subject/self that can pursue or reject something apparently 'external to himself', which he/she can have a relation with or be at the mercy of the pain... and hence, Dispassion arises. Hence freedom from suffering is achieved, illusion of separation and split ended. The three poisons of desire, aversion, and ignorance is ended.From my experience and with my limited usage of english language capability, I could like to describe my personal experience of what i have experienced by duality ( or so i think, pls correct me if im wrong ). I have experienced both "pushing and pulling" sensation, where there seems to be presence of a force - I could assume that it is projected by the mind as it is nowhere to be physically found.
Where is the source of this force?
Duality is a completely mind created illusion. It never existed. And the belief in duality leads to the sense of separation, i.e. there is a 'me' who can get that 'beautiful car'. But as long as there is desire, there is separation, or rather a belief in separation -- a 'me' who can get something. Or get closer to something. And when there is an undesirable object, one tries to get rid of it, or distant oneself away, and projects a false sense of a 'me' who can get rid of the 'object'.
But it can't be done, because all there is is our present experience, but the projection of duality (there is a 'me' experiencing pain and a 'me' who can 'get rid of pain') causes the attempt from a self-centered perspective to escape, to push away or avoid certain experiences (as if there is even a self who can do that! the pain can disappear, actions can be done to get rid of pain, but there is no experiencer or doer -- only arising and passing experiences) And so the sense of aversion arises, which is to 'push away' something.
And all those dualistic relationship is inherently painful, reinforcing seeking, suffering and dissatisfaction. All these emotions can cause a physical reaction, which may possibly be what you have also experienced. All emotions have a physical correlation at a particular location -- some emotions show up on our abdomen, our shoulders, some on other parts of the body.
-
Thanks for the nice sharing.
Just want to share my personal experience. Not definitive.
It may take a few years for the 'dropping away of pull/push' to become automatic.
The 'let go/dropping' practice in the beginning is really a 'push' effort.
True release is automatic without the 'willing' effort. It will come by itself... if the earlier practice is correct.
When the real release/liberation occur, one will know... as it is a kind of rest and joy that is different from the 'normal desire/grasping state'.
Don't get discouraged when results are not experienced at first. It will come. The 'result' cannot be speed up.... the subsconsious mind needs time (years) to 're-orientate' itself.
-
First is ‘someone’ is dropping…
Second is dropping appears as a mirror reflecting…
Third is there is only endless dropping without footing and mental reasoning…
Fourth is dropping as vivid wide opening…
Fifth is vivid wide opening as everything…
Sixth is only Dharma spontaneously manifesting…
-
Found something on dropping, from http://www.empty-universe.com/zen/hui_hai.htm
Q: By what means can the gateway of our school be entered?
A: By means of the Dana paramita.
Q: According to the Buddha, the Bodhisattva path comprises six paramitas. Why, then, have you mentioned only the one? Please explain why this one alone provides a sufficient means for us to enter.
A: Deluded people fail to understand that the other five all proceed from the Dana paramita and that by its practice all the others are fulfilled.
Q: Why is it called the Dana paramita?
A: 'Dana' means 'relinquishment.'
Q: Relinquishment of what?
A: Relinquishment of the dualism of opposites.
Q: Which means?
A: It means total relinquishment of ideas as to the dual nature of good and bad, being and nonbeing, love and aversion, void and non-void, concentration and distraction, pure and impure. By giving all of them up, we attain to a state in which all opposites are seen as void. The real practice of the Dana paramita entails achieving this state without any thought of 'now I see that opposites are void,' or' now I have relinquished all of them.' We may also call it 'the simultaneous cutting off of the myriad types of con-current causes;' for it is when these are cut off that the whole Dharma-nature becomes void; and this void-ness of the Dharma-nature means the non-dwelling of the mind upon anything whatsoever. Once that state is achieved, not a single form can be discerned. Why? Because our self-nature is immaterial and does not contain a single thing (foreign to itself). That which contains no single thing is true reality, the marvelous form of the Tathágata-it is said in the Diamond Sutra: 'Those who relinquish all forms are called "Buddhas" (enlightened ones).'
Q: However, the Buddha did speak of six paramitas, so why do you now say they can all be fulfilled in that one? Please give your reason for this.
A: The Sutra of the Questions of Brahma says: 'Jala-vidya, the elder, spoke unto Brahma and said, Bodhisattvas by relinquishing all defilement's (klesha) may be said to have fulfilled the Dana paramita, also known as 'total relinquishment;' being beguiled by nothing, they may be said to have fulfilled the síla paramita, also known as, observing the precepts;' being hurt by nothing, they may be said to have fulfilled the kshanti paramita, also known as 'exercising forbearance;' clinging to nothing, they may be said to have fulfilled the virya paramita, also known as 'exercising zeal;' dwelling on nothing, they may be said to have fulfilled the Dhyana paramita, also known as 'practicing Dhyana and samádhi;' speaking lightly of nothing, they may be said to have fulfilled the prajña paramita, also known as 'exercising wisdom.' Together, they are named 'the six methods.'"' Now I am going to speak about those six methods in a way which means precisely the same - the first entails relinquishment; the second, no arising (of perception, sensation, etc); the third, no thinking; the fourth, remaining apart from forms; the fifth, non-abiding (of the mind); and the sixth, no indulgence in light speech. We give different names to these six methods only for convenience in dealing with passing needs; for, when we come to the marvelous principle involved in them all, we find no differences at all. So you have only to understand that, by a single act of relinquishment, everything is relinquished; and that no arising means no arising of anything whatsoever. Those who have lost their way have no intuitive understanding of this; that is why they speak of the methods as though they differed from one another. Fools bogged down in a multiplicity of methods revolve endlessly from life span to life span. I exhort you students to practice the way of relinquishment and nothing else, for it brings to perfection not only the other five paramitas, but also myriads of dharmas (methods). -
Originally posted by Isis:
Hello all,
I could like to touch on the concept of duality.
Define/what is thought projection ?
Why duality actually create suffering ?
Question: When we are watching the movie ?
Where is this mind ?
A) It is in ourselves ( is it at the base of the heart ? )
B) It is on the movie screen when we are watching the movie
C) Neither and where and why ??
Here's an inquiry into 'where is your mind'.
Excerpt from http://heartofnow.com/files/dialogs.html
Personal identity & physical objectsQ:How does all this talk about physical objects relate to self-inquiry? After all, I don't think I am a physical object. I also know I am not this coffee cup in front of me. But you've spoken of not seeing objects, and I want to experience what you experience.A:I experience no edges or borders or limits. I cannot experience a difference bewteen "me" and "you." Your inquiry will confirm this as "your" experience as well. It is not personal, but global, unlimited. It is already that.
That is, inquiry will reveal the lack of difference between a "you" and an "other." Ironically, the desire to attain this as a personal experience is as close to separation as you'll ever get - and even then it is not truly separate. The desire to experience what another experiences is based on unsubstantiated beliefs, all of which lead to suffering. Wanting to experience what we project "an enlightened person" experiences is the very feeling of suffering; it's not the path to the ending of suffering.Q:How so?A:When this desire arises, do you feel more together, or more separate?Q:Definitely more separate, but wanting to be together.A:OK, let's look into it. You say don't think you are a physical object. Yet you'd like to experience what I experience. This is because you haven't fully let go of the idea that you are a physical object. You see us as two separate places where experience happens. But if there are no physical objects, then how can there be separate experiencers? You see, there's no way to make this distinction between experiencers without distinguishing them by physical characteristics.
This distinction between experiencers depends on a sense that experiencing is rooted, centered, located. And how can you localize something without treating it as a physical object? Other than the concepts of shape, boundary, extension, left/right, here/there, how can one center be marked off from another? You might not have the explicit belief that you are a physical object like a body, but in a subtle way you are still granting independent existence to physical objects.Q:I'm not aware of treating experiencers as physical objects. Can you explain a bit more?A:You say that you would like to experience what I experience, correct?Q:Yes ....A:But you see, any characteristic you come up with that seems to distinguish one "center of experience" from another will be a physical characteristic. Here/there, right/left, this side of the room/that side of the room. Any dividing line is based on physical properties such as line, extension, shape, contiguity to other shapes.
Yet any shape or line is merely the interface between two colors, which are nothing more than ideas. This is the same for any characteristic. Shapes are nothing other than ideas. Not just visually but even felt shapes like the shape of an arm or coffee cup are ideas. The shape is not apart from the feeling of the shape, and the feeling is not apart from awareness of the feeling. It's all awareness, all the time. This is how there are no separate physical objects. So how can there be separate experiencers?Q:So I can't be in your shoes, right?A:You aren't in any shoes, even now. The shoes are in you, which is awareness.
The desire to have the same thing someone else seems to have makes people think they're missing something. They'd like to have the same kinds of experiences that they believe an "enlightened one" has. And yet enlightenment is the very lack of separateness in the first place. It's across the board. As they would say in Zen, it's just as much in the North as in the South. So it cannot be bottled up in one person, leaving the other person without. It can't be owned.Q:This is wonderfully inspiring! At first it makes me feel peaceful, as though nothing truly is lacking. But then I think, how can I better understand this? I don't really want to think of you and me as really persons, but I still don't think I have the same experiences you do.A:Is it like you are thinking of us in a kind of abstract way as different centers of experience, but not really located anywhere?Q:Yes, that's it!A:And in some way, you are there and I am here?Q:Yeah, something like that.....A:You asked how to understand this. Well, it's not a matter of taking up a new theory, but there is a conceptual structure at play here, making you think you are separate and walled off. Without this structure in the mix, there would be no presumption or experience of separation.Q:What is that structure you're talking about?A:It's the structure underlying the notion of separate centers of experience. We can dismantle the structure by looking at the very notion of "center."Q:I never thought of that. How would you do it?A:OK, let's look into just what you think this center is.Q:OK....A:How are you thinking of a center? What divides one from another? Does it seem like there's a "here" and a "there"?Q:In a kind of soft way, yes. Like your center is over there, mine is closer to here.A:But if there is no body, how are you finding the "here"?Q:What do you mean?A:Can something be to the left of an idea? In front of an idea?Q:Aaah, no!A:So if you have deconstructed your body in that you see it as nothing other than ideas, then how can ideas be close to other ideas or far from them? How can there be ideas over here or over there? How can ideas surround a center? Can you make any sense of that?Q:Not when you put it like that!A:Can you put it another way? Can you give sense to the idea of a center without treating it like something related to a physical object?Q:Not right now I can't!A:So part of what I'm saying is that without buying into these physicalist words and taking them literally, there is simply no way to conceive of separate centers of experience. Hence the supposed difference between "you" and "me" dissolves.
This is why it is so important to deconstruct the experience of physical objects as objective things, independent of awareness. Our notions of differentiation tend to be based on physical characteristics, such as position or location. Let me ask - to you right now, what is the difference between you and me?Q:You're sitting over there, and I'm right here.A:And this couldn't make any sense unless you thought of yourself, as well as me, as bodies with awareness inside them. The great advaitin Krishna Menon said that "what we take ourselves to be is what we seem to see." If you take yourself to be a body, then the world seems to be made up of physical objects. If you take yourself to be a mind, then the world seems to be made of subtle essences including minds. And if you take yourself to be awareness, then the world is experienced as nothing but awareness.Q:But I know I'm not the body - the body changes over time, and that I am what watches it, and that I have remained unchanged.A:Yet you feel like you are "inside" the body?Q:Yes - I can see things only from this angle. If I were not inside this body, I would be able to travel anywhere, and see anything from any angle.A:Do you feel like you are in any specific location inside the body?Q:Umm, let me see....A:Do you feel that you are above the waist or below the waist?Q:Above, definitely.A:OK, do you feel you are above the neck or below the neck?Q:Above the neck.A:OK, above the nose or below?Q:Above.A:Can you narrow it down any more?Q:I feel like I am behind the eyes.A:How big are you? What shape?Q:Oh, about an inch wide, maybe round.A:Behind the forehead? On the left, right, or in the center?Q:I feel like I'm in the center behind the eyes.A:How far back from the eyes?Q:Oh, about an inch.A:OK, we've found you!! A marble-sized ball about an inch behind the center of the forehead!Q:I guess so (smiling)....A:Now - what is it that this marble appears to?Q:What?A:Well, as we talk about this, does the little marble seem to appear as an image?Q:Yes it does!A:So if this image is appearing, what is it appearing to? That is, it doesn't seem like the marble is doing the seeing - it seems like the marble is being seen.Q:Yeah, I understand. The little marble isn't the seer - it is being seen. I guess it's just an idea I have of myself.A:Yes, based on a few habitual things, such as the prominence of the visual sense over hearing, taste and smell. Also based on the association that arises over time between thinking of one's self and the subtle muscular contractions in the forehead region. It makes us think that this is where we are.
But now, think of the marble image, and that which is aware of the marble image. If you had to place your true self on one side or the other, would you be on the side that is seeing? Or the side that is being seen?Q:The seeing side, definitely. I feel that I'm looking at this marble. So how can I be over there inside the marble?A:OK, the seeing of the marble - think about this seeing. As the seeing arises, does the seeing have a location?Q:No it isn't experienced as being in a location. I can say it must be in the brain, but that's just an idea. The experience itself doesn't have any location at all. Aha!A:That's it! Nothing else has a location either. And that awareness in which these arise is your Self. It is the non-separate Self of all.Q:And in the midst of this realization, there's no desire to experience anything else. It doesn't make sense that experience is anyplace or happening inside anyone.A:That's it! Nothing else has a location either. And that awareness in which these arise is your Self. It is the non-separate Self of all. -
The article are great.
Thanks. :)
Amituofo
/\
-
Originally posted by Thusness:
First is ‘someone’ is dropping…
Second is dropping appears as a mirror reflecting…
Third is there is only endless dropping without footing and mental reasoning…
Fourth is dropping as vivid wide opening…
Fifth is vivid wide opening as everything…
Sixth is only Dharma spontaneously manifesting…
Hi Thusness,
There is a mixture of feeling and thought that pass by every moment and now.
How does one attempt to drop something that remain ungraspable at there every moment.
But wait, i'm grasping at "something"
Ironically, im grasping something that can't be grasped?!
Yet there seems to be something and yet nothing.
isis
Ps: Please read the above with discernment.