An eternal now wrote :
The sense of self is not really a self, it is an illusion but it is the condition for suffering to manifest. Without that there is no suffering.
Without a self can there be happiness ? Is happiness not-suffering ?
If we removed self are we also removing happiness ?
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:An eternal now wrote :
Without a self can there be happiness ? Is happiness not-suffering ?
If we removed self are we also removing happiness ?
No, without a sense of self there is just pure joy and love without subject-object duality. It is not the kind of happiness that is temporary, that arises due to the sense of a self achieving or gaining something. It is without self.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No, without a sense of self there is just pure joy and love without subject-object duality. It is not the kind of happiness that is temporary, that arises due to the sense of a self achieving or gaining something. It is without self.
If there is pure joy who was it that experienced the pure joy ?
Love requires that someone be loved which demands that there is someone to love. How can love exist in a no-self vacuum ?
AEN wrote :
When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory.
Do you not agree that there is a take off point into oblivion ? Our mind has a very bad habit of compartmentalising everything and so our life is centred around a mind created order/reality. So we progress bit by bit, step by step, two-by-two ;-) ....no I am getting carried away .... into removing more and more of our delusions. Then all of a sudden - wham - you found yourself in oblivion. Do you consider this "oblivion" as a stage ?
For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so.
This is not quite correct. You have to distinguish between emptiness of phenomenon and realisation of such emptiness.
This is the seal of no-self
So can I say that you have attained ? If a person come up to you and say "there is and always is only sound when hearing ; never was there a hearer to begin with" would you accept that as a seal of no-self ;-)
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:If there is pure joy who was it that experienced the pure joy ?
Love requires that someone be loved which demands that there is someone to love. How can love exist in a no-self vacuum ?
It is the intensity of experiencing a sensation, or anything, without a subject-object split. That is itself blissful, totally clear, though insubstantial. Without separation there is just the universe as it is, and a blissful sensation in just seeing and hearing because there is no attempt to distance oneself from anything else, because there is no 'one' who is doing the seeing and hearing. Just sounds, sights, etc.
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:AEN wrote :
Do you not agree that there is a take off point into oblivion ? Our mind has a very bad habit of compartmentalising everything and so our life is centred around a mind created order/reality. So we progress bit by bit, step by step, two-by-two ;-) ....no I am getting carried away .... into removing more and more of our delusions. Then all of a sudden - wham - you found yourself in oblivion. Do you consider this "oblivion" as a stage ?
Non-duality is not really an experience of oblivion since basically everything is just 'there' -- but without the sense of a separate experiencer or someone in your head looking outwards. There is totally no distance, just everything appearing as the manifestation of bright awareness.
This is not quite correct. You have to distinguish between emptiness of phenomenon and realisation of such emptiness.
Yes, but realisation of no-self is not the same as "me" merging with "sound" or the sense of self temporarily fading out of existence. This can occur through absorption but it is not the insight of no-self as a seal, there will be no burning away of ignorance since it's basically misunderstood as a stage rather than as the ever-present nature of reality.
So can I say that you have attained ? If a person come up to you and say "there is and always is only sound when hearing ; never was there a hearer to begin with" would you accept that as a seal of no-self ;-)
There is no one to attain anything. There is just reality as it is, already Anatta. I am not denying that realization is important, but it is not the same as 'attaining a state of no-self' since no-self is not a state, basically it is what Always Is, always has been.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is the intensity of experiencing a sensation, or anything, without a subject-object split. That is itself blissful, totally clear, though insubstantial. Without separation there is just the universe as it is, and a blissful sensation in just seeing and hearing because there is no attempt to distance oneself from anything else, because there is no 'one' who is doing the seeing and hearing. Just sounds, sights, etc.
That was not my question. And all these meaningless verbiage is filled with impressive nonsense. Sights and sounds are function of eye and ear respectively. If there is no eye , no ear how could there be sights and sounds ?
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:That was not my question. And all these meaningless verbiage is filled with impressive nonsense. Sights and sounds are function of eye and ear respectively. If there is no eye , no ear how could there be sights and sounds ?
from science point of view, eye and ear sense has it limitation. There is ultra viloet rays. can it be seen? There are sound beyond our hearing. can our ear hear?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Non-duality is not really an experience of oblivion since basically everything is just 'there' -- but without the sense of a separate experiencer or someone in your head looking outwards. There is totally no distance, just everything appearing as the manifestation of bright awareness.
I did not say an experience of oblivion but basically plunging into oblivion or perhaps more accurate "dissolving into oblivion". An experience always come from history and memory and would require an experiencer. All experience is then nothing more than living our delusions.
If "everything is just 'there'" why can't we discern it ?
If it is always 'there' and we can't discern it because of the 'distance', what exactly is this distance you are speaking of ?
AEN wrote :
Yes, but realisation of no-self is not the same as "me" merging with "sound" or the sense of self temporarily fading out of existence. This can occur through absorption but it is not the insight of no-self as a seal, there will be no burning away of ignorance since it's basically misunderstood as a stage rather than as the ever-present nature of reality.
Absorption has no clarity.
So what if the person "merge" with the universe. Does this count as realisation of no-self ?
There is no one to attain anything. There is just reality as it is, already Anatta. I am not denying that realization is important, but it is not the same as 'attaining a state of no-self' since no-self is not a state, basically it is what Always Is, always has been.
So can I say that no-self is a stateless state ? Or if realisation of no-self is the merging with the universe then can I say that the no-self state is the mother of all states ;-) ?
Originally posted by SevenEleven:from science point of view, eye and ear sense has it limitation. There is ultra viloet rays. can it be seen? There are sound beyond our hearing. can our ear hear?
If the eye can't see then it is not sight. If the ear can't hear then it is not sound.
From merriam-webster dictionary (online) :
sound :
1 a : a particular auditory impression
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:If the eye can't see then it is not sight. If the ear can't hear then it is not sound.
From merriam-webster dictionary (online) :
sound :
1 a : a particular auditory impression
words have its limitation. You can't see gravity. does that mean gravity doesn't exist?
There is eye, There is eye object. Only when there is contact between the 2 is there sight. How often have we pass by a scene without noticing what happened?
If you ask very good artists (musicians, painters etc). When they are totally absorbed into music, it is pretty close to a state where they forget about themselves.
è‰ºæœ¯æœ€é«˜å¢ƒç•Œä¸ºå¿˜æˆ‘ï¼Œå¿˜æˆ‘åˆ°æ— æˆ‘å°±æ˜¯ç¦…
The highest achievement in Arts is forgetting about yourself. From forgetting about yourself to Annata (realization that concept of self is a delusion) is called Zen
Originally posted by JitKiat:If you ask very good artists (musicians, painters etc). When they are totally absorbed into music, it is pretty close to a state where they forget about themselves.
è‰ºæœ¯æœ€é«˜å¢ƒç•Œä¸ºå¿˜æˆ‘ï¼Œå¿˜æˆ‘åˆ°æ— æˆ‘å°±æ˜¯ç¦…
The highest achievement in Arts is forgetting about yourself. From forgetting about yourself to Annata (realization that concept of self is a delusion) is called Zen
forget yourself??? I thought it is the non-attachment of self
忘我 (forget about yourself) is a momentary relief from strong attachment to self. It is a good state but a lesser state compared to Annata (non-attachment to self) achieved by the Arhat / others. If state of 忘我 allow very high achievement of artistic expression, imagine the power of being in Annata.
Originally posted by JitKiat:忘我 (forget about yourself) is a momentary relief from strong attachment to self. It is a good state but a lesser state compared to Annata (non-attachment to self) achieved by the Arhat / others. If state of 忘我 allow very high achievement of artistic expression, imagine the power of being in Annata.
if you forget, there where is the awareness?
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:That was not my question. And all these meaningless verbiage is filled with impressive nonsense. Sights and sounds are function of eye and ear respectively. If there is no eye , no ear how could there be sights and sounds ?
It is nonsense only when you haven't experienced it, while I know exactly what non-dual experience is by experience. That's sad, especially the attitude of close mindedness on something that one hasn't experienced and having made the conclusions (e.g. that those are meaningless verbiage is filled with impressive nonsense) before finding out in one's experience. Just because you haven't experienced doesn't mean that it is not true and I hope you can be more open minded. How can anyone advance in practice with such attitudes which prevents the opportunity for direct experience? Are you here to learn or to argue with people for the sake of arguing before finding out for oneself? Do you think you can ridicule a direct experience that countless practitioners not limited to me have seen? I hope you don't take this personally, this is for everyone who is reading as I am aware that the experience of no-self when described in words can be quite unbelievable unless one has had some experiences with it.
Back to topic.
The eyes and the ears are not the seer or hearer, they are just one of the many conditions for a particular sight or sound to arise, and certainly not the only condition for sight and sound to arise. But when the sight arise, there is just that sight, there is no seer behind the sight. It is just the manifestation of pure awareness without separation into observer and observed, there is totally no distance at all.
One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others
as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the
bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in
this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness
this way. Awareness is NOT a separate observer experiencing an objective universe. The so called universe is itself the manifestation of Awareness according to conditions without duality.
The notion 'who sees' is totally faulty as it presupposes some entity that sees. In Buddhism, no one sees, but there are conditions for manifestation, for sight. There is no denial of conditions (in fact this is emphasized in the teaching of Dependent Origination), but there is the denial of a separate agent or self behind or within manifestations.
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."
"Lord, who takes sustenance?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'takes sustenance.' If I were to say 'takes sustenance,' then 'Who takes sustenance?' 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 sustenance?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes sustenance. From sustenance 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."
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:I did not say an experience of oblivion but basically plunging into oblivion or perhaps more accurate "dissolving into oblivion". An experience always come from history and memory and would require an experiencer. All experience is then nothing more than living our delusions.
No, I am not talking about memories. I am talking about direct, non-conceptual experience of our bare sensate reality, prior to symbols, memories, thoughts, labels. If you haven't experienced this you haven't started your Vipassana practice.
If "everything is just 'there'" why can't we discern it ?
Non-dual experience is not a discernment from the perspective of knowledge or a separate observer.
The experience and realisation of No-Self is beyond any mental
constructs that is perceivable from the mind. Therefore it is the
"Mystery" -- yet it is not in opposition to Forms or Manifestation. It
is not a form of subjective knowing. There is no person that perceives
or understands no-self, nor an inner knower or witness that is aware of
no-self, that would be contradictory. Rather, in the perceiving, just
shapes, colours, sounds, no perceiver.
When looking at bamboo
through the insight of no-self, we do not study a bamboo scientifically
as a subjective observer, nor do we even observe the bamboo carefully
from a distance as a separate self. Instead of experiencing bamboo from
the viewpoint of a 'me', rather, from the bamboo experience the bamboo:
totally no distance between me and bamboo. In other words, we enter
into the mode of being where the bamboo is the bamboo itself, and from
there to look at the pine tree and the bamboo. Everything becomes
manifest in their suchness. It is Mystery because there is no separate
observer studying it from a distance, rather, it is a mode of
everything being itself, or rather in a dynamic state of becoming.
There is no knower and it is not a form of subjective knowledge. Non-dual awareness is ultimately a Mystery since it cannot be made an
object of observation or study by a subject since there is no subject/object
relation.
The Satipatthana Sutta, a Buddhist sutra from the
Buddha which teaches awareness, uses expressions such as "observing the
body in the body," "observing the feelings in the feelings," "observing
the mind in the mind," "observing the objects of mind in the objects of
mind." repeatedly. This means not separating oneself from the object of
observation, and see/experience that the Observer and the Observed is
one. Or to use a quote by Guru Padmasambhava,
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
Hope this becomes clearer for you.
If it is always 'there' and we can't discern it because of the 'distance', what exactly is this distance you are speaking of ?
The distance is the sense of someone inside the head, looking out at an object in a distance.
If there is no sense of a looker inside that is looking, then there cannot be a sense of distance between subject and object, observer and observed. Instead you are simply the bare sensate reality itself, the trees, the mountains, the sound, etc. There is seeing, but it is just the scenery that sees, the sound that hears, not someone inside your head that sees or looks outwards.
Absorption has no clarity.
So what if the person "merge" with the universe. Does this count as realisation of no-self ?
It depends on what you mean by absorption. It is possible to be absorbed in a state of pure awareness.
The notion that there is no clarity in absorption is also not in accords with what the Buddha taught, and is not the Buddhist kind of absorption, for example,
"And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure (sukha) and pain (dukkha)-- as with the earlier disappearance of elation and anxiety -- he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, with neither pleasure (sukha) nor pain (dukkha). He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body not pervaded by pure, bright awareness. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, and resolute, any memories and resolutions related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers and settles inwardly, grows unified and centered. This is how a contemplative develops mindfulness on the body."
However whatever the absorption is, even if it is non-dual absorption, even if one experiences clear bright all-pervasive awareness, it is still not the arising of insight that leads to liberation (the insight into anatta and emptiness), though it can become a support. It is only through insight that the bonds of 'self' can be removed. Otherwise, even if we can maintain nondual experience, it doesn't mean we are liberated.
So, no, merging with universe is a state of absorption, it is not insight or liberation or enlightenment. The experience is the same, but what is more crucial is whether the insight into anatta as a seal has arisen.
So can I say that no-self is a stateless state ? Or if realisation of no-self is the merging with the universe then can I say that the no-self state is the mother of all states ;-) ?
No-self is seeing there is no self that is observing the universe, there is just the universe. If there never was a separate seer or experiencer or observer apart from the observed from the beginning, there cannot be a merging.
Originally posted by JitKiat:忘我 (forget about yourself) is a momentary relief from strong attachment to self. It is a good state but a lesser state compared to Annata (non-attachment to self) achieved by the Arhat / others. If state of 忘我 allow very high achievement of artistic expression, imagine the power of being in Annata.
You're right that forgetting self is not Anatta.
However neither is Anatta non-attachment to self. Anatta is a dharma seal, it requires the arising of insights or realisation. When Anatta is realised as always so, then it is no longer mistaken a stage, and practice becomes effortless (no longer a sense of trying to reach a state of anatta since every experience is anatta), it is simply the ever present nature of reality.
When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self.
If thought of self arise, that too is anatta. There is no thinker apart from the thought.
If attachment to self arises, that too is anatta. That attachment is merely a thought without a thinker, without substance.
No coordinator controlling everything, things just emerge and subside on its own accord.
When the illusion of controllership is seen through, the attempt to control and grasp these ephemeral manifestations (as insubstantial as the wind) may subside. Whether it is seen through or not, anatta is always the case. When anatta is realised, there is no one attaining anything, no one practicing anything, and no one letting go of anything, since there is only spontaneous manifestation and subsidance of thoughts, sounds, sights, smells, etc... all happening on its own accord without an agent behind them. There is no attempt to practice 'being aware' or 'be the watcher' -- the universe is already self-aware. 'Awareness' is already 'practicing itself'. Is there a 'you' becoming more aware or is awareness already the case and having nothing to do with a self? Without effort, the bird chirps, the words appear on the screen, if that isn't awareness what is? Is there a 'you' becoming one with sound or is there just the that sound from the beginning?
All attempts and effort (to get rid of attachment, to be aware, etc) seems to be unnecessary, and if they arise, they are simply the manifestations of awareness without a center. You realise you can't do anything -- all actions, practice, and effort is what is 'being done' without a doer, all the manifestation of Buddha-Nature.
However, if this is not clearly seen to the end, efforting have no choice but to arise, as it still occurs for me sometimes (and sometimes not).
I have to add that spontaneous perfection or the insight of no-self, though must be understood, we cannot practice (or not-practice) this way (until we realise it). And anyway this is an insight, it is not about practicing or not practicing. Even though I have several glimpses of the experience of no-self or nondual even recently, I must state that 'spontaneous perfection' is quite beyond me now.
Last night I had a dream. I was back to the old school days, where we sit in classes and there's a whiteboard (or blackboard) in front of us. It was just after the exams. We received back our exam papers, where we are told to review and DO CORRECTIONS for our mistakes. However, I and a few others were just copying the correct answers from the whiteboard which my friend had written for us. The teacher came into the room and asked, "So what's the use if you copy the answers? Will you learn anything?"
Even within that dream, I already immediately understood the lesson of it: It is no use to copy others' insights. That is solely their own. We have to go through the process of understanding and assimilating what is being taught (in this case realising those insights ourselves).
Sadhu ! Sadhu ! Sadhu !
AEN is right. Anatta is not exactly non-attachment to self as that too is dualistic. However, it is probably a skillful mean to preach it to certain group of people. It is like in Pureland, it is normal to practise dualistic 事相念佛 first. 实相念佛 is beyond many people including myself.
Without duality, not the notion of duality, we cannot discern or discriminate.
Question: When you practice breathing as to focus starting with the your nose, putting away of the notion or concept of practise and focus on the act itself first.
As you breathe, do "sense" the nose or "breath" as air flows in and out. As focus intensifies, does the breathing takes precedent as you feel it flowing into throat to within your chest cavity. Or the focus shift into involuntary and concious breathing.Remember, regardless of your focus, the act of breathing continues.
Now, let's assume that prior to your practice, you applied some aftershave. The aftershave is on you, however, as it lingers, do you or do you not smell the fragrance. Why is sometimes you smell the fragrance, while at other time you are not?! Assuming you wear perfume to work, the thing is others always smell whenever you come near them. The point is discernment come from the difference smelling and not smelling. Does the notion then, associating and disassociating not arise?
Do you direct your focus or do focus what naturally arises? Also is there one awareness of the totality of everything in one instant, or does the awarenss comes in sequence, eg. chronological order?