I wrote this article half a year ago... hope it helps.
Note: You can also see my complete journal of self-discoveries at
http://www.box.net/shared/3verpiao63
Originally posted by simpo_:
Hi Beautiful951,
Firstly, I will like to state that i am still learning so can
only share from my own opinion. Please read with a pint of
salt.
Emptiness is not a belief but an insight that can be borne from
experience. It is better to experience it for oneself as
before and after the insight, it can still be
'unbelievable' for the mind. Emptiness is quite
hard to experience and usually the realisation
of no-self comes before emptiness.
As mentioned, no-self will be easier to realise. I will describe
the insight of no-self/egolessness generally here.
When doing insight meditation one may realise
that the sensory experiences (including mental
formation/thinking) are arising and passing away
independently of one another. That is, seeing is seeing, hearing is
hearing, thinking is thinking and they are all
flowing independently. With that observation,
one will realise that there is no self holding
all these sensory experiences together. Self
that we originally assumed, is just these sensory experiences
arising and passing away and the attention focusing on
them.
As for emptiness, it requires a deeper penetration into
consciousness. Emptiness reveals that everying is not physical
and solid at all... but are 'holographically
united'. There is no way to accurately describe
it as it is not the way a mind unaware to it
will think. Like the first insight of no-self, emptiness is a
paradigm shift... towards ever clearer seeing of the truth
of Reality.
Please understand that seeing emptiness is not end of story. At
least, not for my case. I am currently working on the
remaining defilements. This doesn't meant that i
will need to forcefully remove them. Forceful
willing will only result in suppression. Rather,
the 'method' is to be aware of and be equanimous to whatever that is arising in order for them
to pass away naturally. This 'aware of' is not
as easy as it sounds.
Regards
Thanks for the sharing...
I was reminded of Bahiya Sutta while you said 'seeing is seeing'...
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html 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) -----
My own comments:
Non-duality is very simple and obvious and direct... and yet
always missed! Due to a very fundamental flaw in our
ordinary dualistic framework of things... and
our deep rooted belief in duality.
In the seen, there is just the seen! It is completely
non-dual... there is no 'the seen + a perceiver here seeing the
seen'.... The seen is precisely the seeing! There
is not two or three things: seer, seeing, and
the seen. That split is entirely conceptual
(though taken to be reality)... it is a conclusion due
to a referencing back of a direct experience (like a sight or a
sound) to a centerpoint. This centerpoint could
be a vague identification and contraction to
one's mind and body (and this 'center of
identification within the body' could be like two inches
behind your eyes or on the lower body or elsewhere), or the
centerpoint could be an identification with a
previous nondual recognition or authentication
like the I AM or Eternal Witness
experience/realization. It could even be that one has gained
sufficient stability to simply rest in the state of
formless Beingness throughout all experiences,
but if they cling to their formless samadhi or a
'purest state of Presence', they will miss the
fact that they are not just the formless pure existence but
that they are/existence is also all the stuff of the
universe arising moment to moment... And when
one identifies oneself as this entity that is
behind and separated from the seen, this prevents
the direct experience of what manifestation and no-self is.
But in direct experience it is simply not like that: there is
nothing like subject-object duality in direct
experience.... only This - seen, heard, sensed,
cognized. Prior to self-referencing, this is
what exists in its primordial purity.
So, in the seen, there's just That! Scenery, trees, road, etc...
but when I label these as such, instead of putting a
more subjective term such as 'experiencing'....
they tend to conjure images of an objective
world that is 'out there' made of multiple
different objects existing in time and space separated by
distances.
But no, the Buddha says: in the seen, just the seen! There is no
thing 'here' (apart from the seen).... nor something
'there' (as if the seen is an objective reality
out there). From the perspective of the logical
framework of things, the world is made of distance,
depth, entities, objects, time, space, and so on, but if you take
away the reference point of a self... there is
simply Pure Consciousness of What Is (whatever
manifests) without distance or fragmentation.
You need at least two reference points to measure
distance... but all reference points (be it of an apparent
subjective self or an apparent external object) are
entirely illusory and conceptual. If there is no
'self' here, and that you are equally
everything... what distance is there? Without a self,
there is no 'out there'...
The seen is neither subjective nor objective.... it just IS....
There is pure seeing, pure hearing, everything arising without
an external reference other than the scenery being the
seeing without seer, the sound being the hearing
without hearer (and vice versa: the hearing
being just the sound, the manifestation).
But even the word 'hearing', 'seeing', 'awareness' can conjure
an image of what Awareness is.... As if there is really
an entity called 'hearing' or 'seeing' or
'awareness' that remains and stays constant and
unchanged.
But.... if you contemplate on "How am I experiencing the moment
of being alive?", or, "How am I experiencing the moment
of hearing?", or "How am I experiencing the
moment of seeing?" or "How am I experiencing the
moment of being aware?"
All the bullshit concepts, constructs and images of an
'aliveness', a 'hearing', a 'seeing', an 'awareness' simply
dissolves in the direct experiencing of whatever
arises... just 'seeing is seeing, hearing is
hearing, thinking is thinking and they are all
flowing independently', with 'no self holding all
these sensory experiences together'.
If readers find my explanation a bit too hard to grasp, please
read Ajahn Amaro's link because he explains it much
better than me.
