Clarifying something about meditation
-
Hi,
I have been practising meditation on and off for the last 5 years. I have read enough books about enlightenment and meditation specially zen buddhism in general including joko beck, shunryu suzuki also other teachers like jiddu krishnamurti etc etc. But one think is still not clear to me regarding meditation. And I want to ask you guys specially AEN or thusness please because never before I stumbled upon "the awakening to reality", I have found such clear description of dharma or whatever it is that we are doing in the spritual world of buddhism.
My problem regarding meditation is that I am confused as to what to do while I sit in meditation. Because while I sit down, the first thing I notice is my thoughts i.e. what is going on mentally. At that point I can do one of the 2 things:
1 Either pay attention to sensations like breahting or listening to traffic which is nondual
or
2 no need to "intentionally" pay attention to breathing or listening, instead don't control the experience at all and let everything be as it is, including my thoughts. In such case, thoughts may go on and on for a while and it may go on the entirety of the meditation period.
at the end of type 1, I feel spacious
at the end of type 2, I feel lost
I hope I have managed to convey somewhat I am experiencing. So, ultimately it comes down to, do I intentionally let go of thoughts and feel sensations VS don't do anything at all just intentionally, if thoughts come, they come, if the commentary inside goes on and let it go on, don't need to intentionally let it go and follow sensations?
-
Hi, effortful concentration to induce temporary nondual state is common before awakening insight. When realization of nondual and anatta arise (that nondual and anatta is always already so: in seeing only sight never a seer), it is no longer a matter of effort or concentration, and every ordinary experience does become naturally nondual. Concentration is still important but no longer necessary to induce nondual states as nonduality is now seen and experienced as a natural state. Even thoughts is experienced as nondual (thinking without thinker, in thinking just radiant display of thoughts) instead of a hindrance, at this point there is no need to control thoughts or maintain a purest state of presence, only just the natural unfolding of non-dual self-luminous display. But before insight this is not quite possible. Just practice according to your capacity and contemplate on anatta so that insight can arise. Lastly in meditation, overcome agitation and lethargy. Agitation is a state where thoughts keep coming. In this case, practice dropping/letting go of everything - self, mind, body, stories, etc. This can lead to an experience of spacious opening. When you feel dull, lethargic etc, increase your mindfulness, alertness, clarity and feel/experience/observe each sensation or feeling as clearly as you can. Then eventually the state of spacious letting go, the intense luminous clarity, as well as the radiant nondual display, is fused as a single experience. Nondual clarity and sense of self has inversed proportion relationship. The more transparent you become, the more luminous phenomena is experienced. This is however still an experience and not an insight but good as a practice. If you had a glimpse or recognition of your intrinsic clarity, then rest and relax into that. But continue practicing into direct realization arise.
-
Just, lost everything I wrote down in the reply after clicking the "save reply button.
But to sum it up. Just to make sure I got it properly.
From the practice standpoint what is the difference between:
"intentionally feel/experience the breath" Vs "no intention except to just observe and let everything that happens happen"
and 2ndly, I am running a business full time. When I do have time, I do formal meditation and comtemplation but in general, how can I integrate practice more in my daily life without having a seprate compartment of meditation or contemplation? Why not simply throw myself completely at my work? instead of dwelling in non dual sensations of breathing why not dwell on nonduality of product development?
-
Hi timo82, just curious, are you from Singapore? My advise is focus on your work when you do work, then dedicate time to practicing mindful clarity. This can be done when walking or sitting (say, when you are going back home by car or mrt), or when doing sitting meditation. Instead of being distracted by thoughts, you can be in instant presence, you can also meditate in movement. Namkhai norbu rinpoche asks us to maintain the state of presence and alertness like when we are driving a car. In meditation, you can do mindfulness or breathe and bodily sensations or whatever you have been doing for sitting. When insight arises, naturally meditation and post-meditation becomes flattened and every ordinary activity becomes the actualization of buddha-nature. It becomes quite natural and effortless. But if you try to maintain nondual 24/7 before insight, this becomes impossible and a very strenous mental exercise and you will struggle. Therefore certain insights should arise as an aid. Then naturally product development is also an actualization of buddha-nature, as it is no longer a matter of directing the mind in a certain way - all activities are already implictly nondual in anatta. The first two posts are related to meditation: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/440368?page=1 Lastly, with regards to http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/262408 , do read this: Thusness: If you want to do that, you are going into mindfulness. That means you are slowly from impermanence seeing that things arises and ceases, leading to no-self, and then leading you to insight. That is the luminosity aspect already. Participant 1: It is the same thing? {inaudible} Thusness: Ok. This comes to the question of can effort lead to the effortless? You put in effort, can it lead to effortless? Participant 1: So it has eventually be so called natural? Thusness: Yes. It has to be as natural as possible. But you must understand many people got confused with the idea of being natural. Then they become lazy. {laughs} Being natural is not to laze around you know. Naturalness cannot be misunderstood as propensities and momentum. When we talk about being natural, it is the natural... Participant 1: Wu wei? (non-action) Thusness: (parts translated from Chinese) It is not wu-wei. It is a form of natural arising. Non-action is during the process of practice, natural arising is just continuing to manifest by itself. But when you say, I practise Wu-Wei, Wu-Wei is telling you to let go, but how to let go? There is no self, there is no way to let go. So when you come to understanding, there is not even a letting go. There is no self and everything is continuously manifesting. Participant 1: Then isnt it easy to lose yourself, because the propensities are so strong? Thusness: Ok, this is a very good question. Spontaneous arising cannot be taught first. You cannot tell people things just happen by itself. You cannot tell people to practise this way. Only after certain stage, when a person has seen non-duality, experienced the luminosity, experienced the passing and dissolving away, you can tell them. Because it is leading towards that already. But before that, if you tell them, they are being controlled by the momentum, merely swopped away only. It is very dangerous to tell people to just relax. Why do person said that? Because they failed to see the strength of what I call, pre-consciousness, the strength of propensities. You see what I mean? When you tell or teach a person just relax lah, just let everything manifest. You cant. A person that does this probably turns to being ultimate slacker. Didnt do anything. {laugh} Rather than practising, he is digging his own grave you know, enhancing the momentum. Why spontaneous arising is for a person that has understood (reality)... especially that he has gone through non-duality. He can do spontaneous arising. He can practise spontaneous arising. Why is this so? Because once a person enters into non-duality, the bond of the Self is already gone. A big chunk of the bond, the Self-propensities are already gone. And when this self propensities is gone, the energy turning against itself is being released, and work for itself. It does not die, you know. It is just released and then works for itself, rather than turning against itself. So only a person that has understood and experienced non-duality, it is better for him to penetrate spontaneous arising, to practice this way. Because can see.. {inaudible} there is no need to respond anything. Do you get what I mean? But if lets say you do not see it, like I said that everything is the Mind, but you did not see that everything is the Mind then you start to say dont need to do anything, you are letting your momentum take...
-
I mea, with regards to ""intentionally feel/experience the breath" Vs "no intention except to just observe and let everything that happens happen"" It is more of a question of effortless and effortful. But effortless practice can't be taught to everyone, it requires certain insight then one is on a pathless path
-
-
Dear Aen,
I don't live in singapore but I have been to singapore many times. I live in Bangladesh but go to KL, SG and BKK quite often. I understand when you say practic while in MRT. But I was wondering for a person, who has not come across any teaching at all. Who has only himself at his disposal, then putting effort to be non dual can only start with intention of gaining. I have a running commentary inside. I am not too sure, but I feel like I am in the I am phase. My work load does not let me spend too much time on these matters.
However, regardless of how much time I spend on comtemplation on these matters, I was wondering why run away from the voice/the commentary inside? Why follow the breath or listen to the traffic i.e. why dwell in sensations which we call "non dual"? I know you have talked about it and gave proper reason how it helps in terms of understanding the nature of reality. But AEN, I was wondering, if I don't do any meditation at all, neither sit in silence nor dwell in the nondual sensations, instead never run away from the sense of self inside, and investigate, go into, observe the unfolding of of "what is" in the present moment, isn't that the begining of self knowledge?
I have read jiddu krishnamurti and joko beck extensively. After constantly fighting inside I always fall back to what he says which is I can never escape from what is and
"why take a step away from the self to know the self" since no matter what I do, the center is already here. To know myself, the "book of oneself", as jiddu krishnamurti puts it, isn't is sufficient to simply be here and look at my reactions and relationships and the content of my consciousness...I am quoting jiddu here
"Now is there a means, a system, of knowing oneself? Any clever person, any philosopher, can invent a system, a method; but surely the following of a system will merely produce a result created by that system, will it not? If I follow a particular method of knowing myself, then I shall have the result which that system necessitates; but the result will obviously not be the understanding of myself. That is by following a method, a system, a means through which to know myself, I shape my thinking, my activities, according to a pattern; but the following of a pattern is not the understanding of oneself.
The First And Last Freedom 23 Jiddu Krishnamurti
CHAPTER5. CHAPTER4’SELF-KNOWLEDGE’
Therefore there is no method for self-knowledge. Seeking a method invariably implies the desire to attain some result - and that is what we all want. We follow authority - if not that of a person, then of a system, of an ideology - because we want a result which will be satisfactory, which will give us security. We really do not want to understand ourselves, our impulses and reactions, the whole process of our thinking, the conscious as well as the unconscious; we would rather pursue a system which assures us of a result. But the pursuit of a system is invariably the outcome of our desire for security, for certainty, and the result is obviously not the understanding of oneself. When we follow a method, we must have authorities - the teacher, the guru, the saviour, the Master - who will guarantee us what we desire; and surely that is not the way to self-knowledge."
and
"The understanding of oneself is not a result, a culmination; it is seeing oneself from moment to moment in the mirror of relationship - one’s relationship to property, to things, to people and to ideas. But we find it difficult to be alert, to be aware, and we prefer to dull our minds by following a method, by accepting authorities, superstitions and gratifying theories; so our minds become weary, exhausted and insensitive. Such a mind cannot be in a state of creativeness. That state of creativeness comes only when the self, which is the process of recognition and accumulation, ceases to be; because, after all, consciousness as the ‘me’ is the centre of recognition, and recognition is merely the process of the accumulation of experience.
"
AEN, have you read jiddu krishnamurti and joko beck? I find them conflicting in the sense that joko beck clearly emphasizes practice specially regular practice of being in silence but on the other hand Jiddu krishnamurti completely oblitereates any kind of practice at all. I get that having an experiential practice like zazen/shikantaza may translate into "right view", which is nondual experience pointing to "right view" instead of "right view" pointing to nondual experience.
But as jiddu calls it, without having the right view of not only "the self" "emptiness" "nonduality" but also everything else like the right view of 'livelihood", "marriage", "sex", "friendship" "society"; without having the right view of everything that life encompasses
can an individual ever free from suffereing?
-
Sorry for the late reply - difficult for me to write much on weekdays, I'm in camp and only have a phone with me, so the phone is my only source of internet on weekdays.
"However, regardless of how much time I spend on comtemplation on these matters, I was wondering why run away from the voice/the commentary inside?"
There is no need to run away from anything. If you try to run away, you simply create more resistance. But if you are being mindful and aware, the voice/commentary generally stops by its own accord. You do not need to force it to stop.
Why follow the breath or listen to the traffic i.e. why dwell in sensations which we call "non dual"?
No, every single manifestation without exception is already non dual, be it breath, traffic, or thoughts. Thought is also non-dual. There is absolutely nothing that is not already not non-dual. It simply needs to be realized as already always the case.
I know you have talked about it and gave proper reason how it helps in terms of understanding the nature of reality. But AEN, I was wondering, if I don't do any meditation at all, neither sit in silence nor dwell in the nondual sensations, instead never run away from the sense of self inside, and investigate, go into, observe the unfolding of of "what is" in the present moment, isn't that the begining of self knowledge?
Yes, but what is "what is"? We are so caught up in the stories and concepts that we do not know the actuality of "what is". That is why stripping off our concepts and being naked in observation is also important. Investigating and challenging our constructs, especially the construct of a self, is also of paramount importance. Then you realize that always already, every moment of manifestation is already implicitly non-dual as there is no self. There is no need to dwell in any particular state - because in anatta no state has ever not be non-dual, everything is it, every sensation and thought is the crystal clarity of Isness. Without all these realization, there can be no clarity of Isness.
What J Krishnamurti wrote about choiceless awareness is quite similar to Buddhism's mindfulness practice. Also, J Krishnamurti also speaks about no-self, but to actually realize it, you should do certain direct form of investigation into 'self'... when no-self is realized then it becomes quite clear.
JK: Thought creates the thinker. Thought is always seeking a permanent state, seeing its own state of transition or flux or impermanence, thought creates an entity which it calls the thinker, the atman, Paramatman, the soul-a higher and higher security. That is, thought creates an entity which it calls the observer, the experiencer, the permanent thinker, as distinct from the impermanent thought and the wide distance between two creates the conflict in time.
..........
So we are asking, is there a holistic awareness of all the senses, therefore, there is never asking for the 'more'. I wonder if you follow all this ?. Are we together in this even partially?. and where there is this total-fully aware-of all the senses, awareness of it-not you are aware of it....the awareness of the senses in themselves-then there is no center-in which there is awareness of the wholeness. If you consider it, you will see that to suppress the senses...is contradictory, conflicting, sorrowful....To understand the truth you must have complete sensitivity. Do you understand Sirs? Reality demands your whole being ; you must come to it with your body, mind, and heart as a total human being.........Insight is complete total attention....
When this is a fact not an idea, then dualism and division between observer and observed comes to an end. The observer is the observed-they are not separate states. The observer and the observed are a joint phenomenon and when you experience that directly, then you will find that the thing which you have dreaded as emptiness which makes you seek escape into various forms of sensation including religion-ceases and you are able to face it and be it.
-
AEN, have you read jiddu krishnamurti and joko beck? I find them conflicting in the sense that joko beck clearly emphasizes practice specially regular practice of being in silence but on the other hand Jiddu krishnamurti completely oblitereates any kind of practice at all.
2007:
(10:46 PM) Thusness: there cannot be any background to this experience....NO COMPROMISE
(10:46 PM) Thusness: the truth of no-self
(10:46 PM) Thusness: we see upside down
(10:47 PM) Thusness: impermanence also
(10:47 PM) ~Ukulele~: when u say 'one taste', the mind thinks, is it the sensation at the tip of the tongue. or not the tongue.... if it's sweet and sour pork....then is it the sweet taste or the sour taste or the sweet-sour one taste
(10:48 PM) Thusness: now...not to understand estimate all words we use
(10:48 PM) Thusness: when we say 'sound', 'taste'...
(10:48 PM) Thusness: immediately these words and symbols carry meanings
(10:49 PM) Thusness: they chain and link
(10:49 PM) Thusness: they have imprints
(10:49 PM) Thusness: therefore insight meditation is taught
(10:49 PM) ~Ukulele~: :)
(10:49 PM) Thusness: many underestimated the power of these 'bonds'
(10:49 PM) Thusness: prevent one from seeing...
(10:49 PM) Thusness: there is no true seeing...
(10:49 PM) AEN: icic..
(10:50 PM) Thusness: what are sensations?
(10:50 PM) Thusness: it is a word that carries certain meaning
(10:50 PM) Thusness: when we say 'taste' is a form of sensation...
(10:51 PM) Thusness: immediately we are bonded though we think we know what we are talking about.
(10:51 PM) Thusness: we only think...
(10:51 PM) Thusness: we do not know...
(10:51 PM) Thusness: we do not know a lot of things
(10:51 PM) Thusness: when we practice, we are not practicing to attain the ultimate
(10:51 PM) Thusness: there is nothing to attain
(10:52 PM) Thusness: we only attempt to create conditions to experience certain aspect of our pristine awareness
(10:52 PM) Thusness: when we put attention into mindfulness, into 'bare' attention
(10:53 PM) Thusness: 'seeing' bare, we actually give up other aspect of our pristine awareness
(10:53 PM) Thusness: that is the effortless spontaneity
(10:53 PM) Thusness: so when someone teach mindfulness
(10:54 PM) Thusness: he said put in effort to be bare in attention....he is not wrong
(10:54 PM) Thusness: when some one said no no no, gentle effort in being mindfulness and be bare in attention
(10:54 PM) Thusness: he is also not wrong
(10:55 PM) Thusness: for all these paths are truly pathless
(10:55 PM) Thusness: one that think he knows what is pathless doesn't really know.
(10:55 PM) Thusness: he thinks effortless is doing nothing, laze around
(10:55 PM) Thusness: and when he act, he thought that is effort
(10:55 PM) ~Ukulele~: LOL
(10:56 PM) Thusness: it is a misunderstanding of a dualistic mind. :)
(10:56 PM) Thusness: this is another tricky part of awareness
(10:56 PM) Thusness: its all pervadingness
(10:57 PM) Thusness: say that after u understand the 'Self' as everything, why need meditation
(10:57 PM) Thusness: and dogen said, must meditate, even buddha meditate
(10:58 PM) Thusness: and said though not necessary, still meditate
(10:58 PM) Thusness: keekekeke
(10:58 PM) Thusness: then said practice and enlightenment is one
(10:58 PM) Thusness: that is pathlessI get that having an experiential practice like zazen/shikantaza may translate into "right view", which is nondual experience pointing to "right view" instead of "right view" pointing to nondual experience.
No. Right view is not nondual experience. Right view is correct understanding of no-self: always already in seeing just the seen, no seer, in hearing just the sound, no hearer. Always already, all experiences are empty and dependently originates. This view of the twofold emptiness (self and objects) is correct view. And the direct realization of right view is enlightenment. Mere passing non-dual experience without realization of right view is merely a temporary state, that has nothing to do with enlightenment. But non-dual is absolutely effortless and seamless after anatta realization.
But as jiddu calls it, without having the right view of not only "the self" "emptiness" "nonduality" but also everything else like the right view of 'livelihood", "marriage", "sex", "friendship" "society"; without having the right view of everything that life encompasses
can an individual ever free from suffereing?
When right view is directly realized, every activity and moment becomes the actualization of right view. Every moment is luminous, non-dual, empty and self-releasing.
Ultimately only prajna wisdom and growing wisdom helps us to face life in a way that is most beneficial for oursleves and others. Growing wisdom is the wisdom that grows through life experience, and prajna wisdom is the realization of our true nature. Both are not the same and should be complemented.
For example, someone may have the best life wisdom and experience and tell you how to deal with livelihood, marriage, etc, but they may know nothing about spirituality. And someone who is spiritually wise may have no experience with marriage, sex, etc i.e. a monk.
-
Many good articles in http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk002.htm on 'The Buddha, Vipassana, J. Krishnamurti'
-
Something I always shared: "First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).
To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. 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. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically." -
Hello,
I have recently come across a paper entitled “Epistemology of J.Krishnamurti” that I have found very interesting. (http://unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/ipq/english/IPQ/21-25%20volumes/23%2003%20&%2004/PDF/23-3&4-9.pdf)
The author Arundhati Sardesai on the second page of the paper states that for Krishnamurti: “how” is of the dualistic mind, and it does not provide an effective solution. An Eternal Now says the same thing in the last paragraph of his last post.
The relevant section in“Epistemology of J.Krishnamurti”is:
Krishnamurti criticises methods, systems, and techniques of knowing, on the grounds that they depend on upon “How”. He points out that “How” suggests a thought process, a mental habit, an imitation and repetition. It is only a way of movement from the known to the known. The unknown on the contrary, requires a different source of solution, which is free from all dualism. Hence, according to him, all systems are useless so far as Truth is concerned.
On the second last page of the paper the author states Krishnamurti:
From Åšankara, takes the concept of non-duality Reality. From Buddhism, he borrows the idea of “no-soul” theory and theory of momentariness. But he transcends both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism.
I am interested to hear other people’s views on how Krishnamurti’s non-duality (usually expressed as “the observer is the observed”) differs from Buddhism and suchness.
-
Originally posted by Johnlane2003:
Hello,
I have recently come across a paper entitled “Epistemology of J.Krishnamurti” that I have found very interesting. (http://unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/ipq/english/IPQ/21-25%20volumes/23%2003%20&%2004/PDF/23-3&4-9.pdf)
The author Arundhati Sardesai on the second page of the paper states that for Krishnamurti: “how” is of the dualistic mind, and it does not provide an effective solution. An Eternal Now says the same thing in the last paragraph of his last post.
The relevant section in“Epistemology of J.Krishnamurti”is:
Krishnamurti criticises methods, systems, and techniques of knowing, on the grounds that they depend on upon “How”. He points out that “How” suggests a thought process, a mental habit, an imitation and repetition. It is only a way of movement from the known to the known. The unknown on the contrary, requires a different source of solution, which is free from all dualism. Hence, according to him, all systems are useless so far as Truth is concerned.
On the second last page of the paper the author states Krishnamurti:
From Åšankara, takes the concept of non-duality Reality. From Buddhism, he borrows the idea of “no-soul” theory and theory of momentariness. But he transcends both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism.
I am interested to hear other people’s views on how Krishnamurti’s non-duality (usually expressed as “the observer is the observed”) differs from Buddhism and suchness.
Yes, IMO 'how' / methods cannot lead into an immediate direct experience. However, methods may serve as an initial practice that may result in an insight later on.. but one cannot 'demand' an experience using a how/method and hope that a desired state will be experienced.
The sense of self (plus dualistic experience) is linked to desire/hope. All hows, whys, hopes and methods are the dualistic minds' assumption/desire of an idea of a person /I moving towards a desired experience/state/situation apart from the current moment.
'The observer is the observed' is also my understanding of non-duality. However, the realisation of emptiness is an insight different from non-duality.
-
For your method, a suggestable reading sutra is The Shurangama Sutra directly from Buddha himself. Ought to have a quo-an that has 'doubt' and could develop a universal supreme nature or Buddhahood. This doubt should not be carried in the mind and in conflict with other once developed. Engage on this quo-an while in meditation, calmly and peacefully. Quo-an can be any Buddha name. Hope its helpful
May you attain spontaneously to liberate all beings desperately in need, as like your case. The rationale for engaging in The Shurangama sutra as there is this delicacy and intricateness to be recognised wisdomly.
-
There is this equality that not all may agree with including religies and non religies but is in it reality.
The first person of this Trinity ('Ali) represents the Meaning of the Deity (Ma'na) which is the inner essence of God. The second person (Muhammad) is the Name or the Veil of Deity (Ism, Hijab) - its outward manifestation. The third person (Salman) is the Gate (Bab) of the Deity, through whom the true believer can gain an entrance to the mystery of the Godhead as revealed in 'Ali.
The first person, the Ma'na, is the real substance of God, the source and meaning of all things.
The founder of the 'Alawi sect was Abu Shu'ayb Muhammad ibn Nusayr (d.874), the "Gate" (Bab) to the eleventh Twelver Shi'a Imam Hasan al-'Askari. He deified 'Ali and his successors in his teachings which started in Persia and Iraq but was brought to Syria by al-Khasibi (d. 957) in the second part of the tenth century. There it took root and survived whilst other centers of the sect disappeared.
The heavens are worshipped as God's abode. 'Alawi worship of sun, moon and sky can be traced back to the Sabean sect, an ancient Aramaic community of upper Mesopotamia (Harran) who worshipped the sun, moon and the five planets. They believed that God had one essence but was multiple in his manifestations.
Like Twelver Shi'ites, the 'Alawis believe in the twelve Imams from 'Ali down to Muhammad the Mahdi, each of whom had a Gate (Bab) who served as the pathway leading believers to the Imam. The twelfth Imam disappeared leaving no Bab. This position was then claimed by ibn-Nusayr the founder of the 'Alawi faith. The Imams are seen as pre- existent heavenly spirits around God's throne who later descended to earth in physical bodies to lead humans in praise back to God.
The 'Alawi feasts include the general Muslim feasts of 'Id al-Fitr ( but without the fast of Ramadan) and 'Id al-Adha (without the pilgrimage to Mecca). From Shi'a Islam they celebrate 'Id al-Ghadir that commemorates 'Ali's nomination as successor to Muhammad, and the 'Ashura that commemorates the martyrdom of Hussein, 'Ali's son, at Karbala.
-
The view of a Self, source, and substance, is done away with by the realization of anatta and dependent origination. See: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html