Reflection no 328:
[For past reflections, see http://dharmafarer.org]
Making nothing of
it
We have all heard of the 3 characteristics of impermanence,
unsatisfactoriness and non-self. It is impossible for any of us, in our right
minds, to deny that everything in this universe is impermanent. Whatever is
impermanent is not satisfactory (or is suffering): we can never be fully
satisfied with such a thing, even if we tenaciously grasp to it. Indeed, we keep
grasping it because we are not satisfied with it!
Whatever is
impermanent and unsatisfactory entails that there is no abiding entity behind
it. It has no controlling factor, nor any kind of essence, whether we call it
God, soul, or whatever. Everything that exists is a process. There are no
entities. Of course, we may have concepts of an “entity,” but it is merely an
idea to discuss or communicate some other ideas with.
Very often, the
main hindrance to our understanding the higher reality that Buddhism or Buddhist
meditation offers us is that of language. The kind of language we use, the
kinds of questions we ask, often decide whether or not we will readily or really
understand the nature of true reality.
For example, we often tend to ask
questions like “Who created the world?” This is a loaded question, one that is
wrongly put. We assume it is a “who” (some kind of entity) that “creates” the
world. We assume that the world is “created,” and so we assume that there is
also a “creator.” The world is “evolving,” a process; we are all processes, we
are evolving beings. We are sets of conditions, physical and mental, working
together to produce results which in turn become new conditions, and so on and
on.
The problem is that whenever we assume something, especially about
someone or even about ourselves, the situation is never really what we have
assumed it to be. When we assume something to be “that,” it often turns out to
be something else. This is a more tricky aspect of impermanence that we are
troubled with but less likely to notice. Indeed, if we are able to notice this
guile of impermanence, we would surely understand ourselves and the world much
better.
Things are such that we cannot make sense of them unless we
accept that they are impermanent, changing and becoming other. Interestingly,
the key term here is “that.” We can rightly say, for example, “that’s the
way it is.” And leave it at that, but this is not easy if we do not really
understand what it is that we are letting go of.
Let’s use a simple figure: the hand takes the shape of
whatever it grasps. The process of seeing, for example, is explained as
the eye sending out some kind of rays which then takes the shape of what we see
and comes back with it. Similarly with thought: mental energy conforms
to its object (such as a thought) and then returns to the subject. Our idea is
“formed of that,” which in Pali is atam,mayata,[1] that is, the mental
energy of the experiencer is physically shaped by the thing experienced. In
modern terms, this may be said to be a representational view of perception.
The early Buddhist theory of
perception, on the other hand, is constructional. We cognize sense-data
through the sense-faculties, which are then perceived or recognized by checking
them, as it were, against a memory bank of past experiences, so that we can make
sense of it, form ideas and motivation for various actions. In other words, we
do not really see even a representation of the external world, but construct
our own private reality and live with that.
In simple terms, we can say
that an understanding of atam,mayata corrects our inner vision to see
things as they really are. Otherwise, we are constantly pushed ahead or pulled
back by the idea, “What is that?” meaning that something else out there is more
interesting or more real than what is in here.
Try examining this.
Thinking the mind is in the body, we say, “my mind” [pointing at the head] or
“my mind” [pointing at the chest (the body)]. “It’s all in my mind.” Actually,
it’s the other way around.
The mind is not in the body, but that
the body is in our mind! Even when we are in a body, “our” body,
we are not really there if we do not have a conception of “body.” We can only
truly know our body by constantly being mindful of it; then, we begin to know
what it really is.
What do we know about our body? We can see it. We can
hear it. We can smell it. We can touch it.
But, where does seeing
occur? In the mind.
Where does hearing
occur? In the mind.
Where does smelling
occur? In the mind.
Where does tasting
occur? In the mind.
Where do we feel
touch? In the mind.
When we think or know of
the body, we do so through the agency of our minds. We have never known
anything about our body except through our mind. So our entire life, from
the very first day, everything we have ever known about our body and the world
has happened in our mind. So, where is our body?
It
does not mean that there is no physical world, but all that we can meaningfully
say is that our experience of the body and of the world happens within our
minds. It does not happen anywhere else. It is all happening here, and in
this here-ness, that the world’s externality and separateness cease. When we
realize that the whole world is in this body of ours,[2] its thingness,
its thatness, its otherness, stop. We are better able to
see its true nature.
This shift of vision is a simple but useful
meditation tool we can use any time. It is very useful because it leads us on
to see the true reality of the matter. As it were, it turns our world inside
out, so that we are able to see that this body is indeed just a set of
perceptions, and everything is seen in proper perspective. It is all
happening right here in our minds.
Having said that, we are now
ready for atam,mayata to take us a step further. At first, atammayata makes us realize that there is really no “that,” only “this.” Then, as we
get used to this new level of reality, we soon realize that even the “this” is
meaningless, that is, we begin to see the duality of subject and object, or the
notions of self and other, as essentially meaningless.
In reality,
atammayata creates neither an objective observed “thing” known nor a
subjective “observer” knowing it. There is neither a representation (“thatness”) of reality nor a construction (“thisness”) of reality: there
is just true reality. It is the abandoning of the conceiving of
“thatness” and “thisness,” of the observer and the observed, of subject and
object, of duality. Hence, non-identification refers to the subjective
aspect and non-fabrication to the objective. True reality transcends
both.
Atammayata is the realization that, in reality, there
cannot be anything other than ultimate reality. There is neither this nor
that. In completely letting go of this and that, the whole
relative subject-object world, even at its subtlest level, dissolves away.
Transcending both these extremes of perception, atammayata refers
neither to a state where the mind does not “go out” to the object and occupy
it, nor to a fabricated virtual reality relative to the object. The roots of
duality have been pulled out. All we see is a spacious wholeness: this
realization is true wisdom and seeing wholeness is true
compassion.
With this kind of understanding, we will find that a
cryptic passage in the Malunkya,putta Sutta (S 35.95) becomes clearer, as
it is illustrative of atammayata:
”When, Malunkya,putta,
regarding what is seen, heard, sensed and cognized by you,
in the
seen there will only be the seen;
in the
heard there will only be the heard;
in the
sensed there will only be the sensed;
in the
cognized there will only be the cognized,
then,
Malunkya,putta, you are ‘not by that.’
When Malunkya,putta, you are ‘not
by that,’ then you will ‘not be therein’.
When,
Malunkya,putta, you are ‘not therein,’ then you will ‘be neither here nor
beyond nor in between the two’. (S
35.95.13/4:73), SD 5.9[3]
R328 Revisioning Buddhism RB85
[an
occasional re-look at the Buddha’s Example and Teachings]
Copyright by Piya
Tan ©2014
Good article. Posted this article and my comments in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/atammayata.html