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