Kannada on Anatta

An Eternal Now SG

Some online posts by 'kannada' on anatta.

...

After practice has developed over (what usually is) many years there need not be differentiated periods that are and are not

periods of meditation for life is resplendent with opportunities, easy to see if one is developed enough to notice. The outlook

of the mature practitioner is turned 180 degrees, no longer is there an 'I' who sees, an 'I' who hears, an 'I' who feels and so

forth for it is seeing that sees, hearing that hears, feeling that feels etc. The truth of Anatta is wholly imbibed in such a

practitioner. Samatha too occurs not only on the meditation mat but in any place, wherever the senses are withdrawn, be it for

a minute or several hours...

Regards
k"

"...My advice, for what it's worth, to czzling and/or anyone else interested, is that at the commencement of

practice, there should be no notion that an 'I' is to be held responsible for arisings or subsidings of mental content.

Therefore the follow-up notion of an 'I' who should attach to wholesome arisings, or detach from unwholesome arisings is made

redundent. This agency of an 'I' responsible for such notions (vrittis) is the antithesis of Dharma. Advice based on the notion

of the presence of such an agent is, to say the least, misleading.

(1:40 AM) AEN:    Such clarity leads to the meditative realizations that "arisings arise of themselves, no 'I' has created these

arisings, nor their subsidings." Furthermore, as practice extends into daily life it becomes blatantly obvious that not only is

there no thinker of thoughts, but also their is no actor of acts or doer of deeds. "Seeing sees but there is no 'self' seeing,

hearing hears but their is no 'self' hearing, tasting tastes but their is no 'self' tasting."

I hope that is practical enough for czzling... wink.gif

on nirvana:

Nirvana is the word used for the cessation of all states and all conditions. Being a 'human' (human being) is a state or

condition, so no human can be 'in' nirvana so obviously nirvana is not a destination for humans to reach or to be in, these are

just figures of speech that can be very misleading. As nirvana is not a destination we cannot be either near or far from

nirvana for nirvana is not a location in time or space, therefore no path can lead toward or away from nirvana. Nirvana cannot

possibly be a goal to be attained for the person who so 'attains' would by necessity need to cease to be in order to so attain

- conversley nirvana would need to be in itself a 'thing' (condition) to be so attained, hence nirvana would cease to be

nirvana by its presence as a thing-in-itself. The cessation or neutralization of an attaining non-self is of course a

contradiction in terms - a non-self cannot obviously cease to be.

In order to "see 'things' as they really are" there can be no asserted seer or self that sees, neither can

there be asserted 'things' (other) that are seen, only an undifferentiated seeing. It is imperative to understand that

conditions do not exist outside of the cognizing/conceptualizing mind that so asserts those conditions. In other words time,

space, causality, subject, object, this, that, self and other are all asserted via the cognitive processes and result through

the dream of conceptuality - these assertions are the subject matter of delusion - the opposite of nirvana.

Seeing "as is" is inherent capability of all cognizing minds hence it may be (loosely) said that "all beings

are in nirvana from the beginning" it is only when the next step of conceptualization is taken that the unconditioned becomes

the conditioned, the undifferentiated becomes differentiated. The non-conceptual mind does not make any such differentiations.

Hence there need not be a striving to attain but rather a ceasing to bifurcate or subdivide that which by nature is indivisible

- but appears to be divided by the conceptualizing mind. Open eyes see but do not divide what is seen from an assumed seer.

Open ears hear but do not divide the hearer from the heard etc etc. In cessation no concept can survive - not of 'nirvana' or

'seeker', of 'practitioner' nor 'attainer'...

k

----------

Time and space, cause and effect are all products of assertion - conceptuality. That is their only 'reality', that is their only 'truth'. What you/we/they/it are is only that. Without raising a concept could 'one' describe oneself? Assert what 'time' it is? Calculate the distance from an asserted 'a' to an asserted 'b'? Assert for whom 'karma' is consequential etc

----------

I did not say that "Buddhism is illogical". I said that "Buddhism's ultimate premise is alogical" or outside the bounds of logic. Illogic is contradiction, or A=B. There is much within Buddhism that conforms to logic - definition and description. Ultimately Buddhism does indeed points outside the bounds of any 'truth' asserted for all truths are conditions, nibbana is outside the bounds of all conditions, assertions, logic and 'truths'...

----------

In my view the best approach to practice is to drop the 'I' and 'other' notions... No 'I' that sees, just seeing. No 'I' that hears, just hearing etc etc Then drop the notions of 'seeing', 'hearing' etc. All in conformity with anatta. Couldn't be easier...

----------

Anatta means not (or non) self. A self is an 'existent' (existing as self), not-self is not existence for that self. Shunyata may be easier to understand for you as it is more direct in its negation. Shunyatta (shunya-atta) is derived from shunya (zuunya) means 'zero' atta means 'self' so shunyatta means 'zero-self' (not 'emptiness' as commonly interpreted).

All existents are products of assertion - that is the only way they can exist, definition distinguishes 'this' from 'that'. It is assertion that says 'I exist' for I know myself as 'I'. A tree or a brick do not (cannot) know of themselves as such, it is we who so assert them to be as 'brick' or 'tree'. Contradistinction asserts 'that' as seperate from 'myself' either implicitly or explicitly. 'That' object implies 'this' observer. Where contradistinction ceases both 'that' and 'this' cease to be together. This is a reversion from conditionality to unconditionality. The unconditioned 'arises' when conditionality ceases, just as darkness dissapears on sunrise.

A 'self' is a product of assertion, therein lies its existence. The assertions that constitute this 'self' are founded solely on delusion. Taking refuge in a 'self' is taking refuge in a delusion that owes its existence to its conceptual processes, when these processes cease the 'self' ceases. The Buddha and the Dharma are synonymous, each implies the other. The Dharma means 'as it is' or perhaps more accurately should be 'as is' for an 'it' implies thing-ness. Taking refuge in the Dharma simply means taking refuge in that clarity void of concepts - hopefully that will be your refuge for when those defining concepts cease there is no longer a 'me' to take refuge...

----------

(comments on someone's post)

All the above are concepts, views, positions, standpoints. Their validity is not in question, simply their existence as a barrier to meditation. Meditation is about dropping views, controversy and opinions. Opinions are fine the rest of the time but should not encroach into practice time where they are seen to arise, and subside and are not self.

Regardless of what practice one undertakes the motive force behind it is a detachment or a 'cessation of identification' to whatever arises. From the most inane comment to the most profound view, for in meditation they are both the heart and soul of delusion.

----------

It probably takes no more than a minute to clearly understand what is required. Mahakashyapa understood in an instant.
Let's take it from the top once again (sheesh!!) :bored:

No thought/concept = no 'I' / no "other"
'Seeing' sees - no-one seeing
'Hearing' hears - no-one hearing
'Tasting' tastes - no-one tasting
etc etc

Nowhere in the above is there an 'I' who sees, hears, tastes etc - other than the assertion of such. No 'self' to be 'deluded' or 'enlightened'. Delusion is acting upon illusion (self-ish-ness) as if it were 'real'. Seeking 'enlightenment' - 'awakening' - 'realization' - 'liberation' etc etc, for this self, this 'me', is the epitomy of vanity and the antithesis of Buddha-Dharma.

As David Godman once said in his commentary on one of Ramana's books... "...The ego (aham-kara) is subtle and tenacious, taking refuge in those attempts that are intended to destroy it - taking pride in humility and and enjoying austerity"...

So good to chat with you again
k :Namaste:

----------

Chris:::

The problem has nothing to do with 'struggling egos' but instead with a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dharma - a common and inherent problem.

Aham-kara is a 'functioning' of consciousness, not an entity. 'My ego' is double jeopardy, neither are existents, just appearances. The problem is doubly compounded with the introduction of the notion of 'MY ego' - an ego belonging to 'me'. Most assuredly there is neither an ego nor its owner, these are mental fabrications, nothing more.

Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, feeling, thinking, knowing, loving, hating etc are all ownerless processes - they arise, subside and are not-self... Where is the struggling ego my friend?

----------

Mind (Chitta or Manas) is not produced. Mind is involute as form (Rupa) and evolute as consciousness (Chitta).

Mind (Chitti) is expressed through the psychosomatic processes as 'self' and 'other' awareness, as reasoning, intelligence, thought, imagining etc.

The remotest speck of dust in the furthest corner of the universe (getting all poetical here) is mind in its involutionary 'phase' ('involved within form, as form'). Mind is said (by some) to evolve outside of the identification with form as pure-awareness or pure-being.

However... The above is a 'view', a conceptual standpoint nothing more. Mind in this sense is a product of mind, a product of itself in order to understand itself – and a 'self' it is not. Indeed it is not and cannot be subject to its own understanding.

Best wishes

k

----------

I'm with Retro,

Nibbana/Nirvana = Cessation of conditions, the 'unconditioned'. As Nirvana is the absence of conditions it is not in itself a condition, hence it cannot be either permanent nor impermanent as it is not a thing subject to conditions. GHD (attraction, aversion and delusion) are conditions and hence there cessation is nirvana - the unconditioned. The 'self' and 'other' are conditions, hence their cessation is nirvana - the unconditioned.

k

----------

Rev Nonin Hi,

Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify, I don't belong to or adhere to any branch of Buddhism. I thoroughly enjoy them all. So my comments are based on my own understanding and not meant to proselytize a particular view. I am ever the learner and enjoy reading your views.

It is curious that you say nirvana is impermanent because the mental states are. To me nirvana is not so much dependent on the mental states per-se but on the conceptual overlay which produces the dharmas (in the sense of 'thingness') of 'I' and 'other'. Absence of this 'thingness' is nirvana (subject-less-ness and object-less-ness). The erradication of mental states is what happens in samatha meditation.

The primary definition of 'nirvana(H) is "A treeless land", I believe the word to be related to "savannah" (A flat grassland in tropical or subtropical regions). The peculiar reference to "a treeless land" I believe to be due to the absence of 'marks' or distinguishing characteristics, in other words concept-less-ness.

kannada

    Posts: 104
    Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:38 pm

----------

Hi Carol,

I hope you don't mind a comment from me.

As the self is just an appearance and not real (actual), all experiences are without self - just the assertion/assumption of one.

Regards

k

-----------

Hi Carol,

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, the Hindus call it "Hridya Granthi" - The knot of the Heart... I no longer refer to 'realities' or 'absolutes' - there aren't any - for me anyway.

I hope you don't think I'm preaching... I used to think all this nirvana 'no self' / 'no other' thing was so complicated, then oneday in the midst of 'doing' it occured to me that there was just a 'doing', it wasn't 'me' that was doing, it wasn't anything doing, just action - plain, pure and simple. The problem was that thought would jump into the activity. It would say that 'I' was sweeping the floors, or washing the dishes or whatever. Thought would not only define 'me' but it would define what was done and the process involved.

After learning to drop thought (by paying attention to the space between thoughts) all this naming ceased to be, no sweeper or washer, no sweeping or washing, no thing swept or washed, just peace where all activity continues unhindered and undefined. It seems to be a default setting for us humans to overlay existence or life with a continuous running commentary, an everlasting set of definitions just in case we may cease to be if the definitions fall silent.

I don't try to figure it out anymore, I don't think in terms of Dharma or nirvana or reality or work toward a goal - Buddhist or otherwise, it is far less of a hassle to drop it all, to give up the continuous mental machinations and simply leave it be - enough is enough. Of course the curse of over-thinking (uninvited thought) still arises but now there's an escape route, a knowing of what need be done when it all gets too much.

I wouldn't call it 'nirvana', Theravadin or Zen, but it is a cessation of sorts, and a very nice one at that...

Regards

k

-----------

Cessation is merely the cessation of that which never existed except in the imagination. Dropping the self/other notions does not leave a cold lifeless, emotionless shell. It simply removes the imaginary ownership of arisings. Feelings of warmth, love, caring etc still arise but as ownerless processes untill their antecedent causes (as samskaras and vasanas) subside. The imaginary notion that a self is responsible for these arisings is completely erroneous.

-----------

Hi Carol.

    "Hmmmmm.... another one of those Zen connundrums like effortless effort.... throughtless thought? "

Absolutely not, no conundrum here :lol2: . The ultimate insanity of 'I' from which all other insanities arise as 'other'. Thought constructing a notion of itself, standing apart from itself in order to judge itself. This is what was referred to as “thought, judging thought, in the context of its own thinking”. This is what we humans refer to as 'normal'.

    "Identification may be a "problem" ... but it arises so naturally, seems to come with the territory. "

(General comment) Yes of course it feels natural because delusion* is well rehearsed from infancy and beyond. We are expertly trained to identify nama with rupa – that the word 'water' stands for that which quenches the thirst, the word 'food' stands for that which satisfies hunger, the word 'I' stands for that psychophysical functioning we refer to as 'our-selves'.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but when the label becomes the thing it represents then seemingly insurmountable problems arise, for then 'I'' becomes the collective history (my history) of all these past experiences. No longer are those experiences mere impersonal arisings and subsidings, they become an integral part of a fabricated 'self' - myself.

When this occurs a further process of self-selectivity occurs, 'I' encourages certain notions of who I assume, imagine, or want itself to be and dismiss those aspects of 'itself' that become 'inconvenient' to recall. It is also prudent to remember that this process shifts, depending on the company it keeps. 'I' am one thing to my family, another to my workmates, another to my friends etc. There is a multiplicity of 'I's' ready and waiting to leap into action, depending on the circumstances that arise.

* For present purposes delusion is defined as “acting upon an illusion as if it were real”. A common example is the rope seen in the twilight and mistaken for a snake – giving way to fear. Mistaking the rope for a snake is the illusion, acting upon the illusion (showing fear) is the delusion.

    "The concept of no-self gets in the way for me. There is a lot of very cold language that has built up around it, and I get quite recalcitrant. "

Life viewed without definitions of 'self' and 'other' is life viewed completely, in its entirety, commensurate with the perceiving senses. No boundaries, no preferences, no discriminations, all perceived without the intermediary of the thick fog of conceptuality. Arisings arise, love, hate, anger, frustration, peace, calm. All there, nothing stolen, just seen in its entirety without defining labels – not even the label 'arisings'.

    "The imaginary notion of a self ... is perhaps no more imaginary than the knot of the Heart. "

The notion of self / other is the ultimate delusion. Dharma teachings are like an inoculation to overcome the dis-ease of delusion. Concepts are prepared in the laboratory of the 'awakened mind' then injected (introjected) into the aspirants system through 'right understanding' of Dharma and most importantly through the dropping of delusion - in accordance with the those teachings.

Best wishes

k

kannada

    Posts: 104
    Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:38 pm