_____ This lead me to my next point and i.e.
"knowing".______
Vipassana as it is taught now claimed that
knowing is only possible if we engage our perception. This
basically meant that when we are lifting our leg, in walking
meditation, we consciously tell ourselves
"lifting,lifting,forward,forward, down,down". We often forget
that "knowing" is actually a function of our consciousness and not
our perception. Without our consciousness skandha there will be no
knowing from all sensate input.
Yes, in Vipassana what is important is
the bare sensate reality, or awareness, or consciousness as you put
it. The ‘noting’ however can be a very useful tool, and is
emphasized in the Myanmar style Vipassana of the Mahasi Sayadaw
tradition. The enlightened teacher Daniel Ingram is a follower of
this technique and tradition. However personally I do not practice
the mental noting part – just bare observation of reality as it is.
I have however read somewhere that noting can be helpful up till
certain insight stages.
The mundane existence basically
consisted of just consciousness and content of thoughts and this is
our reality and therein also lies our "truth". We will fight
tooth and nail and today we have a few nuclear missles as well, to
defend these "truths".
Herzog is no different. The
challenge is to understand and then know for ourselves that reality
exist beyond the content of thoughts. The content of our thoughts
are merely the map of the terrain and this is not the terrain
itself. The terrain is beyond our actual perception (content
of thought).
_____This lead me to "subject-object dichotomy". ________
Our false self lies within the mental
factor (MN109). It is there that our sense of worth and value is
validated and affirmed on a daily basis. Psychologists argued that
a healthy sense of self is needed for us to be sane but it is
precisely that that will make us insane because this "healthy sense
of self" needed constant validation. Is it any wonder that ALL of
us unless you are an arahant or Buddha constantly go out to seek
affirmation and validation from others ? When that is
no longer available like when a powerful leader retires, researches
had shown that such a person literally went bonkers and they would
try all manner of ways to distract themselves. The sense of
loneliness experienced by the elderlies all over the world is a
result of this supposedly "healthy sense of self."
When I talk to "eternal
now" or Herzog I am actually not talking to "eternal now" or
Herzog. I am actually talking to an impression I have of "eternal
now" and Herzog in my mind. This impression is the "object"
that we hold in our mind and we always thought that this "object"
is really the person out there. All the petty hatred and
deluded silliness is directed at this "object" in our head.
This object exist in our head because of the false self, the
subject we beheld in our head. This subject or the impression that
we have of ourselves is the basis of how we see and engage with the
world. Basically, we are talking to ourselves all the time ;-)
For most of us this subject and objects are
frozen in space and time once it enters our mindstream. When we
hated someone we continue to hate someone until one day we realised
the silliness and stupidity of such an exercise. The subject
or false self for all intents and purposes are gelled after our
teenage years. As we go through life many objects continue to fill
up our map in our head. Instead of growing in understanding and
wisdom we grew more and more bitter and prejudicial. At every turn
of our life the subject, our false self, has to be validated or
else it would be rejected.
When we start to have the capacity of not
engaging with our delusions or the contents of our thoughts (Bhn A
in the picture I posted) the "energy" that feeds our delusions
through our engagement is now become a lot less.
Stream entry is achieved when the emotive
aspect, the mental formation skandha is very weak. One good
practice to achieve this is to just "watch" your thoughts without
engaging it. The moment you engage it you will feed the
delusion and these delusions have a "life" of its own. Buddha
recommended some practice on this. For example contemplating on the
goodness of Buddha. If you are not overcome by gratitude etc. it
meant that the "perception" had self-liberated. And this is
"perception in perception" and it went no where - lah 8-)
Yes I agree with your observations.
Subject-object thinking is the source of the three poisons and all
the sufferings that results. Reality in itself is
undivided/non-dual and is seemingly obscured by our subject-object
thinking. Yet, even these thoughts themselves are the non-dual
reality – as teacher Sailor Bob Adamson said,
"Subject-object
thinking seems to cover the natural state (awareness). But without
awareness, thinking could not take place. Because thinking appears
in awareness (like a cloud appears in the sky), realise that
thinking in essence is awareness. Understanding this, thinking
cannot obscure awareness".
And 14th
century Mahamudra teacher Dakpo Tashi Namgyal said,
Excerpt from
Pointing Out Innate
Thinking:
"Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved?
Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from
meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware
emptiness?"
If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had
not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set
to resolve this for a few days.
On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the
latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be
given the following pointing-out instruction:
"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to
dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by
meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the
indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this
seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought
dawns as dharmakaya.
"Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when
you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there
was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a
self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of
water and waves."
Hence the five
skandhas, which includes mental cognition, is in essence
Buddha-Nature itself, and though the content aspect of our thoughts
is illusory (they are simply stories and projections we tell
ourselves), the thought in itself is actually the aware-emptiness
of Buddha-nature – which is what Shurangama Sutra is eluding
to.
The five skandhas
including the mental factors are all made of awareness,
though insubstantial, nothing inherent, empty. So mental factors in
reality turns out to be the so called ‘True Self’, and as such a
dichotomy of false self vs. True self is broken down here, in the
sense that there is no part of the sensate reality including mental
factors that is not included in this all-encompassing non-dual
nature of reality or awareness. The entire manifest universe is
simply this One Seeing. It is not a seer seeing: scenery sees, no
seer. Sound hears, no hearer. As Guru Padmasambhava said: only a
naked manifest awareness without an observer. There is a good
article on the topic of true self and no self by Daniel Ingram,
called
No-Self vs. True Self.
However if by ‘false self’ you mean the dualistic, ‘separate self’
stories we tell ourselves, I’m fine with that
definition.
I have to
state though, even if we stop subject-object thinking, we still may
not experience non-dual awareness. Because we are so
habituated to subject-object experiencing, when we experience
Awareness, the Awareness becomes experienced as a separate
disassociated Subject/Observer/Witness. In fact it is always the
case at the beginning to experience awareness as observer. One who
have glimpses of this awareness may have the sense of awareness as
being the passive Eternal Watcher which remains unmoved and
indifferent while things just pass by. This is not the experience
of non-duality. At this phase Awareness is still experience
dualistically, as an inner witness ‘In Here’ while objects arise
and pass away externally. At this phase the practitioner will want
to practice ‘standing back’ to disassociate from everything and
enter the state of mere witnessing. There is still the illusion
that there is an ultimate Subject or Self that can ‘detach’ from
things.
However, further
insights into consciousness will reveal that what consciousness is
is not a detached witness, but rather it is a manifestation that
dependently originates. Not engaging/getting lost in the contents
of thoughts does not mean standing back as a detached Witness of
thoughts. It simply means experiencing sensate reality as it is
without subject/object perception and thinking. Even if thoughts
arise we simply observe or experience them as the energy, the
manifestation of Awareness – not as an observer observing it.
Actually sensate reality is already non-dual by nature, and is
spontaneously manifesting according to conditions. All sensations,
thoughts, manifestations, have the quality of knowingness – it is
pervaded by the clear luminous cognisant nature, and is not other
than it. That knowingness is not external to those
sensations.
It is not the disassocation from the senses but from the sense
objects. Sense objects(the objects that flowed from phassa -
contact - into mental factors) are a product of sense
input(the actual object out there) and contact with our
consciousness. It is the nutriments for the arising of sense
objects.
object --> sense organ -->
phassa(contact) ----> Sense object ---> Mental
factors
-->consciousness------------------------^
^------------------------------------------------------ |
^-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
This is based on MN109. Notice also how
mental factors flowed back into phassa and consciousness.
Vipassana is to help us weakened the
consciousness engagement with phassa. The flowing back from mental
factors into consciousness is our meta-cognition and this ability
of our consciousness has to be cultivated. It is our ability to
stand back.It is also the ability that gave us insights into our
false self. The liberating insight of false self came through
this path.
The direct flowing from object into our
consciousness is where our insights of the universe arises.
This is where insights of the universe arise from - the insight of
the emptiness of reality.
First of all, any form of
disassociation is illusory since it presupposes an ultimate Subject
(Witness/Observer/etc) that could disassociate from 'objects' seen
as external to himself. There is no such subject-object dichotomy.
In Buddhism, all sense consciousness are Not the agent that
observes external objects -- rather consciousness IS itself a
manifestation of cognizance inseparable from the conditions which
support that manifestation, which I will explain below. The view
that consciousness is a Witness that is experiencing an objective
universe is false, since in Buddhism consciousness IS the
experiential reality of the so called objective universe (which
isn't really objective) -- the 'universe' is in fact consciousness
itself. And the entire manifest display of the universe is
dependently originated. As such consciousness cannot disassociate
from objects, because consciousness is not a subject and the
universe not an object -- there is just the phenomenal universe
which is itself awareness.
http://www.anintroductiontoawareness.com/Awareness/Book.html
Awareness is not our consciousness of the world; instead, Awareness
is the phenomenal world. This seems to be counterintuitive because
of the way we presume awareness operates. We see it as being like
seeing, or hearing, or any of our other senses, somehow mirrored by
the organs within our bodies. We take it to be a kind of sensing or
percipiency. Thus some thing must be aware, sensing the world, like
a brain which somehow ‘sees’ what the eyes see and ‘hears’ what the
ears hear. It is easier to place this 'something' in the physical
body – even if we cannot locate it with any assurance, explain how
it works, or why it arises – than it is to say that Awareness is
the existence of the world. Deriving the world from Awareness is
much harder for us to contemplate. Some try to get free of the idea
of consciousness being locked-up in our heads by erroneously
proposing that the universe itself is aware. Others reduce
awareness to some phantom-like add-on to our neurological
processes. As you will discover reading through this book,
Awareness is not sensing, it is doing. It is this activity of
Awareness that we call "being" that gives rise to consciousness of
ourselves and the phenomenal world.
Also, not engaging
with delusions does not mean contact does not arise. In fact,
contact will always arise, along with resultant pleasant and
unpleasant feelings (not emotions as earlier stated, but sensate
feelings that are pleasant/unpleasant/neutral) and even Arhants
experience pleasant and unpleasant feelings. However, as I also
stated earlier, even though for the Arhant there is contact and
feelings, there is no craving – which means the three kinds of
craving: the craving for pleasures, the craving to get rid of
displeasure (i.e. aversion/anger), and the craving for existence.
Therefore it is taught that Arhants experience feelings but are
freed from defilements.
Though the
sensation and feelings of pleasure/displeasure arise for the
Arhant, he clearly comprehends them as they are without the sense
of being a separate feeler/experiencer, and clearly sees that
though feelings are present and vivid as clear awareness they are
in essence empty and dependently originated, ungraspable. And
hence, realising there is no separate ‘self’ to detach (or attach)
from those pleasures or displeasures, those feelings are simply
left as they are to arise and subside on their own accord without
leaving traces like the flight path of a bird or the drawing of
pictures on a pond. In other words: they self-liberates. A watcher
standing back watching thought arise and pass is not the
self-liberation that Dzogchen masters are talking about. In
observing thoughts and sensations as it is, there is no observer
and observed divisions, just clear awareness expressing as all
manifestations. There is no clinging, but also no detached
Witness.
At this point I
would like to go deeper into a point I made earlier, “what
consciousness is is not a detached witness, but rather it is a
manifestation that dependently originates” – this is a very special
and unique teaching to be found in Buddhism only. All other
traditions talk about Consciousness as a kind of metaphysical
essence, as an all powerful God like entity that is the unchanging
source of everything. Though Buddhism does not deny the presence of
clear vivid consciousness, we do not hold the view of a universal
Consciousness or Source (only individual
mindstream/consciousness/source). That means, we do not deny that
precious experience of the pure presence, being, awareness, that
Witnessing (not Witness) that is non-dual without subject/object
division. However we do not reify such experience into an
all-powerful ontological essence or Being or God/Brahman, some sort
of unchanging inherent existence/essence.
In one of the
suttas, Buddha reprimanded the monk Sati who thought of
Consciousness as the watcher and experiencer of things and as some
kind of inherent essence that moves from one body to another (the
atman, soul view) – and instead taught that Consciousness is simply
manifestation of cognizance that dependently originates, which
Dharma Dan has also clearly explained in the post on Rigpa and
Aggregates I posted earlier. Consciousness as defined by Buddha is
not an entity that feels and experiences but is simply the
manifestation of awareness/cognizance upon conditions.
Furthermore, what
the Buddha teach is that Consciousness is actually made up of six
kinds of consciousness which dependently originates (and this
should answer your question earlier whether eyes and ears are
involved in pure seeing and hearing), and this is clearly explained
in the http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
(The Longer Discourse on the Destruction of
Craving):
"Sati, what is
that consciousness?"
"Venerable sir,
it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the
results of good and evil actions done here and
there."
"Foolish man, to
whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I
taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen.
Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you,
foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as
well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you
will suffer for a long time."
Then the Blessed
One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this
this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this
dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."
When this was
said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat
with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One,
knowing that the bhikkhu Sati had become silent, unable to reply
back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned
down, told him: "Foolish man, you will be known on account of this
pernicious view; now I will question the bhikkhus on
this."
Then the Blessed
One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this
Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a
fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also
destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"
"No, venerable
sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises
dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of
consciousness."
"Good, bhikkhus!
Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have
taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause,
there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son
of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and
destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for
his suffering for a long time.
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is
reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If
consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as
eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is
reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it
arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of
tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue
consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is
reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and
mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness.
Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire
burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs
is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze
on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a
grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so
too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which
it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is
eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account
of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on
account of nose and smells is nose conscioussness. Consciousness
arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness.
Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body
consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and
mind-objects is mind consciousness.
"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has
arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by
That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support
ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable
sir."
(continued in
URL)
So understanding
this way, we see that there is no observer or watcher, Awareness is
simply a dependently originated manifestation and the question ‘Who
feels’, ‘Who clings’ etc are out of place – clinging happens
dependent on conditions. Non-attachment is simply the end of
clinging, and not a separate Witness detaching. Without self,
phenomena simply self liberates by its own accord, and this is
naturally experienced when there is deep insights into anatta and
shunyata.
This is well
explained in the sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...2.012.nypo.html
Note how in each case the Buddha rejects the question of 'Who'
as an assumption that is fundamentally wrong, and instead, inform
the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as
condition...?" and finally "With what as condition is there
birth/suffering?" (note that birth = 'becoming' in Pali
terms)
When we see
consciousness as dependently originated, we see that cognizance is
simply a natural spontaneous occurrence without observer-observed
split due to conditions. It’s totally natural – for example,
without needing effort of any kind, when the bird chirps and your
sense organs are functioning (the meeting/aggregation of the sense
organ and object as conditions), a manifestation of auditory
consciousness occurs – the sound of pure chirping, clear and vivid.
It happens naturally due to conditions – and you have no choice
about it! If you don’t like garbage smells, but when the wind blows
you have no choice but to smell that, because that is what the
conditions are there at the moment to give rise to a particular
manifestation of unpleasant smell. Awareness is happening
effortlessly and choicelessly as all these
sensations/manifestations due to dependent origination and it has
nothing to do with an inherent self or an observer. We cannot
separate Awareness apart from those dependently originated (empty)
manifestations, hence we see that there is nothing substantial and
inherent about consciousness.
However we will not be
able to truly realise and experience the full significance of
dependent origination until we have deep realisation of non-duality
and Anatta. Why? Because it is impossible to realise the dependent
origination of consciousness unless we are able to transcend the
view of Consciousness as a detached Witness, or an Inherent Self,
some kind of ontological essence. In other words we will not be
able to see dependent origination until we are able to overcome the
bond of duality/separation, and the bond of inherency (e.g. viewing
consciousness as an inherent self). There is nothing ontological
about consciousness -- it is dependently originated. However to
realise the D.O. fully we have to go step by step as Thusness told
me many times: First is the experience of I AMness or the Witness,
then we realise that the Witness is really a non-dual Witnessing
not divided into subject and object, then we realise that this
non-dual reality is in fact Anatta, empty of a self, nothing
ontological -- only manifestations, process, events. No universal
Brahman or a mirror that is unified with its contents. Then finally
we can realise the dependent origination and empty nature of
consciousness, and that is the Stage 6 out of Thusness's 7
stages.
Nothing is denied
about our luminous aware nature -- only an ever deepening
refinement of insights about the nature of awareness. So again,
first have direct experience of the dissolution of subject-object
duality into non-dual awareness first, then keep the experience,
but refine the view.
