The Experience of No-Self

Sgforumposter SG

from science point of view, eye and ear sense has it limitation. There is ultra viloet rays. can it be seen? There are sound beyond our hearing. can our ear hear?

If the eye can't see then it is not sight. If the ear can't hear then it is not sound.

From merriam-webster dictionary (online) :

sound :

1 a : a particular auditory impression

SevenEleven SG

If the eye can't see then it is not sight. If the ear can't hear then it is not sound.

From merriam-webster dictionary (online) :

sound :

1 a : a particular auditory impression

words have its limitation. You can't see gravity. does that mean gravity doesn't exist?

SevenEleven SG

There is eye, There is eye object. Only when there is contact between the 2 is there sight. How often have we pass by a scene without noticing what happened?

JitKiat SG

If you ask very good artists (musicians, painters etc). When they are totally absorbed into music, it is pretty close to a state where they forget about themselves.

艺术最高境界为忘我，忘我到无我就是禅

The highest achievement in Arts is forgetting about yourself. From forgetting about yourself to Annata (realization that concept of self is a delusion) is called Zen

SevenEleven SG

If you ask very good artists (musicians, painters etc). When they are totally absorbed into music, it is pretty close to a state where they forget about themselves.

艺术最高境界为忘我，忘我到无我就是禅

The highest achievement in Arts is forgetting about yourself. From forgetting about yourself to Annata (realization that concept of self is a delusion) is called Zen

forget yourself??? I thought it is the non-attachment of self

JitKiat SG

忘我 (forget about yourself) is a momentary relief from strong attachment to self. It is a good state but a lesser state compared to Annata (non-attachment to self) achieved by the Arhat / others. If state of 忘我 allow very high achievement of artistic expression, imagine the power of being in Annata.

SevenEleven SG

if you forget, there where is the awareness?

An Eternal Now SG

That was not my question. And all these meaningless verbiage is filled with impressive nonsense. Sights and sounds are function of eye and ear respectively. If there is no eye , no ear how could there be sights and sounds ?

It is nonsense only when you haven't experienced it, while I know exactly what non-dual experience is by experience. That's sad, especially the attitude of close mindedness on something that one hasn't experienced and having made the conclusions (e.g. that those are meaningless verbiage is filled with impressive nonsense) before finding out in one's experience. Just because you haven't experienced doesn't mean that it is not true and I hope you can be more open minded. How can anyone advance in practice with such attitudes which prevents the opportunity for direct experience? Are you here to learn or to argue with people for the sake of arguing before finding out for oneself? Do you think you can ridicule a direct experience that countless practitioners not limited to me have seen? I hope you don't take this personally, this is for everyone who is reading as I am aware that the experience of no-self when described in words can be quite unbelievable unless one has had some experiences with it.

Back to topic.

The eyes and the ears are not the seer or hearer, they are just one of the many conditions for a particular sight or sound to arise, and certainly not the only condition for sight and sound to arise. But when the sight arise, there is just that sight, there is no seer behind the sight. It is just the manifestation of pure awareness without separation into observer and observed, there is totally no distance at all.

One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way. Awareness is NOT a separate observer experiencing an objective universe. The so called universe is itself the manifestation of Awareness according to conditions without duality.

The notion 'who sees' is totally faulty as it presupposes some entity that sees. In Buddhism, no one sees, but there are conditions for manifestation, for sight. There is no denial of conditions (in fact this is emphasized in the teaching of Dependent Origination), but there is the denial of a separate agent or self behind or within manifestations.

Dwelling at Savatthi. "Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second; intellectual intention the third; and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.

When this was said, Ven.-Moliya-Phagguna said to the Blessed One, "Lord, who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feeds.' If I were to say 'feeds,' then 'Who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'Consciousness-nutriment for what?' And the valid answer is, 'Consciousness-nutriment for the production of future coming-into-being. When that has come into being and exists, then the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.'"

"Lord, who makes contact?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'makes contact.' If I were to say 'makes contact,' then 'Who makes contact?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes contact?' And the valid answer is, 'From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.'"

"Lord, who feels?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feels.' If I were to say 'feels,' then 'Who feels?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?' And the valid answer is, 'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.'"

"Lord, who craves?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'craves.' If I were to say 'craves,' then 'Who craves?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes craving?' And the valid answer is, 'From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.'"

"Lord, who clings?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'clings.' If I were to say 'clings,' then 'Who clings?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes clinging?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.1

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of the six sense media2 comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

"Lord, who takes sustenance?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'takes sustenance.' If I were to say 'takes sustenance,' then 'Who takes sustenance?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes sustenance?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes sustenance. From sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

An Eternal Now SG

I did not say an experience of oblivion but basically plunging into oblivion or perhaps more accurate "dissolving into oblivion". An experience always come from history and memory and would require an experiencer. All experience is then nothing more than living our delusions.

No, I am not talking about memories. I am talking about direct, non-conceptual experience of our bare sensate reality, prior to symbols, memories, thoughts, labels. If you haven't experienced this you haven't started your Vipassana practice.

If "everything is just 'there'" why can't we discern it ?

Non-dual experience is not a discernment from the perspective of knowledge or a separate observer.

The experience and realisation of No-Self is beyond any mental constructs that is perceivable from the mind. Therefore it is the "Mystery" -- yet it is not in opposition to Forms or Manifestation. It is not a form of subjective knowing. There is no person that perceives or understands no-self, nor an inner knower or witness that is aware of no-self, that would be contradictory. Rather, in the perceiving, just shapes, colours, sounds, no perceiver.

When looking at bamboo through the insight of no-self, we do not study a bamboo scientifically as a subjective observer, nor do we even observe the bamboo carefully from a distance as a separate self. Instead of experiencing bamboo from the viewpoint of a 'me', rather, from the bamboo experience the bamboo: totally no distance between me and bamboo. In other words, we enter into the mode of being where the bamboo is the bamboo itself, and from there to look at the pine tree and the bamboo. Everything becomes manifest in their suchness. It is Mystery because there is no separate observer studying it from a distance, rather, it is a mode of everything being itself, or rather in a dynamic state of becoming. There is no knower and it is not a form of subjective knowledge. Non-dual awareness is ultimately a Mystery since it cannot be made an object of observation or study by a subject since there is no subject/object relation.

The Satipatthana Sutta, a Buddhist sutra from the Buddha which teaches awareness, uses expressions such as "observing the body in the body," "observing the feelings in the feelings," "observing the mind in the mind," "observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind." repeatedly. This means not separating oneself from the object of observation, and see/experience that the Observer and the Observed is one. Or to use a quote by Guru Padmasambhava,

And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.

Hope this becomes clearer for you.

If it is always 'there' and we can't discern it because of the 'distance', what exactly is this distance you are speaking of ?

The distance is the sense of someone inside the head, looking out at an object in a distance.

If there is no sense of a looker inside that is looking, then there cannot be a sense of distance between subject and object, observer and observed. Instead you are simply the bare sensate reality itself, the trees, the mountains, the sound, etc. There is seeing, but it is just the scenery that sees, the sound that hears, not someone inside your head that sees or looks outwards.

Absorption has no clarity.

So what if the person "merge" with the universe. Does this count as realisation of no-self ?

It depends on what you mean by absorption. It is possible to be absorbed in a state of pure awareness.

The notion that there is no clarity in absorption is also not in accords with what the Buddha taught, and is not the Buddhist kind of absorption, for example,

"And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure (sukha) and pain (dukkha)-- as with the earlier disappearance of elation and anxiety -- he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, with neither pleasure (sukha) nor pain (dukkha). He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body not pervaded by pure, bright awareness. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, and resolute, any memories and resolutions related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers and settles inwardly, grows unified and centered. This is how a contemplative develops mindfulness on the body."

However whatever the absorption is, even if it is non-dual absorption, even if one experiences clear bright all-pervasive awareness, it is still not the arising of insight that leads to liberation (the insight into anatta and emptiness), though it can become a support. It is only through insight that the bonds of 'self' can be removed. Otherwise, even if we can maintain nondual experience, it doesn't mean we are liberated.

So, no, merging with universe is a state of absorption, it is not insight or liberation or enlightenment. The experience is the same, but what is more crucial is whether the insight into anatta as a seal has arisen.

So can I say that no-self is a stateless state ? Or if realisation of no-self is the merging with the universe then can I say that the no-self state is the mother of all states ;-) ?

No-self is seeing there is no self that is observing the universe, there is just the universe. If there never was a separate seer or experiencer or observer apart from the observed from the beginning, there cannot be a merging.

An Eternal Now SG

You're right that forgetting self is not Anatta.

However neither is Anatta non-attachment to self. Anatta is a dharma seal, it requires the arising of insights or realisation. When Anatta is realised as always so, then it is no longer mistaken a stage, and practice becomes effortless (no longer a sense of trying to reach a state of anatta since every experience is anatta), it is simply the ever present nature of reality.

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.

An Eternal Now SG

If thought of self arise, that too is anatta. There is no thinker apart from the thought.

If attachment to self arises, that too is anatta. That attachment is merely a thought without a thinker, without substance.

No coordinator controlling everything, things just emerge and subside on its own accord.

When the illusion of controllership is seen through, the attempt to control and grasp these ephemeral manifestations (as insubstantial as the wind) may subside. Whether it is seen through or not, anatta is always the case. When anatta is realised, there is no one attaining anything, no one practicing anything, and no one letting go of anything, since there is only spontaneous manifestation and subsidance of thoughts, sounds, sights, smells, etc... all happening on its own accord without an agent behind them. There is no attempt to practice 'being aware' or 'be the watcher' -- the universe is already self-aware. 'Awareness' is already 'practicing itself'. Is there a 'you' becoming more aware or is awareness already the case and having nothing to do with a self? Without effort, the bird chirps, the words appear on the screen, if that isn't awareness what is? Is there a 'you' becoming one with sound or is there just the that sound from the beginning?

All attempts and effort (to get rid of attachment, to be aware, etc) seems to be unnecessary, and if they arise, they are simply the manifestations of awareness without a center. You realise you can't do anything -- all actions, practice, and effort is what is 'being done' without a doer, all the manifestation of Buddha-Nature.

However, if this is not clearly seen to the end, efforting have no choice but to arise, as it still occurs for me sometimes (and sometimes not).

An Eternal Now SG

I have to add that spontaneous perfection or the insight of no-self, though must be understood, we cannot practice (or not-practice) this way (until we realise it). And anyway this is an insight, it is not about practicing or not practicing. Even though I have several glimpses of the experience of no-self or nondual even recently, I must state that 'spontaneous perfection' is quite beyond me now.

Last night I had a dream. I was back to the old school days, where we sit in classes and there's a whiteboard (or blackboard) in front of us. It was just after the exams. We received back our exam papers, where we are told to review and DO CORRECTIONS for our mistakes. However, I and a few others were just copying the correct answers from the whiteboard which my friend had written for us. The teacher came into the room and asked, "So what's the use if you copy the answers? Will you learn anything?"

Even within that dream, I already immediately understood the lesson of it: It is no use to copy others' insights. That is solely their own. We have to go through the process of understanding and assimilating what is being taught (in this case realising those insights ourselves).

Weychin SG

Sadhu ! Sadhu ! Sadhu !

JitKiat SG

AEN is right. Anatta is not exactly non-attachment to self as that too is dualistic. However, it is probably a skillful mean to preach it to certain group of people. It is like in Pureland, it is normal to practise dualistic 事相念佛 first. 实相念佛 is beyond many people including myself.

Weychin SG

Without duality, not the notion of duality, we cannot discern or discriminate.

Question: When you practice breathing as to focus starting with the your nose, putting away of the notion or concept of practise and focus on the act itself first.

As you breathe, do "sense" the nose or "breath" as air flows in and out. As focus intensifies, does the breathing takes precedent as you feel it flowing into throat to within your chest cavity. Or the focus shift into involuntary and concious breathing.Remember, regardless of your focus, the act of breathing continues.

Now, let's assume that prior to your practice, you applied some aftershave. The aftershave is on you, however, as it lingers, do you or do you not smell the fragrance. Why is sometimes you smell the fragrance, while at other time you are not?! Assuming you wear perfume to work, the thing is others always smell whenever you come near them. The point is discernment come from the difference smelling and not smelling. Does the notion then, associating and disassociating not arise?

Do you direct your focus or do focus what naturally arises? Also is there one awareness of the totality of everything in one instant, or does the awarenss comes in sequence, eg. chronological order?

JitKiat SG

Hmm... discrimination ...related quotes from Master Yin Shun's

現證的般若，名無分別智；證悟的法性，名無分別法性。在修習般若時，經中常說：不應念，不應取，不應分別。證悟的且不說，修習般若而不應念，不應取，不應分別，那怎麼修觀──分別，抉擇，尋思呢？這也難怪有些修持 [P365] 佛法的，勸人什麼都不要思量，直下體會去。也難怪有些人，以無觀察的無分別定，看作甚深無分別智證了！所以無論是無分別智證，無分別的觀慧，「真實」的「無分別」義，應善巧正解，切「勿」似是而非的，「流於邪」外的「計」執，故意與佛說的正觀為難！要知無分別的含義，是多種不同的，不能儱侗的誤解。如木，石，也是無分別的，這當然不是佛法所說的無分別了。無想定，心心所法都不起，也是無分別的，但這是外道。自然而然的不作意，也叫無分別，這也不能說是無分別慧。因為，無功用，不作意的無分別，有漏五識及睡悶等，都是那樣的。又二禪以上，無尋無思；這種無尋思的無分別，二禪以上都是的，也與無分別慧不同。所以慧學的無分別，不是不作意，不尋思，或不起心念等分別。那到底是什麼呢？「修習中觀行」的無分別，是以正觀而「無」那「自性」的「分別」；從自性分別不可得，而入於無分別法性的現證。

　　自性分別，是對於非真實而似真實的戲論相，著相而以為自性有的。上來已一再說到，自性有，是我我所執的著處；如起自性分別，就不能達我法空，而離我我所執了。所以，應分別，抉擇，觀察，此自性有是不可得的，一絲毫的自性有都沒有，才能盡離自性有分別。離此自性有分別，就是觀空──無自性分別。分別，不一定是自性分別，而分別自性分別不可得──空觀，不但不是執著，而且是通向離言無分別智證的大方便！經說的不應念，不應取，不應分別，是說：不應念自性有，不應如自性有而取，不應起自性有的分別。不是說修學般若，什麼都不念，不思，不分別。

Weychin SG

Just for laughs!,

Your last line of rendering, by taking it out of context, translated by google into:-

"Wisdom does not mean further studies, what not to study, not thinking ,not separately"

What if students were to read it?!! heh! heh!

JitKiat SG

Hah hah, that's why it will be a big challenge to translate Mahayana Sutras into English. That's why my kowtow respect to great translators like Kumarajiva & Xuan Zang.

Sgforumposter SG

words have its limitation. You can't see gravity. does that mean gravity doesn't exist?

You seem to have gone off track.

We were discussing sights and sounds in buddhist epistemology. You interjected with "things we could not see nor hear" and I replied with the meaning of "sight and sound" as is conventionally understood as well as in Buddhist epistemology we were discussing. .

Sgforumposter SG

Can or does an arahant have a sense of self ? If not how could he/she operate within the realm of perception ? False self is a product of mental factors (feelings, perception, mental formation).

If he/she a self but is not attached to it, wouldn't he/she be very forgetful ? Perception and mental formation are also dependent on memory and memory like-wise depended on it.

So was AEN right ? Or am I just been difficult and argumentative ;-) ?

« Previous Page Next Page »