Hello all,
I could like to touch on the concept of duality.
Define/what is thought projection ?
Interesting topic.
Longchen posted two very good articles at Very good articles on
mental activities last , and one of them is dealing with that
question you are asking. I highly recommend that you read through
the article. The article related here is: 1. Recognizing Different Levels of Mental Activity
and Appearance-Making
To put it very shortly, we project on whatever appearances
arises. And as the site explains,
"The conceptual categories that conceptual cognition
fabricates are cognitive representations snang-ba, mental
appearances) not only of what things are (words, meanings, wholes,
continuums, objects, kinds of things, and so on), but also of
things truly existing in that way. Truly existing (bden-par
grub-pa), here, means really existing in that way,
independently of imputation."
And because we think that they are truly existing in the
'really-out-there' kind of way, independent of imputation, instead
of everything being merely manifestation of the Mind (and I mean
our true nature -- luminous-emptiness), we perceive duality. And
this projection is hypnotic, we believe that it is absolutely true,
just as within a dream we believe the dream to be true and the
objects involved in the dream to be absolutely true.
Why duality actually create suffering ?
It is the split, the separation that causes suffering as well
the arising of desire, as well as clinging.
Without the insight that there is no-split, the mind continues to
divide. Desire is an inner deficiency of the mind created to bridge
the gap of separation. But it is precisely this attempt to bridge
the gap that is perpetuating the gap, and so we suffer. Aversion is
the inner deficiency of the mind created that negatively reacts
with or seeks to escape/widen the gap/split from a perceived object
due to falsely projecting reality on 'external objects' deemed as
unpleasant, etc... but that will never work because the split
doesn't exist, but the way we hold our minds as we try to get away
from that side is painful. There is only ever the present
appearance of life, with no one at its core who could ever escape
even if they wanted to. Indeed, all attempts to escape merely serve
to reinforce suffering and separation.
When Anatta and Anicca is fully seen, it is seen there is no
phenomena graspable nor is there a separate subject/self that can
pursue or reject something apparently 'external to himself', which
he/she can have a relation with or be at the mercy of the pain...
and hence, Dispassion arises. Hence freedom from suffering is
achieved, illusion of separation and split ended. The three poisons
of desire, aversion, and ignorance is ended.
Question: When we are watching the movie ?
Where is this mind ?
A) It is in ourselves ( is it at the base of
the heart ? )
B) It is on the movie screen when we are watching the movie
C) Neither and where and why ??
This is exactly the same as asking, where is my self?
Non-duality tells you that there is no self/perceiver apart from
the perceived. When watching movie, there is just the seeing of the
movie, and that seeing is inseparable from colours, from the known.
There is no seer that sees, the images sees. And that is Mind.
Everything is Mind, but 'where' does not apply, because 'Mind' is
not an entity that is located anywhere.
Even to say 'everything' is also a conventional way to put it --
not to be mistaken that there is truly a 'something', cos there is
really nothing graspable! All appearances are simply in a state of
constant be-coming, evolving according to conditions, like rain
falling, wind blowing, river flowing, 'everything' has no essence,
no 'thingness'. Rain has no essence, there is only falling, wind
has no essence, it is just blowing, river has no essence, there is
just flowing. A constant state of evolving according to conditions.
Merely a luminous-empty appearance. And that is all there is, all
are the manifestation of Mind.
As Thusness said in http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/262408
The reason they said Awareness (Mind), is because Awareness
is not an entity. It is not a thing. It is just a point of luminous
clarity. It is just clarity. But because we are so accustomed to
thinking things in terms of object and subject, we always take
Awareness as something. It must be somewhere inside, residing
somewhere. Even if it is not residing inside the body it must be
somewhere, someplace. This is the problem, you see. So when you say
that lets be aware. We always think of how? How to be aware?
When we say where is awareness, they always look for a place,
they always look for a something. This is how the mind react, this
is what I call a momentum. They always behave this way. They do not
know how to say Just do nothing. Everything is expressing itself
by clarity. They always want to react, you see what I
mean?
Anyway, the following is written by Ajahn Amaro on the teachings
of Non-Duality by Buddha, as well as being a great description of
Stages 5 & 6 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience
Ancient Teachings on Nonabiding
This principle of nonabiding is also contained within the
ancient
Theravada teachings. It wasn’t just Ajahn Chah’s personal
insight
or the legacy of some stray Nyingmapa lama who wandered
over the mountains and fetched up in northeast Thailand 100
years ago. Right in the Pali Canon, the Buddha points
directly
to this. In the Udana (the
collection of “Inspired Utterances”
of the Buddha), he says:
There is that sphere of being
where there is no earth,
no water, no fire, nor wind; no
experience of infinity
of space, of infinity of
consciousness, of no-thingness,
or even of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception; here
there is neither this world nor
another world, neither
moon nor sun; this sphere of
being I call neither a coming
nor a going nor a staying still,
neither a dying nor
a reappearance; it has no basis,
no evolution, and no
support: it is the end of dukkha.
(ud. 8.1)
Rigpa, nondual awareness,
is the direct knowing of this. It’s
the quality of mind that knows, while abiding nowhere.
Another teaching from the same collection recounts the story
of a wanderer named Bahiya. He stopped the Buddha on the
street in Savatthi and said, “Venerable Sir, you are the
Samana
Gotama. Your Dharma is famous throughout the land. Please
teach me that I may understand the truth.”
The Buddha replied, “We’re on our almsround, Bahiya. This is
not the right time.”
“Life is uncertain, Venerable Sir. We never know when we are
going to die; please teach me the Dharma.”
This dialogue repeats itself three times. Three times over,
the
Buddha says the same thing, and Bahiya responds in the same
way. Finally, the Buddha says, “When a Tathagata is pressed
three times, he has to answer. Listen carefully, Bahiya, and
attend to what I say:
In the seen, there is only the
seen,
in the heard, there is only the
heard,
in the sensed, there is only the
sensed,
in the cognized, there is only
the cognized.
Thus you should see
that
indeed there is no thing
here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should
train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for
you
in the seen, only the
seen,
in the heard, only the
heard,
in the sensed, only the
sensed,
in the cognized, only the
cognized,
and you see that there is no
thing here,
you will therefore see
that
indeed there is no thing
there.
As you see that there is no thing
there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither
in the world of this,
nor in the world of
that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of
suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
Upon hearing these words, Bahiya was immediately enlightened.
Moments later he was killed by a runaway cow. So he was
right: life is uncertain. Later Bahiya was awarded the title
of
“The Disciple Who Understood the Teaching Most Quickly.”
“Where” Does Not
Apply
What does it mean to say, “There is no thing there”? It is talking
about the realm of the object; it implies that we recognize
that
“the seen is merely the seen.” That’s it. There are forms,
shapes,
colors, and so forth, but there is no thing there. There is no real
substance, no solidity, and no self-existent reality. All there
is,
is the quality of experience itself. No more, no less. There is
just
seeing, hearing, feeling, sensing, cognizing. And the mind
naming
it all is also just another experience: “the space of the
Dharma hall,” “Ajahn Amaro’s voice,” “here is the thought,
‘Am I understanding this?’ Now another thought, ‘Am I not
understanding this?’”
There is what is seen, heard, tasted, and so on, but there is
no
thing-ness, no solid, independent entity that this experience
refers to.
As this insight matures, not only do we realize that there is
no thing “out there,” but we also realize there is no solid
thing
“in here,” no independent and fixed entity that is the
experiencer.
This is talking about the realm of the subject.
The practice of nonabiding is a process of emptying out the
objective and subjective domains, truly seeing that both the
object and subject are intrinsically empty. If we can see that
both
the subjective and objective are empty, if there’s no real
“in
here” or “out there,” where could the feeling of I-ness and
meness
and my-ness locate itself? As the Buddha said to Bahiya,
“You will not be able to find your self either in the world of
this
[subject] or in the world of that [object] or anywhere
between
the two.”
There is a similar and much lengthier exchange between the
Buddha and Ânanda in the Shurangama Sutra, which is a
text
much referred to in the Ch’an school of the Chinese
tradition.
For pages and pages the Buddha asks Ânanda, in multifarious
ways, if he can define exactly where his mind is. No matter
how
hard he tries, Ânanda cannot establish it precisely.
Eventually
he is forced to the conclusion that “I cannot find my mind
anywhere.”
But the Buddha says, “Your mind does exist, though,
doesn’t it?”
Ânanda is finally drawn to the conclusion that “where” does
not apply.
Aha!
This is the point that these teachings on nonabiding are
trying
to draw us to. The whole concept and construct of where-ness,
the act of conceiving ourselves as this individual entity
living
at this spot in space and time, is a presumption. And it’s only
by
frustrating our habitual judgments in this way that we’re
forced
into loosening our grip.
This view of things pulls the plug, takes the props away,
and,
above all, shakes up our standard frames of reference. This
is
exactly what Ajahn Chah did with people when he asked, “If
you
can’t go forward and you can’t go back and you can’t stand
still,
where can you go?” He was pointing to the place of
nonabiding:
the timeless, selfless quality that is independent of
location.
Interestingly enough, some current scientific research has
also reached a comparable conclusion about the fundamental
nature of matter. In the world of quantum physics, scientists
now use such terms as “the well of being” or “the sea of
potential”
to refer to the primordial level of physical reality from
which all particles and energies crystallize and into which
they
subsequently dissolve. The principle of non-locality in this
realm
means that the “place where something happens” cannot truly
be defined, and that a single event can have exactly
simultaneous
effects in (apparently) widely separated places. Particles
can
accurately be described as being smeared out over the entirety
of
time and space.
Terms like “single place” and “separate places” are seen to
apply only as convenient fictions at certain levels of scale; at
the
level of the ultimate field, the sea of quantum foam, “place”
has
no real meaning. When you get down into the fine, subatomic
realm, where-ness simply does not apply. There is no there
there.
Whether this principle is called nonabiding or non-locality,
it’s
both interesting and noteworthy that the same principle
applies
in both the physical and mental realms. For the intellectuals
and
rationalists among us, this parallel is probably very
comforting.
I first started to investigate this type of contemplation when
I
was on a long retreat in our monastery and doing a lot of
solitary
practice. It suddenly occurred to me that even though I might
have let go of the feeling of self—the feeling of this and
that
and so on—whatever the experience of reality was, it was
still
“here.” There was still here-ness. For several weeks I
contemplated
the question, “Where is here?” Not using the question to
get a verbal answer, more just to illuminate and aid the
abandonment
of the clinging that was present.
Recognizing this kind of conditioning is half the job—
recognizing that, as soon as there is a here-ness, there is a
subtle
presence of a there-ness. Similarly, establishing a “this,”
brings
up a “that.” As soon as we define “inside,” up pops
“outside.”
It’s crucial to acknowledge such subtle feelings of grasping;
it
happens so fast and at so many different layers and levels.
This simple act of apprehending the experience is shining the
light of wisdom onto what the heart is grasping. Once the
defilements
are in the spotlight, they get a little nervous and
uncomfortable.
clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function
properly.
In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom
around.
Clinging operates best when we are not looking. When
clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function
properly.
In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom
around.
