Hi first of all sorry for being unable to reply your questions
by PM just now, cos I was busy just now with my projects and I
think it will be better to hear more more views from other
forummers, so it's better than they be posted here 
Originally posted by oldkid:
I was attending my Dharma class today and had learnt something new.
However it is not really that new but the idea just struck me which
left me with some questions that I can't answer.
It is about no-self (wu2 wo3). The Dharma standpoint (or so I had
heard) is that everything is of natural phenomena be it cause or
effect. So lemme give an example: When a person raises his hands
up, he will say "I raise my hands up." The mechanics in raising his
hands up will be the movement of his muscles with the instructions
from his brain. And the results from this will be his hands are
raised and he gets tired after awhile. My questions are:
1) The actions of raising his hands are natural phenomena?
It depends on what you mean by natural. Some people think that
'natural' means actions arising without intentions, while unnatural
are actions that arises out of our intention. That is seeing things
dualistically. Actually both intentional and non-intentional
actions are natural in the
higher sense -- they are conditioned arising, and that is perfectly
natural as it is, but it must not be misunderstood.
My taiwanese teacher also talk about walking as being natural, what
he meant is not that somehow your walking is somehow controlled by
some natural forces.
What he meant is that there is completely no need for a sense of
doer or dualistic volition involved in walking, it is so natural
that you never gave it a second thought, and that is possible to be
natural because in the first place the sense of a doer or there
being a 'controller' of an action is an illusion.
A sense of a doer, controller or the necessity for you to "think"
(here I mean dualistic thinking, thinking in terms of a Subject and
Object) your walking (i.e "I want to walk, I want to walk, I want
to walk" 
) in
order to walk is absolutely unnecessary, because whatever arises,
arises spontaneously and naturally as part of conditioned arising
at that very moment. It is not caused by a self, there is no self
and no doer.
Means whether intention, or thinking, or action, all these arise
SPONTANEOUSLY and NATURALLY with no agent, thinker, or doer.. it
just self-arise out of conditions.
The reason why you think there is a doer/self/thinker is because
you review the previous thoughts and find a coherence and chain
them up together, causing the impression of a 'doer' or 'thinker'.
This is called dualistic thinking. In reality reality is
spontaneous and disconnected.
That is why in Buddhist practise we must not dwell in meaning,
content and dualistic thinking, we must let go and plunge into
moment to moment experience with naked awareness to experience/BE
the arising and ceasing as it is moment to moment. If you can do
that, then that very moment is unborn, because you no longer see
time or the birth and death of a 'self' or entities.
So back to topic, whatever arises, whether there is intention or no
intention, arises spontaneously and is not caused by any Doer. This
is a profound truth and easily misunderstood.
Please read our forummer Longchen (he has profound insights on the
reality of No Doer and No Self, you may want to check out other
similar articles in that website): Doer and the being
done
If theres anything you don't understand from my explanation please
ask... and I do appreciate if other insightful forummers can share
their opinions and understandings.
If you don't understand so far, continue to read on, you might
understand later.
2) The hands are tired are the natural phenomena of raising his
hands up. This I understand. You do something, you will get
something. But what truely puzzle me is the above. If it is no I
who raise the hands, then what raise the hands? Natural phenomena?
If it is natural phenomena that raises the hands, I am stuck here
again. What caused these natural phenomena?
Everything occur spontaneously out of conditions, it occurs so
fast but our mind mistakenly interpretes them to be linked and
connected by a sense of doership or a sense of self. It's like
this:
Moment1, intention of raising hands arises.
Moment2, the intention conditions the raising up of the
hands.
Meanwhile, there is never at any point a separate self behind the
intention or the action of raising hand itself, intention arise
without thinker, raising hand occurs without doer. They just arise
spontaneously out of conditions (conditioned arising) yet in a
disconnected, spontaneous fashion. There is continuity but
in a spontaneous fashion, ultimately an action is not
caused by a a self (it can't be found), it is also not even caused
by a thought, the thought arise and ceases instantaneously as it
arise, the action too arise and ceases out of conditions,
spontaneously.
When I said "the thought does not cause the action" it is again
easily misunderstood. I don't mean that all actions arises without
any intentions. What I mean't is, thought is not a discrete entity
(i.e a separate self/doer) causing the action, but rather
action arises conditioned by thought, they are not separate. This
means that at that very moment, the intention is a conditioning
factor for action to arise, they arise simulataneously and
spontaneously in an interdependent and conditioned
fashion. Does this make sense?
And therefore, every moment of arising arises out of conditioned
arising, but there is no doer, no observer and no agent/self.
But you mistaken it to be a self -- you think you raised your hand
because there is a doer or controller giving commands to raise up
your hands. This is because you observe your previous thoughts and
thought it was your separate self that is 'willing' your action.
Actually, the thought is just a thought, it is not the self or
doer, or rather a self or doer cannot be found anywhere in your
thoughts. A thought is not the 'doer' or a 'self'! It is merely a
thought at that very moment, get it?
p.s. what I mean by disconnected and spontaneous fashion means
moment to moment arises in this way:
and NOT this way:
Please read 'Non-dual thinking' to have a much much better
understanding on this, the author is highly enlightened and
explains much better than I could ever explain:
Nondual Thinking and the Mahayana Deconstruction of Time
If everything are nautral phenomena, then we are part of natural
phenomena or we are natural phenomena itself. By doing something,
we get something. Hope someone can disspell my darkness. Thanks!
[/b]
There is no separate self/doer/observer apart from moment to
moment arising, this is a Dharma Seal!
By doing something we get something that's true, but I'm not sure
what you're trying to say..?
Anyway these things are quite difficult for me to explain and in
the first place I don't have any direct insights into this reality,
unlike some forummers here.. but does my post makes senses to you?
Please feel free to ask and we can continue discussing..
