Is there an observer?

[Chisti]

Namaste,

I am trying to follow Buddhism, and it seems that the most important practice is meditation. But I am confused because when you meditate, as in observe thoughts, there is an observer. But in Buddhism, there is no self in the permanent sense. So I get confused as to who is observing thoughts. This affects my meditation practice.

I'd appreciate some insights on this.

Thanks,
Chisti

 

[Tathagata]

"In Buddhist phenomenology and soteriology, the skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāli,aggregates in English) are any of five types of phenomena that serve as objects of clinging and bases for a sense of self.[1] The Buddha teaches that nothing among them is really "I" or "mine". In the Theravada tradition, suffering arises when one identifies with or otherwise clings to an aggregate; hence, suffering is extinguished by relinquishing attachments to aggregates. The Mahayana tradition further puts forth that ultimate freedom is realized by deeply penetrating the nature of all aggregates as intrinsically empty of independent existence."

-- Skandha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.
.

 

[DreadFish]

The idea is that the idea of "I" is only an idea and there is not actually an "I". With the five skandhas that Tathagata has posted above, we remember that "I" is only an idea, and none of the five skandhas is "I" or belongs to "I", because there is no "I". It is a confusing topic fur sure, but I guess basically it could be said that one's continuum of awareness can function without having a something that is a self.

If you take dreaming as example, the mind produces things as an environment and something that is experienced as itself. I've had dreams where "I" wasn't who I am when im awake.


Anyway, you are unsure who the observer is and this effects your practice. This is good that you are unsure who the observer is, maybe you will find out! If you were sure you knew who the observer was, you would never find out because you were already sure. Just remember to remain unattached to what comes up in your meditation.


Best wishes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thoughts are noted of which upon acknowledging is thereby allowed to pass and dissipate. Once those thoughts pass and dissipate so does the "observer" of those thoughts.

 

[apophenia]

The Bhuddha also referred to the spiritual refuge of self.

He did not say there was no self. He said that we suffer the perceptual/conceptual error of identifying transient processes as self.

He described the transient processes as not-self (anata). This does NOT mean 'no self'.

The real gist of his teaching is to recognise the self which manifests as the co-emergence of emptiness (relativity) and awareness, and to recognise the fact of cause and effect. This latter point is crucial, as it leads to acknowledging the responsibility for our actions, rather than avoiding this by childish beliefs like 'fate' and 'destiny' (notions which are still erroneously called 'karma' by many).


The philosophy of 'no self' is a mistake, a misunderstanding perpetuated by intellectuals who think they are buddhists.

 

[jg22]

Once those thoughts pass and dissipate so does the "observer" of those thoughts.

And this is observed how?

 

[DreadFish]

And this is observed how?

Hehe, it seems paradoxical, but the mind simply imputes the idea of "observer" and "observed" on certain phenomena that arise. Experience simply arises without an experiencer or object of experience.

 

[Random]

The Bhuddha also referred to the spiritual refuge of self.

He did not say there was no self. He said that we suffer the perceptual/conceptual error of identifying transient processes as self.

He described the transient processes as not-self (anata). This does NOT mean 'no self'.

The real gist of his teaching is to recognize the self which manifests as the co-emergence of emptiness (relativity) and awareness, and to recognize the fact of cause and effect. This latter point is crucial, as it leads to acknowledging the responsibility for our actions, rather than avoiding this by childish beliefs like 'fate' and 'destiny' (notions which are still erroneously called 'karma' by many).


The philosophy of 'no self' is a mistake, a misunderstanding perpetuated by intellectuals who think they are Buddhists.

Good post, Frubals.

 

[Me Myself]

And this is observed how?

If you do not understand how, no one can explain. If you understand how, then no explanation is needed.

But let me ask another question. How could this not be observed?

 

[apophenia]

If you do not understand how, no one can explain. If you understand how, then no explanation is needed.

But let me ask another question. How could this not be observed?

No-one 'understands how'.

You do not 'understand how'. Gautama did not 'understand how'.

No explanation is needed. All explanations are fabrication.

The transcendent reality is not even explained by Wikipedia !

 

[Me Myself]

No-one 'understands how'.

You do not 'understand how'. Gautama did not 'understand how'.

No explanation is needed. All explanations are fabrication.

The transcendent reality is not even explained by Wikipedia !

When I write "understanding" I am not talking about an "explanation". That was actually what I meant with the last question. It´s not about explanations. Is about understanding.

Understanding= looking things exactly as they are, without false conceptions, etc.

Of course, I don´t wanna get semantic. I am not yet enligthened (or not consciously so ) and will guess you are not enlightened either anyways?

"understand" what I am saying?

 

[apophenia]

Namaste,

I am trying to follow Buddhism, and it seems that the most important practice is meditation. But I am confused because when you meditate, as in observe thoughts, there is an observer. But in Buddhism, there is no self in the permanent sense. So I get confused as to who is observing thoughts. This affects my meditation practice.

I'd appreciate some insights on this.

Thanks,
Chisti

The advice given in the Mahamudra teaching is to take awareness itself as the object of meditation.

Awareness and observer mean the same thing. You cannot overcome awareness, nor would that be of any value. There is no state devoid of awareness (observer) apart from total unconsciousness, which is not meditation !

This is supported by Buddha's statement that he takes refuge in the self.

 

[Straw Dog]

The advice given in the Mahamudra teaching is to take awareness itself as the object of meditation.

Awareness and observer mean the same thing. You cannot overcome awareness, nor would that be of any value. There is no state devoid of awareness (observer) apart from total unconsciousness, which is not meditation !

This is supported by Buddha's statement that he takes refuge in the self.

I've been wondering about that interpretation of the Buddha's teaching in which there is no self whatsoever. I agree that there is no permanent self, or soul, but it seems to be a popular notion that there is no such thing as our sense of self whatsoever. We obviously experience it as a real phenomenon so why not just become fully aware of it as well. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here...

 

[zenzero]

Friend Chisti,

am trying to follow Buddhism, and it seems that the most important practice is meditation. But I am confused because when you meditate, as in observe thoughts, there is an observer. But in Buddhism, there is no self in the permanent sense. So I get confused as to who is observing thoughts. This affects my meditation practice.

If it is understood that existence is nothing but CONSCIOUSNESS even the forms then it is also understood that all forms including humans are nothing but forms of consciousness. Then there is no *I* anywhere and all that is there is a THOUGHT [mind] in between the total Consciousness and and the consciousness in a form. So if someone is observing the thought it is THAT consciousness ITSELF through the consciousness in the form!
Again just a personal understanding as always open for correction!

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

The advice given in the Mahamudra teaching is to take awareness itself as the object of meditation.

Excellent.

This is supported by Buddha's statement that he takes refuge in the self.

Can you kindly show us the saying.

 

[apophenia]

[/i]

Excellent.
Can you kindly show us the saying.

Here are some sayings -

"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like unto the breath-of-life, this Animator.”[KN J-1441 Akkhakandam]
"Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96]
"The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97]
"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441]
"To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692]
"The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha'vagga-Att. 3.270]
"The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129]
"Nirvana means the subjugation of becoming" [AN 5.9]
"Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asuñña)" [Uparipanna'sa-Att. 4.151]
"Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa'ta-Att. 3.4]
“What is emptiness-liberation? Gnosis and contemplation into what is not the Soul liberates one from misconceptions about the Soul, this is emptiness-liberation.” [Pati 2.67]
These sayings are found here Buddhists: the eternal, lexical rule, brahmanism

 

[zenzero]

Friend apophenia,

The real gist of his teaching is to recognise the self which manifests as the co-emergence of emptiness (relativity) and awareness, and to recognise the fact of cause and effect. This latter point is crucial, as it leads to acknowledging the responsibility for our actions, rather than avoiding this by childish beliefs like 'fate' and 'destiny' (notions which are still erroneously called 'karma' by many).

Agree that acceptance of karma is a level of understanding but evolving that too where developing understanding further of bring consciousness/awareness of both the action and reaction is possibly where Gautama turned the dharma wheel further than it was till that point under sanatan dharma.

Your views!

 

[apophenia]

zenzero,
I am no scholar, and could not say whether understanding was more developed in one philosophy or another.

When I read Gautama's words it seems to me that he is saying that peace follows as the result of right thought, right action etc, and that this is the essential, crucial point of the teaching.
The views generally called abidharma may be very profound, but perhaps too profound to be of much use to people.

My view is that if meditators gain insights which illuminate the cause and effect relationships shaping their lives, and from this there is a reduction in anger, despair, selfishness and the other kleshas, and an increase in peacefulness, patience, kindness and other paramitas (virtues), then wisdom is emerging as butter emerges from churned cream.

Whether the foundation of this peaceful, virtuous mind is called self, soul, emptiness, buddha-nature or any other term is of no consequence.

Whether we say there is or is not an observer, whether or not we see a human as an individual being or a wave in the ocean of being, is also irrelevant.

These ideas are generally a form of self-indulgence.

Displays of cosmic cleverness are novelties from the marketplace of ideas, the shiny baubles and beads of intellectual self-cherishing.

Loving kindness, patience and acceptance - these are worthy of respect.

All philosophical views and methods (including the dhyanas) are at best upaya - skillful means. We cannot make emptiness emptier or primordial purity more pure.

That is my view.

 

[zenzero]

Friend apophenia,

Thank you and agreed.
Now to the next question. Bodhisattva or arhat???

If responding develops klesha, kindly allow it to pass as this has no bearing on any result oriented research just a curiosity.

Love & rgds

 

[apophenia]

Now to the next question. Bodhisattva or arhat???

If responding develops klesha, kindly allow it to pass,,,

That is probably a good topic for another thread,

I have some anti-klesha ointment I can use if your questions freak me out too badly