Is there an observer?

[AnEternalNow]

I got this self proclaimed definition from EternalNow's blog.

The view of a self means believing or holding the view that there is an independent, unchanging, self-entity that persists from one moment to the next and one lifetime to another, and is the agent, controller or experiencer of stuff in life. "Self" thus has the quality of permanency, independence, separateness (separate from the flow of experiences), and agenthood (being the controller, perceiver, experiencer of things). If there is any such thing, it could qualify as Self.


That is only the ego thought and not the Self. As such the above definition seems to display a confusion between self and Self. IMO, the absurd claims in this thread stem from this erroneous idea of what self and Self are.

If Presence/Consciousness is taken to be permanent, independent, an ultimate Seer, that is precisely what I call "taking up a self-view".

This self-view is to be abandoned by true insight into anatta, even though the experience is not being denied. Furthermore, this luminosity is experienced as all foreground manifestation and not just as a background source. The 'background' is realized to be just a dead image captured about Presence, where in reality no background-foreground dichotomy is present.

 

[AnEternalNow]

But that is still not about Who Am I ?

Who am I? leads to the tracing the I-thought to its source. When the I-thought is traced to its source, all thoughts vanish, a self-felt certainty of only presence-consciousness-existence itself reveals and one has an unshakeable realization of Self, utterly still and complete and doubtless. This is Self-Realization.

 

[atanu]

Who am I? leads to the tracing the I-thought to its source. When the I-thought is traced to its source, all thoughts vanish, a self-felt certainty of only presence-consciousness-existence itself reveals and one has an unshakeable realization of Self, utterly still and complete and doubtless. This is Self-Realization.

No. That is reversible.

 

[AnEternalNow]

No. That is reversible.

The realization is irreversible: one becomes unshakeable and doubtless.

It does not mean however, that has immediately mastered the ability to maintain a state of samadhi.

Those who realized the I AM is likely to think the next step is to abide in a state of samadhi 24/7. Even if one attains some mastery of samadhi, this is far from being effortless. Effortlessness only come from deeper insights.

 

[atanu]

If Presence/Consciousness is taken to be permanent, independent, an ultimate Seer, that is precisely what I call "taking up a self-view".

This self-view is to be abandoned by true insight into anatta, -----.

A view of self is not the self. This is very basic teaching in every school. Thoughts of independent selves exist only in thoughts of very few. So, IMO, your premise that self/Self signifies a notion of independent agent is not universally true.

I am sure that you have had no view of either the Self or the anatta. You are confused as to what is empty of what.

 

[AnEternalNow]

A view of self is not the self. This much is very basic teaching in every school.

A view of self is not the same as Presence. They need to be separated.

Apart from the I AM, do you realize that a passing sight, a passing sound is as vivid, clear, present, non-dual, as the I AM? Do you then see that there is no ultimate state of Presence, but only Presence unfolding as everything? Do you see then that this seer-seen dichotomy is false? When you realize non-dual and further, this become experientially clear - as clear as the realization of I AM. This is the beginning of effortlessness - you won't reach effortlessness trying to master samadhi abiding in a purest state of Presence. When even a scent, a passing sight, reveals itself as non-dual Presence-Awareness, the notion of a 'purest state of presence to abide constantly' gently fades away.

 

[Nakosis]

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

I find there to be an observer to a point. I mean as long as you identify yourself as something. However you start to see the transitory nature of what you identify with.

Everything you identify yourself as seems to be transitory. So you let go of what is transitory what is left?

It is very uncomfortable/frightening to not be able to locate yourself. You need to identify as something in order to do that. Well maybe not so much for others. However, I've never been able to get past that.

 

[atanu]

The realization is irreversible: one becomes unshakeable and doubtless.

It does not mean however, that has immediately mastered the ability to maintain a state of samadhi.

You say what I say.

Effortlessness only come from deeper insights.

Like you have?

 

[atanu]

I find there to be an observer to a point. I mean as long as you identify yourself as something. However you start to see the transitory nature of what you identify with.

Everything you identify yourself as seems to be transitory. So you let go of what is transitory what is left?

It is very uncomfortable/frightening to not be able to locate yourself. You need to identify as something in order to do that. Well maybe not so much for others. However, I've never been able to get past that.

Thank You Nakosis

It is frightening. Suddenly one is left supportless and without any landing. Yet, even then, the Seer is an integral part of Seer-Seen-Seeing .

 

[DreadFish]

Honestly, the more you explain things, Eternal, the more you seem to lose authenticity. It is as Atanu says, that the Self (capital S) is not intended to be a separate autonomous entity that is the doer and experiencer of things. In fact, often times I have thought of it as a poor word for it anyway. Jiva is the individual separate abiding soul, Atman is the all pervading essence and is nothing in particular; there is not some thing that can be said "that is it! [the Atman]" To me, the word "Self" is used because it conveys that which is the actual nature.

So how could this "Self" that Buddha talks of in the Sutra actually be a potentiality? Would the word not be changed to more clearly convey that it is a potentiality? Again, we are not positing a concrete entity that is identifiable as "Self," it would be something altogether beyond definition.

Im not going to accuse you of being a fake, but I will say that you have appeared suspicious since the first post I read of yours. You demonstrate textbook like knowledge in your posts, but you dont present it in a relate-able way that makes it feel genuine. Im my experience, meditation brings about an ability to explain seemingly lofty ideas and concepts using very basic down-to-earth analogies and allegories.

 

[PolyHedral]

As has been pointed out before, "Who Am I?" does not lead to "I Am".

I always thought it did, since it's rather tautological that I am me.

 

[AnEternalNow]

Honestly, the more you explain things, Eternal, the more you seem to lose authenticity. It is as Atanu says, that the Self (capital S) is not intended to be a separate autonomous entity that is the doer and experiencer of things. In fact, often times I have thought of it as a poor word for it anyway. Jiva is the individual separate abiding soul, Atman is the all pervading essence and is nothing in particular; there is not some thing that can be said "that is it! [the Atman]" To me, the word "Self" is used because it conveys that which is the actual nature.

So how could this "Self" that Buddha talks of in the Sutra actually be a potentiality? Would the word not be changed to more clearly convey that it is a potentiality? Again, we are not positing a concrete entity that is identifiable as "Self," it would be something altogether beyond definition.

Im not going to accuse you of being a fake, but I will say that you have appeared suspicious since the first post I read of yours. You demonstrate textbook like knowledge in your posts, but you dont present it in a relate-able way that makes it feel genuine. Im my experience, meditation brings about an ability to explain seemingly lofty ideas and concepts using very basic down-to-earth analogies and allegories.

Atman is seen as all-pervading, and is also simultaneously held to be the Eternal Witness, or a One Mind depending on the person's insight.

I will not debate on Tathagatagarbha doctrine here - but Loppon Namdrol already made it clear that this doctrine has many explanation depending on which sutra you consult, again there is no definitive word in a late-developed teaching and each idea can be valid under different context as long as it is not misunderstood. In the Vajrayana traditions, most teach the Buddha-nature as the inseparability of emptiness and luminosity which does not contradict emptiness or anatta. In Mahamudra and Dzogchen teaching this is also the case. Those who hold on to an eternalist view of Tathagatagarbha are in the minority in Vajrayana, i.e. some more extreme teachers in the Shentong/Jonangpa school. In Zen, again it depends but majority do teach an insubstantialist version of Buddha-nature (I especially liked Zen Master Dogen's explanation) which need not be 'buddha-nature as potential' (again a valid explanation from a certain POV), but 'buddha-nature as transience'.

Meditation does not make you a master of analogies and allegories, at least not in my experience, though I do not doubt it may be the case for you. Each person, teacher, etc has their own way and style of explaining things.

 

[DreadFish]

Thank You Nakosis

It is frightening. Suddenly one is left supportless and without any landing. Yet, even then, the Seer is an integral part of Seer-Seen-Seeing .

Yeah it really is terrifying to think about. There is comfort when one completely lets go, though. We only hold on to our ideas of what we are and what things are, if we can let go of what we are familiar with (who we are, what things are) then there is comfort.

I once had a terrifying experience that I was about to "lose myself" and I thought "this is it! " though I felt I could stop it, I decided to just let go (a lot like those trust games where you just fall back and trust you will be caught), and as soon as I completely let go of myself, I remember feeling the most golden brightness and the most inexplicable love and somehow I saw everything I thought I knew about everything, all ideas, dissolve away, like it was never real, into something inexplicable because it dissolved into nothing that can be explained. It sounds scary but was in fact just great. I lost individual identity, but there was still some feeling of me, yet it was only in connection to a greater whole of which I was a facet (kind of like a tentacle actually ).


Anyway, moral of the story, for anyone who is afraid, dont be (^_^)

 

[DreadFish]

Atman is seen as all-pervading, and is also simultaneously held to be the Eternal Witness, or a One Mind depending on the person's insight.

I will not debate on Tathagatagarbha doctrine here - but Loppon Namdrol already made it clear that this doctrine has many explanation depending on which sutra you consult, again there is no definitive word in a late-developed teaching and each idea can be valid under different context as long as it is not misunderstood. In the Vajrayana traditions, most teach the Buddha-nature as the inseparability of emptiness and luminosity which does not contradict emptiness or anatta. Those who hold on to an eternalist view of Tathagatagarbha are in the minority in Vajrayana, i.e. some more extreme teachers in the Jonangpa school. In Zen, again it depends but many teach an insubstantialist version of Buddha-nature (I especially liked Zen Master Dogen's explanation) which need not be 'buddha-nature as potential' (again a valid explanation from a certain POV), but 'buddha-nature as transience'.

Meditation does not make you a master of analogies and allegories, at least not in my experience, though I do not doubt it may be the case for you. Each person, teacher, etc has their own way of explaining things.

I understand, I dont take the Mahayana sutras to be canonical, though I do not deny that they have truth and insight, they are not likely what Gautama Buddha actually said. Also, many Mahayana sutras do not agree with each other, so naturally, it can't be said that they are any authority on a topic.

I dont suggest that meditation makes one a master of analogies, but, deeper understanding of something allows one to explain it in easy to understand terms. It's like that little saying "you really understand something when you can explain it to your grandma".

 

[atanu]

Atman is seen as all-pervading, and is also simultaneously held to be the Eternal Witness, or a One Mind depending on the person's insight.

I will not debate on Tathagatagarbha doctrine here - but Loppon Namdrol already made it clear that this doctrine has many explanation depending on which sutra you consult, again there is no definitive word in a late-developed teaching and each idea can be valid under different context as long as it is not misunderstood. In the Vajrayana traditions, most teach the Buddha-nature as the inseparability of emptiness and luminosity which does not contradict emptiness or anatta. In Mahamudra and Dzogchen teaching this is also the case. Those who hold on to an eternalist view of Tathagatagarbha are in the minority in Vajrayana, i.e. some more extreme teachers in the Shentong/Jonangpa school. In Zen, again it depends but majority do teach an insubstantialist version of Buddha-nature (I especially liked Zen Master Dogen's explanation) which need not be 'buddha-nature as potential' (again a valid explanation from a certain POV), but 'buddha-nature as transience'.

Meditation does not make you a master of analogies and allegories, at least not in my experience, though I do not doubt it may be the case for you. Each person, teacher, etc has their own way and style of explaining things.

Dear EternalNow

Someday when you will still be very unhappy with all these varities of verbal jugglery, you may turn your attention to simple peace, which you will notice is always peace -- never transient and never mere potential.

 

[AnEternalNow]

You say what I say.



Like you have?

First mature the I AM realization-experience in terms of four aspects:

Impersonality (dissolving sense of personality can lead to the feeling like one is 'an expression of' or 'being lived' by a cosmic source), intensity of luminosity (until one can have an experience of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching everything in incredible aliveness and wonder), seeing through and dissolving the need to 'abide', and effortlessness

Then in time to come, with certain investigations into the non-dual nature of awareness, the insight into One Mind (and further) can arise. Greg Goode's 'The Direct Path' based on the Advaita teacher Sri Atmananda can lead to One Mind - Amazon.com: The Direct Path: A User Guide (9781908664020): Greg Goode: Books

 

[AnEternalNow]

Dear EternalNow

Someday when you will still be very unhappy with all these varities of verbal jugglery, you may turn your attention to simple peace, which you will notice is always peace -- never transient and never mere potential.

I am very happy here and now, be it typing online or not typing online.

Every moment is luminosity-bliss, effortless and perpetual.

The transience is luminosity-bliss - but not that it is ever lost. (I wonder if you read my reply on previous page)

 

[Tathagata]

Basically AnEternalNow (and offsider EndlessArisings) is presenting his view of dependent arising to refute any notion of observer. According to this interpretation, awareness comes packaged with phenomena which arise and pass away, so effectively the phenomena are self aware.

I am guessing that this will lead into a discussion of kalapas at some point.

The objections to AEN's position are primarily along the lines that there is a changeless substratum of empty mind, which is more or less the presence of metaphysical being.

The nitty gritty of the argument is whether AnEternalNow/EndlessArising has taken the deconstruction too far, by suggesting that even the observing awareness is basically quantised, not continuous, and actually an aspect of the arising of discontinuous phenomena.

This could lead to the counter-point that AEN is positing an observer in each discrete kalapa. It all gets very messy from here. For example,the 'arisings' have not been defined. They (whatever they are) can not be said to arise in a mind for example, and some kind of theory is now required to explain how mind moments are organised into mindstreams and what is the connective mechanism of karma which creates this sense of individual continuity. So it will require other concepts like the kalapas and alaya vijnana - and soon will be as complicated and imaginary as the over-engineered hinduism it replaced !

So hang onto your heads, as we delve into The Dependent Philosophical Arisings which are sure to follow . LOL

Wow. This doesn't even sound like a coherent discussion. "Awareness comes packaged with phenomena"? Sorry, does not compute.

Thanks for the synopsis though. Frubals.


.
.

 

[Tathagata]

Let me break this down and clarify Buddhist doctrine:


- In Maya (illusory world we experience) there is a self. This self is a result of the 5 aggregates. (In Two Truth doctrine, this is conventional truth.)

- The 5 aggregates makes up your consciousness. Mindstream is the term for this consciousness that is in constant flux in a moment to moment continuum.

- Upon deconstruction of this consciousness, you reach the phenomenological dharmas. The dharmas are momentary elements of consciousness and phenomena/constituant factors of human experience. These dharmas are the smallest elements of the world, the quanta.

- The dharmas however are not Ultimate Reality. They are the fundamental components that make up Maya, the illusory world that we perceive and experience.

- Beyond the dharmas, upon deconstructing whats behind all that, you have Emptiness, Sunyata. This is Ultimate Reality, the Dharmakaya, Nirvana.


"When all dharmas are empty, what is endless? What has an end?
What is endless and with an end? What is not endless and not with an end?
What is "it"? What is "other"? What is permanent? What is impermanent?
What is impermanent and permanent? What is neither?

Auspicious is the pacification of phenomenal metastasis, the pacification of all apprehending;
There is no dharma whatsoever taught by the Buddha to whomever, whenever, wherever."

— Nagarjuna [Mulamadhyamakakarika, nirvaparika]



.
.

 

[Breathe]

'Self' means none other than Tathagata-garbha (Womb of the Thus Come One). All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature and that is what 'Self' precisely means."
The Buddha said: "O good man! 'Self' means 'tathagatagarbha.' Every being has the Buddha Nature. This is self. Such a self is, since the very beginning, under cover of innumerable illusions. That is why man cannot see it.

I'm more than aware of what the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra means, and what ātman means. I have actually read it.

I'm pretty comfortable with the opinion I have come from reading it and from other things. I think it makes the most sense. More sense than this form of glorified moreological nihilism I bump into, but hey, I'm not judging -- if it makes people happy, all the more power to them.

My mentor, and a few other ordained Buddhists I've spoken to are pretty fine with it, too, and none of the people whom I hold respect for have said anything otherwise, so... I dunno why some ordinary people do.