Is there an observer?

[EndlessArising]

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

This is incorrect. Emptiness is the true nature of the dharmas or phenomena, not something beyond the dharmas. Emptiness is another way of saying dependent origination or dependent arising, which is a description of the interconnection of all phenomena.

On the basis of the Buddha's view that all experienced phenomena (dharma) are "dependently arisen" (pratitya-samutpanna), Nagarjuna insisted that such phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava). Since they are experienced elements of existence, they are not mere names (prjnapti).

 

[YmirGF]

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

Not in this sense, PolyHedral. In this sense, "I AM" is a transformative realization that catapults the voyager well beyond their normal sensation of "Who am I". As you say, that normal perspective, is somewhat of a given. It is the greatly enhanced perspective generated by and emanating from "I AM" that forces the question back to the surface of consciousness. It follows hot on the heels of "What am I".

Hope this helps.

 

[EndlessArising]

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.

Why would it makes sense for the Buddha to teach that which basically negates all the previous teachings? The Nirvana Sutra only makes sense within its context. It is not actually negating the previous teachings but trying to teach the same principles to eternalists (those who already cling to a true self doctrine). The actual meanings of the words used in the sutra are inverted. It's also a teaching that's useful to nihilists who deny the luminosity or clarity. By saying "there is, in truth, the Self in all phenomena," the sutra is saying that phenomena are luminous. The sutra does not say that there is a Self beyond phenomena, so it's not comparable to the atman. Like I said, it's an inversion of definitions. Buddhanature can refer both to the inner potentiality for awakening and also the union of emptiness and luminosity. To say that all phenomena are Self is fine, as long as you understand that Self means emptiness and luminosity (and the emptiness aspect completely negates self-nature, which makes Self a misnomer, but to the realized labels are unimportant).

Mahaparinirvana Sutra: Chapter 12 On the Buddha Nature

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.

Either you misunderstand them, which I think is the case, or they have misunderstandings. Not all teachers are created equal. Tibetans seem to be the most clear in their view. I would consult some Tibetans to clarify if you are interested. Also, the book The Way to Buddhahood by the Venerable Yin-shun is amazing. He's one of the great Chinese Buddhist masters of the modern age.

 

[EndlessArising]

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.

Self points to inherency. "All pervading essence" is a good description of it. This Self is not a separate doer or autonomous entity. That is the ego. The Self is experienced as the formless underlying essence/source of all reality. It's confused with Dharmakaya, especially by writers like Ken Wilber who try to integrate, often by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Dharmakaya is emptiness, and emptiness is not a formless all pervading source. To rest in Dharmakaya is to rest in the knowledge that all phenomena lack inherent existence. There is a subtle difference which makes all the difference.

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.

Read my post above.

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.

He is only 22 and definitely isn't the best at explaining things simply, but that doesn't mean he lacks the realization. These are things you need to investigate for yourself. Even if someone explained it perfectly, it takes internal effort to investigate and see clearly.

 

[Nakosis]

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 (^_^)

Thanks to you and atanu for the acknowledgements.

I kind of like myself, as imperfect as I am. I guess I fear losing that identity.

However my attachment seemed ok, because I knew whatever that experience was would be waiting for me when I was ready for it. So I don't feel bad about it, I just feel not ready.

 

[PolyHedral]

Not in this sense, PolyHedral. In this sense, "I AM" is a transformative realization that catapults the voyager well beyond their normal sensation of "Who am I". As you say, that normal perspective, is somewhat of a given. It is the greatly enhanced perspective generated by and emanating from "I AM" that forces the question back to the surface of consciousness. It follows hot on the heels of "What am I".

Hope this helps.

The only alternative meaning I can think of is "I exist," which is also a given. I don't see what other revelation there is.

 

[apophenia]

This is incorrect. Emptiness is the true nature of the dharmas or phenomena, not something beyond the dharmas. Emptiness is another way of saying dependent origination or dependent arising, which is a description of the interconnection of all phenomena.

On the basis of the Buddha's view that all experienced phenomena (dharma) are "dependently arisen" (pratitya-samutpanna), Nagarjuna insisted that such phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava). Since they are experienced elements of existence, they are not mere names (prjnapti).

The phenomena... "are experienced elements of existence."

Are these phenomena discrete ? Or is there one continuous phenomenon ?

Is your view that phenomena are themselves aware ? That these discrete phenomena experience themselves ?

What is the scriptural description of these phenomena ?

 

[atanu]

A couple of observations:

1. How can it be said in same breath that a) All these, the exerienced and the experiencer, are void of essence and b) My path is higher, my realisation has reached the ultimate. My understanding is better and perfect. Is not the latter view/thought a dream, void of any essence?


2. In deep sleep we experience nothing, but it is known somehow that the deep sleep was peaceful. If we do not understand this, how we are going to appreciate as to how the discernment of cessation of bondage happens.

If consciousness is only that which rises in contact and as such has no reality then the Nibbana has no way of making itself known.

The fullness of the Seer is only realised in the fullness when there is no distinction among Seer-Seen-Seeing. In all other divided situation, the Seer is known through the mental-sensual eye.
----------------------------------
What is perfect mindfullness, is the peace, the Self, the sahaja samadhi. I personally have no need to complicate the matter further. Rest is all mental acrobatics when the goal is lost sight of.

 

[atanu]

What Ramana Maharshi said is exactly what I said.

"I Am" is not a conceptual knowledge.

Ramana Maharshi : Samadhi alone can reveal the truth. Thoughts cast a veil over reality, and so it is not realized as such in states other than samadhi. In samadhi there is only the feeling `I am' and no thoughts. The experience of `I am' is `being still'.

For Record: "I Am" is of Hiranygarbha stage. It is not the Turiya, which is the goal and which is not a stage.

 

[Straw Dog]

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

Everyone knows that "Who Am I?" leads to "I Am Who!"

Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[atanu]

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)

And every blissful moment is experienced by different transient dream entitities.:sarcastic

 

[atanu]

In my experience, "Who am I" directly followed the triumphant & exultant "I am" state. I guess I didn't get the e-book in time, then again, for me, it was near on 4 decades ago... The weird part for me is that some of what AnEternalNow says is about right - from my perspective - but there is an awful lot that just makes me go . Contrary to his assertion, there is no "one way". The game really doesn't work that way. We are not cogs in a well oiled machine.

I fully agree to this, especially the blue fonted part. You have brought it out astoundingly precisely, IMO.

 

[atanu]

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]

I like this, Tahagata. Thanks.

This is incorrect. Emptiness is the true nature of the dharmas or phenomena, not something beyond the dharmas.

You seem to have no appreciation. The true nature and the phenomenon are absolutely dual. Else the True nature would change every moment.

To simplify this. Air is within and without all -- it is all pervading. Yet it is absolutely distinct.

 

[atanu]

Everyone knows that "Who Am I?" leads to "I Am Who!"
Elementary, my dear Watson.

What would ensue if the query arose in emptiness?

 

[atanu]

The phenomena... "are experienced elements of existence."

Are these phenomena discrete ? Or is there one continuous phenomenon ?

Is your view that phenomena are themselves aware ? That these discrete phenomena experience themselves ?

What is the scriptural description of these phenomena ?

OK. I have dusted the sofa and finished chores. Now. opcorn:

Show time.

 

[Straw Dog]

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

Hey Chisti!

I am also a beginner with each new moment. When we're meditating, is there actually an observer or is there only the act of observing? Well, I just don't know.

Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about following Buddhism and simply practice being in the suchness of things with meditation, mindfulness, and moderation. Maybe some questions do not require a definitive answer. If we acquire bliss and contentment through practice without having all the answers in the end, then what difference does it make who is doing what? Also, what use is enlightenment when, once attaining it, we become restless trying to impose our relative experience of it onto others through concepts and words?

It simply is.

So just be.

 

[EndlessArising]

You seem to have no appreciation. The true nature and the phenomenon are absolutely dual. Else the True nature would change every moment.

To simplify this. Air is within and without all -- it is all pervading. Yet it is absolutely distinct.

I don't follow you.

True nature and phenomenon are not dual. Nature is not an underlying essence, like an actually existent ground. True nature of something is it's actual condition, or what that thing truly is when you remove labels. This is not denying the experience of the thing, or saying that it's truly another thing, or another experience entirely. It simply means that phenomena right there's true nature is empty, meaning it arose due to causes, is dependent on other phenomena, and only exists relatively and temporarily. It's like a mirage. Yet it's experience is not/cannot be denied.

 

[DreadFish]

Thanks to you and atanu for the acknowledgements.

I kind of like myself, as imperfect as I am. I guess I fear losing that identity.

However my attachment seemed ok, because I knew whatever that experience was would be waiting for me when I was ready for it. So I don't feel bad about it, I just feel not ready.

Yeah, I had no control over making it happen, and I still have no idea what made it happen. I suppose when you are ready is when it will happen Just let go when it's time to let go.

 

[DreadFish]

Alright, I want to clarify a question that came up while I was sweeping the floor...


Firstly, I do not assert an inherent, separate, fully autonomous doer and experiencer. Again, it takes an object for there to be a subject, and an "other" for there to be a "self," so naturally, there is no inherent self and if "other" or objects cease to be, so would the observing "self." Then what are you left with, eh? Something all together different and inexplicable.

SO! What is it that makes the choices to adhere to the Dharma? What is it that is to be unbound by following the Noble Eightfold Path? What is it that chooses? That is about the only thing that can be done nearly autonomously, choice. But still, it depends on other conditions. While im not saying this is a definable thing or inherent entity, there has to be something/someone who chooses, influences the way things happen, otherwise, what is the point of even wishing to attain nirvana?

 

[DreadFish]

Self points to inherency. "All pervading essence" is a good description of it. This Self is not a separate doer or autonomous entity. That is the ego. The Self is experienced as the formless underlying essence/source of all reality. It's confused with Dharmakaya, especially by writers like Ken Wilber who try to integrate, often by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Dharmakaya is emptiness, and emptiness is not a formless all pervading source. To rest in Dharmakaya is to rest in the knowledge that all phenomena lack inherent existence. There is a subtle difference which makes all the difference.

I agree with what you say in the underlined sentences, but as regards to separating this from the Dharmakaya, I dont agree, though right now my mind is too tired to really engage in a good discussion, im sorry

He is only 22 and definitely isn't the best at explaining things simply, but that doesn't mean he lacks the realization. These are things you need to investigate for yourself. Even if someone explained it perfectly, it takes internal effort to investigate and see clearly.

Im only 20 , and I can tell ya, especially if deep realization is the case, age is irrelevant. I agree that one must investigate for one's self, but if someone is going to teach, they need to learn how to teach well. And, im my experience, direct experience enables one to explain things in a personable, relate-able way. Many of the great masters used very simple explanations and relate-able similes to convey these nearly unfathomable concepts. So naturally, when one explains these things like a textbook, I get a bit wary of their credibility. Im not forming a final opinion or anything though, just making clear this issue.