xabir = Soh

Conversation took place in https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/wwe476/is_all_selfinquiry_safe_for_starters/

 

Posted by
u/perter_bu7847
7 hours ago
Is all self-inquiry safe for starters?
Practice

Hello,

if someone starts out with meditation is any self inquiry safe for the practioner?

I know the following self-inquiries:

    In the thinking there is only the thought, no thinker. In the seen there is only the seen, no seer. etc.

    Asking oneself where does one's perception of an object end and where does the object start.

    Contemplating on where one's mind is.

    And contemplating on who one was before birth or straight after birth.

Personally I did not start out with self-inquiry or focused on it, so I do not know. Also, if you know other self-inquiries, I would appreciate if you could also comment them down.

Thank you.

PS: I found self-inquiry on #1 to be quite tumultuous after the realization, so I was happy to be already very grounded and healthy and fear that it could be dangerous for someone who isn't.
23 Comments

level 1
xabir
·
2 hr. ago
·edited 1 hr. ago

u/perter_bu7847 You should be aware that the above enquiries 1 to 4 all leads to different realizations.


Number 1 is about anatta and is more of a Buddhist insight. Number 2 is nondual (more precisely -- where does awareness end and manifestation begin, is there any border or division between awareness and manifestation), can lead to substantialist nondual or one mind (like nondual Brahman of Advaita Vedanta) because one starts to realize the nondual nature of awareness and manifestation but this is insufficient to breakthrough the view of 'inherent existence' pertaining to awareness. 4 is more for the initial breakthrough into what Mind is. If one simply realises luminous Mind, or what many non-Buddhists call the "I AM", without contemplating into the nondual aspect (the nondual relationship between mind and phenomena), it will remain as something like an "eternal witness" of the dualist Hindu Samkhya school.

All these enquiries can be found in various Buddhist traditions (even the koan on what is your original face before your parents were born, and other similar self enquiries -- many Buddhist traditions also lead to an initial realization of the luminous Mind first before proceeding into subtler insights like the nondual and anatta and emptiness nature) but you must be aware of the purposes. Having a good teacher is recommended.
3
User avatar
level 2
perter_bu7847
OP·
58 min. ago
·edited 52 min. ago

Thank you. Because of your website and this comment perter_bu knows now.

Do you agree that doing the self-inquiries without any other practice would not work or would even be dangerous?
1
level 3
xabir
·
35 min. ago
·edited 15 min. ago

These inquiries are not necessarily dangerous IMO. But it must be complemented with shamatha, if not at first then later [after the insights]. But it is good and important to have a consistent and disciplined meditation practice from the start. If one has an insight or realization, it will later be followed up or complemented with cultivation of calm abiding. There are some people who had a spontaneous realization or insight from contemplation, but it must later be complemented with meditation training. The insight must also be refined and get deeper, otherwise many people will get stuck at earlier phases of insight such as the "I AM". Many non-Buddhist practitioners, and unfortunately many Buddhist practitioners too, just get stuck at the I AM phase and then they keep training samadhi and prolonging their samadhi into a state of nirvikalpa samadhi no different from the Hindus and non-Buddhists (such as Ramana Maharshi and Eckhart Tolle). These people spent years sitting in meditative absorptions without a care for the world in caves, parks, etc. Training samadhi is a good thing but it is not the be all and end all.

So practice must not be skewed towards samadhi only, nor must it be skewed towards wisdom only without samadhi (like the neo advaitins, but not traditional Advaitins, as the neo advaitins eschew all notions of meditation practice and samadhi). And also the 'wisdom' must be deep, many non-Buddhist mystics get into nondual territories but do not have the correct realization of emptiness, freedom from extremes, emptiness of inherent existence. So they get fixated on substantialist views of a Self or ultimate reality. There is realization of the luminous clarity or even the nondual aspect of Mind, but not its ultimate empty nature, and this will not be sufficient to free us from all fixations and the root of suffering, because any ignorance and view or trace or sense of self/Self, inherent existence and duality is in fact the root of suffering. Only the wisdom of one's nature as inseparable clarity and emptiness liberates.

For liberation in Buddhadharma, there must be both wisdom and samadhi, and both must be clear and deep, when both qualities are present, deep and fine-tuned, there can then be liberation of one's afflictions, or kleshas, the root of samsaric rebirth. But from the perspective of Buddhadharma, on the insight front you will need to gain realization of anatman and dependent origination at least. Otherwise it is not sufficient basis for liberation from samsara. (Simply abiding in the earlier realizations like I AM can lead to fixation in formless realms like the arupajhanas) Other religions may see otherwise or treat those states as finality.

Buddha's teachings:

In Tandem

Yuganaddha Sutta (AN 4:170)

NavigationSuttas/AN/4:170

On one occasion Ven. Ānanda was staying in Kosambī at Ghosita’s monastery. There he addressed the monks, “Friends!”

“Yes, friend,” the monks responded to him.

Ven. Ānanda said: “Friends, whoever—monk or nun—declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four?

“There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquility. As he develops insight preceded by tranquility, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquility preceded by insight. As he develops tranquility preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquility in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquility in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk’s mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Whoever—monk or nun—declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths.”

See also: MN 149; SN 35:204; AN 2:29; AN 4:94; AN 10:71
2
User avatar
level 4
perter_bu7847
OP·
16 min. ago

At some point I may have to need to give you money for this.

But for now just one more question. Is it more like not-self teachings, or is it really a no-self? Because no-self always hurts so much and not-self is what I read out of the suttas I came across. And after all we do exist in some way, don't we?
Vote
level 5
xabir
·
2 min. ago

I don't accept money, thank you though. It will be better if you make offerings to actual dharma teachers, be they lay or monastic, and also give offerings to monastic sanghas consisting of monks and nuns, those who do dharma teaching and/or devote their lives to spirituality full time. I have a full time job already.

Also, I wrote this article before which I recommend reading: Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self? http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

Geoff's article also clarifies anatta and nirvana very well: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html

Also, conventional self is not denied, so we are not nihilists that denies or rejects conventions. But self is ultimately empty when subjected to analysis, just as all other conventions are also found to be empty of real existence when subjected to analysis.

“Buddha never used the term "self" to refer to an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity. He also never asserted that there was no conventional "self," the subject of transactional discourse. So, it is very clear in the sutras that the Buddha negated an ultimate self and did not negate a conventional self.” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2020

“Anatman is the negation of an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity that moves from one temporary body to another. It is not the negation of "Sam," "Fred," or "Jane" used as a conventional designation for a collection of aggregates. Since the Buddha clearly states in many Mahāyāna sūtras, "all phenomena" are not self, and since everything is included there, including buddhahood, therefore, there are no phenomena that can be called a self, and since there are nothing outside of all phenomena, a "self," other than an arbitrary designation, does not exist.”

- Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith

On the not-self or no-self subject, I have to agree with Krodha https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/ on these points:

krodha

7 points

·

5 days ago

The Buddhist view is that there is no actual seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, no feeler of feelings, no knower of known. When this is experientially recognized in a nonconceptual way, that is “awakening.”

.....

Someone wrote: The Buddha says ‘There is no self to be found in any PHENOMENA.’ Phenomena being that reality that is accessible through the sense gates, i.e. that reality which is fabricated. Of that which is unfabricated, of a noumenal reality, of Nirvana - the Buddha never said there was no self to be found there.

Krodha replied: This is incorrect, and exactly the mistake I’m pointing out that Thanissaro’s adherents fall headlong into. Sabbe dhamma anatta means all dhammas both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of a self.

The tilakkhaṇa goes:

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā

sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā

sabbe dhammā anattā

Which is: all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, all conditioned phenomena are suffering, all phenomena are without a self.

This is very intentional.

The first two lines only address saṅkhārās, or compounded and conditioned phenomena. However the last line changes to say dhamma, and why is that? In Buddhist teachings there are both conditioned and unconditioned dhammas. Therefore this line’s entire purpose is to ensure that the practitioner understands that it is not only saṅkhārās that are selfless, but all phenomena both conditioned and unconditioned. In the Pāli literature there is only one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. As such the Buddha is stating that not only are all conditioned phenomena devoid of self, but so is nirvana.

This is appropriate because nirvana is not a noumenal principle, but rather it is a species of cessation. The cessation of what? The total cessation of cause for rebirth in the three realms, aka samsara.

....

krodha

1 point · 4 months ago

The point is that anātman is not intended to be a sort of apophatic exercise as Thanissaro suggests. Rather it is the lack of a svabhāva or inherent self in the mind. The prevailing issue with Thanissaro’s approach is that you have people who wrongly assert that the Buddha never said there is no self, which is an absurd misconception. The Buddha clearly and routinely says there is no self to be found in any phenomena anywhere.

Now, does this negate the action of “taking out the trash” as you mention, no, because that is a conventional action performed by a conventional self. We as Buddhists, do not negate the validity of conventional activities and entities as these things appear, we simply state that all conventional designations are ultimately only nominal in nature. Nominal, meaning inferential in the sense that the associated imputation suggests the validity of an entity, however if we investigate the basis of said imputation, the entity cannot actually be found because it is merely an abstraction. A useful abstraction, but not actually established or real.

In this way you can be a conventional individual who takes out the trash and performs many activities, but like an image of a tiger in a dream, there is no actual tiger present. The same goes for the appearance of you as a conventional individual taking the trash out, there is not actually an individual there when the imputed self is keenly scrutinized.
1
User avatar
level 2
perter_bu7847
OP·
57 min. ago
·edited 38 min. ago

Plus, do you also know for what number 3 is for?
1
level 3
xabir
·
29 min. ago

That depends on how the teacher guides the student. I personally never asked "where one's mind is."

If the teacher is telling the student to ask "where one's mind is" with the emphasis on discovering the unfindability or emptiness of mind (much like Shurangama Sutra's questioning on the 7 locations of mind with the conclusion that mind is unfindable), that is more on anatman or emptiness.

If the teacher is telling the student to ask "where one's mind is" with the emphasis on discovering the pure luminous Presence or sheer pristine Existence/Consciousness of Mind, that is more on the luminous clarity aspect of mind.
2
User avatar
level 4
perter_bu7847
OP·
11 min. ago

Thank you.
Vote
 


0 Responses