Five days ago I posted an anecdote thread on
/r/Buddhism here labelled "
Do Nothing or Do Something?".
Something else was missing though. I know it's only been five days but
I've had a much deeper insight in between that and now.
This all started from the Buddha's own words in the Sabba Sutta:
The Blessed One said, "What is the All?
Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds,
nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body
& tactile sensations, intellect & ideas.
This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will
describe another,' if questioned on what
exactly might be the grounds for his
statement, would be unable to explain,
and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."
When I first read this sutta
in the past, it never gave any insight. With this new insight, I
suddenly understand what the Buddha meant - it has an extremely deep
meaning! To me at least, he was describing the true nature of Mind, of
reality.
I'll start with the backstory.
My
past was in Theravada, Thai Forest, the Pali Canon, as well as other
schools of Buddhism like Mahayana (Pure land, Ch'an/Zen, Tiantai, and so
on) as well as the Vajrayana (Nyingmapa's Dzogchen, Kagyu's Mahamudra,
Gelug's Prasangika, and so on). All of that and personal
inquiry/exploration with meditation, along with the help of an eminent
monastic teacher, built up to this.
I've
done nearly my whole Buddhism life thinking there was awareness. Ajahn
Chah taught the Mind as Awareness, the Mahayana taught the purified
Eighth Consciousness as Awareness, the Vajrayana taught the Awareness
(rigpa) as the base beyond that of the eight consciousnesses.
My understanding moved in this sequence:
Awareness looks at objects.
There is a clear witness and a clear object being witnessed. So if we
witness the breath, we call it breath meditation; If we witness a
kasina, it is kasina meditation.
Awareness with varying occupation with objects.
This means that awareness can be focused like a laser to produce
intensified jhana states (Samatha, called 'Hard Jhana' by some). If it
was less focused and more lightly balanced, it is called 'Soft Jhana'.
However, also, this means awareness can be completely expansive to
encompass all the four bases of mindfulness arising and passing away
(also called Vipassana).
Awareness is not a Subject.
Before, I had the insight of there being a subject and an object - so
there was a subject-object duality. No matter how I meditated, there was
always a sense of there being a meditator when I emerged. In this
phase, I suddenly understood that any feeling, sensation or perception
that arose as a 'sense of self' are actually Objects. There are never
any Subjects. For example, an eyeball can only see things outside, it
cannot see itself. Likewise, Awareness cannot see itself, it can only
see other Objects - therefore any sense of self is necessarily an
object.
So reaching the 3rd
phase was liberating and freeing. I thought I had reached a good
understanding of emptiness. But then I was so wrong.
This fourth insight phase hit me five days after my previous post, and I would call this insight "No Such Thing As Awareness".
This
was a development from the third phase. I had already said that an
eyeball is not able to see itself, and that it can only see things
outside of itself. The Awareness likewise, can only see things outside
of itself and not Awareness itself. This is where everything was wrong.
By
assuming that there was something outside of Awareness, I made it a
Awareness-Object duality. It was a duality of Perception and
Non-Perception. Even though Awareness is not a Subject, by assuming that
Awareness can only see something outside of itself already means that
there are two things: Awareness and outside-Awareness-objects.
My insight is this: Awareness IS the object.
Referring back to the Blessed One's words in the Sabba Sutta, he had said -
"What
is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose &
aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect
& ideas. This, monks, is called the All.
This
was a perfect description of everything in reality, everything in
experience, everything that can ever be right now in the moment, in
experience, in time and space. This is what everyone experiences.
Buddha then continues:
Anyone
who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would
be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why?
Because it lies beyond range."
Did
the Buddha ever talk about Awareness as part of the All? No way!
Because it lies out of range, it is Nibbana. It is completely impossible
to have something outside of the Six Senses.
This
corresponded exactly to my own understanding here, because I realized
that when I saw a bird flying out there in the sky, this bird was not
something apart from my mind. It WAS my mind, it WAS awareness.
How
far was the bird to my mind? Zero distance! If it had to travel
distance or take time, then I would not have experienced this bird right
here and now. It HAD to be part of my mind!
Now
the paradox is that the Sixth Sense, the mental faculty, is going to
become noisy and construct an 'experiencer', a Subject. It is going to
also generate a false sense of an Awareness.
If you really, really, really analyse this right now in your experience. You will suddenly realise this clear as day: Awareness is a complete inference.
If
you try to look for your Awareness, you will find nothing. You may find
a sensation, a feeling, or a perception. But Awareness cannot exist, it
only exists as a complete inference, a conjecture, a made-up
projection.
This brings to me a famous Zen story between the First and Second Patriarch:
“Bring your mind here and I will pacify it for you,” replied Bodhidharma.
“I have searched for my mind, and I cannot take hold of it,” said the Second Patriarch.
“Now your mind is pacified,” said Bodhidharma.
Why?
Because there is no Mind to grasp onto. There is no stain-able
Awareness. It is a mere projection, inference, conjecture. Again, the
Sixth Zen Patriarch illustrated this wonderfully in his poem:
Originally, Bodhi has no tree
And a mirror has no stand
If originally there is nothing (true nature is pure)
So where can dust rest on?
However,
when the master of the Sixth Zen Patriarch saw this, he shook his head
and said that he was not enlightened, asking Hui-Neng to see him in his
room in private where he gave further pointing-out instructions and
transmission.
The reason why is this...
the Mind should not be thought of as Space either. Empty-space is also a
perception, it is within the realm of appearances.
Instead, the Mind is whatever appears as the Six Senses.
Suzuki Roshi very wonderfully put it this way:
You
may say, “The bird is singing there—over there.” But we think, you
know—bird—when we hear the bird, bird is “me,” you know, already.
I—actually I am not listening to [laughs] bird. Bird is here, you know,
in my mind already, and I am singing with the bird. “Peep-peep-peep.”
[Laughs.]
When we see
other beings, it is not "other beings". It is our own mind. "Other
beings" is "me". "I" am "other beings". There is no difference
whatsoever, because "this being" appears with "other beings" as
Awareness itself.
There is a certain
freedom, of liberation, that happens when you suddenly realize that
Awareness has always been a mind-trick, or at least, "the way we
understand Awareness". There is no looker, there is just the looked. The
looked itself is Awareness already. There is no looker, no separate
thing that makes it lookable, any other processing deviates from what is
true right here in experience.
The
Mahayana and Vajrayana like to say - "A Bodhisattva is not attached to
samsara or nibbana." Samsara is when the Six Senses are full, Nibbana is
when it is outside the range of the Six Senses. Perhaps, just perhaps,
in my very limited understanding, this is referring to not clinging onto
an 'empty awareness space' and a 'filled awareness with objects'.
Hope
you liked my little essay. I do not claim to know anything, neither do I
want to argue for my essay. I do not reinforce whatever I've written
here, neither do I disagree with it. I hope peace will be with you.
=================
Kyle Dixon my impression from reading his posts is that his insight is not very stable. Hovering between Thusness Stage 4 and 5
Recently he wrote about space and content. Seems to be falling back to the fault he originally refuted
============
Update 2021:
I have seen his most recent posts, seems his insights into Anatta and Dependent Origination has stabilized. Worth reading. See RealDharma's response on refuting Brahman:
E.g.
53 points · · edited 1 year ago My favorite analogy is a radio and a radio wave.
Consciousness is the radiowave, invisibly vibrating across the universe.
Our bodies are the radio, picking up the consciousness signal.
We are neither the radio nor the radio wave - we are the music.
edit:
some have pointed out my error in that this drifts too far away from
the Buddhist notion of anatta, or no-self. My apologies, I am forever a
beginner.
4 points · · edited 1 year ago you got a source by the way?
The Lankavatara Sutra.
I have not been educated on Buddhisms dis-belief in consciousness.
There is no denial of consciousness (vijñāna)
in Buddhism. In fact, its actual translation in some texts is
'dualistic consciousness'. It is not a denial of consciousness, because
without consciousness, how can you see, hear, taste, smell, touch and
think?
In SN25.3, however, Buddha says:
Monks,
eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness...
Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable,
alterable.
The error is not in seeing the results of the function of what you call awareness, but taking awareness to be a singular real thing.
For example, it is undeniable that there are sights, sounds, tastes,
smells, touch and thoughts. We are not denying that. In fact, Buddha
says that for every sense-object, there is a corresponding
consciousness.
So actually, there are six different sense-consciousnesses:
The eye-consciousness in dependence with sight and the eye-faculty
The ear-consciousness, sounds, ear-faculty...
... The thinking-consciousness, thoughts, thinking-faculty
The
error comes when we start to group all these six together within one
singular boundary - we reify the sense of a global consciousness that
extends throughout these six. In the Mahayana teachings, this is
explained as the seventh consciousness grasping at what is seen, heard,
smelt, tasted, touched or thought of as Objects, and at the
seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching/thinking faculties as the
Subject.
Here is an analogy:
When
we say the word 'Shapes' what comes to mind? We can say rectangles,
squares, stars, circles, lines, polygons, parallelograms, and more.
However, if we simply said the word "shape", this word by itself would
not mean anything without the rectangles, squares, stars [...].
This
is what we call in language, an abstract noun. In the dictionary, it
says this as the definition: "a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state
rather than a concrete object".
In
the same way, we have a tendency to abstract-ize things and form very
concrete ideas of them existing. Does it mean that rectangles, squares
[...] are not shapes? It does not mean that. However, the word "shape"
by itself is very meaningless - we conventionally call it a shape for
the sake of convenience. In fact, we just assume that it exists just for
the sake of convenience.
In the
same way, when sights, sounds, tastes, smells, sensations, and thoughts
arise, we group them all together as "sense objects" or "experience".
These are just names, just conceptual designations, that are abstract
ideas pointing to what is directly there in experience. The problem when
taken to extreme is that it is solidified as "Objects".
In
the converse way, when the seeing-consciousness [...] are grouped in an
abstract way, we take it as a singular consciousness. Even more
erroneously, we can even go as far as to extend this abstraction to
every being on the planet. Again, this is just a name, an abstract idea,
pointing to the six consciousnesses. When taken to the extreme, it is
solidified as a "Subject".
In
fact, this subject-object duality is the root of a lot of problems. We
love abstract-ifying things and then solidifying that abstracted idea
into something that seems very real. For example, we can take a bunch of
common bodily sensations and think that we are "right here". If you
examine carefully, these sensations have already disappeared, and are
replaced with another bunch of rapidly arising-and-passing-away
sensations in random locations.
To end this reply, I would also like to quote this sutta (Ud 1.10) which points directly to the heart of no self:
'In the seen will be merely what is seen;
in the heard will be merely what is heard;
in the sensed will be merely what is sensed;
in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'
In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen...
in the cognized is merely what is cognized,
then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.'
When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,'
then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.'
When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,'
then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.
Just this is the end of suffering."