“不见有有无之心。即是常定。何有出入。若有出入。即非大定。”

[19/5/20, 1:08:25 AM] John Tan: The purpose is actually to trigger about bahiya sutta

[19/5/20, 1:08:57 AM] John Tan: Unfortunately the Chinese sutta may not be able to translate the bahiya sutta properly

[19/5/20, 1:09:38 AM] John Tan: Many translate in the seen just the seen as a form of total concentration into a state of no mind.

[19/5/20, 1:09:55 AM] John Tan: Like vipassana into no mind

[19/5/20, 1:12:52 AM] John Tan: Therefore bahiya sutta can be seen from the perspective of 修 (practice) or can be understood from the perspective of 悟 (realization)。all these depends on the calibre of the person.

[19/5/20, 1:13:51 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Bahiya Sutta in the new Chinese translation of the ‘Small Boat Great Mountain’ by Ajahn Amaro https://cd1.amaravati.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/13/%E5%B0%8F%E8%88%B9%E8%88%87%E5%A4%A7%E5%B1%B1_20161111.pdf 

佛說：在所見中，只有所見。在所聞中，只有所聞。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此會看到，的確無物在此1；婆醯迦，該如此修習。婆醯迦，你應該依此：在所見中，只有所見。在所聞中，只有所聞。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此你會看到，的確無物在這裡；如此，的確無物。什麼都沒有時，您將看到，你不在此處，不在彼處，也不在兩者之間。此即苦的止息2。（自說經1.10）

....

(In the seen, there is only the seen,

in the heard, there is only the heard,

in the sensed, there is only the sensed,

in the cognized, there is only the cognized.

Thus you should see that

indeed there is no thing here;

this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.

Since, Bahiya, there is for you

in the seen, only the seen,

in the heard, only the heard,

in the sensed, only the sensed,

in the cognized, only the cognized,

and you see that there is no thing here,

you will therefore see that

indeed there is no thing there.

As you see that there is no thing there,

you will see that

you are therefore located neither in the world of this,

nor in the world of that,

nor in any place

betwixt the two.

This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)

- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html )

[19/5/20, 1:14:01 AM] Soh Wei Yu: oic..

[19/5/20, 1:15:14 AM] John Tan: But it should be understood from the perspective of 悟  (realization)。y?

[19/5/20, 1:18:52 AM] Soh Wei Yu: realization of anatta as dharma seal is different from a state of no mind

[19/5/20, 1:19:36 AM] John Tan: No from the text, y should it be viewed from the perspective of 悟  (realization)？

[19/5/20, 1:20:32 AM] Soh Wei Yu: In seeing, always only the seen, or seeing is none other than seen. No you. This is truth, not training into a state of only the seen

[19/5/20, 1:20:39 AM] John Tan: 如此你會看到，的確無物在這裡；如此，的確無物。什麼都沒有時，您將看到，你不在此處，不在彼處，也不在兩者之間。此即苦的止息2。（自說經1.10）

....

(As you see that there is no thing there,

you will see that

you are therefore located neither in the world of this,

nor in the world of that,

nor in any place

betwixt the two.

This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)

- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html )

[19/5/20, 1:21:11 AM] John Tan: It says therefore u should see this truth.

[19/5/20, 1:21:22 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

[19/5/20, 1:21:57 AM] John Tan: Therefore it is for 悟 (realization)

[19/5/20, 1:23:01 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[19/5/20, 1:23:55 AM] John Tan: This is the purpose of the second and third line

[19/5/20, 1:24:15 AM] John Tan: 深入观行, 婆酰迦经。 

了悟经旨, 直指无心。 

无执能所, 忘却身心。

(Deeply contemplating, Bahiya Sutta.

Realizing the essence of the sutta, directly pointing to No Mind.

No grasping at subject and object, forgotten mind and body.)

[19/5/20, 1:24:48 AM] John Tan: 如此你會看到，的確無物在這裡；如此，的確無物。什麼都沒有時，您將看到，你不在此處，不在彼處，也不在兩者之間。此即苦的止息2。（自說經1.10）

....

(As you see that there is no thing there,

you will see that

you are therefore located neither in the world of this,

nor in the world of that,

nor in any place

betwixt the two.

This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)

- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html )

[19/5/20, 1:25:23 AM] John Tan: If without the above that, then it can be interpreted as just a state of no mind samadhi.

[19/5/20, 1:25:32 AM] John Tan: There is no insight involved.

[19/5/20, 1:27:42 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ic..

[19/5/20, 1:28:09 AM] John Tan: But it is stated, therefore u will see from in seeing, just the seen, u will realize there is no object here, there is no subject here, no subject there either, nor any in between.

[19/5/20, 1:34:02 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[19/5/20, 1:34:33 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Im glad they recently released that translation and ajahn amaro’s book in chinese. Otherwise cant find a good one that distinguishes that

[19/5/20, 1:34:49 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I see other chinese explanations of bahiya also more on no mind

[19/5/20, 1:34:59 AM] John Tan: Oh just recently released?

[19/5/20, 1:35:11 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Ajahn amaro’s old book but recently translated to chinese

[19/5/20, 1:35:16 AM] Soh Wei Yu: He also has a new book but in english

[19/5/20, 1:35:28 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Called the breakthrough. He also reiterated bahiya sutta in that

[19/5/20, 1:35:46 AM] John Tan: I heard he went into dzogchen?

[19/5/20, 1:36:23 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Nope but he was discussing dzogchen with his friend tsoknyi rinpoche and found it similar to his thai forest practice. Tsoknyi rinpoche is the one i went to his retreat last year lol

[19/5/20, 1:37:31 AM] John Tan: Most important breakthrough post that is not go into subsuming but into dependent origination and emptiness.  Many can still turn into non-dual awareness teaching.

[19/5/20, 1:37:59 AM] John Tan: Or one can move into [total] exertion and emptiness like dogen...

[19/5/20, 1:38:11 AM] John Tan: Like 洪文亮 (Zen Master Hong Wen Liang)

....

John Tan: "What is important to know in bahiya, Buddha actually included the path, experience and the realization in such a short teaching."

 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
 ReportSaveFollow

https://www.facebook.com/yin.l.chok/posts/pfbid02xtaNEViToQzLgnyMc82i3F6wcZKiAzA5M8ohEPzebEvAbrsYaUZD26vExA4EBUUml?__cft__[0]=AZXx5FWchxrAbSBkgamQpf9WQ3pnAXr2EDzJcRJtQ8eVkiRr3pwfim9CSO4nKCI13OSrW90gKcWuMxzLkShhvq8Kr48pi3JpZqDD0syl0n1vBXHS5No36YbKW0cQO5mnAE7NvR3XEP6xldQSacS8sybqX4uVvg1vDOLfEalzdt8zESZuyHmIgW196qVF_OQXsL-v59Mb4kmHn3NMVaF0r8Le&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Yin Ling

A lot of ppl speak of no-self(Anatta) realisation as “dis identification of the self” ONLY, which is not my direct xp. It’s at most intellectualization of anatta imo. 

To me the most profound shift when anatta happens is the shift of identification, not only disidentifying. Well language can always fail us and this sentence will probably get nitpicked but if u xp anatta moment to moment u will know what I’m speaking about. 

That shift of identity into totality, encompassing sky and earth, very sensorial based and non-conceptual is anatta. 

Self-deconstruction method taught by classical Buddhist teaching is a raft and only a raft and it supports by giving confidence of the nature of reality. It takes a long time for direct xp to dawn because it is quite far from what Buddha wants to show us. Hence the gradual path. 

One need to practice “Mahamudra” to really come to direct experience, or zen , or self inquiry, or any direct realisation method to come face to face with Anatta. 

It is very profound.

May be an image of text

Frank Yang

tdpeoonsrStct8

11You, John Tan, Tan Jui Horng and 8 others

6 Comments

Like

Comment

Share

6 Comments

Most relevant

Tan Jui Horng

Do you mean the dis-identification via "This is not me; this is not mine, I am not this" ?

Like

Reply6h

Yin Ling

Tan Jui Horng yeah like..

Ppl will say often

There is no I , there is no my, there is no mine.

The body is not I, not mine. The feelings is not I , not mine.. etcetera

that is correct.

But if u ask abit more.. if everything is not I, not mine right.. but u are clearly alive

Then what is this hearing, seeing, sensing, touching, what’s all this?

There’s clearly existence right, but how ?

Without experential anatta or coming face to face with “existence”, ppl usually cannot answer or just keep parroting the Not I , not my …

Which doesn’t even go close to realization imo. Cannot talk about emptienss without addressing the luminous mind

2

Like

Reply6hEdited

Tan Jui Horng

Yeah, non/under-development on luminosity aspect of experience. Wonder if thai forest tradition also has this problem, given that they do tend to cover the ground on that to the extent that the teachers have to warn against mistaking luminosity as enlightenment.

Like

Reply6hEdited

Yin Ling

Tan Jui Horng

hmmnot sure their experience.

But to me right, without that “Mu”,

One is still not out of the duality structure . Where does the “sense of existence” go when one disidentify?

It was in the self , and in anatta it is in everything.

But if only disidentify, then where does that sense go?

That’s a crucial “sense”.

Probably the only sense that’s left for myself personally.

Without that, I cannot imagine how ppl experience no-self? I am curious though

2

Like

Reply5h

Tan Jui Horng

Yeah it's like this "what is THIS that is so alive" question goes unanswered due to being unexplored. I suspect many people's practice goes in circles because they intuitively get a taste of the aliveness yet cannot grasp what it is, so there's a certain level of doubt which impedes progress despite being able to see aggregates in experience.

Luminosity is aliveness, is engagement. Peak luminosity causes total engagement which together with right view that removes distinction between self and other, results in total exertion. In a sense, a huge part of the enlightenment journey is the growing up of this luminosity: first you identify and nurture it, then you see it for what it is.

Like

Reply4h

Yin Ling

Tan Jui Horng I love this.

I talk about it though it sounds arrogant 🤦🏻‍♀️… because I find it so very crucial in realisation.

To realize the non differentiation of self and others first from this sense of existence, then one have the clear xp it is literally the same sense all around, able to be validated from moment to moment, then there is no more doubt.

the realisation of there actually is no-self comes after .

Hence I like how zen starts with finding out “Mu” and Mahamudra the “mind”.

It makes good sense.

Like

Reply3h