Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing.
As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on.
Good article, thanks for sharing :)
Nice!
For the sake of beginners (like me!) though, I wonder if Munindra could have elaborated more still, into thought and the thinking process, because the reader might very well ask "oh, so there's still something like a thinker, someone "inside" who processes this information, comes up with concepts and comes to this delusion".
Originally posted by Jui:Nice!
For the sake of beginners (like me!) though, I wonder if Munindra could have elaborated more still, into thought and the thinking process, because the reader might very well ask "oh, so there's still something like a thinker, someone "inside" who processes this information, comes up with concepts and comes to this delusion".
Good question...
Thinking and thoughts also do not constitute a self. There is thinking but no thinker.
Another viewpoint for consideration. Under normal circumstance there seems to be a flow in the sequence of thoughts. In actual fact, the flow is not a singular continuous process. It is actually one thought activating the next and so forth. This apparent linear continuity gives the impression that there is a person thinking.
In actuality, thoughts flows can be disjointed and unsupported. Thoughts can pop up and dissapear.
An example of disjointed thoughts are phenomena of ghost sightings. Ghosts often seems to be doing the same thing... this is possibly because that is all that is left of the memory.
No-self is not the same as nothingness. Conceptually, when one read this, it may be depressing if they think that nothing exist. Awareness/Presence is there everywhere... but just don't make this 'inconceivable' into another self again !
Originally posted by simpo_:Good question...
Thinking and thoughts also do not constitute a self. There is thinking but no thinker.
Another viewpoint for consideration. Under normal circumstance there seems to be a flow in the sequence of thoughts. In actual fact, the flow is not a singular continuous process. It is actually one thought activating the next and so forth. This apparent linear continuity gives the impression that there is a person thinking.
In actuality, thoughts flows can be disjointed and unsupported. Thoughts can pop up and dissapear.
An example of disjointed thoughts are phenomena of ghost sightings. Ghosts often seems to be doing the same thing... this is possibly because that is all that is left of the memory.
No-self is not the same as nothingness. Conceptually, when one read this, it may be depressing if they think that nothing exist. Awareness/Presence is there everywhere... but just don't make this 'inconceivable' into another self again !
If thoughts pop up and disappear uncontrolled by a self centre, and we essentially do not decide what to think next, by what mechanics can we alter the 'quality' of thoughts that do pop up? For example, if a person is constantly thinking murderous thoughts, can he give the excuse that the thoughts just come anyway and that he has no volition?
I pose this question not just in relation to thoughts but also with regards to the 'unfolding' of events. I have heard it said somewhere that we are essentially "being lived". (Lol. Sounds a bit like we are possessed but I'm sure the person meant that more in the context of No Self.)
Since Buddhism doesn't teach fatalism, then there must be some mechanism by which we can alter the course of events. I'm just not understanding at present, how to tie these two sets of knowledge together.
Nobody said there is no volition... there is volition, there is intention, but it is just a thought, not a thinker.
For example a person may be an evil person. One day, he reflected on his own wrongdoings and think it is very harmful to himself and others. He made a resolution to change himself. As a result of this resolution, his actions and behaviours improve.
All these are just actions, leading to reflection (a thought), leading to a resolution (a thought), leading to improved action and behaviour.
It is just a process... it is not a controller doing things.
Originally posted by realization:If thoughts pop up and disappear uncontrolled by a self centre, and we essentially do not decide what to think next, by what mechanics can we alter the 'quality' of thoughts that do pop up? For example, if a person is constantly thinking murderous thoughts, can he give the excuse that the thoughts just come anyway and that he has no volition?
I pose this question not just in relation to thoughts but also with regards to the 'unfolding' of events. I have heard it said somewhere that we are essentially "being lived". (Lol. Sounds a bit like we are possessed but I'm sure the person meant that more in the context of No Self.)
Since Buddhism doesn't teach fatalism, then there must be some mechanism by which we can alter the course of events. I'm just not understanding at present, how to tie these two sets of knowledge together.
Just my opinion here... the debate of 'fatalism' vs 'free will' takes place on the level of relative truth where ignorance is assumed. As 'free will' in our common usage of the word implicitly refers to an ego or 'I' that is making the decision. "Control" also implicitly refers to a "controller".
In terms of absolute truth, there is no need for such concepts at all. In terms of absolute truth, everything takes place as it is without the need to superimpose an extra "I" which is our basic delusion anyway.
Also, another thing about 'determinism' or 'fatalism' is the implicit assumption of time. The main argument about 'fatalism' is that are things already fated or determined right from the beginning and therefore should we still bother to make a good decision...
there is a thin line between 'spontaneity' and 'fatalism' in this regard. But i think 'spontaneity' is free of the concept of time whereas 'fatalism' uses time as a crutch/excuse.
Relatively, since relative truth presumes self as a convention, free will is valid because 'you' yourself have to make your own intention and decision. i.e. I can't make a decision for you.
Ultimately, there is no self, both free will and determinism don't apply, everything is causal and empty.
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:Just my opinion here... the debate of 'fatalism' vs 'free will' takes place on the level of relative truth where ignorance is assumed. As 'free will' in our common usage of the word implicitly refers to an ego or 'I' that is making the decision. "Control" also implicitly refers to a "controller".
In terms of absolute truth, there is no need for such concepts at all. In terms of absolute truth, everything takes place as it is without the need to superimpose an extra "I" which is our basic delusion anyway.
Exactly... 'Free will' or 'no free will' are no issues after realisation. Such concepts are false and do not exist and are of no concern.
Hello,
Thank you for your interest in Munindra's teaching. I am delighted that people are discussing what he said regarding anatta. He embodied anatta even in the way he responded to questions. For example, when someone asked him, "Munindra-ji, are you hungry?" he would say, "Hunger is there, but I am not hungry." He deeply understood that conditions arise and fall away and have nothing to do with identity or ego.
I would like to point out that the quotes offered in this forum are not an article, but taken directly from a book I wrote to honor Munindra-ji's life and legacy in the Dhamma: "Living This Life Fully: Stories and Teachings of Munindra," published by Shambhala. For more information: www.mirkaknaster.com/. Also, a slight correction: the word "car" should be "ear" in order to best understand the meaning of the sentence.
May all beings we happy and peaceful.
Originally posted by Mirka:Hello,
Thank you for your interest in Munindra's teaching. I am delighted that people are discussing what he said regarding anatta. He embodied anatta even in the way he responded to questions. For example, when someone asked him, "Munindra-ji, are you hungry?" he would say, "Hunger is there, but I am not hungry." He deeply understood that conditions arise and fall away and have nothing to do with identity or ego.
I would like to point out that the quotes offered in this forum are not an article, but taken directly from a book I wrote to honor Munindra-ji's life and legacy in the Dhamma: "Living This Life Fully: Stories and Teachings of Munindra," published by Shambhala. For more information: www.mirkaknaster.com/. Also, a slight correction: the word "car" should be "ear" in order to best understand the meaning of the sentence.
May all beings we happy and peaceful.
Hi Mirka,
Thanks for the sharing :)
Originally posted by Jui:Nice!
For the sake of beginners (like me!) though, I wonder if Munindra could have elaborated more still, into thought and the thinking process, because the reader might very well ask "oh, so there's still something like a thinker, someone "inside" who processes this information, comes up with concepts and comes to this delusion".
Oh... i forgot to add another point.
From my experience of no-self, when thoughts arise that are about passed events that happened... these past events will not be identified as belonging to 'me' ... in another word they are just recognised as thoughts/memories. This will enable the thoughts to dissolve (passing away) which could literally be 'seen'. Same goes with any mind contents such as thinking and planning for the future... they will be recognised as not belonging to 'me' and thus pass away.
To Dharmadhatu,
IMO, insights are the fast-track karmic clearing method. The lower methods involve the contents of the mind.
Thanks all for clarifying.
Originally posted by Mirka:Hello,
Thank you for your interest in Munindra's teaching. I am delighted that people are discussing what he said regarding anatta. He embodied anatta even in the way he responded to questions. For example, when someone asked him, "Munindra-ji, are you hungry?" he would say, "Hunger is there, but I am not hungry." He deeply understood that conditions arise and fall away and have nothing to do with identity or ego.
I would like to point out that the quotes offered in this forum are not an article, but taken directly from a book I wrote to honor Munindra-ji's life and legacy in the Dhamma: "Living This Life Fully: Stories and Teachings of Munindra," published by Shambhala. For more information: www.mirkaknaster.com/. Also, a slight correction: the word "car" should be "ear" in order to best understand the meaning of the sentence.
May all beings we happy and peaceful.
Hi Mirka,
Thank you for writing this wonderful book. I must apologise for not quoting the book's title. I was deeply moved by Munindra too! You have done many people a great service by writing this book!
Originally posted by simpo_:Oh... i forgot to add another point.
From my experience of no-self, when thoughts arise that are about passed events that happened... these past events will not be identified as belonging to 'me' ... in another word they are just recognised as thoughts/memories. This will enable the thoughts to dissolve (passing away) which could literally be 'seen'. Same goes with any mind contents such as thinking and planning for the future... they will be recognised as not belonging to 'me' and thus pass away.
To Dharmadhatu,
IMO, insights are the fast-track karmic clearing method. The lower methods involve the contents of the mind.
Hi Simpo_
Thanks for sharing. For instance, Vajrasattva practice has outer, inner, secret and most secret level. Most secret Vajrasattva is the practice of insight / Mahamudra/ Dzogchen as we are doing here... hence your comments strike me as accurate!
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:Hi Simpo_
Thanks for sharing. For instance, Vajrasattva practice has outer, inner, secret and most secret level. Most secret Vajrasattva is the practice of insight / Mahamudra/ Dzogchen as we are doing here... hence your comments strike me as accurate!
Guru Padmasambhava in Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness
"If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.
But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit
will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.
But if you understand this empty primal awareness, which is your own mind,
the consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,
just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.
In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.
Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly.
This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of such great profundity,
and, this being so; you should become intimately acquainted with self-awareness.
Profoundly sealed!"
I have heard it said that after realising 'emptiness' one stops creating karma, but that previous creations of karma have still to ripen. Any explanation?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Only 8th bhumi and above are free from afflictions... so I do not think lower bhumi Bodhisattvas stop creating karma totally. However like the stream enterer, one who is awakened is no longer capable of creating very unwholesome karma that leads to rebirth in lower realm.
When you realize twofold emptiness and end afflictions, you stop creating karma out of craving, anger, and ignorance. Whatever action is pure and unafflictive, thus not a cause for further karmic cycle.
Even if you are not yet free from afflictions completely, if you can do as Guru Padmasambhava said, then the craving, anger, and ignorance that do arise nonetheless self-liberate and thus one is freed from karmic repercussions.
Why? Karma only forms when your actions leave traces of karmic imprints in your mind which may then ripen later. If you are as traceless as drawing in water, you don't create karmic imprints.
Can you explain how realisation of anatta brings 'tracelessness'?
I am also very curious about the non-judgement / non-discriminating aspect of a realised being. Is it a natural outflowing of realisation? Because as Simpo_ explained before, non-duality is different from non-judgement. In Chinese Mahayana, we are often asked to not differentiate or judge or discriminate... how does that tie in with realisations of the 2-fold emptiness?
Thanks for your answer!
Fantastic Blog...