Author: thittato
Forum: The Big Issues

Hello,

One thing I've been wondering about lately is that when you read the palicanon, it seems obvious that when the Buddha talks about anatta, his teachings seems aimed at going beyond all forms self-identification, whether it's the small self or the Big Selv (the self as the Kosmos, union with God, the All, etc.). There are some lists in there, I don't remember which Sutta, where he goes through all the different kinds of self-view that he rejects, and the list is pretty extensive.

However, when you read the typical nondualists, and even Daniel and Kenneth sometimes seems to promote this view, it often seems more like the idea is that one actually eliminates the small sense of self and "melts" together with the All (for instance Kenneth referred to Krishnamurti saying something like the observed and the observer is one).

So my question is: Is arahantship the way it's understood on this forum the end of all forms of self-identification or is it only the end of self-identification with the "small self"?

Does the end of seeing oneself as a separate entity automatically mean one is one with everything, and if so, is there a new identification process going on identifieing with everything, or can one be "one with everything" without taking that as an identity?

Thank you!

I think of this one, MN1, Tipitaka 101. A keynote is not only the non-identification but the various depths of penetration of the given phenomena. Bhikkhu Bodhi's trans. w/commentary stuff is a good read, I wore a copy fairly thin together with the Vism. Don't think I want to enter these issues in any direct way with any comments, I'll pass and let the Buddha step up with this one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
(starting to feel like I'm overposting here, but going to be away for a while so expect a long lapse to follow, been great hanging lately, such a chilled and together scene guys, kind of irresistible after years of, you know, polarized online dharma discussion as usual, keep it up and thanks.)

Hey,

I can't speak for Dan or Kenneth, but I'll try to give a point of view that might solve this contradiction.

A "self" is not necessarily the concept of "what I like, 'who I am,'" etc, but more of a perceptual, moment to moment clinging to of sensations which arise in awareness on a moment to moment basis. As we become more realized, we leave behind this moment to moment clinging, which also allows us to leave behind the suffering & imprisoned feelings associated with the clinging. It does not mean that I stop associating with the same type of people, or that I suddenly like broccoli more than I use to. (Although, something in this way does also change; it is hard to say what). All of this is to say: "no compounded phenomenon has self nature," not that the concept of a distinguished personality is in any way problematic in and of itself.

The further realized one becomes, the less of this clinging remains. Because of this, we no longer see those old points of reference (pieces we clung to) as more special than the sensations which were not clung to. Thus, the lines begin to blur in what has "me nature" and what has "other nature," which is where the "Big Self" comes in.

(cont.)

As the center is completely seen through, all clinging ended, the path completed, awareness floats where it may and may temporarily "identify" wherever. The pole of "absolutely no self" and "absolutely all as self" are happening at once. I would say the majority of people like to pick one of these two (full self vs no self) as a means of convenience in speaking. The truth of the matter is, however, that both are correct in their own way.

I do think that the subtly of these understandings seem to be lost or confused often, or simply spoke of in ways the infer that. Many people seem to make no-God zones out of some of the most beautiful, mysterious happenings of God. For example, a lot of highly realized folks will say "the absolute is all just one," and although this is correct, it is only a tiny piece of that understanding. For example, the absolute is not only "all one," but also can't really be said to exist at all. It can be understood, and cannot be understood. It exists in everything, and in nothing. It's happening now, and it has never happened. It is completely full and pregnant of all things, feeling, perceptions, consciousnesses of reality; and yet, so utterly, completely empty that it is literally non-existent.

So in this way, the arhat knows of all these facets and can be said to "be them," although in regard to some of the concepts above, you can see how this is tricky. Looking at "being nothing," you may be able to see where sayings like "the arhat is traceless in the here and now," come from.

Anyhow, hope that helps.

Trent

Thitatto, I'm glad you picked up on this apparent inconsistency. Krishnamurti would have done better to say that "observing (the sense of observation) and the observed are one." Although we must admit that Krishnamurti's phrase is much more elegant, it has serious problems as there is no observer to be found. There is, however, the sense of observation, and this is what he meant by "observer." By saying that the observer and the observed are one, he was saying that the universe is "one without a second," or "not-two." But, more than making a philosophical statement, he was pointing to a particular situation (experence?) in which duality does not arise.

A related matter is the no-dog. The experience of "Self" described by the advaitists can be seen as both a means and an end. It's an end in that it is a refuge, a trans-personal perspective that is prior to the arising of a separate self, and therefore upstream from suffering. The no-dog knows no suffering. But in the no-dog, there is still a tenuous thread of delusion; the small personal self has been superseded by the universal and impersonal Self. So the no-dog is also a means; by dwelling as the no-dog "Self," you are just one tiny step away from the simplest thing, aka primordial awareness, which has no reference point, either personal or transpersonal. There is no self, big, small or otherwise, from this simplest of all perspectives. It knows Itself. There is no localized sense of knowing standing apart from what is known.There's just the entire phenomenological world, which is self-aware.

I'm sorry if this seems convoluted. It's not nearly so confusing in real life. But you can see why so many have failed so miserably to speak clearly about it; it's just really hard to talk about.

Arahatship just gives you more options, as you are no longer locked into any one perspective. It's not that you can't adopt the perspective of small self, you just aren't stuck with it. And you can visit the perspective of universal Self whenever you want. Same with the simplest thing. Most often, these perspectives come and go on their own, without conscious intervention. A fairly common misconception is that an arahat would have no access to the perspective of small self. This isn't true and would not be a desirable outcome in my opinion as it would make normal human relationships impossible. Relationship depends on clearly differentiating "myself" from those around me. In the world of not-two, there is no relationship; oneness does not have a relationship with itself. Similarly, a person dwelling in the no-dog 24/7 would be completely out of touch with the everyday concerns of most people. While he or she would be very inspirational to others as a kind of ideal, or as a demi-god, s/he would be really weird and distant. You couldn't count on such a person for empathy as s/he would be abiding in a world that is light years away from ordinary human drama.

My ideal for enlightenment is a well-balanced individual who regularly visits all the major perspectives, including the small self.

Good source citation, Triplethink. Here is how that sutta ends:
[The Buddha] "has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."
"That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words."

Note that final irony! The monks were displeased at hearing that "delight is the root of suffering" and this did **not** delight them!

If we speak in terms of becoming "one with everything" we conceive of something delightful. Inside this conception is the seed of becoming and the notion of identification **with**, or an "I" and an "IT".

If we recognize (litertally "know again") in the most profound and directly intimate way possible that we have never been apart from anything, that there is inherently no separate self, then there is no mistaking the conditional psychological "I" for the true non-dual identity. In the moment of awakening to this "discovery", its obviousness is amazingly ordinary. Realizing identity as True Self is humbling, not self-aggrandizing. There is nothing to hold onto, do anything with, or delight in.

Author: garyrh

Kenneth correct me if I am wrong.
Being able to move to another perspective is vertical development. However, one cannot move to another perspective without all perspectives changing and integrating in some way and this is horozontial development.
Imagine the mind as a picture being painted, the richness of the image equates to the horizontal development while vertical develop equates to the tools at the artist disposal. When the artist has access to another color or technique the whole picture almost certainly is further enriched. One still should employ skilful use of ones tools. Now when someone looks at a painting they see the picture not the paint color and tools employed. Enlightenment is like knowing how the image is being painted and no amount of consideration to the image will assist here (the considering of small and big self, is like looking at the whole picture and saying it was created by an artist). Now for the original question on this thread, when one does know how the picture is created the the picture remains.

A well balanced individual has a beautiful picture!

Author: thittato

Thanks for all the replies. I have a much clearer picture of your view now, and I'm almost totally convinced, but....

In some of Theravada, and especially the Thai Forest Tradition, they make nirvana sound like something that is outside of this universe altogether. Some sort of "Deathless Element" that is this secure refuge and safe harbor that we're desperately seeking.

Does this correlate with your understanding of primordial awareness, or is primordial awareness still apart of this universe?

I guess I'm still referring to this standard criticism of Hinduism by Buddhism: Hinduism seeks to become one with the All while Buddhism seeks to escape the samsara altogether.

I'm very open to the idea that this deathless element might be a model of enlightenment that is not very accurate, but I'm trying to find out whether there is something to it or if it is a totally different understanding.

On a practical level though, I'd say I'm convinced enough to make the type of arahatship promoted on this forum the goal of my practice, then I can try to make up my mind about whether there is more to do or not if and when I reach that goal, should it still be an issue then.

Thank you! :-)

Author: garyrh

Awareness is outside and right here, or it maybe better to say position does not make much sense. I am not sure putting awareness into a model helps. The knowing of awareness is why one would practice and one practices because normal thinking does not help.

Awareness is realized so it is here, it is not conditioned so in there is a sense in which it is not part of the univserse. Do not imagine this to be mystical; things will come together in practice.

This is a lovely metaphor, Gary. I think you've given us a very useful way to conceive of enlightenment.

Thittato,

The deathless element most likely refers to some line of thought like: "if everything is utterly empty, nothing was born and nothing can die." Another would be that once everything is seen in real time as being in flux, having no center, etc, that the original "small self" has been let go of and one's perceptual view of the world will never have to default to some point of that small self; thus, it is as if the small self no longer exists (thus, cannot die). One more guess: the absolute/dharmakaya body can be said to BE everything, literally, which includes the two poles "life" and "death." Understanding the dharmakaya allows one to understand something that seems to hint at being utterly beyond this world of phenomena; although that is only one piece of the understanding.

I do not see any responsible form of Buddhism advocating an escape from samsara. In fact, I believe there are numerous references in the Canon which say things like "Samsara IS nirvana," and that is exactly the point that has to be driven home if we are to practice and live well. There is NO refuge. Hope for some refuge, no matter how elegant, is an impossible hope which will harbor with it some degree of fundamental suffering.

Trent

Enlightenment is the end of separateness. That's not quite the same is being one with everything. For example, a wave is not separate from the ocean. When it's clearly understood that a "wave" is really a mental construct which arbitrarily and artificially separates ocean and wave, the situation is seen clearly; wave and ocean are not two. But that is not to say that in the moment of realization the wave suddenly merged with the ocean. There's no need to merge two "things" that have never been separate. So, the enlightened wave has no need to identify itself with the ocean; it has no need to identify itself at all.

While some may use the "one-with-everything" terminology, I suspect it is because they think that's as good a way as any to point to something that must be experienced to be understood. For me, though, the one-with-everything idea causes more problems than it solves and I don't tend to speak in those terms. Whatever language we use is potentially (inevitably?) misleading. So we just put out various imperfect descriptions hoping to inspire and point people in the right direction. When the Zen master says "the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon," this language/concept/reality problem is what he is talking about. Language is hopelessly inadequate to describe the experience. That doesn't mean the language isn't useful, just that its limitations must be constantly pointed out, so that people can hold their concepts lightly. A concept is just a kind of place holder for the real thing.

Author: thittato

So it is correct to say that for an arahant the concept of getting out of samsara over to somewhere else (ie. nirvana) doesn't apply anymore because fundamentally speaking there is no longer a seperate entity that one can get out of something over to some other place?

Thittato,

I would be more blunt and say this. The concept of getting out of samsara over to somewhere else (nirvana/heaven/any afterlife) doesn't apply because fundamentally speaking, there is nothing external to the experience of this consciousness in the here and now.

Lets say I am a completely unenlightened chap that died and went to heaven. I would need to be conscious of this if I were to know anything about it, correct? Just "being in heaven" or "dwelling anywhere" would mean I "know" something. I would know my self, or my God, or the angels chilling out a couple of clouds away. I would have to be conscious. Well, if that is the case, then I would still have fundamental suffering even while in heaven, because I would still be misunderstanding the fundamentals of consciousness and its' relationship to my perception of reality. This moment of knowing, one sensation after another, concept begetting concept, is all there has ever been and all there ever will be for you and I. Causal, empty, transient.

There is absolutely, utterly nothing outside of this samsara and all of its concepts. How do I know this? Because if I were to conceive of something I thought "external to this world", I would be conscious of it, and it would therefore become a part of samsara. There cannot be a metaphysical some-thing that is not a part of this single, non-dual reality. That is true for the "big self," the "tiny self" and everything or anyone else you can ever possibly conceive of.

As a disclaimer, maybe when we die we all become fully enlightened and then are transported to the sun to chill out with angels for eternity. We cannot know that, though-- it is metaphysical. We best spend our energy elsewhere.

Trent

Author: thittato

Ah, yes, I found the quote from an interview with Thanissaro Bhikkhu that I was looking for. I'm really really currious about how you guys would respond to Ven. Thanissaro's argument here, as he is cleary advocating "escaping samsara" as opposed to seeing enlightenment as the end of separateness. I just want to add that not so long ago I was a huge fan of this sort of position as I was recently on a pretty heavy renunicate-giving-it-all-up sort of trip that was fueled by this type of logic. So as I understand your arguments here you would probably see the dichotomy Ven. Thanissaro is setting up as a false dichotomy, and I would really appreciate if you could explain why as clearly as you possibly can, as all this nondualist stuff is a pretty major shift in my practice that I'm very enthusiastic about and want to understand as well as possible. Ok, enough explanations, here it comes:

--------
How would you respond to those who say they get a sense of oneness with the universe when they meditate, that they're interconnected to all things, and that it relieves a lot of suffering?

How stable is that feeling of oneness? When you feel like you've come to the stable ground of being from which all things emanate, the suttas ask you to question whether you're simply reading that feeling into your experience. If the ground of being were really stable, how would it give rise to the unstable world we live in? So whatever it is you're experiencing—it may be one of the formless states—it's not the ultimate answer to suffering.

On an affective level, a sense of connectedness may relieve the pain of isolation, but when you look deeper, you have to agree with the Buddha that interconnectedness and interdependence lie at the essence of suffering. Take the weather, for instance. Last summer we had wonderful, balmy weather in San Diego—

(continued)

Author: thittato

none of the oppressive heat that usually hits in August—and yet the same weather pattern brought virtually non-stop rain to southern Alaska, drought to the Northeast, and killer hurricanes with coffins floating out of their graves in North Carolina. Are we supposed to find happiness in identifying with a world like this? The suttas are often characterized as pessimistic in advocating release from samsara, but that's nothing compared to the pessimism inherent in the idea that staying interconnected is our only hope for happiness. Yet so many people say the desire for release is selfish.

Which makes me wonder if they understand how we can be most helpful to one another. If the path to release involved being harmful and cold-hearted, you could say it was selfish; but here it involves developing generosity, kindness, morality, all the honorable qualities of the mind. What's selfish about that? Everyone around you benefits when you can abandon your greed, anger, and delusion. Look at the impact that Ajaan Mun's quest for release has had for the last several decades in Thailand, and now it's spreading throughout the world. We'd be much better off if we encouraged one another to find true release so that those who find it first can show the way to anyone else who's interested.
-----

The rest of the interview can be found here should it be of interest: http://www.dhammaweb.net/interview/view.php?id=12

Thank you! :-)

I'm glad you pointed this out, Thittato. Actually, Theravada Buddhism has always been about refuge. Religious Buddhists chant the Three Refuges every day: "I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha."

And the biggest refuge of all is said to be nibbana. By nibbana, the Theravada Buddhists are not saying, as does the Heart Sutra (a Mahayana text) that "samsara and nirvana are one." To the Theravada Buddhists (at least the ones I've talked to), nibbana means the complete cessation of the mind/body process. Bill Hamilton called it "a cosmic suicide club." (He wasn't complaining, as he also subscribed to that understanding; he was just calling 'em as he saw 'em.) It's important to understand that there are very significant differences between the doctrines of the Theravada and the Mahayana. For example, "going back into the marketplace with help-bestowing hands" is a Mahayana concept that has little meaning for the Theravada school, which has always taken ordination as a monk to be the ideal.

Many of us here at DhO are taking a post-post modern approach, cherry-picking what we see as the best and most convenient teachings from all the major mystical traditions. Indeed, that is my own approach, and the one I advocate for others. As a householder, I naturally gravitate toward teachings that seek to integrate enlightened understanding and daily life.

Now, all of this is very theoretical, so everybody please take a moment to find out if there is anything truer than your thoughts. Is there anything truer than this? Is there something that doesn't change?

Who knows about this?

I would say this is just another hashing out of similar discussions that go on around the DhO. Thanissaro seems to be implying that "everything being connected" is only a half truth which needs to be dug in to deeper. Only speaking of half of the big picture ignores a few key, understandings which appear to him as necessary for full release. I've allude to some of these often-ignored points throughout this thread.

The debate seems to boil down to a few things which greatly complicate the issue. Mostly, I think, issues of expedience in conversation and theoretical interpretation of one's realizations. Those two factors when juxtaposed against the complexity & paradoxical nature of "the ultimate understanding" creates a huge mess. And alas, we cannot forget the agendas of certain traditions or individuals, and a whole host of other complications. Case in point, reading Thanissaro's response in one way could lead a person to adopt a sort of nihilistic worldview. Even if the ultimate understanding contained nihilism as a part of it, many would avoid advocating that sort of position for obvious reasons. (Machiavellian motivation can be a pain in the ass.)

At the end of the day, all a person can really do is mount their own epic battle against reality in an attempt to see the truth of things. Through the horizon of our individual experience, we will know what is true, what satisfies and what does not, what is suffering and what is not. Some will wander far from the battle, never knowing what a real fight is. Some will fight a while and grow too tired or delusional; choosing to limp another direction. Some may truly win the battle and rest in that understanding. Eventually, we all win a horrific victory, as old age, sickness or some other phenomenon wipes us off the face of the earth. Choose your battles, tools and companions wisely; and above all else, fight like you mean it.

Trent