Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

Hi,

I believe I have attained stream entry, so I must have done something right, but I still feel unsure about the concept of no-self and I'm interested in how these practical approaches fit together and which is correct.

In Daniel's book he says that if you're observing something, it isn't you by definition. I find that by noting a sensation as not self this creates a gap between 'me' and the sensation over there which is not-self (so I identify with another sensation as the watcher which is seperate from the original sensation). Of course then I can try to see the true nature of this new sensation. Is this correct practise?

I have noticed that some other teachers, e.g. J. Krishnamurti say that the observer is the observed (or is it more accurate so say that there is no observer, just the observed?). This can be useful with negative emotions. As K. points out, if you create a gap between you and the emotion there's a feeling of 'I don't want to have this emotion', but if the observer is the observed then there's no conflict / division / duality (at least this is how I understood it).

Thich Nhat Hanh seems to take the same approach in The Miracle of Mindfulness:
In fact our thoughts and feelings are us. They are a part of ourselves. There is a temptation to look upon them, or at least some of them, as an enemy force which is trying to disturb the concentration and understanding of your mind. But, in fact, when we are angry, we ourselves are anger. When we are happy, we ourselves are happiness. When we have certain thoughts, we are those thoughts. We are both the guard and the visitor at the same time. We are both the mind and the observer of the mind. Therefore, chasing away or dwelling on any thought isn’t the important thing. The important thing is to be aware of the thought.

(cont.)

This observation is not an objectification of the mind: it does not establish distinction between subject and object. Mind does not grab on a to mind; mind does not push mind away. Mind can only observe itself. This observation isn’t an observation of some object outside and independent of the observer."

Are these two approaches which both work in their own way? Or are they the same approach but I am practising incorrectly and splitting off from the original sensation? Or perhaps I'm not understanding the concept no-self properly?

Do you think it helps to have different strategies depending on if it's a sensation which makes up a feeling of subject, or a sensation which seems like object?
For example, Thich Nhat Hanh recommends a practise where you "Give rise to the thought, ‘I will use my finger to point at myself.’ And then instead of pointing at your body, point away in the opposite direction. Contemplate seeing yourself outside of your bodily form."

(cont.)

In my own practise I investigated no-self in lots of different ways, for example by asking 'Who is listening', or noting 'nothing seperate' 'no observer', or tuning inclusively into everything changing with nothing staying the same (so there can't be a permanent self), or trying to see that 'in the seen is just the seen, in the heard is just the heard' etc.
Finally, and I think the most useful approach for me, was to tune into the tensions that make up the feeling of subject in relation to objects. For example when turning to look at an object, tensions arise around the eyes and the forehead, and they seem to recalibrate to whatever I make the main focus of attention giving the feeling that they're sort of enveloping the object. By tuning into this and seeing that the tensions are seperate and distanced from the object, I can see that the object is just aware where it is (and then that the tensions that seem to make up subject are just aware where they are).

What do you think?

Thanks
- Martin

Hi Martin,

Teachings behind no-self can be viewed on many levels, through many perspectives. An important thing to realize is that "no self" implies "no enduring essence," no "permanently abiding self." This distinction makes a big difference in a subtle way.

On a micro level, we can see that nothing can be us because everything arises and passes utterly into nothing; that all compounded phenomena are transient. Thus, "me" is a composition of many transient micro sensations which might have a relationship that makes them seem like a continuous.

By looking at dependent origination, we can see that everything must be impermanent, or nothing would change, and thus everything would be some kind of stagnant quantum singularity. On a higher level, you can see that how you are now is nothing like how you were as a child. Your body has recycled many times, your perspectives on life are different, and so on.

Viewing emptiness shows us that absolutely nothing, compounded or not, can have a self-defining essence. If you put "me" in a vacuum, I am nothing without external references to "me." Essentially, understanding these different views points to the same thing, which is exactly the point! Everything is transient, all meaning is arising co-dependently, and thus it cannot have an intrinsic "you-ness"

Reading up on some philsophy about non-dualism might help you with some of your questions. Think about this: the watcher has always existed whenever there is an object to be watched. If we take away the watcher, the object is unknown, it is metaphysical. If we take away the object, then the watcher does not exist, because the very nature of a subject means that it has to be observing a thing.

(cont.)

The sensations that create the sense of a "watcher" are not all that complicated, they are just subtle and deeply ingrained. Most of it can be seen as a few primary sense-ations. The sight of objects, the feeling around the face and head, and your intention. Try viewing just one of these, or attempt to look at how they combine to create a sense of watching. When these and the other subtle sensations that create the watcher are seen as empty, transient and causal, then they are seen with balance and arise with the same gravity as any other sensation.

Essentially, everything is a formation-- there are just some senations that arise in a way and with a weight that seems to imply a continuous self. But beware, nothing has ever been you in the past and will never be you in the future (at least from the realized perspective). This might sound lousy. Recognize, however, that the dualistic split is what gives rise to suffering. If, moment to moment, there is a self of some sort, there is suffering. Suffering sucks.

Seeing these sensations are they are, right now, in your moment to moment awareness = enlightenment, the end of suffering. If you feel something, it is empty, causal, transient, not you. Try not to make a problem out of things that are not problematic, such as negative feeling emotions.

Lastly, in terms of technique, it does not typically matter whether you are using a technique "against" the watcher or the watched, again, because they are not separate. I will post another topic which might be useful for this. Also, noting "nothing separate, no observer, etc" are also implying a self in a subtle way. It's an unnecessary effort; the noting of phenomena themselves is enough.

Helpful?

If it is not opening up new territory to explore it may not be helping to consider no-self in terms of various views of how mind makes contacts. All we need to further engage the process is definite knowledge that each discrete kind of momentary known that is arising and passing is not presenting a self. So you can just look for that self, look for it in every thought, every viewpoint, every sensation, every notable that arises and passes. As it passes, note, temporary, unsatisfying, stressful and without a substantial nature, no self possible in this case either. Just continue making determinations of where self is not found but continue looking for self behind what is noted or to the left or right or by reversing the view or taking a third view or holding no view. Keep looking for that self thing in the most remote corners of self awareness. Probe every crack and cranny. Eventually you will cover the knowable territory and mind will be forced to concede that all things are fleeting, unsatisfying, core-less and essence-less smoke and mirrors.

Hi Martin,

The description of your no-self practice sounds lot like what I used prior to First Path, and also while trying to get fruitions more often. However, I let go of a lot of the "Who is this that hears/sees/smells/etc.?" questioning while working on completing Second Path. I found it much more effective to locate the sensations where "self" seemed to be anchored, and then noticing the impermanence of each one (w/ an emphasis on cessation) until the point was clear.

Your mention of "tensions" is also right on the money. Treating these tensions as the illusory-self-anchors that they are, and penetrating them with straight-up vipassana, works really well to dispel the illusion at a deeply experiential level.

(cont.)

Also, I tend to side with the "No-Self" camp as opposed to the "True Self" camp. I find the word "self" to be too problematic as a description for the ground of being, because it implies an entity or universal observer, and that just isn't true in my opinion. The truth is Non-dual. The observed and observation are, as the Advaita people say, "Not Two". The only True Self idea I can get on board with to some degree is "Big Mind." Because, when you think about it, thoughts seem to arise and disappear with our small minds, right? So it might be said that the experiential phenomena of the universe arises and passes away within Big Mind in the same way. It still doesn't really work for me, but it's better than saying "Big Self".

I call it the snark hunt because there is 'no such animal'. No matter how you slice it or dice it, big as the cosmos, small as an electron, all temporary, unsatisfying, and empty. There's only more little bits in the little bits and higher views of the higher views. It is a Russian doll that just keeps unpacking forever in every direction. We have inexhaustible scientific proof of a complexity that should by nature defeat this process of analysis and understanding except that it is all so very simple as well.

Author: bboyYen

Put very succintly the five aggregates make up the whole of reality.

Now if consciousness rises and falls of its own accord (if there are no objects there is no consciousness) rises when it does, ceases when it does, then there is no self in it, because if there were you could control it, and would not cease with it.

Feelings rise and fall of their own accord.

Perception rises and falls of it's own accord ( you do not control whether or not you memorize something or possibly recognize something)

Mental formations rise and fall of their own accord.

This body or form came into birth of its own accord and will die too.

So in none of these things are a self, because if there were one which endures and controls, you would be able to control all this, but the five aggregates make up reality. And these things rise and fall of their own accord, hence there is no self.

I think this is why some people call anatta uncontrollable, simply because if there is no central self, there is no control over anything.

Usually in the suttas you see Sariputta saying something like this:

Do you regard form as self?

Mental fabrications?

Feelings?

Perceptions?

Consciousness?

Do you regard self as elsewhere from Forms? Mental fabrications? Feelings? Perception? Consciousness?

As forms, mental fabrications, feelings, perceptions and consciousness all together as self?


And some other stuff too.

Basically you can read it here

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html

Or at least get kind of an idea.

Another one is here

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html