Here’s a question I got by email:
“Is it fair to say that perception is consciousness? If the I is just the I reaction to stimulus then without perception there is no I.”
This is one of those questions people in my line of work often get. We try our best to answer them. But sometimes the answer is just as confusing as the question. Here goes anyway.
Perception is a word. Consciousness is a word.
Let’s take consciousness first, since it’s the word religious and philosophical people seem to like best. The word “consciousness” is like any other word. It takes one aspect of reality away from the rest and tries to consider it by itself, like the word “carrot” or the word “freedom.”
This works in lots of practical applications. Take, for example, an exchange between a surgeon and an anesthesiologist.
SURGEON:
Has the patient lost consciousness?
ANESTHESIOLOGIST:
Yes.
SURGEON:
Then I will begin the first incision.
So we can take our idea of consciousness, apply it to real things in the real world, and use that idea to do actual practical things. No problem there.
The problems happen when we start to believe that because we have an idea called consciousness there is an actual thing out there in the world called consciousness. In the case of the surgeon, she is using the word consciousness to describe a particular state of her patient. But in the case of many theologians and philosophers, consciousness is considered to be some kind of entity.
So they ask questions about this entity. Does consciousness survive the death of the body? That’s the big one. There are loads of answers, but most of them suck.
Buddha answered questions like this by pointing out that the questions themselves don’t really make as much sense as we imagine they do. You can’t come up with any coherent answer to a question like this because the question itself is not coherent.
If you ask whether perception is the same as consciousness, you’re also asking a question that doesn’t make sense. We generally imagine that there is a perceiver and the thing that is perceived. This makes sense when we’re reaching for a donut. There’s me over here on this side of the table and I perceive the donut on the other side. I reach forward and soon I become one with the donut, at which point the distinction between what is me and what is donut becomes meaningless.
But when it comes to something like consciousness as a thing in and of itself, the idea of perceiver and perceived breaks down. We generally conceive of ourselves as perceiving consciousness or as perceiving perception. We say, “I think,” “I see,” “I hear” as if there is “I” and there is “seeing.” Then “I” is sort of a blank nothing that can see and hear and think and do other stuff. Which is weird.
You can try to twist your brains around this for as long as you want. It will never make any sense because it didn’t start off making any sense in the first place.
You experience something and label it as “me” or as “self.” Yet how can you say that you experience self? That’s absurd.
The point is that any linguistic convention you use to describe any aspect of reality can only get you so far. This even applies to things like mathematics, which certain people still cling to as being a purely objective way of describing things. I grant you that mathematics is a far more objective way of describing reality than conventional language. But it’s still a language and as such is formulated pretty much the same way as other languages.
This is why we try our best to get past our own thought bubbles by seeing them for what they are rather than trying to explain them to ourselves. There’s a really nice video making the rounds of the Interwebs lately all about the early days of Tassajara, San Francisco Zen Center’s monastic community in Northern California. If you ignore all the spaced out hippies talking like they’ve just drunk a liter of Flavor-Aid at the Cultie Cook-out and skip ahead to about 5:43 in the video, Shunryu Suzuki (author of Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind) is sitting outside being interviewed while flocks of blue jays chirp and twitter in the background.
He says, “If we try to listen to something wonderful it means to ignore the bird which we are listening (to) now. When you think Buddha said something wonderful and I must find out what he meant, then your mind is directed to Buddha’s words so you don’t hear the birds. So always we sacrifice various actual realities because we stick to something. And we stick to something which looks like (it’s) very good, but that is not so good. If we have this kind of attitude when we listen to words, or teachings even, we will lose our life. And maybe our whole life will be sacrificed because of some special teachings. So our way is rather to enjoy our life right now without sacrificing. This is a kind of desire which human beings have. To some extent (the) desires we have (are) good but if we are enslaved by desire we lose (our) whole being.”
I don’t mind answering questions like this one about consciousness and perception. In fact, I enjoy it. But the answer is always the same. If you get caught up in the loop-de-loops your brain makes, you can get stuck there. You end up in a kind of cul-de-sac of thought from which there seems to be no escape.
But actually, there is an escape. The escape is right there in front of you. The answer is as obvious as it can possibly be. So sit down, shut up and look at it.
If you’re looking for a place to sit down and shut up, consider helping me and my friends in Los Angeles make a place where you can come and do that with us! Contribute to our fundraiser to make the Angel City Zen Center come alive! Every little bit helps a lot! Click here to learn more!
I’ve got a new book coming out soon! Stay up to date on its release schedule, my live appearances and more by signing up for our mailing list on the contact page!
UPCOMING EVENTS
October 26-27 Cincinnati, Ohio Concert:Nova
October 30, 2015Canton, Ohio ZERO DEFEX at Buzz Bin
November 6-8, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY RETREAT
April 23, 2016 Long Island, New York Molloy College “Spring Awakening 2016”
October 23-28, 2016 Benediktushof Meditation Centrum (near Würzburg, Germany) 5-Day Retreat
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm there’s zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. Beginners only!
Every Saturday at 9:30 there’s zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. Beginners only!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
I perceive your donations and am conscious of them because that’s what I buy my groceries with. Your donations are important (I don’t get any of the Angel City Zen Center fundraiser money). I appreciate your on-going support!
” I reach forward and soon I become one with the donut, at which point the distinction between what is me and what is donut becomes meaningless.”
I once had a large dog grab a donut from my hand. I’m very glad he knew the distinction between me and the donut. It was not meaningless.
These ideas are some of the most difficult to get across. Trying to use language to show people that language is not real. Words are helpful tools in very concrete situations. When I ask for a hammer when I’m trying to build a house, for example, and you can hand me a hammer, language is quite useful. When I’m warning you that a mountain lion is up on the hill somewhere so you don’t get eaten, language is helpful. When we start talking about things that, in all actuality, probably don’t really exist (i.e. consciousness, freedom, murder [as in, “is abortion murder?”], beauty, etc.) then that’s when we get into trouble.
I try to tell people that the concept of Unicorns is realer than most of our abstract ideas, because, at the very least, we can all draw a picture of a unicorn and agree that the drawing more or less meets the requirements of a “unicorn.” But if we draw “consciousness” we will probably all draw radically different things and argue about them for the rest of our lives… instead of listening to the birds chirping, which is ultimately more important.
Here’s an article I wrote over at disinfo discussing some of these ideas. http://disinfo.com/2014/11/capitalism-gods-will-cat-drank-milk-language-creates-biggest-problems-cant-anything/
“You experience something and label it as “me” or as “self.” Yet how can you say that you experience self? That’s absurd.”
Nonsense, my good man. There are potions of the brain that generate a sense of self. Is it absurd that a person could believe their own hand is not their hand? See alien hand syndrome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIBBDuQrd-I
“a person could believe
their own hand is not their hand”
yet an empty hand holds the hoe handle
the bridge between birth and death
always changing; self nature immutable
You use the word “hoe” and “birth” in the same breath. This could be a sign of repressed feelings coming to the surface. Tell me more.
” There are no dead in the dream time ” said An3drew.
We’re all dead puppets in this dream time, An3drew. Dead puppets with repressed feelings, numbing out with pharmacology, hoping to experience reality directly yet always miles away.
Good, all good.
Now how do you feel about your mother?
There is a sense of self, but it is definitely an illusion. It can be useful, but that doesn’t mean it is real.
I almost always feel that when talking about Buddhism, people subtly assert no-self and self at the same time. Like “there is no-self, but YOU can perceive that there’s no-self.” And like you said, that gets really confusing really fast, and a bunch of mental gymnastics get involved.
“You can perceive the awareness before thought — and see that there is no-self.” Just look at the mindfulness movement. They assert that all the time. But that Suzuki quote is just showing how when we ditch one mental form, we’re just picking up another. They’re still forms of thinking.
A lot of people try to assert this primacy of consciousness like it’s somehow fundamental to reality, but I remember in another post you said that Nishijima said that “consciousness is just an illusion.” And even though Buddhism talks about the five-aggregates and explicitly states how consciousness is one of these five aggregates give rise to a being, lots of people in the Buddhist community that I meet still talk as if consciousness “more real” or “the center” or experience.
But even here at the end, I feel that you yourself said that “there is an escape.” And that’s subtly promoting an idea of the self. Or maybe it’s just so vague that I’m reading into this idea that you are promoting a self. As you said, “How can you experience self?” I agree with the ending where you say the answer is obvious, but I don’t think the answer is an “escape.” That makes it sound like there’s a self and a way out or something convoluted like that.
Here’s what the Buddha supposedly said about “perception” and “consciousness”…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha#Description_in_the_Sutta_Pitaka
*Who* is it that asks the question?
It’s the self who sits down in zazen. When that self entres Prajna, self and
no-self never existed.
Then the mind stires, the pain in the legs becomes real… The self shuffles to escape the pain; next thing you know there is a wave of shuffling and apparent suffering all around the zendo.
One’s Prajna,can become everyones Prajna, if one doesn’t retreat.
When one retreats, ones suffering can become everyone else’s suffering.
If one experinces bliss in zazen, their enlightenment can become others too.
I know, I still shuffle too much!!!
I don’t know.
“I seem, like everything else, to be a center, a sort of vortex at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself, comes alive, a sort of aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.” –Alan Watts
“From your lump of red flesh there is a True Man of no Rank who is always going out and coming in through the face. If you have not yet testifed to this, look Look!”
–Linji
As regards the sense of self and perception, I find it best to start with where I am. All the senses play right where I am, inform where I am, act from where I am. Place and thing in action.
Which is not different from what you’re saying , Brad, but my happiness seems to depend on the way my breath takes place, and so I start here, I look for the way at this moment, I let the people walking around outside dial my next move.
Yes, I’m full of it, but thanks to the hand movements of the first part of the Tai-Chi form, I’m more regular than I used to be. You know, happiness can be the result of the most amazing things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd61M256RfM
Through countless births in Sa?s?ra
I have wandered without finding
The house-builder I was seeking:
Born and suffering again and again.
O house-builder, now you are seen!
You will not build the house again:
All your rafters have been broken,
And the ridgepole has been destroyed,
My mind has reached the unconditioned,
And craving’s end has been achieved- Shakyamuni
Nagara Sutta: The City
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997
Alternate format: [SuttaReadings.net icon]
Dwelling at Savatthi… “Monks, before my Awakening, when I was just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the realization came to me: ‘How this world has fallen on difficulty! It is born, it ages, it dies, it falls away & rearises, but it does not discern the escape from this stress, from this aging & death. O when will it discern the escape from this stress, from this aging & death?’
“Then the thought occurred to me, ‘Aging & death exist when what exists? From what as a requisite condition is there aging & death?’ From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: ‘Aging & death exist when birth exists. From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death.’ Then the thought occurred to me, ‘Birth exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition comes birth?’ From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: ‘Birth exists when becoming exists. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth… ‘Name-&-form exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition is there name-&-form?’ From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: ‘Name-&-form exists when consciousness exists. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.’ Then the thought occurred to me, ‘Consciousness exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition comes consciousness?’ From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: ‘Consciousness exists when name-&-form exists. From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.’
“Then the thought occurred to me, ‘This consciousness turns back at name-&-form, and goes no farther. It is to this extent that there is birth, aging, death, falling away, & re-arising, i.e., from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media… Thus is the origination of this entire mass of stress. Origination, origination.’ Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.
“Then the thought occurred to me, ‘Aging & death don’t exist when what doesn’t exist? From the cessation of what comes the cessation of aging & death?’ From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: ‘Aging & death don’t exist when birth doesn’t exist. From the cessation of birth comes the cessation of aging & death.’… ‘Name-&-form doesn’t exist when what doesn’t exist? From the cessation of what comes the cessation of name-&-form?’ From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: ‘Name-&-form doesn’t exist when consciousness doesn’t exist. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.’ Then the thought occurred to me, ‘Consciousness doesn’t exist when what doesn’t exist? From the cessation of what comes the cessation of consciousness?’ From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: ‘Consciousness doesn’t exist when name-&-form doesn’t exist. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness.’
“The thought occurred to me, ‘I have attained this path to Awakening, i.e., from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of stress. Cessation, cessation.’ Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.
“It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city, an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. He would go to address the king or the king’s minister, saying, ‘Sire, you should know that while traveling along a wilderness track I saw an ancient path… I followed it… I saw an ancient city, an ancient capital… complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. Sire, rebuild that city!’ The king or king’s minister would rebuild the city, so that at a later date the city would become powerful, rich, & well-populated, fully grown & prosperous.
“In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth… becoming… clinging… craving… feeling… contact… the six sense media… name-&-form… consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.
“Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings
“…I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it…”
I do not know.
Self and its sense of personal consciousness is an emergent phenomena. Perception is one of the phenomena from which they emerge. Nothing terribly complicated about it.
And yet if you have truly percieved phenomena, it is empty. So how phenomena be emergent? A personal conciousness as a sense of self?
Here’s some more “emergent phenomena” Conrad. 😉
http://www.carbonbrief.org/satellite-measurements-of-the-troposphere-confirm-warming-trend-data-shows/
Sometimes conciousness and awareness are utilized interchangeably.
But, if you are really aware of examinng this “conciousness” , you realize there is only awareness. Even in utilizing deluded speak to talk about awareness. Or, because most ppl believe in a God, that due to this concept of God that is utilised and propagated, things become individual. There is God, who favours me, and not you. Then deeper discrimination sets in. God who favours me, not you, empowers me to kill you, so that you will go to hell and pay for your sins. I know better than you.
But in Prajna , or Samadhi, where is this God? Where is this seperate conciousness? This soul? With pure awareness / open receptiveness, where is even this discrimination of conciusness, God, or soul? Even the discrimination of “I am aware” disrupts this level of awareness. The concept of awareness itself, disrupts this level of awareness.
With furfher and further disruptions of awareness, tbeere is more and more delusion.
And yet, how can you say there is essentially no self that is observing such levels of awareness?
We have to be careful here, very careful.
Of course, the word consciousness may mean quite different things to different people. And of course the word is not the thing. But I sincerely hope for your own mental health that you do not shovel away this word from your language. And the same for the words self, I, me.
For some, this word consciousness means some kind of cosmic consciousness. For other they use it as some kind of opposites to the word unconscious. To me, consciousness is a mode of awareness, it is awareness of ‘something’, as oppose to awareness as. When Brad becomes one with the donuts, he is aware of awareness as the donuts. We could make use of words such as knowing for this mode of awareness of and the word being for what is meant by this awareness as. My mode of being (awareness as) is my mode of knowing (awareness of or consciousness). My cat way of being is its own way of knowing. This is what is meant by knowing is being, and being is knowing. Those are words, but they are not meaningless words, they do actually point to something ‘real’, as modes of awareness. Samadhi ‘experiences’, involves kind of a shift where our awareness shift from being aware of, to being aware as, as vast space, as silence, as stillness, as etc…. While perceiving, we are always aware of and aware as, perception is foreground/background. You may not be aware of (conscious) the birds singing in the foreground, but are aware as those birds (or donuts) in the background. In samadhi, that awareness as, shift foreground and the awareness of, background. The donuts is foreground and the conceptual self background.
Stated in another way; can you look at? (are you conscious, aware of?) Another stupid question: Do you know that you look from? (that you are aware as). What you look from is what you look at. This ‘is’, is not the ‘is’ of equality, or identity, it is the is of process. When we emphasize what we look at, we use the word ‘consciousness’; the world is real. When the emphasis is on what we look from, we tend to talk in terms of, cosmic consciousness, samadhi, the birds, wholeness, etc.: I am is real in foreground and the world unreal in background. What then is this ‘is’, (the is in what you look from is what you look at) it is a quality without a name. which you may call what is. The sudden drooping away of the viewpoint (sense of self) within being (awareness as) is what we mean by kensho.
Jason, all emergent phenomena are empty. Think of a hurricane, composed of air, wind, water, heat, evaporation, etc. The hurricane emerges from these, takes on form for a time, and then disappears back into its constituent phenomena. The hurricane is empty of an immutable self, but it is present and alive for as long as it lasts.
Personal consciousness is similar. It emerges from all the many components of the body, the brain, and the mind (even subtle aspects thereof), including its sensual perceptions. That consciousness is no more immutably “real” than a hurricane, but no less real either. It’s not a thing, but an emergent process that comes together for a time, and then changes into something else. It is empty, but fluid, emerging from the sum of its constituents endlessly interacting with each other and the world around them.
It’s kind’ve pointless arguement. But I don’t see a personal sense of perception in/of/as conciousness. A personal sense of perception , greater or lesser, is awareness. (Argument wise, you could make the arguement of a huricane of awareness…)
You could argue a scale wise concept of awareness verses conciousness, perception vs mindfullness etc…But what’s the point? That’s kicking words and ideas around. I always hated that song :'(
https://youtu.be/sxdmw4tJJ1Y
I really don’t know what you’re talking about, Jason. I and everyone I know does indeed experience a personal sense of self. Just as we also experience hurricanes and other forms of weather. Who is it who even says “I don’t see a personal sense of perception in/of/as conciousness.” That’s your personal sense of self saying that. You’re not seeing your own nose in front of your face. Use a mirror, is my suggestion.
Consciousness explained in one word: WOW!
Oh that’s a fun one.
Consciousness explained in another word: YOU!
… but if consciousness is YOU, how did I get in YOU. Eh, little Freddy?
http://estreetfilmsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/images31.jpg?w=330&h=185
Well, that can be fun, yes. But I’m thinking of YOU visually as a finger pointing right back through your pupils, straight past the thornbush of fun and amusing thought forms. Point straight back…. where? (as a line of inquiry)
I think this guy recommended this type of thing a while back:
http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/who_am_I.pdf
Okay, well, alright and yes never, huh? Inside outside all around the town.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU4uaKgCQ9A
When a question like this gets asked, you need to ask for the reason for the question. Whoever asked had a problem they were trying to resolve and I doubt that the answer you gave resolved it. Knowing the reason for a question would have told you the way to answer it.
Notice how the inquirer frames the question. They ask, “is it fair.” This suggests perceived imbalances in early development, and thus inhibiting adequate identification with a parental unit, resulting in a Oedipus complex. Repressed feelings of this kind tend to fuse the super-ego to the id, causing the patient to experience consciousness as perception.
There is no simple answer to this dilemma however, even knowing the underlying mechanism at work. Further study is required.
“The City”, a favorite.
I have to believe the formulation of dependent origination in “The City” was early in Gautama’s career. Later, he would speak of ignorance and (intentional) activity as preceding consciousness in the trail of dependent origination, and close with a summary of birth, death, sickness, and old age as “in short, the five groups of grasping”.
Likewise, later he would offer (in “The Great Six-Fold Sense Sphere”) a teaching wherein knowing, seeing as it really is sense object, sense organ, consciousness arising from contact between sense object and sense organ, impact, and feeling (with regard to each of the senses) would be said to be sufficient to develop and bring to fruition the eightfold path, the factors of enlightenment, etc.
He would offer a description of his way of life before enlightenment, the Tathagatha’s way of life, his way of life during the rainy season, a thing perfect in itself, as a concentration in sixteen particulars, each in conjunction with the breath in or out, whereas early on he offered only the four in connection with the body in conjunction with the breath in or out.
“Self and its sense of personal consciousness is an emergent phenomena. Perception is one of the phenomena from which they emerge.”
Perception and sensation, as volitive or habitual activity, are said by Gautama to cease as the fourth of the immaterial states gives way. I would agree with Conrad that the self, the one identified with a physical location and that, in illness affecting the vestibular, proprioceptive, and ocular senses, can appear to be in two places at once, depends on the coordinated functioning of these same senses, and that consciousness arising from contact of sense organ and sense object with regard to the mind has as a consequence impact and feeling (but does not in and of itself occasion grasping after self- only ignorance occasions grasping).
Addressing the original question, might be fair to say that perception and sensation are the sense objects that the sense organ of the mind contacts, that consciousness occurs because of such contact, and feeling and impact:
“(Anyone)…knowing and seeing eye as it really is, knowing and seeing material shapes… visual consciousness… impact on the eye as it really is, and knowing, seeing as it really is the experience, whether pleasant, painful, or neither painful nor pleasant, that arises conditioned by impact on the eye, is not attached to the eye nor to material shapes nor to visual consciousness nor to impact on the eye; and that experience, whether pleasant, painful, or neither painful nor pleasant, that arises conditioned by impact on the eye—neither to that is (such a one) attached. …(Such a one’s) physical anxieties decrease, and mental anxieties decrease, and bodily torments… and mental torments… and bodily fevers decrease, and mental fevers decrease. (Such a one) experiences happiness of body and happiness of mind. (repeated for ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind).”
(Mahasajayatanika Sutta, III 287-290, Majjhima-Nikaya; Pali Text Society volume 3 pg 337-338)
“…making self-surrender (one’s) object of thought, (one) lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness of mind.”
(SN V 200, Pali Text Society V 176)
That one-pointedness I would contend to be self as place, as at one place:
“When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.”
(“Genjo Koan” by Dogen, trans. by Aitken and Tanahashi)
Cool. Thanks for the feedback….You know a lot about the Pali Cannon? I think only the the first four sets of agamas(books) are really Shakyamuni speaking. And even those might be rearranged eh? Kinda sad really. I never sat with Theravada , but I really like the suttas. They can be a little harder to comprehend then sutras because of the phasing, but, really, there are less weeds in suttas than sutras. And really at this point in history, an understanding of both is probity more valuable then a one sided perspective of Buddhism no?
Twin miracle
After the Buddha returned to his father’s kingdom, uncertainty still existed about whether Gautama Buddha was really enlightened or not. In response, the Buddha displayed the Yamaka-p?tih?riya or the “Twin Miracle”, called so because of its simultaneous production of apparently contradictory phenomena; in this case, fire and water.
The twin miracle entailed Gautama Buddha producing flames from the upper part of his body and streams of water from the lower part of his body, alternating this, and doing similarly between the left and right sides of his body.
Before enlightenment , there is a self above and others below.
After enlightenment, this self on fire is quenched by water above and fire below. There becomes an awareness of many selves. Then there are many selves above, and a self below.
Although you hate such cheesy Chinese Buddhist sayings a “10’000 Dharmas return to the one”, its very true that the one returns to ” be apart of everything! ”
But how can you have the Real(experience of being a part of everything), without the understanding of the Apparent (of evidence before your eyes that there must be a self to experience selflessness. The experience of being apart of everything.)
How can it be any other way, that one who breaks the outter layer of self realizes that at that moment, One is apart, and a part at the same time. One is “not One, and Not two.”
How can you have the experience of the Absolute selflessness , without an observer? Without a body? Without a self?
“When there is an echo of a sound in the valley, the face in the mirror can turn to hear it.” Farong
https://youtu.be/4B2a6l6wM2k
“How can you have the experience of the Absolute selflessness , without an observer? Without a body? Without a self?”
See that’s the thing.
You will never have that experience – ever. There is no possible way it will ever happen to you.
Dogen describes the understanding of the Twin Miracle as thus:
To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.
The teaching of non-duality:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=great+buddha+of+tai+o&client=ms-opera-mobile&channel=new&espv=1&prmd=imvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIvOfex4fFyAIVD5aICh29xgbj#imgrc=8lTRRwCbizipsM:
(LOOK SENSEI! NO HANDS!!!)
But how can you have the Real(experience of being a part of everything), without the understanding of the Apparent (of evidence before your eyes that there must be a self to experience selflessness. The experience of being apart of everything.)
How can it be any other way, that one who breaks the outter layer of self realizes that at that moment, One is apart, and a part at the same time. One is “not One, and Not two.”
How can you have the experience of the Absolute selflessness , without an observer? Without a body? Without a self?”
Good question. When there is no one manifesting as a self, there is no observer experiencing a selflessness.
But there is a brain born in a culture that had its neural connections shaped in a particular way. And that brain has the capacity to take photos of what happened.
Is there a photo of the absolute selflessness. There can be a photo. But what does a photo of nothing(ness) show.
One minute “I” was standing on the bridge over the Sengawa, and then holy shit.
No. You are talking culture of “no-self.” Conceptualization. Whether the Absolute exists or not , is irrelevant. The one who perceives it, is an individual.
You can make the traditional arguement that the self, this very body, is merely composed of the elements, just like any other place, person, or thing; so where is the self? Where is the sentient being? Where is the awareness/conciousness? It’s you. The one making the arguement is the self.
Whether the Absolute is real or not, here is Fred(who is diffent then Bill, or Ted), and he is perceiving the Absolute. May be like a schizophrenic perceives an hallucination. Or like a casheier perceives a cash register; regardless, there is perception. You have to have a worker to who perceives a register, to be a cashier. You need to have a sentient body to percieve, AND MAKE USE OF, the Absolute. If you don’t have that, you don’t have a kinetic Buddha. A moving , breathing, sentient one experiencing the Absolute. If there is no self, there is no one to make use of that experience and teach the BuddhaDharma. Your argument is based upon meanings of words. And not that I am critiizing you, or attacking you; but to dewll inside of the literal meaning of a word , the ligusitic meaning is dead. The linguistic meaning cannot present the Real meaning. It can only produce circular arguments. To see the “living meaning” behind what those words are pointing to , beyond cultural or linguistic meanings , that is Real understanding of the Absolute.
Linguistically, the one who perceives the Absolute, is “selfless.” Their deluded thinking no longer obstructs the experience of the Absolute. There is no greedy, hateful, advantageous “self.” That seeking mind has been emptied/destroyed/subdued etc…Perhapes all the senses are balanced…When emptiness of mind, meets with the form of the body; balance is achieved. But you need a body, a self, an individual* to be experience and comprehend such things. And even though a deluded self is squashed, that does mean that no beneficial thought comes to the surface during such an experience. It just means that a deluded mind has been squashed. I think , all the senses are balanced at such a moment; including thought sense. Thought sense is not over riding the experience of Real perception. Perhaps to have a body isn’t just suffering, its bliss as well.
https://youtu.be/fZSDXG6IMVA
“self is squashed, that doesn’t* mean that(sry, ttypo.)
I do not know.
“Whether the Absolute exists or not , is irrelevant. The one who perceives it, is an individual.”
“Whether the Absolute is real or not, here is Fred, (who is diffrent then Bill, or Ted), and he is perceiving the Absolute.”
“Linguistically, the one who perceives the Absolute, is “selfless.” Their deluded thinking no longer obstructs the experience of the Absolute.”
—————————————————————-
Why do you keep talking as if the Absolute is something YOU will get to experience? The Absolute is not a “thing”.
You won’t get to see it – EVER.
“When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point. When you find your way at this moment, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point…”
“Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent.”
(“Genjo Koan”, Dogen; tr. Robert Aitken and Kazuaki Tanahashi. Revised at San Francisco Zen Center, and later at Berkeley Zen Center)
Look, ma- no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no vestibulars, no proprioceptors, no otoliths, and also no extinction of them! No need to hesitate, and if you go right ahead you cannot move a step!
Faceless in the free flow
Lone pixel in the drixel
I, known.
https://youtu.be/iAK7BXait7o
?Brain loop-de-loops in stuck been I haZzz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyswQH5Mx2o
“Whether the Absolute is real or not, here is Fred(who is diffent then Bill, or Ted), and he is perceiving the Absolute. May be like a schizophrenic perceives an hallucination. Or like a casheier perceives a cash register; regardless, there is perception”
Read Brad’s description of wakening up. To paraphrase him “It wasn’t me”
There is no perceiver; there is perceiving. There is an action, there is a verb, but there is no one that it is happening to.
There is no Fred perceiving the Absolute; the Absolute is perceiving the Absolute
Mumbles – July, 2013
“This is interesting. You’ve heard this before, said differently, or maybe quite the same…I wouldn’t say that “John” did anything, but the “I” thought in terms of relating to the world of objects as opposite to a subject is gone. There was a “witness” phase (and where /when all this went down is lost in time/space, so not sure where the realization came -but again, not to “John” as ego observing something happening to “him”, just as Being in terms of being along with everything else “being” as such now, before, forever…). Sort of a grand summation of all (ALL) coursing through consciousness like a river without beginning or end, like the snake eating its tail in alchemy.
Said simply: There isn’t an “I.” This is an illusion built up by ego to protect itself and project itself in a fantasy upon the world (another grand illusion made of illusions). Use it like the plastic environment it is (a projection screen for fantasies) for your enjoyment, but let go of the ego-need to control/influence it, just row row row your boat.”
What a crock of bull-shite!!!
Good thing “I” didn’t say that!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JM0wLxDiMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUWXD4oDQQI
“I would never try to explain what Nityananda meant, nor of what happened earlier this year. I would not trust any words. I might trust embodied presence, and palpable stillness, and deafening silence.”
It seems obvious from this and previous comments that Fred stalks people on the internet if they comment here. Fred might be an even more dangerous “monster” than Zafu, and he definitely seems less psychologically stable. Even though I try to maintain as much anonymity as possible online, I do not feel safe here. I’m not sure yet what I will do about this.
I suggest you relax and do nothing Grand Canyon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c-RbGZBnBI
Consciousness Schmonsciousness. Wow, Hardcore Nichiren’s got nine of them…
https://www.sgi-uk.org/buddhism/buddhist-concepts/cause-and-effect-and-nine-consciousnesses
I enjoy Hardcore Tibetan oranges, maybe even more than Tim Horton’s donuts.
http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/11/02/wrathful-gesar/
What stage are you guys at?
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/better-buddhisms-a-developmental-approach/
All the world’s a stage
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
He holds the hand of the Absolute
And his empty fingers the hoe handle
The living link between birth and death
A man in his maggots barren.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbfs4WGIjgw
These ruminations are fun, but there are no “answers” to them, because there are no questions. Reality ( let’s call it that) has no answers, nor any questions. Those are OUR hang ups, ultimately just more of that habitual chatter from the frontal cortex. Reality doesn’t care, it does’t have to; it just rolls, no beginning no end. It’s “busy” one might say. It’s a”Happening.” We can’t describe it literally, but we sure do feel it. This Reality thing, this pulse between opposites, is Felt, and can only be evoked. And on the rare occasions we manage that; to”catch the joy as it flies” it deserves one of our most sacred monikers: Art. I’ll leave it to Cormac McCarthy:
“The truth about the world is that anything is possible. And had we not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness; it would appear to us for what it is: a hat trick in a medicine show. A fevered dream, bepopulate with chimeras, having neither analog nor precedent, and who’s final destination, after many a pitch in many a muddied field, is calamitous beyond reckoning.”
(yeah, but hey, let’s not forget that “calamitous” is a relative value)