I don't know what to write about today. That's good.
There is really nothing to write about.
Buddhism is not really anything.
We make it some THING, we give it rules and call it a "religion". But is it that?
Who can be a Buddhist?
I have had conversations with other Buddhists who have rather strong convictions regarding exactly "who" and "what" is a Buddhist.
I've also known committed Buddhists who have never used the terms "Buddha", "Buddhism" etc..
Pretty good if you can pull it off I think.
Can a killer be a Buddhist?
Does a killer have a mind?
How fast can the mind change?
How soon does enlightenment arrive?
Some people define Buddhism by certain standards that are easily recognizable - but in fairly vague terms.
Terms like "non-violence".
If I kill out of protecting my daughter will I still be a Buddhist? What if I hate the man who is trying to harm her and I then let the anger rise and rise to the point where I kill him? Am I still a Buddhist?
I think this notion is influenced by the Christian idealism of reward and punishment. It goes something like, "if I am good I get the reward of..." "If I am bad I get the punishment of..." That is not Buddhism.
WHEN THIS ARISES THAT BECOMES
This is Buddhism.
There are no exclusions here, Buddhism is not a club that you join. The vows that you take are practices, the meat of Buddhism in action, the vows are not rules.
WHEN THIS ARISES THAT BECOMES
When you view the world as filled with independent instances and events of THING-NESS then the world becomes an experience that is in need of rules and classifications.
In reality, all of this passes away much too fast for that sort of thinking. THIS moment is too quick and too precious for rules.
If we can notice this moment, all the rules are fulfilled. I once had a zen teacher who called this "living in vow". There are vows that you make as a Buddhist but they are not rules.
Life is too short for rules.
When you relate to your experience in a realistic way - minus all the THINGS in this experience - then you realize that just this being here right now, right at this moment is enough. It is perfect. It is not obstructed by THING-NESS.
Rules are just things.
Anyone can be a Buddhist. Everyone has a mind.
WHEN THIS ARISES THAT BECOMES
Whether you know this or not, life is undefinable as anyTHING. This is really just experience. Buddhism is simply a language like math for example. The numbers themselves are meaningless, abstractions.
Can you see this?
You can't get away from your experience however.
Because "when this arises, that becomes."
These are famous Buddhist words. Some people consider them "sacred" words. Really though, they are just pointing you back to this experience.
That is what this is about.
No one can really be a Buddhist. Buddhism disappears when you look at it - that is if you are doing it right.
You disappear if you are doing it right. Compassion or "relationship" appears if you are doing it right - but not as a THING.
So when you want to indulge in your "Buddha-ness" you should be careful there. Don't make this precious life into any THING like Buddhism. A Buddha is your mind completely free of Buddha.
To those who wish to make Buddhism into an exclusive club I would just say be careful of how you harm your experience, because when this becomes, that arises.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Two Truths - one reality
Traditionally in Buddhism, there is what is referred to as "the two truths" or two "levels" of so called reality. One is called "conventional truth" and the other is called "ultimate truth". These are described in various ways in different contexts, so it's kind of difficult to generalize these terms.
'Conventional truth' can be somewhat understood as being what we 'conventionally experience' in our everyday lives as an objectified reality.
'Ultimate truth' can be understood to mean the truest or deepest 'existential mode' (valid level of existing) of that conventional experience.
For example, we conventionally experience cars so cars are a conventional truth. But when we look deeply at this experience of "car" we find there is no such thing as "car". Why?
Because "car" is merely the name or label we give to a gathering of parts (conditions) that we conveniently refer to as "car". Car is not there, it is empty (void) of being a real THING that the name car actually refers to. This is the "ultimate truth" of the car.
But now I want to explain the 'two truths' in a more direct and hopefully more realistic way.
The two truths are in fact, one reality that is viewed from 2 different angles.
Voidness as emptiness
Voidness as interdependence
Both (each) of these views are (although functional from their unique perspectives) partial, incomplete, un-holistic and therefore flawed.
In our ordinary understanding of "emptiness" we almost always conceive of it as a negative space or empty hole of sorts, maybe a vast black, absolute nothingness. In what ever way it comes to mind, it seems to be unavoidably like an affirmed (asserted or 'put forth') negation of reality - a kind of nihilism.
In a way, there is a validity to this view in so far as THINGS are not as solid as they appear.
But also, in our ordinary understanding of the term "interdependence" (the fact that all things are based on their conditions) we almost always conceive of real THINGS existing but as being made up of other real THINGS. Yes they interact, but they seem like real THINGS interacting.
Both these views are one sided, dualistic and un-realistic.
In reality, emptiness is not a THING such as it appears to be as an affirmed, absolute "noTHINGness". Nor is interdependence the interactivity of truly existent THINGS.
If you can remove the "THINGNESS" of both emptiness AND interdependence you can then glimpse the true (realistic) reality of all this - your present experience.
Emptiness minus the THING-NESS of emptiness is correctly seen as exactly interdependence.
Interdependence without any THINGS that interact is correctly seen as exactly emptiness.
In a correct view (non-conceptual or "view-less" view), both of these terms are completely interchangeable.
Emptiness (what I call "voidness") is not absolute nothingness which is the opposite of existing. Voidness is reality without the THING-NESS of reality. This is exactly the same thing as interdependence.
When you take all the "THING-NESS" out of your experiences, out of your life, what are you left with?
Relationship.
Relationship without any THINGS that are relating with one another. All of THIS is emptiness-interdependence, all of it is relationship.
And here too is why compassion plays such a prominent role in Buddhism.
When you remove the non-existent THING-NESS from reality, you then relate to your experiences (what ever happens in your life) in the most realistic way possible.
In Buddhism, in particular in Zen Buddhism, you treat everything with the utmost care and even "compassion". Why?
Because their are no THINGS, there are only relationships and relationship is what is important - not some non-existent "THINGS" (or even non-existent "beings"-THINGS).
Compassion works as a two way street in that it is both the result of a correct view of reality and also is a path to help get you to the correct view in as much as it helps remove selfish instincts and impulses.
You could view the Buddhist principle of "karma" as being synonymous with "relationship" as well.
'Karma' is behavior based cause and effect. In other words, the world we now experience is both the cause and result of our karma (HOW we actualize our intent, HOW we relate to our experiences). That is to say, the world we experience is one of relationship.
When you see this level of truth, the focus is completely altered!
On the one hand you have a view of the world where by it is made of these individual experiences of THINGS and BEINGS - that is one "truth".
But that "truth" leaves you with a lot of stress because all those THINGS are set to expire at some point. Then what?
On the other hand, you have this other more realistic truth.
THERE ARE NO THINGS
THERE ARE ONLY RELATIONSHIPS
And that calls for the utmost attention and care - what is called "the union of wisdom and compassion" in Buddhism.
In climbing it's not just that you climb a mountain, it's HOW you climb it that becomes important. You could take all the challenge out of it completely, maybe get lowered onto a summit by a helicopter or carried by someone up to the top, but what would be significant about that in your life?
We focus so much on the THING-NESS of things that we forget about the quality of the experience. We forget about the only really important aspect which is the relationship we have to our experiences.
Seeing this reality is the wisdom part. Actualizing it is compassion. They go hand in hand really.
THINGS or THING-NESS is one (level of) truth.
Relationship is another.
But be careful here, there is no THING-NESS to this kind of relationship (there are no THINGS or BEINGS to relate to), rather, there is simply 'relationship-emptiness'.
You don't have to react to every-THING-ness that happens in your life, you just have to RELATE to them. If you relate to them in an unrealistic way, by valuing them as THINGS, by picking and choosing some THINGS over others you create (via karma) that kind of experience where by THINGS are what matters to you. Where by, THINGS let you down, or give you a fix and then let you down.
In this context, THINGS are not just inanimate objects, they are the THING-NESS of any experience you have. If you are attached to a person, THAT is a THING or THING-NESS. If you are attached to your relatively good health at the moment THAT is a THING-NESS.
THINGS dissolve
THINGS perish
THINGS disintegrate
THINGS disperse
THINGS are void of reality
RELATIONSHIP IS REALITY
Just don't make it a thing.
'Conventional truth' can be somewhat understood as being what we 'conventionally experience' in our everyday lives as an objectified reality.
'Ultimate truth' can be understood to mean the truest or deepest 'existential mode' (valid level of existing) of that conventional experience.
For example, we conventionally experience cars so cars are a conventional truth. But when we look deeply at this experience of "car" we find there is no such thing as "car". Why?
Because "car" is merely the name or label we give to a gathering of parts (conditions) that we conveniently refer to as "car". Car is not there, it is empty (void) of being a real THING that the name car actually refers to. This is the "ultimate truth" of the car.
But now I want to explain the 'two truths' in a more direct and hopefully more realistic way.
The two truths are in fact, one reality that is viewed from 2 different angles.
Voidness as emptiness
Voidness as interdependence
Both (each) of these views are (although functional from their unique perspectives) partial, incomplete, un-holistic and therefore flawed.
In our ordinary understanding of "emptiness" we almost always conceive of it as a negative space or empty hole of sorts, maybe a vast black, absolute nothingness. In what ever way it comes to mind, it seems to be unavoidably like an affirmed (asserted or 'put forth') negation of reality - a kind of nihilism.
In a way, there is a validity to this view in so far as THINGS are not as solid as they appear.
But also, in our ordinary understanding of the term "interdependence" (the fact that all things are based on their conditions) we almost always conceive of real THINGS existing but as being made up of other real THINGS. Yes they interact, but they seem like real THINGS interacting.
Both these views are one sided, dualistic and un-realistic.
In reality, emptiness is not a THING such as it appears to be as an affirmed, absolute "noTHINGness". Nor is interdependence the interactivity of truly existent THINGS.
If you can remove the "THINGNESS" of both emptiness AND interdependence you can then glimpse the true (realistic) reality of all this - your present experience.
Emptiness minus the THING-NESS of emptiness is correctly seen as exactly interdependence.
Interdependence without any THINGS that interact is correctly seen as exactly emptiness.
In a correct view (non-conceptual or "view-less" view), both of these terms are completely interchangeable.
Emptiness (what I call "voidness") is not absolute nothingness which is the opposite of existing. Voidness is reality without the THING-NESS of reality. This is exactly the same thing as interdependence.
When you take all the "THING-NESS" out of your experiences, out of your life, what are you left with?
Relationship.
Relationship without any THINGS that are relating with one another. All of THIS is emptiness-interdependence, all of it is relationship.
And here too is why compassion plays such a prominent role in Buddhism.
When you remove the non-existent THING-NESS from reality, you then relate to your experiences (what ever happens in your life) in the most realistic way possible.
In Buddhism, in particular in Zen Buddhism, you treat everything with the utmost care and even "compassion". Why?
Because their are no THINGS, there are only relationships and relationship is what is important - not some non-existent "THINGS" (or even non-existent "beings"-THINGS).
Compassion works as a two way street in that it is both the result of a correct view of reality and also is a path to help get you to the correct view in as much as it helps remove selfish instincts and impulses.
You could view the Buddhist principle of "karma" as being synonymous with "relationship" as well.
'Karma' is behavior based cause and effect. In other words, the world we now experience is both the cause and result of our karma (HOW we actualize our intent, HOW we relate to our experiences). That is to say, the world we experience is one of relationship.
When you see this level of truth, the focus is completely altered!
On the one hand you have a view of the world where by it is made of these individual experiences of THINGS and BEINGS - that is one "truth".
But that "truth" leaves you with a lot of stress because all those THINGS are set to expire at some point. Then what?
On the other hand, you have this other more realistic truth.
THERE ARE NO THINGS
THERE ARE ONLY RELATIONSHIPS
And that calls for the utmost attention and care - what is called "the union of wisdom and compassion" in Buddhism.
In climbing it's not just that you climb a mountain, it's HOW you climb it that becomes important. You could take all the challenge out of it completely, maybe get lowered onto a summit by a helicopter or carried by someone up to the top, but what would be significant about that in your life?
We focus so much on the THING-NESS of things that we forget about the quality of the experience. We forget about the only really important aspect which is the relationship we have to our experiences.
Seeing this reality is the wisdom part. Actualizing it is compassion. They go hand in hand really.
THINGS or THING-NESS is one (level of) truth.
Relationship is another.
But be careful here, there is no THING-NESS to this kind of relationship (there are no THINGS or BEINGS to relate to), rather, there is simply 'relationship-emptiness'.
You don't have to react to every-THING-ness that happens in your life, you just have to RELATE to them. If you relate to them in an unrealistic way, by valuing them as THINGS, by picking and choosing some THINGS over others you create (via karma) that kind of experience where by THINGS are what matters to you. Where by, THINGS let you down, or give you a fix and then let you down.
In this context, THINGS are not just inanimate objects, they are the THING-NESS of any experience you have. If you are attached to a person, THAT is a THING or THING-NESS. If you are attached to your relatively good health at the moment THAT is a THING-NESS.
THINGS dissolve
THINGS perish
THINGS disintegrate
THINGS disperse
THINGS are void of reality
RELATIONSHIP IS REALITY
Just don't make it a thing.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Unlimited Lightness of Being
I'm near the eve of making a slightly deeper commitment to this (Buddhist) path. In case you're wondering, this DOES involve some commitment. There is risk. Like anything else, nothing changes without risk.
Mountain climbing can be risky, in fact it's essential - to a point. And you'd better hope that you suffer a little, because that is essential too. If you risk nothing you gain nothing.
You have to also give up something.
You have to lose yourself to the mountain to get a return. That's why it MUST be difficult, MUST be challenging - at least somewhat.
Not to be overly dramatic, but when you climb a mountain you are trying to have a new experience, you're trying to learn something about who you really are.
None of this happens unless you go (at least a little bit) beyond what you know of yourself, beyond what you thought you were capable of.
We view ourselves in extremely limited ways.
We see our selves as some-THING that is "alive". This is what we mean when we say "I" or "me". There is this being-THING that is "me" and it is trapped by physical boundary, physical limitation.
This is why death scares the hell out of us.
"If I am only this THING then death will be the end of me!"
Has anything ever exited the universe?
Elsewhere on the blog Ive tried to show that our experience of "me-ness" cannot be defined by partial aspects of experience. We are not our thoughts, we are not our bodies, we are not our emotions, etc..
But rather then 'freaking out' on some strange notion that this means we don't exist at all, or that we are somehow not experiencing this at all, lets try to understand what this experience actually is - or at least appreciate it AS it is.
Some people have an idea that when Buddhism negates the existence of a self it actually destroys some real THING that is there. This is not the case. What Buddhism does is release the limitations that we put on our experience of all this. "THINGS" or "BEINGS" as THINGS are -simply put- nothing but limitation.
The difference between things is not a difference between THINGS
(there are no THINGS)
It is a difference between THING-NESS and No-THING-ness
We complain (maybe internally) about the possibility of dying, yet we don't complain so much anymore about being born. Whatever our experience was prior to this, one might ask, is this an improvement to that beyond all doubt?
I'm not asserting that "you existed" before you were born, I'm just saying you can't exit your own experience - no matter what that experience entails.
But you CAN remove at least SOME of the limitations on this experience.
Our "usual experience" [as my zen teacher used to call it] is fraught with self limitations and fraught with all the distress and suffering that accompany those limitations.
'Experience' happens in the mind
Mind is 'experiencing'
When our mind darts from one thought to another it is actually darting from one THING-NESS to another. The flow of thoughts in our experience is overwhelmingly continuous. The flow of THINGS in our experience is overwhelmingly continuous.
But what we don't always notice is that THING-NESS is not the whole picture.
"THINGS" don't exist!
If you continue to study and meditate you are almost guaranteed of seeing this. You will notice where all this THING-NESS hides in all aspects of your experience - emotional, physical, and of coarse mental as well.
It's subtle. But it's arisen bad results are not.
We really have to stop our craziness at some point, stop our fears, stop killing ourselves with anxiety and neurotic self obsession. Your life is too precious not to. And generally speaking, the planet is too precious not to.
Buddhism uses a lot of tools to remove the limitations you put on yourself. Zen tends to approach this by dealing with your directed intellect and your perseverance. Tantra (Tibetan Vajrayana) approaches it with those to, but mostly emphasizes creativity, emotion even unpredictability.
Eventually all aspects of your being have to get involved no matter what approach you take. It's serious business.
Changing ourselves in the Buddhist sense is not changing a single atom of any THING. The difference between the world of suffering (samsara) and the world of liberation (nirvana) is utterly no THING.
The difference between things is not a difference between THINGS
(there are no THINGS)
It is a difference between THING-NESS and No-THING-ness
It's all how you look at it, all HOW you experience it - it's all about your mind.
But we don't know what that means in it's true sense. We don't know what an unlimited mind is capable of. We don't really understand that all of this, all this entire experience is foremost an experience of quality not of "objects".
There is no "me" here and a "death" waiting somewhere over there.
I AM DEATH!
In fact, remove the "I" and remove the "death".
What do you have?
What do you fear?
What is there to fear?
Who is there to fear?
How many deaths have you gone through? Why do you THINK only one birth? How limiting the mind is when it thinks such thoughts! Maybe we can go beyond such limitations.
What if you didn't think of time in terms of days, weeks, months and years? What if instead you thought of time in a context of eons, millennia, ages?
What if you didn't just consider your family and friends as valuable, what if you saw all people that way, even all life?
What if you didn't just think of space/time in 3 dimensions, what if you thought of it in 5 or 6 or infinite dimensions?
If our minds were actually limited, were actually nothing more than merely 'a reactive process to environmental stimuli', then how can you explain creativity? How can you explain the self transcendence of love or compassion? How can you explain art? How can you explain our curiosity about this, our experience?
How can you explain Buddhism?
Sit right now, right here and just let it be. Thoughts are self liberated voidness.
Fear is the same.
Don't make THING-NESS and there are no THINGS to fear. Take every experience as the truth of no-THING-NESS, as PROOF of no-THING-NESS.
Or just watch you're thoughts come and go, there are no particular THINGS there. THINGS are made of every other THING which in essence is no-THING.
Sounds crazy I know, but what's really crazy? Look around you, just notice the distress, notice the pain in everyone. Begin to feel a different possibility is at hand. Begin to feel a little sympathy.
Next, just meditate some more, just let all this settle right into this present experience. You don't have to pick out anything in particular, you are not searching for some-THING [that's just more of the same].
You're just noticing the tiny perfection that is self revealing in each moment of your experience. This is what we so often overlook to our own detriment.
Mountain climbing can be risky, in fact it's essential - to a point. And you'd better hope that you suffer a little, because that is essential too. If you risk nothing you gain nothing.
You have to also give up something.
You have to lose yourself to the mountain to get a return. That's why it MUST be difficult, MUST be challenging - at least somewhat.
Not to be overly dramatic, but when you climb a mountain you are trying to have a new experience, you're trying to learn something about who you really are.
None of this happens unless you go (at least a little bit) beyond what you know of yourself, beyond what you thought you were capable of.
We view ourselves in extremely limited ways.
We see our selves as some-THING that is "alive". This is what we mean when we say "I" or "me". There is this being-THING that is "me" and it is trapped by physical boundary, physical limitation.
This is why death scares the hell out of us.
"If I am only this THING then death will be the end of me!"
Has anything ever exited the universe?
Elsewhere on the blog Ive tried to show that our experience of "me-ness" cannot be defined by partial aspects of experience. We are not our thoughts, we are not our bodies, we are not our emotions, etc..
But rather then 'freaking out' on some strange notion that this means we don't exist at all, or that we are somehow not experiencing this at all, lets try to understand what this experience actually is - or at least appreciate it AS it is.
Some people have an idea that when Buddhism negates the existence of a self it actually destroys some real THING that is there. This is not the case. What Buddhism does is release the limitations that we put on our experience of all this. "THINGS" or "BEINGS" as THINGS are -simply put- nothing but limitation.
The difference between things is not a difference between THINGS
(there are no THINGS)
It is a difference between THING-NESS and No-THING-ness
We complain (maybe internally) about the possibility of dying, yet we don't complain so much anymore about being born. Whatever our experience was prior to this, one might ask, is this an improvement to that beyond all doubt?
I'm not asserting that "you existed" before you were born, I'm just saying you can't exit your own experience - no matter what that experience entails.
But you CAN remove at least SOME of the limitations on this experience.
Our "usual experience" [as my zen teacher used to call it] is fraught with self limitations and fraught with all the distress and suffering that accompany those limitations.
'Experience' happens in the mind
Mind is 'experiencing'
When our mind darts from one thought to another it is actually darting from one THING-NESS to another. The flow of thoughts in our experience is overwhelmingly continuous. The flow of THINGS in our experience is overwhelmingly continuous.
But what we don't always notice is that THING-NESS is not the whole picture.
"THINGS" don't exist!
If you continue to study and meditate you are almost guaranteed of seeing this. You will notice where all this THING-NESS hides in all aspects of your experience - emotional, physical, and of coarse mental as well.
It's subtle. But it's arisen bad results are not.
We really have to stop our craziness at some point, stop our fears, stop killing ourselves with anxiety and neurotic self obsession. Your life is too precious not to. And generally speaking, the planet is too precious not to.
Buddhism uses a lot of tools to remove the limitations you put on yourself. Zen tends to approach this by dealing with your directed intellect and your perseverance. Tantra (Tibetan Vajrayana) approaches it with those to, but mostly emphasizes creativity, emotion even unpredictability.
Eventually all aspects of your being have to get involved no matter what approach you take. It's serious business.
Changing ourselves in the Buddhist sense is not changing a single atom of any THING. The difference between the world of suffering (samsara) and the world of liberation (nirvana) is utterly no THING.
The difference between things is not a difference between THINGS
(there are no THINGS)
It is a difference between THING-NESS and No-THING-ness
It's all how you look at it, all HOW you experience it - it's all about your mind.
But we don't know what that means in it's true sense. We don't know what an unlimited mind is capable of. We don't really understand that all of this, all this entire experience is foremost an experience of quality not of "objects".
There is no "me" here and a "death" waiting somewhere over there.
I AM DEATH!
In fact, remove the "I" and remove the "death".
What do you have?
What do you fear?
What is there to fear?
Who is there to fear?
How many deaths have you gone through? Why do you THINK only one birth? How limiting the mind is when it thinks such thoughts! Maybe we can go beyond such limitations.
What if you didn't think of time in terms of days, weeks, months and years? What if instead you thought of time in a context of eons, millennia, ages?
What if you didn't just consider your family and friends as valuable, what if you saw all people that way, even all life?
What if you didn't just think of space/time in 3 dimensions, what if you thought of it in 5 or 6 or infinite dimensions?
If our minds were actually limited, were actually nothing more than merely 'a reactive process to environmental stimuli', then how can you explain creativity? How can you explain the self transcendence of love or compassion? How can you explain art? How can you explain our curiosity about this, our experience?
How can you explain Buddhism?
Sit right now, right here and just let it be. Thoughts are self liberated voidness.
Fear is the same.
Don't make THING-NESS and there are no THINGS to fear. Take every experience as the truth of no-THING-NESS, as PROOF of no-THING-NESS.
Or just watch you're thoughts come and go, there are no particular THINGS there. THINGS are made of every other THING which in essence is no-THING.
Sounds crazy I know, but what's really crazy? Look around you, just notice the distress, notice the pain in everyone. Begin to feel a different possibility is at hand. Begin to feel a little sympathy.
Next, just meditate some more, just let all this settle right into this present experience. You don't have to pick out anything in particular, you are not searching for some-THING [that's just more of the same].
You're just noticing the tiny perfection that is self revealing in each moment of your experience. This is what we so often overlook to our own detriment.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Buddhism is Weird - embracing disorientation
Alarm goes off..
We get up in the morning and fight through that little bit of confusion, that little bit of fog that is left over, that's still there as the remnants of sleep. If you notice, there is usually a little bit of anxiety there as well, a little bit of doubt too.
Then, we put it all together. We have to. We organize our thoughts and plans for the day and we begin to move. The "confusion" [that is really an openness or an opportunity] has to be relegated and ignored in order to function, to not appear "weird".
You solidify your identity and your mission. You have to.
"This [you tell yourself somewhere inside] is life. This THING is what it all is, and this THING is the meaning behind it. These THINGS are my beliefs. This THING is my purpose."
It's not like it takes much time for this to all go through your mind, it all comes to pass in a second or two of habit. That openness, that doubt, that question? You'll deal with that later, maybe when you're old.
Buddhism seems weird to us mostly. It seems unrealistic and detached from reality - from what we THINK is reality. Buddhists seem weird. My daughter thinks I'm weird. I'm sure my family in general probably thinks I'm a little odd. Even I see some of the Buddhist teachers Ive known as kind of strange in their behavior.
When it comes down to it, when we compare the profoundness of life to it's more mundane appearances I think it's fair to say that yes, it is weird. The ultimate truth looks very weird to a conventional gaze.
But what is truly weird [to me anyway] is that we would take something so profound, something so precious and so filled with absolute meaning, that we would take THIS [our present experience] so for granted, that we would form it into little idea packets of psuedo-meaning as for instance in the pursuit of wealth, control, ideology and short sighted achievements for the sake of status.
There is a little bit of all those, all those "inclinations toward THING-NESS" in our morning wake-up routine and yet we don't notice the weirdness in that. We don't notice the weirdness of ignoring the very basis of our experience.
Im not saying that we should be without goals - far from it. But how weird is it to spend a lifetime [or even a single moment] trying to ignore the openness, the unlimitedness of THIS very moment? Yet that is what we almost always do. We make reality, we make experience into a THING.
THINGS are limited!
The experience of taking reality and making it into a conceptual THING is an experience of limitation.
If you notice what is NOW you don't need Buddhism.
If you are here in YOUR life, fully, presently, you don't need a THING called Buddhism.
Buddhism is just a name for the path back to your present experience. If you take this path you are a Buddhist.
But to others, you might look a little weird.
Why? Why do we think Buddhists are weird? Why do we think of those who look into THIS as "weird"?
We fear openness. We fear voidness. We fear reality. It's weird to us.
Remember, "reality" is not a THING, it is undefinable as a THING. All THINGS are made of everything else except themselves. And when those THINGS are seen in their nature, they are also not there as THINGS. This can seem disorienting from a certain angle.
In order to deal with that disorientation [which we could also label as weirdness] we orient our experience around THINGS, around idea-THINGS, material-THINGS, principle-THINGS, emotion-THINGS, meaning-THINGS, people-THINGS, relationship-THINGS. This makes THINGS "grabbable", not weird.
This THING-NESS gives us reprieve from the openness, reprieve from ineffable voidness-interdependence. But it also smashes the very preciousness of this moment.
To a certain extent, that's unavoidable because we are still a work in progress. But if we don't stop and notice what this all really is in it's most profound sense, if we don't at least occasionally notice the true nature of this experience we are having right NOW and not just the surface appearance of it that becomes our ideas 'about' it, then in that case you have to wonder, who really is weird?
Are Buddhist practitioners weird when they give up material pursuits to live fifteen years in a cave or is it weird that us ordinary scientifically minded folk once considered the possibility of building a 'doomsday bomb' to destroy all life as we know it?
Is it weird that people follow the Dalai Lama around listening to him talk about the importance of compassion or is it weird that we normal people casually give support to wars that slaughter whole innocent families?
Is it weird to look at this situation and try to understand the nature of THIS present experience or is it weird to go about our lives and ignore this question as much as we can?
Weirdness is relative - like anything else. I embrace my weirdness.
This reminds me a little of climbing [there are a lot of things about climbing that correlate to Buddhism BTW]. Many people don't understand climbers or mountain climbing in general. Climbers are weird at best to non-climbers and they are even selfish, risk-taking dirt-bags to others.
But there is something really deeply precious in climbing. Climbing inspires. Climbers inspire. They inspire themselves and through themselves others around them as well.
There is something pretty deep that sometimes happens when you complete a difficult climb and there is a view at the top that is often described as a religious experience by many climbers. But to many non-climbers, climbing will always be just something weird.
Yes I am weird. Sometimes I spend my time writing this blog or reading Buddhist texts that I could other wise spend making more money or building shelters for the homeless. That makes me weird by normal standards.
But reality is actually kind of weird also, if you look at it.
How weird is it to see THINGS when things do not exist? "Experience is" now THAT is a weird statement! And yet, it more closely describes something that is not a THING.
And yet, if you were to stand somewhere with a big view, you might also describe the experience using weird terms.
Just go to that big view, you don't have to climb a mountain to get to an overlook with a view. Just have that viewless view, that openness.
I embrace my weirdness.
Please embrace yours.
Life is too short not to.
We get up in the morning and fight through that little bit of confusion, that little bit of fog that is left over, that's still there as the remnants of sleep. If you notice, there is usually a little bit of anxiety there as well, a little bit of doubt too.
Then, we put it all together. We have to. We organize our thoughts and plans for the day and we begin to move. The "confusion" [that is really an openness or an opportunity] has to be relegated and ignored in order to function, to not appear "weird".
You solidify your identity and your mission. You have to.
"This [you tell yourself somewhere inside] is life. This THING is what it all is, and this THING is the meaning behind it. These THINGS are my beliefs. This THING is my purpose."
It's not like it takes much time for this to all go through your mind, it all comes to pass in a second or two of habit. That openness, that doubt, that question? You'll deal with that later, maybe when you're old.
Buddhism seems weird to us mostly. It seems unrealistic and detached from reality - from what we THINK is reality. Buddhists seem weird. My daughter thinks I'm weird. I'm sure my family in general probably thinks I'm a little odd. Even I see some of the Buddhist teachers Ive known as kind of strange in their behavior.
When it comes down to it, when we compare the profoundness of life to it's more mundane appearances I think it's fair to say that yes, it is weird. The ultimate truth looks very weird to a conventional gaze.
But what is truly weird [to me anyway] is that we would take something so profound, something so precious and so filled with absolute meaning, that we would take THIS [our present experience] so for granted, that we would form it into little idea packets of psuedo-meaning as for instance in the pursuit of wealth, control, ideology and short sighted achievements for the sake of status.
There is a little bit of all those, all those "inclinations toward THING-NESS" in our morning wake-up routine and yet we don't notice the weirdness in that. We don't notice the weirdness of ignoring the very basis of our experience.
Im not saying that we should be without goals - far from it. But how weird is it to spend a lifetime [or even a single moment] trying to ignore the openness, the unlimitedness of THIS very moment? Yet that is what we almost always do. We make reality, we make experience into a THING.
THINGS are limited!
The experience of taking reality and making it into a conceptual THING is an experience of limitation.
If you notice what is NOW you don't need Buddhism.
If you are here in YOUR life, fully, presently, you don't need a THING called Buddhism.
Buddhism is just a name for the path back to your present experience. If you take this path you are a Buddhist.
But to others, you might look a little weird.
Why? Why do we think Buddhists are weird? Why do we think of those who look into THIS as "weird"?
We fear openness. We fear voidness. We fear reality. It's weird to us.
Remember, "reality" is not a THING, it is undefinable as a THING. All THINGS are made of everything else except themselves. And when those THINGS are seen in their nature, they are also not there as THINGS. This can seem disorienting from a certain angle.
In order to deal with that disorientation [which we could also label as weirdness] we orient our experience around THINGS, around idea-THINGS, material-THINGS, principle-THINGS, emotion-THINGS, meaning-THINGS, people-THINGS, relationship-THINGS. This makes THINGS "grabbable", not weird.
This THING-NESS gives us reprieve from the openness, reprieve from ineffable voidness-interdependence. But it also smashes the very preciousness of this moment.
To a certain extent, that's unavoidable because we are still a work in progress. But if we don't stop and notice what this all really is in it's most profound sense, if we don't at least occasionally notice the true nature of this experience we are having right NOW and not just the surface appearance of it that becomes our ideas 'about' it, then in that case you have to wonder, who really is weird?
Are Buddhist practitioners weird when they give up material pursuits to live fifteen years in a cave or is it weird that us ordinary scientifically minded folk once considered the possibility of building a 'doomsday bomb' to destroy all life as we know it?
Is it weird that people follow the Dalai Lama around listening to him talk about the importance of compassion or is it weird that we normal people casually give support to wars that slaughter whole innocent families?
Is it weird to look at this situation and try to understand the nature of THIS present experience or is it weird to go about our lives and ignore this question as much as we can?
Weirdness is relative - like anything else. I embrace my weirdness.
This reminds me a little of climbing [there are a lot of things about climbing that correlate to Buddhism BTW]. Many people don't understand climbers or mountain climbing in general. Climbers are weird at best to non-climbers and they are even selfish, risk-taking dirt-bags to others.
But there is something really deeply precious in climbing. Climbing inspires. Climbers inspire. They inspire themselves and through themselves others around them as well.
There is something pretty deep that sometimes happens when you complete a difficult climb and there is a view at the top that is often described as a religious experience by many climbers. But to many non-climbers, climbing will always be just something weird.
Yes I am weird. Sometimes I spend my time writing this blog or reading Buddhist texts that I could other wise spend making more money or building shelters for the homeless. That makes me weird by normal standards.
But reality is actually kind of weird also, if you look at it.
How weird is it to see THINGS when things do not exist? "Experience is" now THAT is a weird statement! And yet, it more closely describes something that is not a THING.
And yet, if you were to stand somewhere with a big view, you might also describe the experience using weird terms.
Just go to that big view, you don't have to climb a mountain to get to an overlook with a view. Just have that viewless view, that openness.
I embrace my weirdness.
Please embrace yours.
Life is too short not to.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Emotional Intelligence - a necessary step
I'll make this one comparatively brief.
We are screwed up emotionally. Somewhere along the line we got the idea that emotion somehow "doesn't count". We're supposed to "fight through" emotion as if it wasn't there.
This attitude is prevalent to society in general and is even prevalent [to one degree or another] in Buddhism itself. For many Buddhist practitioners, insight means merely an 'intellectual' insight minus the emotion. Or so they THINK.
Fairly or unfairly, this apparent aspect is even [ironically] what attracts some people to the Buddhist path in the first place. Maybe it's a sense that they can some how "get beyond" all emotion or rid themselves of all of it.
Emotion is experience
Experience is our reality
Emotions can be negative, some are clearly that. These are called "afflictive" emotions. But not all emotions are afflictions or something to be done away with.
What would the world do without "love" for example? Would we care for our young?
And what about sadness?
I unfortunately know an extremely large number of people that are on antidepressant drugs - some of them are certainly helped by this.
But curiously, there are also some [perhaps many] who have somehow gotten the idea that they should NEVER experience a single moment of sadness. They believe that sadness is an "abnormal" experience. One person who is very close to me personally has even labeled themselves as an "abnormal person" based on this attitude.
This kind of thinking is like beating up a beating victim simply because they are crying for being beaten in the first place. Maybe it's the psychiatrists that should be on the drugs because that approach seems insane on the face of it.
While Buddhism is also mainly concerned with bringing the 'benefit of happiness' it would never take the approach of identifying a merely appearing emotion as being inherently "bad". And it is certainly not about making you feel "abnormal" for being "afflicted" by any emotion. Buddhism takes a more realistic approach [than simply prescribing a drug].
Of all Buddhist divisions it is Tibetan Buddhism [in particular "vajrayana" or "tantra"] that delves into and utilizes the emotional realms of experience the most - and the most realistically.
We cannot be here without love, without emotion, these are factors of experience. So if you decide some day to practice Buddhism as your path you should prepare yourself to reflect on your emotional experiences as much as your intellectual experiences. These two go hand in hand and are really inseparable.
Take some time to sit with your feelings, get to know them. Try to develop a more subtle sensitivity to all your emotions.
Take some time each day, to sit quietly as in meditation and just experience your feelings. You can do this within your normal meditation sessions OR you can decide to separately focus for a time on just your emotions.
Let them come up.
"Look" at them.
Feel them.
Notice them.
At first maybe just watch them come and go.
Then after a time you can analyze them to some extent if you want - but this can quickly turn into judgment so notice that as well.
The point of "emotional meditation" is just basically to develop your sensitivity to your feelings.
They don't exist in isolation. There is always a dependence on a thought or other mental appearances or images etc..
In practical terms, don't judge your emotions, acknowledge them. Don't suppress them, listen to them. That anger, that sadness is a language. It is communication from your more subtle mind to your more coarse conscious mind. What is it saying? If you listen you will learn.
Eventually, especially if you practice the Tibetan Buddhist path you will make good use of your emotional intelligence.
When the Dalai Lama talks about compassion he means the real FEELING of compassion. This is not just a head trip.
But even in regard to any path, paying attention to your emotional factors of experience greatly contributes to a more realistic approach to relationships of all kinds. This is incredibly vital to your well being.
I felt that this aspect of 'emotion' was missing from the blog and so I just wanted to mention it briefly for now. I'll post more about this later on.
We are screwed up emotionally. Somewhere along the line we got the idea that emotion somehow "doesn't count". We're supposed to "fight through" emotion as if it wasn't there.
This attitude is prevalent to society in general and is even prevalent [to one degree or another] in Buddhism itself. For many Buddhist practitioners, insight means merely an 'intellectual' insight minus the emotion. Or so they THINK.
Fairly or unfairly, this apparent aspect is even [ironically] what attracts some people to the Buddhist path in the first place. Maybe it's a sense that they can some how "get beyond" all emotion or rid themselves of all of it.
Emotion is experience
Experience is our reality
Emotions can be negative, some are clearly that. These are called "afflictive" emotions. But not all emotions are afflictions or something to be done away with.
What would the world do without "love" for example? Would we care for our young?
And what about sadness?
I unfortunately know an extremely large number of people that are on antidepressant drugs - some of them are certainly helped by this.
But curiously, there are also some [perhaps many] who have somehow gotten the idea that they should NEVER experience a single moment of sadness. They believe that sadness is an "abnormal" experience. One person who is very close to me personally has even labeled themselves as an "abnormal person" based on this attitude.
This kind of thinking is like beating up a beating victim simply because they are crying for being beaten in the first place. Maybe it's the psychiatrists that should be on the drugs because that approach seems insane on the face of it.
While Buddhism is also mainly concerned with bringing the 'benefit of happiness' it would never take the approach of identifying a merely appearing emotion as being inherently "bad". And it is certainly not about making you feel "abnormal" for being "afflicted" by any emotion. Buddhism takes a more realistic approach [than simply prescribing a drug].
Of all Buddhist divisions it is Tibetan Buddhism [in particular "vajrayana" or "tantra"] that delves into and utilizes the emotional realms of experience the most - and the most realistically.
We cannot be here without love, without emotion, these are factors of experience. So if you decide some day to practice Buddhism as your path you should prepare yourself to reflect on your emotional experiences as much as your intellectual experiences. These two go hand in hand and are really inseparable.
Take some time to sit with your feelings, get to know them. Try to develop a more subtle sensitivity to all your emotions.
Take some time each day, to sit quietly as in meditation and just experience your feelings. You can do this within your normal meditation sessions OR you can decide to separately focus for a time on just your emotions.
Let them come up.
"Look" at them.
Feel them.
Notice them.
At first maybe just watch them come and go.
Then after a time you can analyze them to some extent if you want - but this can quickly turn into judgment so notice that as well.
The point of "emotional meditation" is just basically to develop your sensitivity to your feelings.
They don't exist in isolation. There is always a dependence on a thought or other mental appearances or images etc..
In practical terms, don't judge your emotions, acknowledge them. Don't suppress them, listen to them. That anger, that sadness is a language. It is communication from your more subtle mind to your more coarse conscious mind. What is it saying? If you listen you will learn.
Eventually, especially if you practice the Tibetan Buddhist path you will make good use of your emotional intelligence.
When the Dalai Lama talks about compassion he means the real FEELING of compassion. This is not just a head trip.
But even in regard to any path, paying attention to your emotional factors of experience greatly contributes to a more realistic approach to relationships of all kinds. This is incredibly vital to your well being.
I felt that this aspect of 'emotion' was missing from the blog and so I just wanted to mention it briefly for now. I'll post more about this later on.
Monday, March 8, 2010
I Me Mine - a longer discourse on the origin of distress
I almost wrote the "organ" of distress - may have been more catchy if I had.
Buddhism has certain basic principles within it that are universally recognized and accepted by all Buddhist schools, sects and sub sects.
Although the interpretation and explanations can sometimes differ, the teaching of "anatta" or "no-self" is one of those common principles. It is also one of the defining marks that makes Buddhism stand out from the crowd of religions in general.
In our ordinary experiencing of the world we have this emotional and cognitive separation or categorization of what we call "reality" into a distinct "me" that is here, and a distinct "not-me" that is over there or that is other than me.
This separation seems absolute, and it even appears to us that this "duality" really and truly exists as a THING because to us, there are THINGS apparently existing as independent THINGS, and there is this "me-THING" apparently existing as an independent "being" or me-"THING".
One of the ways to deconstruct and test this hypothesis is to use logic. We have already used logic to deconstruct [to some extent] the "other", the "objects" that appear in this experience of duality as being object-THINGS. Now we turn to the "subject" side or the "me-THING" to see if it can be similarly deconstructed.
What are we saying when we use these terms like "I", "me", or "mine"? What do these terms refer to? Is there something truly there (here) that is my actual being? Am I a soul? If such a thing did exist it should be ultimately findable by ultimate analysis, and so, we will use that analysis. But first, we have to identify what it is we're looking for.
Ordinarily then, we have this experience of "I" as being an unchanged, enduring un-dividable, independent, self standing THING (a being) we refer to as "I" or "me" or my "self". We view this "me", this "self" as an actual solid THING that exists just as it appears to -or is assumed to- exist.
We say for example "my body" as though it were owned by something perhaps within the mind. We say "my mind" as though it were owned by something perhaps within the body. But is there an owner? And if so, where is he/she?
What if, one day you woke up and discovered that what (who) you thought you were was not really THAT at all? That this "self" that you THINK you are (or thought you were), that you THINK exists as a THING is not that at all, that in fact, what you THINK you perceive as this THING (hint, please note the similarities between those two words) was instead almost the complete opposite of what you thought? What if you discovered that your "self" was in fact every other "thing" except what you had been THINKING of as your "self"?
This situation is much closer to the truth than we might be willing to accept.
If we could find out that we are not actually bound by these ever recurring concepts of "me", that there is no real me-"THING" to be defensive about, to be offensive with, or to contain within any kind of "fence", if we could find this to be the case, the implications would be big!
Some of the implications that could follow such a discovery are things like, release of stress, contentment, a sense of peace, a sense of purpose, greater compassion and patience. In other words, what could follow from this kind of discovery is "release and benefit" - in Buddhist terms, "liberation" or "enlightenment".
Our biggest fears - and therefore our most fundamental source of anxiety - stem from our sense of self. Not just our merely experienced sense of self, but our sense of a self-THING that is "here" as OPPOSED to "there", that is "alive" as OPPOSED to "dead", that is "me" as OPPOSED to "you".
THAT, is a lot of 'opposition' to carry around, and THAT is the source of our most pervasive type of suffering.
Traditionally, in Buddhism there are 3 levels of unhappiness or what is called "suffering".
There is one kind of unhappiness that we all experience as pain - physical pain, emotional pain, experiences that we all can recognize as painful or distressful.
Another level of unhappiness or suffering is called the "suffering of change". Here, we find temporary relief from the first kind of suffering, but this will eventually revert to pain once again. We maybe can take drugs for example, or we win the lotto, or we can change what THINGS we are surrounded by - in other words, we 'move THINGS around' and this change gives us some temporary relief from our pain. This "relief" doesn't last, it changes back eventually to distress.
But the most basic level of suffering is called "all pervasive suffering". This is the basic level (foundation) of ALL our suffering because it is based in the mis-perception of experience as containing a "me" that is a real THING experiencing "THINGS" out there.
When we attach (or grab) at this mis-perception that "I am here" opposed to "everyTHING else", in other words, when we take this mere collection of conditions, of experiences, and we conceive this idea that "here" is a real, truly existing THING called "me", when that happens, the only long term outcome can be distress or suffering.
We get very protective of such an idea and this protectiveness contains extreme amounts of emotional energy.
So what if that "me" was not so solid after all? What if "I" did NOT stand in opposition to "other"?
What if also, this experience that we call "my life" was NOT even in opposition to some THING called "my death"?
We are so sure that there is this "me", that "I" exist, even that this "me" is in essence an eternal "soul" - and we only hope that "eternal" is the actual case.
We also fear death based on this because we think there is an actual "ending" that is coming at us.
Where is "me"? What is this THING that I mean when I use the term "I" or "me" or "mine"?
Is me these thoughts? If so, why not call my thoughts by my name?
Is me this body? If so, when I lose a limb there should be less "me" than before, and less "me" than others have (who have all their limbs).
Is me this brain? If so, we should be able to fall in love with some brain tissue.
Is me a ghost like presence hovering around my body, or maybe inside of it? If so, why can't we see it or measure it?
Lets look closer at the possibility of a "me" that is constantly existing as (or within) my mental process - Am I my mind?
We think that we have only one consciousness but this is not the actual case. Consciousness is constantly changing and is made up entirely of conscious experiences.
Lets say it this way, if you analyze your mind in meditation you can see that concepts for example or "thoughts" have an audible component, a visual component usually, an emotional aspect, a subtle or sub-conscious factor, even associated smells and happy or negative feelings associated with them. Consciousness is multifaceted, ever changing with every new experience and sensation. My consciousness could never be a constantly abiding "me".
Am I the feelings that are there in my experiencing of touch?
No. My touch consciousness changes with every new tactile sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the odors that are there in my experiencing of smell?
No. My smell consciousness changes with every new olfactory sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the flavors that are there in my experiencing of taste?
No. My taste consciousness changes with every new palatable sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the sounds that are there in my experiencing of hearing?
No. My hearing consciousness changes with every new audible sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the emotions that are there in my experiencing of moods?
No. My mood consciousness changes with every new emotional sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the ideas that are there in my experiencing of thoughts?
No. My conceptual consciousness changes with every new thought. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the habitual impulses that are there in my experiencing of inclination and tendencies? Am I my sub-conscious?
No. My impulsive consciousness changes with every new experience. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
By this reasoning, we can see that the self, the "me", the "I" that we think is "there" as our mind, or as a THING in our mind, is in fact not there.
Does this mean we are nothing at all? No.
It means we are not a particular THING. We are cause and conditions. But even cause and conditions have an illusory appearance as THINGS. Not even cause and conditions exist as THINGS that we can conceptualize or capture as an idea. We are ineffable. We are experience - but not experience as a THING that you can point out.
And lest you jump to the conclusion that because we don't exist as "self-THINGS" its ok to kill or bring harm to other "no-self-beings" you should consider this:
Each being, each non-self being, is an entire universe unto themselves. Why? Because each being is a unique 'experiencing of' being, of reality. Each one has experience, each one has a mind, not a self, but a unique mental process of experience. You harm a single being and you harm an entire universe. Now carry THAT karma around with you for a while!
The analysis could go on and on all night, but in the final analysis, when you try to find a single THING that is the real, actual, truly existing THING we call "I" or "me", you can't find it!
So I ask again, does that mean I don't exist at all? Not really.
When we jump to the opposing conclusion that "I don't exist" we make the same mistake that we did when we thought that "I do exist". The mistake is that we conceptualize this experience that we are having right now into a THING called "existing". When you do that, you instantly make a THING called not-existing.
Can you see this?
Lets take this idea of death for example. Death is not an end - there are no endings.
But why? How could this be?
It's because there is no THING to be contrasted with death. There is no real THING called "life", no real THING called "existing". And also, there are no existing object or subject THINGS that could possibly end.
There are no beginnings, no birth, no life.
But why?
Because there are no THINGS that begin, and also, because there is no THING there that can be contrasted with some non existing "THING" called "beginning". If you don't have THINGS then you don't have beginnings or endings because these are merely qualities of THINGNESS.
What we experience ordinarily as "THINGS" are compound, made of "other", they completely lack this "THINGNESS" in their reality. This applies not just to certain "objects" but to every experience we have. In other words, to all phenomena.
No THINGS, no beginnings , no endings!
Like pointing to a mountain and claiming "THAT" is the mountain. What is the mountain? Height? Rock? Snow? Sky? Clouds? Steepness? Is there a being living inside of all this called the mountains "me"?
In the same way, you should see that there is no living. Because there are no THINGS that are living THINGS. And there is also no THING called living that is opposed to a THING called not-living.
Even in science, we cannot absolutely distinguish what is living from what is not living..is a virus alive or not alive?
There is just this.
What is "this"?
This is just this.
Experience this.
When you look out on all this, when this is your experience, what you see can be described as just change. Not THINGS changing - there are no THINGS - there is just change.
But you can get caught in the trap here of THINKing that this THING called change is a real THING that you can look at. It's not.
Change is not a THING!
Change is ineffable. Interdependence is ineffable. Change is voidness. Voidness is ineffable. These labels are all descriptive of the same experience and this experience can't be compared to any THING.
So this is release. Release and benefit.
This is the fact that you are not what you THINK you are. If you really want to point to your self, point to other.
"There" is the me! I am that, not this.
BTW, that is the basis of compassion.
But even this is not truly a THING.
I could tell you that according to the most subtle teachings of Buddhism 'you are Buddha' or you are 'your Buddha nature' but that instantly becomes a THING to you when it is meant to be everything EXCEPT that.
THINGS are limitation, containment
Ultimately, YOU are unlimited, uncontainable
So for now its best to leave it as an experience you must have.This is what Buddhism is telling you, have this experience, find out for yourself what "me" is.
The teaching of anatta (no-self) - when directly and non-conceptually realized - brings us to a realistic relationship with all of our experiences. This is described as release because the tension that is balled up as all that fear, as defensiveness and so forth, all that vanishes.
In actuality it becomes limitless love and compassion in the highest sense and that is what is meant by "benefit".
In fact, the deeper meaning of the term "release" is that your true nature is utterly without limit in any way. In Buddhism, the descriptions of what seems to be "supernatural" phenomena, all of this is based on the unlimited-ness that is voidness-interdependence, the fundamental ground of reality.
Those are some big words there which just mean that the mind is pretty powerful when it's potential is fully actualized.
So this experience of our self, our "I ME Mine" "exists" to the extent that "it" (like all experiences are) is conditional, made of everything else, interdependent with everything else. Conventionally, relatively, it is merely a name that we give to certain experiences that appear AS experiences.
Ultimately, the true self, the Buddhaness, the no-self, the NOT-self, the no-THING that is our uniqueness of experiencing, this is completely beyond any description.
It is truly not-self.
It is everything.
That is how it looks when realized.
How you get to that realization is -in part- by not making that (self or "me") into a THING.
Recognizing this (not an easy thing to do) frees the self-contained energy within from it's bounded state of anxiety associated with the reification and protection of it's appearance.
All this works because once you know the truth, once you recognize it, you can't go back, you can't UN-know it.
Sorry for all the words here.
Buddhism has certain basic principles within it that are universally recognized and accepted by all Buddhist schools, sects and sub sects.
Although the interpretation and explanations can sometimes differ, the teaching of "anatta" or "no-self" is one of those common principles. It is also one of the defining marks that makes Buddhism stand out from the crowd of religions in general.
In our ordinary experiencing of the world we have this emotional and cognitive separation or categorization of what we call "reality" into a distinct "me" that is here, and a distinct "not-me" that is over there or that is other than me.
This separation seems absolute, and it even appears to us that this "duality" really and truly exists as a THING because to us, there are THINGS apparently existing as independent THINGS, and there is this "me-THING" apparently existing as an independent "being" or me-"THING".
One of the ways to deconstruct and test this hypothesis is to use logic. We have already used logic to deconstruct [to some extent] the "other", the "objects" that appear in this experience of duality as being object-THINGS. Now we turn to the "subject" side or the "me-THING" to see if it can be similarly deconstructed.
What are we saying when we use these terms like "I", "me", or "mine"? What do these terms refer to? Is there something truly there (here) that is my actual being? Am I a soul? If such a thing did exist it should be ultimately findable by ultimate analysis, and so, we will use that analysis. But first, we have to identify what it is we're looking for.
Ordinarily then, we have this experience of "I" as being an unchanged, enduring un-dividable, independent, self standing THING (a being) we refer to as "I" or "me" or my "self". We view this "me", this "self" as an actual solid THING that exists just as it appears to -or is assumed to- exist.
We say for example "my body" as though it were owned by something perhaps within the mind. We say "my mind" as though it were owned by something perhaps within the body. But is there an owner? And if so, where is he/she?
What if, one day you woke up and discovered that what (who) you thought you were was not really THAT at all? That this "self" that you THINK you are (or thought you were), that you THINK exists as a THING is not that at all, that in fact, what you THINK you perceive as this THING (hint, please note the similarities between those two words) was instead almost the complete opposite of what you thought? What if you discovered that your "self" was in fact every other "thing" except what you had been THINKING of as your "self"?
This situation is much closer to the truth than we might be willing to accept.
If we could find out that we are not actually bound by these ever recurring concepts of "me", that there is no real me-"THING" to be defensive about, to be offensive with, or to contain within any kind of "fence", if we could find this to be the case, the implications would be big!
Some of the implications that could follow such a discovery are things like, release of stress, contentment, a sense of peace, a sense of purpose, greater compassion and patience. In other words, what could follow from this kind of discovery is "release and benefit" - in Buddhist terms, "liberation" or "enlightenment".
Our biggest fears - and therefore our most fundamental source of anxiety - stem from our sense of self. Not just our merely experienced sense of self, but our sense of a self-THING that is "here" as OPPOSED to "there", that is "alive" as OPPOSED to "dead", that is "me" as OPPOSED to "you".
THAT, is a lot of 'opposition' to carry around, and THAT is the source of our most pervasive type of suffering.
Traditionally, in Buddhism there are 3 levels of unhappiness or what is called "suffering".
There is one kind of unhappiness that we all experience as pain - physical pain, emotional pain, experiences that we all can recognize as painful or distressful.
Another level of unhappiness or suffering is called the "suffering of change". Here, we find temporary relief from the first kind of suffering, but this will eventually revert to pain once again. We maybe can take drugs for example, or we win the lotto, or we can change what THINGS we are surrounded by - in other words, we 'move THINGS around' and this change gives us some temporary relief from our pain. This "relief" doesn't last, it changes back eventually to distress.
But the most basic level of suffering is called "all pervasive suffering". This is the basic level (foundation) of ALL our suffering because it is based in the mis-perception of experience as containing a "me" that is a real THING experiencing "THINGS" out there.
When we attach (or grab) at this mis-perception that "I am here" opposed to "everyTHING else", in other words, when we take this mere collection of conditions, of experiences, and we conceive this idea that "here" is a real, truly existing THING called "me", when that happens, the only long term outcome can be distress or suffering.
We get very protective of such an idea and this protectiveness contains extreme amounts of emotional energy.
So what if that "me" was not so solid after all? What if "I" did NOT stand in opposition to "other"?
What if also, this experience that we call "my life" was NOT even in opposition to some THING called "my death"?
We are so sure that there is this "me", that "I" exist, even that this "me" is in essence an eternal "soul" - and we only hope that "eternal" is the actual case.
We also fear death based on this because we think there is an actual "ending" that is coming at us.
Where is "me"? What is this THING that I mean when I use the term "I" or "me" or "mine"?
Is me these thoughts? If so, why not call my thoughts by my name?
Is me this body? If so, when I lose a limb there should be less "me" than before, and less "me" than others have (who have all their limbs).
Is me this brain? If so, we should be able to fall in love with some brain tissue.
Is me a ghost like presence hovering around my body, or maybe inside of it? If so, why can't we see it or measure it?
Lets look closer at the possibility of a "me" that is constantly existing as (or within) my mental process - Am I my mind?
We think that we have only one consciousness but this is not the actual case. Consciousness is constantly changing and is made up entirely of conscious experiences.
Lets say it this way, if you analyze your mind in meditation you can see that concepts for example or "thoughts" have an audible component, a visual component usually, an emotional aspect, a subtle or sub-conscious factor, even associated smells and happy or negative feelings associated with them. Consciousness is multifaceted, ever changing with every new experience and sensation. My consciousness could never be a constantly abiding "me".
Am I the feelings that are there in my experiencing of touch?
No. My touch consciousness changes with every new tactile sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the odors that are there in my experiencing of smell?
No. My smell consciousness changes with every new olfactory sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the flavors that are there in my experiencing of taste?
No. My taste consciousness changes with every new palatable sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the sounds that are there in my experiencing of hearing?
No. My hearing consciousness changes with every new audible sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the emotions that are there in my experiencing of moods?
No. My mood consciousness changes with every new emotional sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the ideas that are there in my experiencing of thoughts?
No. My conceptual consciousness changes with every new thought. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
Am I the habitual impulses that are there in my experiencing of inclination and tendencies? Am I my sub-conscious?
No. My impulsive consciousness changes with every new experience. Can what changes be considered a constant being?
By this reasoning, we can see that the self, the "me", the "I" that we think is "there" as our mind, or as a THING in our mind, is in fact not there.
Does this mean we are nothing at all? No.
It means we are not a particular THING. We are cause and conditions. But even cause and conditions have an illusory appearance as THINGS. Not even cause and conditions exist as THINGS that we can conceptualize or capture as an idea. We are ineffable. We are experience - but not experience as a THING that you can point out.
And lest you jump to the conclusion that because we don't exist as "self-THINGS" its ok to kill or bring harm to other "no-self-beings" you should consider this:
Each being, each non-self being, is an entire universe unto themselves. Why? Because each being is a unique 'experiencing of' being, of reality. Each one has experience, each one has a mind, not a self, but a unique mental process of experience. You harm a single being and you harm an entire universe. Now carry THAT karma around with you for a while!
The analysis could go on and on all night, but in the final analysis, when you try to find a single THING that is the real, actual, truly existing THING we call "I" or "me", you can't find it!
So I ask again, does that mean I don't exist at all? Not really.
When we jump to the opposing conclusion that "I don't exist" we make the same mistake that we did when we thought that "I do exist". The mistake is that we conceptualize this experience that we are having right now into a THING called "existing". When you do that, you instantly make a THING called not-existing.
Can you see this?
Lets take this idea of death for example. Death is not an end - there are no endings.
But why? How could this be?
It's because there is no THING to be contrasted with death. There is no real THING called "life", no real THING called "existing". And also, there are no existing object or subject THINGS that could possibly end.
There are no beginnings, no birth, no life.
But why?
Because there are no THINGS that begin, and also, because there is no THING there that can be contrasted with some non existing "THING" called "beginning". If you don't have THINGS then you don't have beginnings or endings because these are merely qualities of THINGNESS.
What we experience ordinarily as "THINGS" are compound, made of "other", they completely lack this "THINGNESS" in their reality. This applies not just to certain "objects" but to every experience we have. In other words, to all phenomena.
No THINGS, no beginnings , no endings!
Like pointing to a mountain and claiming "THAT" is the mountain. What is the mountain? Height? Rock? Snow? Sky? Clouds? Steepness? Is there a being living inside of all this called the mountains "me"?
In the same way, you should see that there is no living. Because there are no THINGS that are living THINGS. And there is also no THING called living that is opposed to a THING called not-living.
Even in science, we cannot absolutely distinguish what is living from what is not living..is a virus alive or not alive?
There is just this.
What is "this"?
This is just this.
Experience this.
When you look out on all this, when this is your experience, what you see can be described as just change. Not THINGS changing - there are no THINGS - there is just change.
But you can get caught in the trap here of THINKing that this THING called change is a real THING that you can look at. It's not.
Change is not a THING!
Change is ineffable. Interdependence is ineffable. Change is voidness. Voidness is ineffable. These labels are all descriptive of the same experience and this experience can't be compared to any THING.
So this is release. Release and benefit.
This is the fact that you are not what you THINK you are. If you really want to point to your self, point to other.
"There" is the me! I am that, not this.
BTW, that is the basis of compassion.
But even this is not truly a THING.
I could tell you that according to the most subtle teachings of Buddhism 'you are Buddha' or you are 'your Buddha nature' but that instantly becomes a THING to you when it is meant to be everything EXCEPT that.
THINGS are limitation, containment
Ultimately, YOU are unlimited, uncontainable
So for now its best to leave it as an experience you must have.This is what Buddhism is telling you, have this experience, find out for yourself what "me" is.
The teaching of anatta (no-self) - when directly and non-conceptually realized - brings us to a realistic relationship with all of our experiences. This is described as release because the tension that is balled up as all that fear, as defensiveness and so forth, all that vanishes.
In actuality it becomes limitless love and compassion in the highest sense and that is what is meant by "benefit".
In fact, the deeper meaning of the term "release" is that your true nature is utterly without limit in any way. In Buddhism, the descriptions of what seems to be "supernatural" phenomena, all of this is based on the unlimited-ness that is voidness-interdependence, the fundamental ground of reality.
Those are some big words there which just mean that the mind is pretty powerful when it's potential is fully actualized.
So this experience of our self, our "I ME Mine" "exists" to the extent that "it" (like all experiences are) is conditional, made of everything else, interdependent with everything else. Conventionally, relatively, it is merely a name that we give to certain experiences that appear AS experiences.
Ultimately, the true self, the Buddhaness, the no-self, the NOT-self, the no-THING that is our uniqueness of experiencing, this is completely beyond any description.
It is truly not-self.
It is everything.
That is how it looks when realized.
How you get to that realization is -in part- by not making that (self or "me") into a THING.
Recognizing this (not an easy thing to do) frees the self-contained energy within from it's bounded state of anxiety associated with the reification and protection of it's appearance.
All this works because once you know the truth, once you recognize it, you can't go back, you can't UN-know it.
Sorry for all the words here.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Ignorance as a Path - pouring water into water
What Im going to talk about here is something quite subtle. I may not explain it clearly, but if you can sift through my explanations and maybe experience directly, non-conceptually, just what Im pointing at I think it can bring some benefit.
I don't know, but maybe you can identify with this experience.
Maybe sometimes you get up in the morning and nothing seems all that clear. It's a kind of subtle disorientation - not so much a disorientation in time and space, but of purpose. You're just not sure or clear on how and why to proceed.
I know this happens a lot in the context of studying and practicing Buddhism. "Last night I had it all figured out, I really understood that difficult passage in the madhyamaka teachings on emptiness.." etc. Then you wake up the next day and things don't seem so clear and this lack of clarity even effects your motivation.
That's how it plays out in a Buddhist context sometimes, and Buddhism may then seem kind of plastic and contrived - maybe even life in general begins to feel a little bit like this "blah"...
I think when is happens -speaking in this context of Buddhism- you can take it as a sign that you may have been trying to "force" someTHING, some understanding into a particular view which you can then easily turn into an ideology, which you can then "securely" latch onto [aka "grab"].
That's a good insight in itself, but to have even that level of insight still requires an initial assessment of the current situation as being "someTHING wrong that needs to be "fixed" or changed or corrected.
In general, as an expedient for those at a certain basic level of the practice, Buddhism views "ignorance" or "lack of awareness" as someTHING to be done away with. It even may become something more then that - almost like a being of some kind, some kind of evil force-THING inside of us that we must destroy or eliminate.
This metaphorical description of ignorance can be useful for a time but it eventually needs to be left behind.
Now I will try to replace that metaphor with others which I hope will reveal a deeper, more subtle and maybe more realistic and effective approach to this phenomenon of ignorance.
According to Buddhism, ignorance can be explained as a mental condition of 'being unaware of or obscured from' the ultimate truth about the nature of experience.
What does this mean in sort of everyday terms?
Ignorance is seeing THINGNESS where no-THINGNESS exists.
When we experience, when the mind perceives or experiences any phenomena, there are 2 possible ways for this experience to develop into a full, coarse, cognitive experience:
One way is based (according to Buddhism) on a mistaken "additional element" (an obscuring element) that is tangentially present in the mere appearing of a perception. This then, is what is commonly referred to as the cognitive condition of ignorance.
The other way is based on the complete absence of this "additional element" (obscuring element). This is what is commonly referred to as wisdom or insight.
So what is this "mistaken additional element"?
Ignorance is seeing THINGS
Knowledge is seeing the dependent nature of THINGS
Wisdom is seeing no-THINGS
When we see THINGS we see illusion. We see what is not there. We see thing-NESS, solidity, existence, objects, particulars, permanence, selves.
When we see the dependent nature of THINGS we see their other dependence, their causes and conditions. We see the lack of thing-NESS in them, we see their voidness of inherent existence. We see their relativity and impermanence. We see no-self.
When we see no-THINGS we see the absolute nature of all experience. We see the voidness of all phenomena. We see how all this IS, ultimately. We see that it is neither existence as a THING, nor is it non-existence as a THING. We see ineffable interdependence-voidness.
What this comes down to is this: When we see THINGS we obscure the basic clarity that is our fundamental experience of interdependence-voidness.
Put another way [maybe more to the point], where there is THING-NESS there is obscuration to the clarity that is our fundamental experience.
When we see NO-THINGS [no-THING-NESS] we have this clarity that is our fundamental experience of interdependence-voidness.
In other words, where there is NO-THING-NESS, there is clarity of experience.
In Buddhism, we take ignorance and make it into THING-NESS. But, why do we do that?
We do it because we have to have a path, we have to distinguish stress from release, pain from joy, enlightenment from non-enlightenment. By doing so, by making ignorance into a bad THING we draw a map to get to nirvana.
That is good as far as it goes. If you don't recognize a problem you can't begin to find a solution.
But what is the nature of an "obscuring element"?
The nature of any phenomena, of any THING is that it is caused and conditioned. Because it is caused and conditioned it is empty or void of being it's own THING. And when the causes and conditions are examined as well, we find they are also empty or void of being self existing THINGS.
By implication then, the ultimate truth is that there can be NO-THINGS what so ever existing as THINGS.
What this means is that, speaking from a descriptive stand point, ALL is ineffable voidness-interdependence. From a purely experiential stand point, ALL is unobstructed clarity.
Can an obscuration exist as a THING that obscures? No. There are no THINGS so no THINGS to act as obstructions to clarity.
The very THING you view as 'ignorance' is itself not a THING and therefore not obstructive.
The very nature of any moment of experience is utterly beyond obstruction.
In fact, the appearance of ignorance [like the appearance of any THING] can be taken as proof of clarity, of un-obstructiveness, of wisdom.
One might even say that the clearer the appearance of ignorance, the clearer the presence of wisdom.
In practical terms, when things seem confusing, unclear, when stress arises in experience, when emotions "afflict" us, we can solidify these experiences into THINGS by judging them as "negatives" - that's one type of path to tread.
The other path though is that we take these "negatives", these "obscuring elements" and we release the THING-NESS of them.
We see them as an oportunity to view the self-liberated [void] nature of all things, of all phenomena, of all experiences.
When we have this "viewless" view of ignorance, of confusion, of affliction, then these -like any and all phenomenal appearance- are an opportunity to experience ultimate truth, directly, non-conceptually.
Let yourself be just as you are. Give yourself a big field to play in. If confusion is present, let it be present. Notice when you are judging "bad" vs "good". Notice your stress - even subtle stress. Notice the voidness that is the nature all these THINGS in your experience.
This is how you use ignorance as a path to wisdom.
I don't know, but maybe you can identify with this experience.
Maybe sometimes you get up in the morning and nothing seems all that clear. It's a kind of subtle disorientation - not so much a disorientation in time and space, but of purpose. You're just not sure or clear on how and why to proceed.
I know this happens a lot in the context of studying and practicing Buddhism. "Last night I had it all figured out, I really understood that difficult passage in the madhyamaka teachings on emptiness.." etc. Then you wake up the next day and things don't seem so clear and this lack of clarity even effects your motivation.
That's how it plays out in a Buddhist context sometimes, and Buddhism may then seem kind of plastic and contrived - maybe even life in general begins to feel a little bit like this "blah"...
I think when is happens -speaking in this context of Buddhism- you can take it as a sign that you may have been trying to "force" someTHING, some understanding into a particular view which you can then easily turn into an ideology, which you can then "securely" latch onto [aka "grab"].
That's a good insight in itself, but to have even that level of insight still requires an initial assessment of the current situation as being "someTHING wrong that needs to be "fixed" or changed or corrected.
In general, as an expedient for those at a certain basic level of the practice, Buddhism views "ignorance" or "lack of awareness" as someTHING to be done away with. It even may become something more then that - almost like a being of some kind, some kind of evil force-THING inside of us that we must destroy or eliminate.
This metaphorical description of ignorance can be useful for a time but it eventually needs to be left behind.
Now I will try to replace that metaphor with others which I hope will reveal a deeper, more subtle and maybe more realistic and effective approach to this phenomenon of ignorance.
According to Buddhism, ignorance can be explained as a mental condition of 'being unaware of or obscured from' the ultimate truth about the nature of experience.
What does this mean in sort of everyday terms?
Ignorance is seeing THINGNESS where no-THINGNESS exists.
When we experience, when the mind perceives or experiences any phenomena, there are 2 possible ways for this experience to develop into a full, coarse, cognitive experience:
One way is based (according to Buddhism) on a mistaken "additional element" (an obscuring element) that is tangentially present in the mere appearing of a perception. This then, is what is commonly referred to as the cognitive condition of ignorance.
The other way is based on the complete absence of this "additional element" (obscuring element). This is what is commonly referred to as wisdom or insight.
So what is this "mistaken additional element"?
Ignorance is seeing THINGS
Knowledge is seeing the dependent nature of THINGS
Wisdom is seeing no-THINGS
When we see THINGS we see illusion. We see what is not there. We see thing-NESS, solidity, existence, objects, particulars, permanence, selves.
When we see the dependent nature of THINGS we see their other dependence, their causes and conditions. We see the lack of thing-NESS in them, we see their voidness of inherent existence. We see their relativity and impermanence. We see no-self.
When we see no-THINGS we see the absolute nature of all experience. We see the voidness of all phenomena. We see how all this IS, ultimately. We see that it is neither existence as a THING, nor is it non-existence as a THING. We see ineffable interdependence-voidness.
What this comes down to is this: When we see THINGS we obscure the basic clarity that is our fundamental experience of interdependence-voidness.
Put another way [maybe more to the point], where there is THING-NESS there is obscuration to the clarity that is our fundamental experience.
When we see NO-THINGS [no-THING-NESS] we have this clarity that is our fundamental experience of interdependence-voidness.
In other words, where there is NO-THING-NESS, there is clarity of experience.
In Buddhism, we take ignorance and make it into THING-NESS. But, why do we do that?
We do it because we have to have a path, we have to distinguish stress from release, pain from joy, enlightenment from non-enlightenment. By doing so, by making ignorance into a bad THING we draw a map to get to nirvana.
That is good as far as it goes. If you don't recognize a problem you can't begin to find a solution.
But what is the nature of an "obscuring element"?
The nature of any phenomena, of any THING is that it is caused and conditioned. Because it is caused and conditioned it is empty or void of being it's own THING. And when the causes and conditions are examined as well, we find they are also empty or void of being self existing THINGS.
By implication then, the ultimate truth is that there can be NO-THINGS what so ever existing as THINGS.
What this means is that, speaking from a descriptive stand point, ALL is ineffable voidness-interdependence. From a purely experiential stand point, ALL is unobstructed clarity.
Can an obscuration exist as a THING that obscures? No. There are no THINGS so no THINGS to act as obstructions to clarity.
The very THING you view as 'ignorance' is itself not a THING and therefore not obstructive.
The very nature of any moment of experience is utterly beyond obstruction.
In fact, the appearance of ignorance [like the appearance of any THING] can be taken as proof of clarity, of un-obstructiveness, of wisdom.
One might even say that the clearer the appearance of ignorance, the clearer the presence of wisdom.
In practical terms, when things seem confusing, unclear, when stress arises in experience, when emotions "afflict" us, we can solidify these experiences into THINGS by judging them as "negatives" - that's one type of path to tread.
The other path though is that we take these "negatives", these "obscuring elements" and we release the THING-NESS of them.
We see them as an oportunity to view the self-liberated [void] nature of all things, of all phenomena, of all experiences.
When we have this "viewless" view of ignorance, of confusion, of affliction, then these -like any and all phenomenal appearance- are an opportunity to experience ultimate truth, directly, non-conceptually.
Let yourself be just as you are. Give yourself a big field to play in. If confusion is present, let it be present. Notice when you are judging "bad" vs "good". Notice your stress - even subtle stress. Notice the voidness that is the nature all these THINGS in your experience.
This is how you use ignorance as a path to wisdom.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Inner Meanings - implicit aspects of meditation
So I mentioned else where on the blog about this practice of meditation.
This particular practice was described in terms of 3 aspects:
Relaxing
Allowing
Observing
In this practice you take the appropriate posture [such as sitting cross legged or upright in a chair] and utilize those three aspects or directives [of relaxing, allowing, observing] to gently guide or direct you to a deeper level of awareness, a deeper non-conceptual experience of all this THING we call life - that is one explanation.
This meditation has [as described] has these three aspects and this can be viewed as the "outer meaning" or "outer explanation" of the meditation.
In Buddhism [especially Tibetan Buddhism] there is often talk of the "outer" , "inner", and even "secret" meanings to certain teachings. There is even sometimes an "inner-most" or "deepest" meaning. These are all just expedients, just methods to bring you to a clearer understanding of something that is extremely subtle to our normally coarse level of cognition.
When things get explained sometimes in stages instead of all at once it becomes easier to understand them. If you encounter these approaches to teachings or practices [as I just explained] then you shouldn't become enamored or put-off by words like "secret" or "inner meaning". These are just ways to help point out something difficult to discern.
And so, in my understanding and explanation here, we have this outer meaning of the meditation practice described as relaxing, allowing, observing.
But now I want to explain what you could call the "inner" meaning or explanation of this meditation. Here I will take each of these three aspects individually and explain them in a deeper context.
What is the inner meaning of "relaxing"?
Relaxing means to 'settle into this moment'. You relax your body, your mind, your emotions too - just settle down right NOW into just this, into now.
When you're not relaxed, you're not really here, you are not in the now, you are distracted and you want to be somewhere or experience something else. So this experience of "now-ness" is very important to meditation. Meditation only occurs now. Life and death only occurs now. Release and benefit only occurs now. There is no other place really.
Where does experience happen? Now, right here and now.
When does experience happen? Now, right here and now.
Any THING, any conceptual appearance, in fact, any intent or impulse only takes us away from what is presently happening, from now. This is very important to understand, to contemplate. It [any experience other than now] takes us away from reality, takes us away from present knowing. So the inner meaning of relaxing is just this, be here, now, completely.
Although meditation is supposed to be a non-conceptual (not thinking) experience, it may seem like we simply exchanged one word "relaxing" for another word "now". To be honest, yes, that we did. But if you bring this inner understanding, this insight along with the word, then the word as a THING becomes less of a problem because the inner meaning is a subtler, deeper, truer level of experience. So again, the inner meaning of relaxing is concisely stated as "now".
What is the inner meaning of "allowing"?
Allowing means this: From the first, because of voidness, there is no-THING there [within any thought or experience] that is an obstacle.
The outer meaning of "allowing" was that during meditation, you simply "allowed" all thoughts to come in and go out of your mind without judging them as good or bad thoughts, you just allowed them to come and go.
But here now, the inner meaning of allowing is that the very nature of thoughts themselves is that they are void of being any-THING, void of being a problem in any way.
If you have studied and understood Buddhist teachings of voidness [emptiness-interdependence] then you will SEE NOW [directly in meditation] that all thoughts do not exist as obstacles in your meditation - they don't exist as THINGS and so they can't be a problem at all.
What is a thought? It is merely a collection of conditions, there is no thought-THING in itself. So their [the thoughts that appear in meditation] 'voidness' is the inner meaning of allowing. Thoughts can't arise as obstacles if they don't exist as THINGS.
What is the inner meaning of "observing"?
Observing [in it's inner meaning] is the actual SEEING [or experiencing of] the voidness of all thoughts [durring meditation]. You NOTICE that from the very first [or what is called "primordially", meaning "it's always been this way"] there has never been any-THING what so ever that could possibly act as an obstacle to meditation. This SEEING is exactly "observing" but in a very clarified form.
The best word to use here is "noticing". The reason is, is that "noticing" has the connotation of being quick and sharp, and also fleeting. This is how you will experience the inner meaning of observing when you first recognize it - it will be a quick, sharp and fleeting recognition.
So here we have this explanation of meditation. I'm not saying this in this way to trick you, impress you or make you think this is something esoteric. For me this is just the clearest explanation for meditation the way I know it to be.
We have the "outer" explanation of meditation that is to..
Relax
Allow
Observe
We have the "inner" explanation of meditation that is concisely described as..
Now
Voidness
Notice
You can see that the explainations get more subtle as you go.
So my advice is to balance the 'analytical' [intellectual] aspect of studying voidness, studying texts, or listening to teachings, with the 'non-analytical' aspect that is meditation practice. Always start with the outer meaning, the outer explanations first before going deeper.
This particular practice was described in terms of 3 aspects:
Relaxing
Allowing
Observing
In this practice you take the appropriate posture [such as sitting cross legged or upright in a chair] and utilize those three aspects or directives [of relaxing, allowing, observing] to gently guide or direct you to a deeper level of awareness, a deeper non-conceptual experience of all this THING we call life - that is one explanation.
This meditation has [as described] has these three aspects and this can be viewed as the "outer meaning" or "outer explanation" of the meditation.
In Buddhism [especially Tibetan Buddhism] there is often talk of the "outer" , "inner", and even "secret" meanings to certain teachings. There is even sometimes an "inner-most" or "deepest" meaning. These are all just expedients, just methods to bring you to a clearer understanding of something that is extremely subtle to our normally coarse level of cognition.
When things get explained sometimes in stages instead of all at once it becomes easier to understand them. If you encounter these approaches to teachings or practices [as I just explained] then you shouldn't become enamored or put-off by words like "secret" or "inner meaning". These are just ways to help point out something difficult to discern.
And so, in my understanding and explanation here, we have this outer meaning of the meditation practice described as relaxing, allowing, observing.
But now I want to explain what you could call the "inner" meaning or explanation of this meditation. Here I will take each of these three aspects individually and explain them in a deeper context.
What is the inner meaning of "relaxing"?
Relaxing means to 'settle into this moment'. You relax your body, your mind, your emotions too - just settle down right NOW into just this, into now.
When you're not relaxed, you're not really here, you are not in the now, you are distracted and you want to be somewhere or experience something else. So this experience of "now-ness" is very important to meditation. Meditation only occurs now. Life and death only occurs now. Release and benefit only occurs now. There is no other place really.
Where does experience happen? Now, right here and now.
When does experience happen? Now, right here and now.
Any THING, any conceptual appearance, in fact, any intent or impulse only takes us away from what is presently happening, from now. This is very important to understand, to contemplate. It [any experience other than now] takes us away from reality, takes us away from present knowing. So the inner meaning of relaxing is just this, be here, now, completely.
Although meditation is supposed to be a non-conceptual (not thinking) experience, it may seem like we simply exchanged one word "relaxing" for another word "now". To be honest, yes, that we did. But if you bring this inner understanding, this insight along with the word, then the word as a THING becomes less of a problem because the inner meaning is a subtler, deeper, truer level of experience. So again, the inner meaning of relaxing is concisely stated as "now".
What is the inner meaning of "allowing"?
Allowing means this: From the first, because of voidness, there is no-THING there [within any thought or experience] that is an obstacle.
The outer meaning of "allowing" was that during meditation, you simply "allowed" all thoughts to come in and go out of your mind without judging them as good or bad thoughts, you just allowed them to come and go.
But here now, the inner meaning of allowing is that the very nature of thoughts themselves is that they are void of being any-THING, void of being a problem in any way.
If you have studied and understood Buddhist teachings of voidness [emptiness-interdependence] then you will SEE NOW [directly in meditation] that all thoughts do not exist as obstacles in your meditation - they don't exist as THINGS and so they can't be a problem at all.
What is a thought? It is merely a collection of conditions, there is no thought-THING in itself. So their [the thoughts that appear in meditation] 'voidness' is the inner meaning of allowing. Thoughts can't arise as obstacles if they don't exist as THINGS.
What is the inner meaning of "observing"?
Observing [in it's inner meaning] is the actual SEEING [or experiencing of] the voidness of all thoughts [durring meditation]. You NOTICE that from the very first [or what is called "primordially", meaning "it's always been this way"] there has never been any-THING what so ever that could possibly act as an obstacle to meditation. This SEEING is exactly "observing" but in a very clarified form.
The best word to use here is "noticing". The reason is, is that "noticing" has the connotation of being quick and sharp, and also fleeting. This is how you will experience the inner meaning of observing when you first recognize it - it will be a quick, sharp and fleeting recognition.
So here we have this explanation of meditation. I'm not saying this in this way to trick you, impress you or make you think this is something esoteric. For me this is just the clearest explanation for meditation the way I know it to be.
We have the "outer" explanation of meditation that is to..
Relax
Allow
Observe
We have the "inner" explanation of meditation that is concisely described as..
Now
Voidness
Notice
You can see that the explainations get more subtle as you go.
So my advice is to balance the 'analytical' [intellectual] aspect of studying voidness, studying texts, or listening to teachings, with the 'non-analytical' aspect that is meditation practice. Always start with the outer meaning, the outer explanations first before going deeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
