Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I don't think we are supposed to try and stop thinking... There are spaces between thoughts though and these can be expanded with practice.
If there were no spaces between thoughts we would have no pauses between the "words" in the mind and wewouldbethinkinglikethiswithnopause. But there are pauses.
@SpinyNorman said:
This seems to be a central theme in contemporary Buddhism, but how do you actually do it, practically speaking? Clearly it isn't an intellectual exercise, so how do we practice letting go?
Here is the exercise for self finding ... Is 'self' in the above words? Now move the attention and find 'the self'. Can we let go of each place it is not?
Wherever we move the mind/attention - no self [ay curumba]
No silver, no lobster
no gold, no words
not in presence, not in space beings
not arising, not going anywhere
not in letting go, not in returning
not in time, not in emptying
Hold on a minute, know self.
There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.
Heart Sutra
@Lionduck said:
It goes back to the duality which is not a duality. The 'Self' perceives a duality - 'Self' and 'Not Self'. However, one can not find where 'Self' ends and 'Not Self' begins. Another way to put it is that one perceives a separation between him/herself ('Self) and the environment ('Non-Self) when in reality, there is no separation. We can say that any individual's life (Self, Conscience, however you wan to label it) permeates the Universe and vice versa.
As Earthninja put it: "There are no boundaries".
Confused yet? Good!
Now let's all go on over to Spiney's for cake and ice cream.
Peace to all
The body and mind or the world/loka are objects within consciousness. Self view(sakayaditthi) arises when the body-mind is mistakenly taken as self or belonging to self. Granted there are individual body-mind streams but no individual consciousness. Consciousness has no personal characteristics and is boundless. My consciousness and yours are the same. Even the consciousness of animals are similar. Things(6 sense objects) arise and pass ie. undergo birth and death but this "consciousness" appear to be constantly there throughout.
You are right, @pegembara, the "consciousness" is constant while the perception arising from the 6 senses is not.
We can call the individual "consciousness" a wave arising from the ocean and merging back into the ocean. The ocean represents the universal consciousness. The interdependence of living beings arises from this universality of consciousness. When we realize this, not theoretically or in the abstract, but in actuality, our appreciation for life expands and we are one step closer to fully awakening.
@Earthninja said:If you hold your hand up next to a flower. In that vision, your hand and the flower are both observed. Both images in this field. Both fabrications. There are no boundaries.
If a friend touched your hand you would feel it, but if they touched the flower you wouldn't feel it. So clearly there is a boundary or a distinction or a separation.
@SpinyNorman said "@Lionduck said: >However, one can not find where 'Self' ends and 'Not Self' begins.
Yes you can, it's quite easy. Cars, trees, flowers, chairs and sofas are not you.
Your brain creates cars, trees, sofas. your brain also creates "you"
It would be truer to say, there is no you. Anywhere. Or everything is you. Because it's all created from the same thing. Whatever that is lol.
@SpinyNorman said:
If a friend touched your hand you would feel it, but if they touched the flower you wouldn't feel it. So clearly there is a boundary or a distinction or a separation.
I think the boundary of the body and sense gates is familiar to us. Tell it to the poets: You touched a flower and I felt your hand
The attachment to the physical body and sense gates is much, MUCH greater, no doubt. However we are not to be found in the body or sense gates. We also have stronger and more intense experiences based on what we feel emotionally and in our monkey mind. Nobody can argue that or would.
The Caliph next gave the order for the assembled crowd to stone Hallaj, who endured the onslaught of rocks in heroic silence. The Caliph then commanded Shebli to cast a stone also. But Shebli, not wishing to himself harm the condemned saint, chose to throw a flower attached to a clod of earth instead. Hallaj cried out in pain when the clod hit him, and when asked to explain the reason, he replied: "Those who have cast stones know not what they are doing. But he who cast that clod is aware of everything he does." http://www.tibetanart.com/Blog/Post.asp?ID=82
We know where the body ends. We also know when thoughts, feelings, perceptions and six sense objects begin and end.... but
Where and when does "consciousness" begin and end?
@Earthninja said:Your brain creates cars, trees, sofas. your brain also creates "you".
Only if you subscribe to the philosophy of idealism.
The suttas describe how contact arises in dependence on sense-base, sense-consciousness and sense-object. That isn't idealism. It's true that we label sense objects and conceive about them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
The philosophy of idealism is interesting, but I don't think it's supported by the suttas, by modern science or by practical experience.
@pegembara said:Where and when does "consciousness" begin and end?
It's a deep question, but practically speaking you could look at the "range" of each of the 6 aspects of consciousness, for example as far as the eye can see, or as far as the ear can hear, or as far as the nose can smell. Taste and touch seem very localised though.
@Lionduck said: We can call the individual "consciousness" a wave arising from the ocean and merging back into the ocean. The ocean represents the universal consciousness.
That sounds like Advaita, which I find to be a fascinating view.
@Lionduck said: It goes back to the duality which is not a duality. The 'Self' perceives a duality - 'Self' and 'Not Self'. However, one can not find where 'Self' ends and 'Not Self' begins. Another way to put it is that one perceives a separation between him/herself ('Self) and the environment ('Non-Self) when in reality, there is no separation.
I do wonder about this whole non-duality thing. Sure, we can have "spiritual" states of mind where we feel at one with the universe or whatever, but it all seems very subjective and I'm not convinced it reflects the way things really are.
Only if you subscribe to the philosophy of idealism.
The suttas describe how contact arises in dependence on sense-base, sense-consciousness and sense-object. That isn't idealism. It's true that we label sense objects and conceive about them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
The philosophy of idealism is interesting, but I don't think it's supported by the suttas, by modern science or by practical experience.
It's not like that at all, what I'm referring to is not that "in reality" there is no chair.
It is that the image/colour/texture etc are all a result of your nervous system. We are never experiencing a world "out there"
From our perspective we perceive. A cat might see the world differently to an eagle or a grasshopper. Which is the true view of reality?
See that even colours are a creation of our nervous system.
If we drop the belief that I am here, and the world is out there. You can change how you feel/perceive. You can see/perceive/feel that things are not separate.
@Earthninja said:It is that the image/colour/texture etc are all a result of your nervous system. We are never experiencing a world "out there".
No, our central nervous system filters and interprets the raw data coming in via our senses, that's basic biology. So for example we see an object because of the light it reflects to our eyes, so if there is no object there is no reflected light entering our eyes and therefore we don't see an object. Or as the suttas describe it: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness".
And by the way there is a physiological basis to colour perception, which is therefore pretty consistent, that's why colour coding is used so widely, everything from traffic lights to electrical wiring.
You seem to be disagreeing with the basic science of perception, could you explain why?
You claim we are never experiencing a world "out there", but can you see this is just another belief, a view, a philosophical position?
@SpinyNorman ok let me use an example to explain myself further.
When you hear a sound, you are not experiencing the world "out there"
Because in "out there" there is only vibrations. There is no sound.
Sound only appears when vibrations come in contact with an ear drum, a central nervous system and conscious awareness. All these things have to come together to produce sound. There is no "ding" of a bell in reality. Only vibrations of energy. We perceive this as sound.
The same goes with sight, touch etc. we are never experiencing anything other than the coming together of vibrations and how our central nervous system uniquely perceived it.
If there were no eyes in the world, light wouldn't exist. If there were no ears. There wouldn't be sound, do you see what I'm saying? It's all energy vibrating.
@Earthninja said:When you hear a sound, you are not experiencing the world "out there"
But there is a "world" out there producing the vibration of air molecules which create the basic auditory input. Without a "world", without something to produce those vibrations there would be no auditory input. Again this isn't a purely subjective psychological process as you seem to be suggesting, there is a physiological basis to the perception of sound in terms of the range of pitch and volume we can normally distinguish. Sure, we label sounds according to our language and culture, but this isn't arbitrary, there is a physical basis for the type and range of sounds that we can hear.
I guess you could say it's all energy vibrating, but we have evolved biologically to sense those vibrations in a very specific way.
Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and thoughts are time bound phenomena ie. sankharas. What about that which doesn't have that characteristics of arising and passing away. That which is aware of sankharas. All sankharas are not self.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2015
I wouldn't think photons depend on there being eyes because over time, eyes have evolved to sense photons.
As long as there has been the potential for sound waves, there has been the potential for eardrums and sound. I would even go as far as to opine that eardrums come to be simply because there are sound waves to detect and that eyes came to be simply because there is light.
Being able to perceive depends on there being contact but the receiver does not create the transmitter.
It's fascinating how we keep going down this road on so many varied topics.
Letting go... There seems to be so many levels in terms of coming to grips with loss but when it comes to self view it is a lot easier for me to think of it as non-grasping. It seems to imply a kind of letting go without negating.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
This seems to be a central theme in contemporary Buddhism, but how do you actually do it, practically speaking? Clearly it isn't an intellectual exercise, so how do we practice letting go?
What exactly do you mean by "letting go"?
And is there something specific you want to address?
Perhaps we can define "letting go" as not 'resisting'. Again, using water and rock. Rock resists, is overwhelmed and eroded by water. Water does not resist, accepts the rock, encompasses the rock and is not diminished by the rock.
Also, in terms of unity of self and non-self, we can find no point of separation.
However, in this physical world, if you stub your toe on a brick, it still hurts. On the one hand, we are talking about the relationship of the wave to the ocean while, on the other hand, we are talking about specific waves as they manifest.
If we conflate or confuse the two, conceptually, we hit the wall of contradiction head-on resulting in a terrible headache. And an addled brain (or what's left of it.
Keep looking. As an illustration, we tend not to notice space but only see objects in space. The objects may change but space remains permanently unchanging.
Without eyes would you called that "vibration" light. Without ears would you call that sound. So in a sense light and sound are dependent on having eyes and ears.
Without light or sound, can a seer or hearer be discerned. Without thoughts, thinker.
@ourself The receiver doesn't create the transmitter but does the transmitter create the receiver. And what receives?
What hears? The ear drum, ossicles, sensory nerve endings, the auditory cortex? Perhaps nothing actually hears but there is ever only the process of 'hearing' which depends on so many things occurring.
No one who sees, hears, smells, taste or thinks. Only seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking.
@pegembara said: Keep looking. As an illustration, we tend not to notice space but only see objects in space. The objects may change but space remains permanently unchanging.
OK, but I was asking what you meant by "That which is aware of sankharas". What exactly is aware of the sankharas in your view?
@pegembara said: So in a sense light and sound are dependent on having eyes and ears.
But again that's a philosophical view ( it sounds like phenomenology ), and science would disagree with you.
Do you really believe for example that the light from distant stars relies for it's existence on you happening to see it? Or is it more likely that we humans have evolved to sense the visible part of the EM spectrum?
Do you really believe that the sound of a car engine relies on you happening to hear it? Does the car literally cease to exist when you're not in earshot, or is it more likely that you're just too far away to hear the sound?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2015
@pegembara said: @ourself The receiver doesn't create the transmitter but does the transmitter create the receiver. And what receives?
What hears? The ear drum, ossicles, sensory nerve endings, the auditory cortex? Perhaps nothing actually hears but there is ever only the process of 'hearing' which depends on so many things occurring.
No one who sees, hears, smells, taste or thinks. Only seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking.
That is a good way to train ourselves for less distraction but it isn't very practical when more than one person is involved.
If we are having a conversation on the phone and I am in a room with no light while you are in a light filled room then yes, there is still only seeing light in the absolute sense but only one of us can see that light. A one that sees.
Seeing light depends on both the internal and the external having contact so it does no real service to claim one as more "real" than the other. There are blind eyes and there is light that we may never see.
The external creates the conditions for the internal and the internal makes sense of the external. It really seems like a co-operative function.
At some point the difference between the internal and external becomes arbitrary while the distinction does not.
It's quite a tightrope.
1
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
I think (!) I'm in the same fix, SN...I've heard the non-duality / non-separation thing for at least 3 years now, and nowadays, I'll be driving around or hanging around and I'll look at a tree, for example, and say, "shrug - what do YOU make of it, Mr. Tree?"
I mean seriously, I really do that!
So, duality - non-duality, a tree is still a tree, a rock is still a rock, we are all mostly empty space... We are still here (wherever you want to make of that)..don't lose a piston over it. Just relax, laugh at the universe, and appreciate the moment.
@SpinyNorman said:
Do you really believe that the sound of a car engine relies on you happening to hear it? Does the car literally cease to exist when you're not in earshot, or is it more likely that you're just too far away to hear the sound?
You are not getting my point. You call it sound because the ear happened to have developed. There are creatures in deep sea that have no eyes because there is no light and there is no need for them. If you were one of them, you would say no.
Light is neither existent nor non existent.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
@SpinyNorman said:
But what is this knowing exactly? Are you saying this knowing is a type of consciousness? And are you saying it's "outside" the aggregates?
Without being conscious how can there be any knowing? It is a result of having consciousness. So how can anything be outside of the khandas especially the consciousness aggregate.
@pegembara said: Without being conscious how can there be any knowing? It is a result of having consciousness. So how can anything be outside of the khandas especially the consciousness aggregate.
So you mean this knowing is part of the consciousness aggregate?
In an earlier post you talked about this knowing as "that which doesn't have that characteristics of arising and passing away. That which is aware of sankharas". The aggregates are sankharas, so I'm a little confused.
Or are you just talking about sati, or discernment or something?
@pegembara said:There are creatures in deep sea that have no eyes because there is no light and there is no need for them. If you were one of them, you would say no.
That would be like us denying the existence of ultra-violet light.
"That would be like us denying the existence of ultra-violet light."
You still need to use your senses to pick up readings from your measuring instruments! That includes radioactivity, UV, infrared etc. The sutta clearly states there has to be contact(phassa).
You have missed the point again.
UV light neither exist nor not exist. Nobody is denying the existence of things.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
Kacchayanagotta Sutta
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Hi @pegamara. That everything' doesn't exist' is one of those oxymorons, isn't it? It doesn't make sense, to me. It's a yes/no question - NOT extremes. There's probably a better analogy lurking around somewhere.
When its hard to let go of things, concepts, beliefs, self etc. I first focused on impermanence and say to myself - this too will pass. Little by little - it softens, then release.
@pegembara said: UV light neither exist nor not exist. Nobody is denying the existence of things.
But UV light does exist, so I don't understand your position here. What do you mean practically speaking when you say UV light neither exists or doesn't exist? Do you mean that it only exists for people who actually experience it?
It's no good just regurgitating stock phrases, please explain clearly what you mean.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@mockeymind said:
When its hard to let go of things, concepts, beliefs, self etc. I first focused on impermanence and say to myself - this too will pass. Little by little - it softens, then release.
I want to know what's the point of seeing things in this way, as opposed to 'regular' seeing.
Well one way is to explore the nature of things that are a part of your world. Dig deeply until you find the root. Search until you find the most basic, most fundamental source from which those objects have arisen (all manifestations in consciousness are objects).
As you begin to uncover the true nature of your world (mind is no longer attaching qualities to objects; or it happens less often), you slowly begin to lose interest. A disentanglement begins to occur. Chains which firmly bind you become loosen and some are completely broken.
The superficial is the first to go. Those aspects of I, which has carved deep grooves in the mind take much longer. But it all happens gradually and naturally.
So letting go is losing interest in objects of your world. It can't be forced. It can happen instantly. But it's a natural unraveling that happens. The result of discovery into the true nature of things.
Let's suppose that there was a special confection that you truly adored. You craved it more than any other. It was a rare delicacy that you would easily pay an arm and leg for. From some far away land that very few were aware of. It had a unique flavor you had never tasted before. The texture and mouth feel was out of this world. And the aroma was to die for. No matter how much you had, you always wanted more.
So you searched for the recipe and found that it was composed of:
Skunk piss, bull nuts, squirrel guts, rat spit, chicken shit and monkey feet with natural and artificial flavors.
Now unless you're into that kind of thing. Most likely your craving, attachment and desire would drop instantly.
Your discovery of its true nature started an unraveling in the mind. It happened naturally, without force. All that was needed was a catalyst (knowledge of its true nature), to start the reaction.
So you searched for the recipe and found that it was composed of:
Skunk piss, bull nuts, squirrel guts, rat spit, chicken shit and monkey feet with natural and artificial flavors.
So letting go is losing interest in objects of your world
Why not use metta and see the beauty, and appreciate what the world can offer right now?
To see everything as shitty, smelly and noisy, what a boring person he/she would be?
-What a nice flower that is?
-Ahh its just a pice of shitt man, just let it go, I give a shit in this world, iam not intersted.
I prefer TNH teachings:
“People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don't even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child -- our own two eyes. All is a miracle
Really what I was trying to demonstrate with that recipe was the initial shock that may occur when you first discover that things aren't like you believed them to be. And discovering such a recipe would shock the average person.
I was also demonstrating how quickly the mind can turn from intense passion to complete dispassion when the appropiate conditions are present.
I never meant to compare life to a pile of shit. I don't view life that way.
"But UV light does exist, so I don't understand your position here. What do you mean practically speaking when you say UV light neither exists or doesn't exist? Do you mean that it only exists for people who actually experience it?
It's no good just regurgitating stock phrases, please explain clearly what you mean."
You use all your senses to detect things. If you can see it with the eyes, there are ways to make them visible. So they are indirectly visible to your eyes. Another example would be radioactivity whose existence was not known before its discovery. Or microbes.
I am saying we don't know what is actually out there until they come within range of our experience(senses). That is what microscopes and telescopes are for.
Or past lives.
I don't know how to make it any plainer. Perhaps others who are more capable can chip in.
@pegembara said:I am saying we don't know what is actually out there until they come within range of our experience(senses). That is what microscopes and telescopes are for.
That's fine. So we have established that UV light exists ( as an example ), and yet you are saying that UV light neither exists or doesn't exist - I don't understand what that means, practically speaking.
Do you mean that UV light doesn't exist for you personally until you have experienced it?
I dont belive you view life that way either hehe , I was maybe little bit harsh in my example, but english is not my first language (as you know) Its good to remember that one coin have two sides.
Yes its interesting, and its vey easy to turn your mind from passion to dispassion, but its much harder to turn it other way around, from dispassion to passion.
@SpinyNorman said:
This seems to be a central theme in contemporary Buddhism, but how do you actually do it, practically speaking? Clearly it isn't an intellectual exercise, so how do we practice letting go?
If you are holding something in your hand, how do you let it go?
You relax your hand. What is it, that you cannot let go?
Comments
I don't think we are supposed to try and stop thinking... There are spaces between thoughts though and these can be expanded with practice.
If there were no spaces between thoughts we would have no pauses between the "words" in the mind and wewouldbethinkinglikethiswithnopause. But there are pauses.
Here is the exercise for self finding ... Is 'self' in the above words? Now move the attention and find 'the self'. Can we let go of each place it is not?
All things are empty:
Nothing is born, nothing dies,
nothing is pure, nothing is stained,
nothing increases and nothing decreases.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html
Wherever we move the mind/attention - no self [ay curumba]
No silver, no lobster
no gold, no words
not in presence, not in space beings
not arising, not going anywhere
not in letting go, not in returning
not in time, not in emptying
Hold on a minute, know self.
There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.
Heart Sutra
The body and mind or the world/loka are objects within consciousness. Self view(sakayaditthi) arises when the body-mind is mistakenly taken as self or belonging to self. Granted there are individual body-mind streams but no individual consciousness. Consciousness has no personal characteristics and is boundless. My consciousness and yours are the same. Even the consciousness of animals are similar. Things(6 sense objects) arise and pass ie. undergo birth and death but this "consciousness" appear to be constantly there throughout.
You are right, @pegembara, the "consciousness" is constant while the perception arising from the 6 senses is not.
We can call the individual "consciousness" a wave arising from the ocean and merging back into the ocean. The ocean represents the universal consciousness. The interdependence of living beings arises from this universality of consciousness. When we realize this, not theoretically or in the abstract, but in actuality, our appreciation for life expands and we are one step closer to fully awakening.
Peace to all
Yes you can, it's quite easy. Cars, trees, flowers, chairs and sofas are not you.
I agree about the lack of personal characteristics, but what do you mean by "boundless" here, practically speaking?
If a friend touched your hand you would feel it, but if they touched the flower you wouldn't feel it. So clearly there is a boundary or a distinction or a separation.
@SpinyNorman said "@Lionduck said: >However, one can not find where 'Self' ends and 'Not Self' begins.
Your brain creates cars, trees, sofas.
your brain also creates "you"
It would be truer to say, there is no you. Anywhere. Or everything is you. Because it's all created from the same thing. Whatever that is lol.
I think the boundary of the body and sense gates is familiar to us. Tell it to the poets:
You touched a flower and I felt your hand
The attachment to the physical body and sense gates is much, MUCH greater, no doubt. However we are not to be found in the body or sense gates. We also have stronger and more intense experiences based on what we feel emotionally and in our monkey mind. Nobody can argue that or would.
The Caliph next gave the order for the assembled crowd to stone Hallaj, who endured the onslaught of rocks in heroic silence. The Caliph then commanded Shebli to cast a stone also. But Shebli, not wishing to himself harm the condemned saint, chose to throw a flower attached to a clod of earth instead. Hallaj cried out in pain when the clod hit him, and when asked to explain the reason, he replied: "Those who have cast stones know not what they are doing. But he who cast that clod is aware of everything he does."
http://www.tibetanart.com/Blog/Post.asp?ID=82
We know where the body ends. We also know when thoughts, feelings, perceptions and six sense objects begin and end.... but
Where and when does "consciousness" begin and end?
Things are generally bounded by time and space.
Only if you subscribe to the philosophy of idealism.
The suttas describe how contact arises in dependence on sense-base, sense-consciousness and sense-object. That isn't idealism. It's true that we label sense objects and conceive about them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
The philosophy of idealism is interesting, but I don't think it's supported by the suttas, by modern science or by practical experience.
It's a deep question, but practically speaking you could look at the "range" of each of the 6 aspects of consciousness, for example as far as the eye can see, or as far as the ear can hear, or as far as the nose can smell. Taste and touch seem very localised though.
That sounds like Advaita, which I find to be a fascinating view.
I do wonder about this whole non-duality thing. Sure, we can have "spiritual" states of mind where we feel at one with the universe or whatever, but it all seems very subjective and I'm not convinced it reflects the way things really are.
It's not like that at all, what I'm referring to is not that "in reality" there is no chair.
It is that the image/colour/texture etc are all a result of your nervous system. We are never experiencing a world "out there"
From our perspective we perceive. A cat might see the world differently to an eagle or a grasshopper. Which is the true view of reality?
See that even colours are a creation of our nervous system.
If we drop the belief that I am here, and the world is out there. You can change how you feel/perceive. You can see/perceive/feel that things are not separate.
No, our central nervous system filters and interprets the raw data coming in via our senses, that's basic biology. So for example we see an object because of the light it reflects to our eyes, so if there is no object there is no reflected light entering our eyes and therefore we don't see an object. Or as the suttas describe it: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness".
And by the way there is a physiological basis to colour perception, which is therefore pretty consistent, that's why colour coding is used so widely, everything from traffic lights to electrical wiring.
You seem to be disagreeing with the basic science of perception, could you explain why?
You claim we are never experiencing a world "out there", but can you see this is just another belief, a view, a philosophical position?
When you hear a sound, you are not experiencing the world "out there"
Because in "out there" there is only vibrations. There is no sound.
Sound only appears when vibrations come in contact with an ear drum, a central nervous system and conscious awareness. All these things have to come together to produce sound. There is no "ding" of a bell in reality. Only vibrations of energy. We perceive this as sound.
The same goes with sight, touch etc. we are never experiencing anything other than the coming together of vibrations and how our central nervous system uniquely perceived it.
If there were no eyes in the world, light wouldn't exist. If there were no ears. There wouldn't be sound, do you see what I'm saying? It's all energy vibrating.
But there is a "world" out there producing the vibration of air molecules which create the basic auditory input. Without a "world", without something to produce those vibrations there would be no auditory input. Again this isn't a purely subjective psychological process as you seem to be suggesting, there is a physiological basis to the perception of sound in terms of the range of pitch and volume we can normally distinguish. Sure, we label sounds according to our language and culture, but this isn't arbitrary, there is a physical basis for the type and range of sounds that we can hear.
I guess you could say it's all energy vibrating, but we have evolved biologically to sense those vibrations in a very specific way.
Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and thoughts are time bound phenomena ie. sankharas. What about that which doesn't have that characteristics of arising and passing away. That which is aware of sankharas. All sankharas are not self.
I wouldn't think photons depend on there being eyes because over time, eyes have evolved to sense photons.
As long as there has been the potential for sound waves, there has been the potential for eardrums and sound. I would even go as far as to opine that eardrums come to be simply because there are sound waves to detect and that eyes came to be simply because there is light.
Being able to perceive depends on there being contact but the receiver does not create the transmitter.
It's fascinating how we keep going down this road on so many varied topics.
Letting go... There seems to be so many levels in terms of coming to grips with loss but when it comes to self view it is a lot easier for me to think of it as non-grasping. It seems to imply a kind of letting go without negating.
What exactly do you mean by "letting go"?
And is there something specific you want to address?
Perhaps we can define "letting go" as not 'resisting'. Again, using water and rock. Rock resists, is overwhelmed and eroded by water. Water does not resist, accepts the rock, encompasses the rock and is not diminished by the rock.
Also, in terms of unity of self and non-self, we can find no point of separation.
However, in this physical world, if you stub your toe on a brick, it still hurts. On the one hand, we are talking about the relationship of the wave to the ocean while, on the other hand, we are talking about specific waves as they manifest.
If we conflate or confuse the two, conceptually, we hit the wall of contradiction head-on resulting in a terrible headache. And an addled brain (or what's left of it.
..Insert handle, stir pot....
What is that?
I'm not really sure, but it doesn't feel like an activity, more like a spacious state of mind. Maybe "not hanging on to..." describes it better?
That makes sense. It's interesting to reflect that the light from distant stars started out before there were human eyes to see it.
Keep looking. As an illustration, we tend not to notice space but only see objects in space. The objects may change but space remains permanently unchanging.
Without eyes would you called that "vibration" light. Without ears would you call that sound. So in a sense light and sound are dependent on having eyes and ears.
Without light or sound, can a seer or hearer be discerned. Without thoughts, thinker.
@ourself The receiver doesn't create the transmitter but does the transmitter create the receiver. And what receives?
What hears? The ear drum, ossicles, sensory nerve endings, the auditory cortex? Perhaps nothing actually hears but there is ever only the process of 'hearing' which depends on so many things occurring.
No one who sees, hears, smells, taste or thinks. Only seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking.
OK, but I was asking what you meant by "That which is aware of sankharas". What exactly is aware of the sankharas in your view?
But again that's a philosophical view ( it sounds like phenomenology ), and science would disagree with you.
Do you really believe for example that the light from distant stars relies for it's existence on you happening to see it? Or is it more likely that we humans have evolved to sense the visible part of the EM spectrum?
Do you really believe that the sound of a car engine relies on you happening to hear it? Does the car literally cease to exist when you're not in earshot, or is it more likely that you're just too far away to hear the sound?
That is a good way to train ourselves for less distraction but it isn't very practical when more than one person is involved.
If we are having a conversation on the phone and I am in a room with no light while you are in a light filled room then yes, there is still only seeing light in the absolute sense but only one of us can see that light. A one that sees.
Seeing light depends on both the internal and the external having contact so it does no real service to claim one as more "real" than the other. There are blind eyes and there is light that we may never see.
The external creates the conditions for the internal and the internal makes sense of the external. It really seems like a co-operative function.
At some point the difference between the internal and external becomes arbitrary while the distinction does not.
It's quite a tightrope.
I think (!) I'm in the same fix, SN...I've heard the non-duality / non-separation thing for at least 3 years now, and nowadays, I'll be driving around or hanging around and I'll look at a tree, for example, and say, "shrug - what do YOU make of it, Mr. Tree?"
I mean seriously, I really do that!
So, duality - non-duality, a tree is still a tree, a rock is still a rock, we are all mostly empty space... We are still here (wherever you want to make of that)..don't lose a piston over it. Just relax, laugh at the universe, and appreciate the moment.
Peace to all
Whatever "it" is, isn't you. There is only knowing.
You are not getting my point. You call it sound because the ear happened to have developed. There are creatures in deep sea that have no eyes because there is no light and there is no need for them. If you were one of them, you would say no.
Light is neither existent nor non existent.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
Kacchayanagotta Sutta
But what is this knowing exactly? Are you saying this knowing is a type of consciousness? And are you saying it's "outside" the aggregates?
Without being conscious how can there be any knowing? It is a result of having consciousness. So how can anything be outside of the khandas especially the consciousness aggregate.
@pegembara said: Without being conscious how can there be any knowing? It is a result of having consciousness. So how can anything be outside of the khandas especially the consciousness aggregate.
So you mean this knowing is part of the consciousness aggregate?
In an earlier post you talked about this knowing as "that which doesn't have that characteristics of arising and passing away. That which is aware of sankharas". The aggregates are sankharas, so I'm a little confused.
Or are you just talking about sati, or discernment or something?
That would be like us denying the existence of ultra-violet light.
"That would be like us denying the existence of ultra-violet light."
You still need to use your senses to pick up readings from your measuring instruments! That includes radioactivity, UV, infrared etc. The sutta clearly states there has to be contact(phassa).
You have missed the point again.
UV light neither exist nor not exist. Nobody is denying the existence of things.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
Kacchayanagotta Sutta
Hi @pegamara. That everything' doesn't exist' is one of those oxymorons, isn't it? It doesn't make sense, to me. It's a yes/no question - NOT extremes. There's probably a better analogy lurking around somewhere.
When its hard to let go of things, concepts, beliefs, self etc. I first focused on impermanence and say to myself - this too will pass. Little by little - it softens, then release.
But UV light does exist, so I don't understand your position here. What do you mean practically speaking when you say UV light neither exists or doesn't exist? Do you mean that it only exists for people who actually experience it?
It's no good just regurgitating stock phrases, please explain clearly what you mean.
I want to know what's the point of seeing things in this way, as opposed to 'regular' seeing.
Well one way is to explore the nature of things that are a part of your world. Dig deeply until you find the root. Search until you find the most basic, most fundamental source from which those objects have arisen (all manifestations in consciousness are objects).
As you begin to uncover the true nature of your world (mind is no longer attaching qualities to objects; or it happens less often), you slowly begin to lose interest. A disentanglement begins to occur. Chains which firmly bind you become loosen and some are completely broken.
The superficial is the first to go. Those aspects of I, which has carved deep grooves in the mind take much longer. But it all happens gradually and naturally.
So letting go is losing interest in objects of your world. It can't be forced. It can happen instantly. But it's a natural unraveling that happens. The result of discovery into the true nature of things.
Let's suppose that there was a special confection that you truly adored. You craved it more than any other. It was a rare delicacy that you would easily pay an arm and leg for. From some far away land that very few were aware of. It had a unique flavor you had never tasted before. The texture and mouth feel was out of this world. And the aroma was to die for. No matter how much you had, you always wanted more.
So you searched for the recipe and found that it was composed of:
Skunk piss, bull nuts, squirrel guts, rat spit, chicken shit and monkey feet with natural and artificial flavors.
Now unless you're into that kind of thing. Most likely your craving, attachment and desire would drop instantly.
Your discovery of its true nature started an unraveling in the mind. It happened naturally, without force. All that was needed was a catalyst (knowledge of its true nature), to start the reaction.
This is one way.
@Tony_A_Simien said:
So you searched for the recipe and found that it was composed of:
Skunk piss, bull nuts, squirrel guts, rat spit, chicken shit and monkey feet with natural and artificial flavors.
So letting go is losing interest in objects of your world
Why not use metta and see the beauty, and appreciate what the world can offer right now?
To see everything as shitty, smelly and noisy, what a boring person he/she would be?
-What a nice flower that is?
-Ahh its just a pice of shitt man, just let it go, I give a shit in this world, iam not intersted.
I prefer TNH teachings:
“People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don't even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child -- our own two eyes. All is a miracle
@Namada
I don't disagree with you.
Really what I was trying to demonstrate with that recipe was the initial shock that may occur when you first discover that things aren't like you believed them to be. And discovering such a recipe would shock the average person.
I was also demonstrating how quickly the mind can turn from intense passion to complete dispassion when the appropiate conditions are present.
I never meant to compare life to a pile of shit. I don't view life that way.
"But UV light does exist, so I don't understand your position here. What do you mean practically speaking when you say UV light neither exists or doesn't exist? Do you mean that it only exists for people who actually experience it?
It's no good just regurgitating stock phrases, please explain clearly what you mean."
You use all your senses to detect things. If you can see it with the eyes, there are ways to make them visible. So they are indirectly visible to your eyes. Another example would be radioactivity whose existence was not known before its discovery. Or microbes.
I am saying we don't know what is actually out there until they come within range of our experience(senses). That is what microscopes and telescopes are for.
Or past lives.
I don't know how to make it any plainer. Perhaps others who are more capable can chip in.
@pegembara said:I am saying we don't know what is actually out there until they come within range of our experience(senses). That is what microscopes and telescopes are for.
That's fine. So we have established that UV light exists ( as an example ), and yet you are saying that UV light neither exists or doesn't exist - I don't understand what that means, practically speaking.
Do you mean that UV light doesn't exist for you personally until you have experienced it?
@Tony_A_Simien said: I don't view life that way.
I dont belive you view life that way either hehe , I was maybe little bit harsh in my example, but english is not my first language (as you know)
Its good to remember that one coin have two sides.
Yes its interesting, and its vey easy to turn your mind from passion to dispassion, but its much harder to turn it other way around, from dispassion to passion.
If you are holding something in your hand, how do you let it go?
You relax your hand. What is it, that you cannot let go?