Meditating on realisation, doubt and the subsequent realisation of the emptiness of awareness?
anataman
Who needs a title?Where am I? Veteran
In meditation I reflected on the concept of 'realisation', with the intention of fully understanding what the word really meant to me, and what this led me on to conclude.
Realisation as defined by a google search prior to the meditation produces this:
riːəlʌɪˈzeɪʃn
noun
1. an act of becoming fully aware of something as a fact.
synonyms: awareness, understanding, comprehension, consciousness, apprehension, cognizance, appreciation, recognition, perception, discernment
2. the achievement of something desired or anticipated.synonyms: actualization, fulfilment, achievement, accomplishment, attainment, bringing to fruition, bringing into being, consummation, effecting; rareeffectuation, reification
i.e. It became obvious in my meditation I was seeking to realise realisation realised: When this is broken down it is quite interesting as to what results:
to realise is a verb, so this was in essence the meditation
realisation was the awareness of doing the meditation to make something real and concrete or true in awareness
realised was to make this fact known to the awareness doing the realisation
Now I know some of you are going to say you're thinking too much; sure it's what my mind does and so does yours; but entertain the logical thought process and the conclusions and then take a look at yourself and what you are actually challenging.
What I am trying to convey is that when you are meditating one-pointedly on something and it demonstrates an innate quality of mind, you can open yourself up to have trust and faith in your meditation, and go forward less fearfully. The gift of this is far-reaching. When I meditate on something one-pointedly, and it becomes fully realised, and revealed as truth, I am given a bedrock and faith, and I have an ethical and moral code to live up to.
So where is this taking us. Right let me digress and introduce Descartes into the equation for a short while. He meditated on doubt, and came up with the cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). If you doubt your very existence and observe something thinking I doubt I exist, you can only conclude the observer who is observing oneself doubting, must exist, otherwise the observer would not exist. The biggest error one can make is to conclude that this statement is proof that they really exist. However, it does nothing to prove that one's body exists, let alone anything else that is perceived in the physical universe. It only proves that one's mind exists (but you can't say what that mind is - you are fundamentally it). It does not rule out anything else, e.g.you could wake up as a mosquito who had dreamed of having a human existence, so the conclusion can only be the mind is aware thinking stuff.
Not to digress too far down the line of doubt as that takes you as far as you can ever go in establishing what you are, let me return to the realisation. Realisation itself is just a thought, but it emancipates the observer from the thought, to be aware of itself thinking. What is concluded is that this awareness has nothing of any material substance whatsoever, and can experience itself as such, just through realisation and observation.
Now these are just thoughts, but underlying all this is another realisation to be had, and that is that there are all these other observers with fundamentally the same nature, and all are essentially suffering from the same affliction of not knowing what they are.
The questions that arises therefore are these:
What is the point of meditation other than to realise the awareness for what it is?
Once it has realised itself, what more needs to be done other than to continue realising itself through what it thinks feels and does?
Should such realised awareness live morally and ethically to treat itself in all its guises with respect, compassion and equanimity?
Your thoughts are welcome, as if they were my own.
Metta
Comments
No 'it' is not. Not in the Buddhist sense of realisation or awakening. Realisation is not a thought about something or a way of 'better thinking'.
Sound cognition, relaxed mindfulness etc all good. Useful.
Realisation is spaciousness without containment. In other words, emptiness without form, awareness without thinking. Paradox resolved.
You knew that right? You may realise it is true but realising the truth of it . . . Neti neti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti
No Mr Cushion, not Yeti Yeti . . . That cushion, will have to put him down . . .
Well done @lobster I have been negated, in my expression of the inexpressible. Lol
Lets say I misheard you slightly and put that to music shall we:
Yeke Yeke by mory kante
Oh what fun, we're having a party!
In my meditation I would return to the breath and let go out into space. I wouldn't contemplate during meditation. But after meditation I would contemplate.
What is one-pointed in your view, @anataman?
One-pointedness is Samahdi @jeffrey. Open contemplation is allowed to exist in meditation in my view, as an object of meditation. As is music, and anything else, provided awareness is not hidden by preconceptions and other egocentric contrivances.
I would remain open, but don't spin out into thought worlds. Let go of the arisings. Welcome them, say thank you for being here, and then let go.
Thank you @jeffrey
The witness isn't really the same as emptiness or even awareness in the buddhist sense.
The witness is just a thought or a frozen image of clarity in the realm of the thinking mind. It is the space between two thoughts or also known as the I AM.
There are many problems with this self-awareness, though it can be a useful perception attainment as it liberates oneself from thoughts. Nonetheless it essentially is the fundamental conditioning factor of suffering.
So the realization of emptiness is the direct perception that I AM is actually empty of intrinsic existence, which collapses any form of witness or container awareness.
Realization in a broad sense has to do with consolidating a very specific insight. So one has to specifically look with a certain intention and view. Then insight will dawn. Insight can also be non-conceptual.
here is a good article on the distinctions between view, experience and realization. And also the various experiences that one can explore on the meditative journey.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html
So in essence @taiyaki, are you saying that the emptiness you speak of is something that can only be experienced, and are thoughts and realisations of emptiness just reference points on the path to truly realising emptiness?
You party pooper!
Nope. One can actualize emptiness in a inferential way using the intellect. There is also the non-conceptual emptiness insight as well.
But emptiness in the dharmic sense is dependent origination. Its not the content or experience that is important but rather the nature and structuring of all experience and content.
So if say the world of appearances is conditioned. By what? And how can it be unconditioned?
Emptiness isn't a void state but rather a specific insight that arises with a specific praxis brought to experience.
So it isn't a thing be it something or even nothing.
Lost me a little there @taiyaki ; so are you saying you can't experience it?
Or perhaps you are saying you are it, and there's nothing more one can say...
The very itness is questioned.
The very notion of experience becomes moot.
Realization isn't a thought friend. Jan Westeroff illustrated this critical point in his book 'Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, A Philosphical Instrodcution', (which I must say is fantastic), by distinguishing realization from comprehension. He gives the example of certain optical illusions, you can comprehend that it is indeed an optical illusion, but comprehending it isn't enough to experientially do away with the illusion itself, one still experiences the illusion, even after comprehending the facts about it. Now on the other hand we have realization, which would be comparable to when you have actually trained yourself to no longer experience the illusion, having overcome it or what have you.
I hope this distinction is helpful, as I found it a good example of properly separating these things.
Tsongkhapa emphasized both aspects specifically in regard to emptiness, he emphasized what he called "valid cognition" which is comprehending it, and co-mingling that with the realization of it. I would recommend the book as a great place to start for valid cognition.
In my own experience I have come to agree with Tsongkhapa, as I, prior to reading him, realized in my retreat, the importance of what I called "emptiness with knowing" (as distinguished as "emptiness without knowing"). The idea is that in emptiness without knowing, one fails to cogitate how it could be soteriologically valuable and how it directly functions in relation to mindfulness. While emptiness with knowing entails a comprehension of how to apply emptiness in one's own experience and one sees how one can reach nirvana (this is a critical marker that is used to determine whether emptiness has actually been "attained").
Thank you,
This has been realised. Like anything, and I find it very difficult to discuss something like realisation in this way (I'm just a beginner remember who is discussing the ineffable), words are often used that may be taken out of context or misunderstood.
Realisation as a word or thought, has the ability to point out what realisation is, and to enable the attentive mind to focus on what 'REALISATION' actually is. That was one of the purposes of this thread, to draw attention to what is actuality happening in a moment of realisation.
I am not great at either writing or thinking, and I often, as I have done by reading your thoughtful reply, reflect on the thoughts of others on the subject which are greatly appreciated and absorbed into the understanding (or left alone, if they do not).
Metta
One of my (previous) teachers described 'Realisation' as 'an atomic bomb going off in your Mind'.
It explodes every pre-conceived notion and phenomenon right out of your head, leaving a huge vacuous space of nothing - full up with 'something'.
No thought, no idea, no impression - just - silent space where everything profoundly dwells with no need for clarification.
Realisation just .....'is'.
realisation - with a small 'r' - is a penny dropping.
Realisation - with a big 'R' - is the 'booom'.....
Our world is so saturated with information overload, noise pollution and cacophony already (in my case, partly from cohabitation with a very communicative seven year-old), that I make of simple breathing meditation my main practice.
Mindfulness, awareness in meditation leads to more focus and clear thinking in other areas of my life. Realisation follows, perhaps not as the big concept realisation. A humble, homeshift realisation for every day use.
Thank you for this, it is a great example of a distinction I've had trouble putting into words.
Indeed.
This is the value of 'pre training', study, discipline etc. If you have no context or framework in which to comprehend realisation, you end up crazy, starting religions or cults or just weird (What is that Mr Cushion? You are not wyrd? I beg to differ . . . )
The overwhelming nature of realisation is both too much and very little in terms of difference. When you have the experience, the deluded and real becomes recognisable. To the unrealised Jim Morrison, Pop Guru Gnu, the cuckoo who quacks and walks like a duck are exposed and perhaps most embarrassing those who imply or contrive in a mantle they know how to present.
This is why being on the path on as many levels as possible is important. It is the realised who know who they are. Who are in their ranks and who are playing, deluded or just wasting their and others time . . .
OK Cushion, you can have the final word . . .
realize there is dukka, cause for dukka, can let go of dukka, how can one let go of dukka
practice the 'way of let go of dukka' until one's life is with 'complete Let Go'
this is the Result brings out of 'Perfected Let Go'
out of Compassion Buddha and Arahants give Dhamma to the worldlings
because of Equanimity (Perfected Let Go) Buddha and Arahants do no not worry wether worldlings take or do not take Dhamma
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and realisations!
When I meditated the last time, I just watch the falling and rising of the abdomen. And that is not exactly empty.