johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (05/17/91)
In response to a letter from pingali: *My comments are surrounded by asterisks. johnw* Hi, There has been the experience of thoughts arising and passing away and there is the question "Who is the knower"? There is no "knower". *This is not so. Obviously, you know your thoughts. You are the knower of them.* There is only "knowing". *Correct there is the knowing process. But how can you leave out the knower? There is the thing known (thought), the subject (you), and the perception of knowing* Thoughts are transient and fleeting - that is a fact. *Yes* But that fact can only be seen with awareness - mindfulness. *No. It does not require any special technique to see. It is simple to observe at any time* But meditation does not end there. Not only are thoughts transient and fleeting - consciousness itself is fleeting and transient. It also is an empty phenomenon that arises and passes away. *No. I maintain that this is the biggest error made by interpreters of Buddhism. Consciousness is not a phenonmenon (an object), it is non-objective. It does not arise nor does it pass away. Knowingness or the act of perception of things rises and falls, but awareness, pure subjectivity, does not cease at any time.* I have had a brief insight into this - but my meditation teachers speak of this as real turning point in practice. *Everything* that arises is impermanant and is seen to falling away. *Yes, but awareness is not a thing to be objectively known, since it is non-objective. Consequently, it is not subject to the law of impermanence, which applies only to the objects of perception.* There is then no resting place at all - there is nothing to be grasped, no security even in awareness. Only when all foundations of a belief in a separate self have been undermined are we left with the wisdom of insecurity. There is complete protection and freedom because there is *no one* to be protected. *I believe you are seeing only half of the matter. It is true that there is no separate self, and the dissolution of this notion is a key to understanding Bhuddha's sublime philosophy, but it would be wrong to conceive that the result is simply a state of insecurity, much less would such a state be wisdom. This borders on simple nihilism. Buddha taught that nihilism was an error. He also spoke of Nirvana, that ineffable, sublime state, beyond description, very glorious indeed. Sometimes he called it the Void. What do you think he meant by the Void? That which is beyond all objective chracteristics, and cannot be described in terms of any other thing, unborn, undying, neither permanent, nor impermanent. Remember, Buddha was not a nihilist. Just to say that there is no self or (ego) and that there is nothing real, all is impermanent---this is not the teaching of the Buddha. This is nihilism, or existentialism, but it cannot be the glorious liberating knowledge that made Buddha "The Light of Asia." What do you make of these statement made by various enlightened Buddhist masters describing the supreme state or reality they had awakened to: The Great Void (Buddha) The Clear Light (Padma Sambhava) The One Mind (Ch'an Buddhism) The Pure Mind (Huang Po) The Unborn (Bankei) Consciousness (in the Lankavatra Sutra) You (Hui Neng, founder of Cha'n) If any of this makes sense, know that is only the palest reflection of the light I have received from my own teacher, himself a liberated Buddha, whose wisdom shines like the sun. Take care, johnw
pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (05/18/91)
[I had sent in another article "Thoughts, practice..." from another machine before seeing this one] In article <1991May16.203346.2760@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes: >*My comments are surrounded by asterisks. johnw* > >>There has been the experience of thoughts arising and >>passing away and there is the question "Who is the >>knower"? There is no "knower". > >*This is not so. Obviously, you know your thoughts. You are the > knower of them.* > >>There is only "knowing". > >*Correct there is the knowing process. But how can you leave out the > knower? There is the thing known (thought), the subject (you), and > the perception of knowing* I think we are falling into a circular trap here - but let me ask you this, "What is this knower made of"? Is there is a knower apart from the knowing? Is the knower ever without knowing? If so, what is the knower then? >>Thoughts are transient and fleeting - that is a fact. >>But that fact can only be seen with awareness - mindfulness. > >*No. It does not require any special technique to see. It is > simple to observe at any time* Mindfulness is not a special technique - it is just a word for this observation that you speak of. >>But meditation does not end there. Not only are thoughts >>transient and fleeting - consciousness itself is fleeting >>and transient. It also is an empty phenomenon that arises >>and passes away. > >*No. I maintain that this is the biggest error made by interpreters > of Buddhism. Consciousness is not a phenonmenon (an object), it > is non-objective. It does not arise nor does it pass away. Knowingness > or the act of perception of things rises and falls, but awareness, pure > subjectivity, does not cease at any time.* I think we are pretty much stuck here - for we are using dualistic language to speak of things. I agree that it seems strange - but the screen analogy seems to fall away (this thing which "shines" and after which all else shines is not there at all). So long as there is this notion of a separate, abiding, knower - there is dualism. Meditation masters speak of this experience of *everything* disintegrating - a moment of light striking the eye, a moment of seeing consciousness, a moment of hearing consciousness, thoughts arising and falling away - everything happening at incredible speed. All aggregates in pure process. "Sabbe anicca" - all conditioned dharmas are impermanent. They do not say that this is an unconditioned state of being. >>There is then no resting place >>at all - there is nothing to be grasped, no security >>even in awareness. Only when all foundations of a belief >>in a separate self have been undermined are we left >>with the wisdom of insecurity. There is complete protection >>and freedom because there is *no one* to be protected. > >*I believe you are seeing only half of the matter. It is true that there > is no separate self, and the dissolution of this notion is a key > to understanding Bhuddha's sublime philosophy, but it would be > wrong to conceive that the result is simply a state of insecurity, > much less would such a state be wisdom. This borders on simple > nihilism. Buddha taught that nihilism was an error. The security that comes is real enough. "Taking refuge in the Buddha" begins to acquire real meaning. Dependent co-origination is what the Buddha taught as the way between nihilism and eternalism - that "everything is" and "everything is not" are both extreme views. > He also spoke of Nirvana, that ineffable, sublime state, beyond description, > very glorious indeed. Sometimes he called it the Void. What do you think > he meant by the Void? That which is beyond all objective chracteristics, > and cannot be described in terms of any other thing, unborn, undying, > neither permanent, nor impermanent. Remember, Buddha was not a nihilist. I didn't say anything about Nibbana because I simply don't know anything about it. The Buddha did say that there is an unconditioned state that nothing much can be can be said about - and for most part there is nothing much that he did say about it. Nowhere is the claim made that non-self and impermanence are the end of Buddhist teaching or the end of meditation. Peace, Sridhar
aloise@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jim Aloise) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May16.203346.2760@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes: >In response to a letter from pingali: > >*My comments are surrounded by asterisks. johnw* > >Hi, > >There has been the experience of thoughts arising and >passing away and there is the question "Who is the >knower"? There is no "knower". > >*This is not so. Obviously, you know your thoughts. You are the > knower of them.* > >There is only "knowing". > >*Correct there is the knowing process. But how can you leave out the > knower? There is the thing known (thought), the subject (you), and > the perception of knowing* > This brings to mind the saying - The knower of the known is not knowable. If you think about it, you see that it's a hall of mirrors. What empowers this trinity, is beyond knowledge. And from another angle - The knower is known in knowledge. Where else would you find him! >But meditation does not end there. Not only are thoughts >transient and fleeting - consciousness itself is fleeting >and transient. It also is an empty phenomenon that arises >and passes away. > >*No. I maintain that this is the biggest error made by interpreters > of Buddhism. Consciousness is not a phenonmenon (an object), it > is non-objective. It does not arise nor does it pass away. Knowingness > or the act of perception of things rises and falls, but awareness, pure > subjectivity, does not cease at any time.* > Yes, I agree with this. There is awareness even when there are no thoughts. Else how would you know that there are no thoughts. (I do have a feeling here that we might have a more fruitful discussion given a definition of thought, consciousness and awareness.)