The Dukka of Where And Here

[Guest guest]

Posted by Joyce at GR

 

What does it mean to say, " There is no thing 'there'. It

is talking about the realm of the object; it implies that

" the seen is merely the seen. " That's it. There are forms,

shapes, colors and so forth, but there is no THING there.

There is no real substance, no solidity, and no self-existent

reality, All there is, is the quality of the experience

itself. No more, no less. There is just seeing, hearing,

cogizing, sensing. feeling. And the mind naming it all

is just another experience: " the space of the Dharma hall, "

And 'Amaro's voice,' here is the thought, 'Am I understanding this?'

Now another thought, 'Am I not understanding this?'

 

There is what is seen. heard, tasted, and so on, but there

is no thing-ness, no solid independent entity that this

experience refers to.

 

As this insight matures, not only do we realize that there

is nothing " out there " , but we also realize that there is

no solid thing " in here " , no solid, fixed and independent

entity that is the experiencer. This is talking about

the realm of the subject.

 

P: The paragraph would be more accurate if phrased such:

But there is no entity whatsoever which can be known

independently from mind. As stated by Amaro it could lead

some reader to believe he is spousing a nihilistic approach.

We really can't know for sure that there is nothing out there.

'Out there' inside and experiencer are just discriminating

concepts.

 

 

 

The practice of nonabiding is a process of emptying out

he objective and subjective domains, truly seeing that

both the subject and object are intrinsically empty. If

we can see that both the subjective and objective

are empty, if there's no real " in here " or " out there, "

where could a feeling of I-ness and me-ness and my-ness locate

itself? As the Buddha said to Bahiya, " You will not be able

to find your self either in the world of this [subject]

or in the world of that [object] or anywhere between

the two.

 

There is a similar and much lengthier exchange between the

Buddha and Ananda in the Shurangama Sutra, which is a text

much referred to in the Ch'an school. For pages and

pages the Buddha asks Ananda, in multifarious ways, if he can

define exactly where the mind is. No matter how hard he

tries, Ananda cannot establish it precisely. Eventually he

is forced to conclude that: " I cannot find my mind anywhere. "

But the Buddha says, " Your mind does exist, though, doesn't it? "

Ananda is forced to admit that " where " does not apply.

 

Aha!

 

This is the point that these teachings on nonabiding are trying

to draw us to. The whole concept and construct of where-ness,

the act of conceiving ourselves as this individual entity

living at this spot at this time, is a presumption. And

it's only by frustrating our habitual judgments in this

way that we're forced into loosening our grip.

 

This view of things pulls the plug, takes the props away,

and, above all, shakes up our standard frames of reference.

This is exactly what Ajahn Chah did with people when he

asked them, " If you can't go forward and you can't go

back and you can't stand still, where can you go? " He

was pointing to the place of nonabiding: the timelss, selfless

quality that is in dependent of location.

 

Some current research has also reached a comparable conclusion

about the fundamental nature of matter. In the world

of quantum physics, scientists now use such terms as

" the well of being " or " the sea of potential " to refer

to the primordial level of physical reality from

whch all particles and energies crystallize and into

which they subsequently dissolve. The principle of nonlocality

in this realm means that the " place where something happens "

cannot truly be defined and that a single event can have

exactly the same simultaneous effects in [apparently] widely

separated places.

 

Terms like " single place " and " separate places " are seen

to apply only as conventional fictions at certain levels

of scale; at the level of the ultimate field, the sea of

quantum foam, " place " has no real meaning. In the fine subatomic

realm, where-ness does not apply. There is no there there.

Whether this principle is called nonabiding or non-locality,

its both interesting and note worthy that the same

principle applies in both the mental and physical realms.

 

I first started to investigate thus type of contemplation

when I was on a long retreat and doing a lot of solitary

practice. It suddenly occurred to me that while I might

have let go of the feeling of self - the feeling of

this and that and so on - whatever the experience of

reality was, it was still " here. " There was still

here-ness. For several weeks I contemplated the question

" Where is here? " Not using the question to get a verbal

answer, more just to illuminate and aid the abandoment

od the clinging that was still present.

 

Recognizing this kind of conditioning is just half the job -

recognizing that, as soon as there is a here-ness that is a subtle

presence of a there-ness. Similarily, establishing a

" this " brings up a " that " . As soon as we define " inside " ,

up pops " outside " . It's crucial to acknowledge such subtle

feelings of grasping, it happens so fast and at so many different

layers and levels.

 

This simple act of apprehending the experience is shining the

light of wisdom onto what the heart is grasping. Once the defilements

are in the spotlight, they get a little nervous and uncomfortable.

When clining is the focus of our awareness, it can't function

properly. In short, clinging can't cling if there is

too much wisdom around.

 

Small Boat, Great Mountain

Amaro Bhikkhu (free on line)