Har&Moll/practice

[Guest guest]

Hello again, Harsha and Moller,

 

I found your dialogue most interesting and so decided to hitch on. While I

am a Buddhist practitioner my practice is informed by Advaita and so I

thought Id share some of my experience from the last ten days of an

intensive retreat. (Those who know how chatty I can be delete here) I was at

a Vietnamse sangha and the Sayadaw (master in the Burmese tradition,

ordained in Burma) was giving teachings and guidance in meditation as we all

did the practice of Samatha/Vipassana (Insight Meditation) using the Burmese

approach to Satipatthana or Four Foundations in Mindfulness. In the view of

Vipassana, everything is Dharma. Dharma can be divided into ultimate truth

and conditional or conventional truth. Conventional truth has to do with

that which is impermanent and concepts. Ultimate truth has to do with the

mundane (body/mind) and the supramundane or nirvana/freedom.

 

This practice is simple enough - The yogi begins with attention on the

rising and falling movement of the abdomen as primary object of meditation

(the actual feeling of it not the idea) and then during the hour of sitting

- if sound arises - attention notes "sound" until it dissolves. If thought

arises, the yogi notes,"thought" until it dissolves (without getting

interested in the content of the thought, hard to do at first as we are so

used to trying to figure everything out and thoughts are so clever and

entertaining). Vipassana investigates the "ultimate realties" - the nature

of body and mind - what can be experienced beyond merely thought about

(such as concepts of time, place, ownership, man, woman, body, mind etc.)

ie. in the body we have the elements of fire, air, earth and water - the

fire element can be experienced and noted as the sensations of heat and

cold, the air element as vibration and movement etc....body is ever changing

and is seen as "matter."

 

The second of the ultimate realities the yogi meditates on is consciousness

or "citta." This is the knowing faculty that knows the object. This also

is rising and falling each instant. There is not one "mind" which is

observing all phenomena. The consciousness that hears is different from the

one that sees, thinks, hears, smells, tastes or touches. There are

different mind moments arising and passing away each instant. When the mind

becomes calm and quiet it is possible to observe this flow of consciousness

or life continuum. Insight into the flow and impermanence of the knowing

faculty brings the understanding that there is not one knower or observer,

but rather an ongoing process at every moment - seeing this clearly exposes

the illusion of a separate self. ie. "hearing" is when consciousness meets

with vibration, mind engages and sound and reaction to sound occurs. If

clinging is then present... we might then have "I" hear the ringing of the

bell...even.."I" like or dislike or have no feeling about the sound,

thinking about it may occur - and then it all eventually dissolves back into

the continuum. When mindfulness is present in bare attention, only hearing

without clinging and all its generally business (suffering) does not occur.

 

The third object of meditation is mental factors - the cetasekas or

qualities of consciousness/mental events that arise out of consciousness

triggered by events - called mental factors. These are the qualities of

mind that determine how consciousness relates to the object. Different

combinations of mental factors arise with each moment of consciousness and

fade away with it. These are classfied into wholesome such as generosity,

faith, feeling of good will, wisdom etc. And there are also the unwholesome

factors such as greed, hate, delusion, sloth, torpor etc etc. And there are

neutral characteristics that are neither. One of the unwholesome factors

arising is "wrong view" - this has the function of identifying with the

various changing elements of the mind and body. When the factor of wrong

view rises in a moment of consciousness, the concept of self arises. But it

too is impermanent and impersonal, arising at times and passing away. When

we are mindful in the moment, wrong view does not arise and so we begin to

free ourselves from the conditioning of "I", "me", "mine." And when

we

wonder, "Who is being mindful?" .. mindfulness is itself a mental factor and

has the function of noticing what the object is, staying aware of the

present moment. There is no one who is mindful, only a functioning of a

particular factor: an awareness without clinging, condemning or identifying.

As mindfulness is gradually developed with practice there is a deeper

understanding that all conditioned phenomena are transitory and empty of an

abiding self. IE - when I note that I am feeling what I might call

"depressed", mindfulness notes and then investigates - the sensation might

be one of earth or heaviness - and aversion to this sensation might arise, a

desire to push it away - other sensations such as happiness might arise -

mindfulness might note "clinging'; to this experience. Noting whether one

is happy or sad, angry or peaceful, is wisdom. Noting that the "I" has

arisen is wisdom, noting that one hates this I, or like it or whatever is

wisdom. Identifying with these or any arisings causes suffering...the

sensation or the arisesn "I", isnt the problem, the identification with it

is and there isnt any pill for this alas. There is the truth of suffering

and the truth of the way out of suffering. But, one recognizes in the

moment this suffering and this is wisdom and insight. Proceeding further is

hard work.

 

The last reality one practices with is what is called "nirvana" - like the

experience of freeing oneself entirely from the chains of conditioned

arisings, from our ignornance as to our true state and emerging from the

cave of clinging and delusion into the sunlight. Every moment of

mindfulness frees us from these chains. Knots untie, body relaxes.....

 

In the typical Vipassana retreat one awakens at 3-4am and is supposed to

begin practice the minute eyes open - sitting for the first hour begins at 4

or 5am then walking for an hour then sitting for an hour etc. through out

the day into the evening always in silence. The last meal is taken at 11am.

The intensity of this kind of retreat gives one the opportunity to have a

good look at the whole of the events of mind and body and the whole of ones

responses/reactions. Eventually one is completely beyond words and as my

friend put it - "I feel like a vibrating lump" - and the Sayadaw says to

her, "O good, youre getting it. One gets yet a renewed appreciation for

-"Frog jumps into pond, Plop!"

 

When I practice alone at home I am able to overlook the unwholesome aspects

arising but in a group practice one is given the opportunity to work with

the full range of what is present in consciousness. IE - becoming irritated

(this is a degree of unwholesomeness called "hate" ) by the way someone has

put their shoes. Or, having to be mindful of every bite that one chews when

one wants to gobble down everything in sight - greed, greed. Or, sadness,

depression, etc etc which can also be viewed as a form of non acceptance - a

desire to push some things away and pull others towards oneself - aversion

and clinging. So - its hard work and I note that in our chats we tend to

want awakening without looking at the full package. I have certainly

attempted to leap over the whole content of consciousness keeping the good

bits and avoiding the "bad" but where I end up is not in freedom.

 

Eventually, ones experience seems to dissolve into light and shadows and

there is no separation of anything. But it takes awhile to work through the

impulse to cling to what one likes ( calm states of bliss, experiences,

feelings that one has attained this and that) and to push away what one has

aversion to such as emotional and physical pain. Fortunately, if one has a

teacher who has been through it all, he manages to give a lecture about

"boasting" or "criticising others" at just the right moment and you wonder

if he is seeing clearly the true sorry state of one's mind, o horrors. Even

being disheartened with ones practice can be seen as a form of greed and

hate and delusion - those shadows lurk for a long time.

 

I related to Advaita because of the direction to investigate and so I see

Advaita and Buddhism as having the same point even although different words

may be used, although I know longer identify with the "observer" seeing this

as only the function of consciousness called "mindfulness" or direct

perception, and is not fixed. Attention is a function occuring after contact

of consciousness with object has happened, moving out of mind to investigate

is a function, liking or disliking is a function, and in investigation of

the apparently continuous stream of consciounsess one can see a succession

of discrete evanescent cognitive events, each a complex unity involving

consciousness itself as the basic awareness of an object and the

constellation of mental factors exercising more specialized tasks in the act

of cognition.

 

So - when we examine "awareness" - or "knowing" it seems theres more to it

than we would suppose at first glance. So the subject/object duality is not

a problem when one decides to investigate through comprehensive vision the

totality of experienced reality, to know things as they really are. Its just

one more thing to examine but easier to do if one lets go of concepts and

digs into momentary experience. Hastening slowly, stripping away the

layers,Im not done yet. The good thing is, progress is tangeable, all ones

efforts are rewarded, ones life becomes meaningful and there is living fully

in equanimity.

 

Joyce

 

 

> You said:

>

>>Hello Moller-Ji. You wished for me to comment on this. A very fine

>>description indeed of the subtleties of using attention as a tool to

>>understand the nondual condition. Using the sensation of touch as a point

> of

>>understanding appears useful. In the yogic relaxation and mediation of the

>>Shavaasana (The Corpse posture), attention is brought to each part of the

>>body and there is a gradual letting go of sensations to subsist by

>>themselves. Ultimately only attention is left feeling the "sensation" of

>>attention. Attention falling upon itself, attending to itself, focusing on

>>itself, is a subtle form of mediation as well that many people are

> attracted

>>to. Different methods for different people. All methods use awareness or

>>attention as a tool to focus on some object. Hence the separation between

>>subject and object

>>Love and hugs to you brother Moller

>>Harsha

>

> ~~(M) The part I described was indeed about the use of attention. It was

> not really about the use of "attention to understand the non-dual

> condition". To my insight attention cannot find or reach out to the

> non-dual condition. Practice around this method as I described, is really

> just to stabilise attention and thought through 'direct perception', where

> attention is unencumbered by any mental projection. However, at this point

> I introduced the possibility that attention itself could be relaxed,

> revealing the fact that without the paying of attention, things are still

> the case and appear by themselves. A good analogy here is the difference

> between seeing and looking. When the eyes are open they 'see'. When

> attention is brought into play there is 'looking'.

>

> You said in this regard something which I REAlLY would like to discuss with

> you. And that was:

>

> . When attention itself becomes the tool, the method, the

>>object, then, Attention as the True Subject without an object might be

>>Recognized.

>>

>

> ~~(M) This part I find slight difficulty with. I have tried on many

> occasions to do just this, and although it has become factually clear that

> attention is the focussing mechanism of 'awareness', I have never found

> that attention can in fact divide ITSELF into subject and object.

> Attention could behold a thought restructuring of itself as object and then

> experience such a subtle projection as truly existing, but for attention to

> split itself into subject and object has not been my experience. In stead,

> what has been my experience is that when attention relaxes completely out of

> the process, all that remains is what is, completely self-aware. Attention

> could be paid to aspects of this what is- ness, but that is all it can do.

>

> At the cost of boring you to death with this detail, (please bear with on

> this one) I must admit 'sensing' the implosion of attention into its

> source. But the moment this happens, and co-incident with this, there is

> the self-aware condition of what is. Would it be totally wrong to suggest

> that what is, being self-aware, has always two inherent qualities which

> could be separated for the sake of talking about it, into awareness and

> content, realising that they are one process of appearance? Because if this

> is possible, one could say that attention is part of the awareness-aspect of

> consciousness-being? The other being being?

>

> If sometime you have some free time, kindly let me know your thoughts on

> this ?

>

> Love and sincere respect,

>

> Moller

>

>

>>>Dear Roger,

>>

>>re:addiction etc.

>>

>>You said:

>>

>>>For me it seems as though, when such events occur, there is still a

>>>subject/object in that "I" observe the body and it is an energetic or

>>>thought phenomena. Duality is present because there is an observer and an

>>>observed(the energetic body), and they are distinct and separate.

>>

>>~~(M) Thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely right. Perhaps

>>we can proceed from here. The thing is getting a little tricky.

>>

>>Allow me some detail on this one as it is most important. So lets go

>>slowly. I hope this is your interest.

>>

>>There are the fingers touching. Now in our 'ordinary' state we see the

>>fingers touching and feel the touch. Here is ordinary subject/object in

>>operation. Next we close our eyes and we are left with the sense of touch

>>only. Yet, it is very difficult just to feel the touching activity,

> without

>>projecting a mental picture of the two fingers touching. So if we want to

>>just feel the sense of touch, (still as subject/object) but without the

>>mental projection, we have to pay extra-ordinary gentle but clear attention

>>to just the sense of touch. If we can become so sharp in our sense

>>perception that we can just sense the touching sensation, then we may

>>perhaps introduce the term 'direct perception'. as there is no longer the

>>interference/projection of something(s) (in this case the the thoughts of

>>the fingers ) onto the simple sense of touch. At this level only attention

>>and its object remain. Here we are still in the dualistic mode as there is

>>still a sense of separation between the 'observer and the observed'. At

>>this point, though, thought is very quiet and attention very stable. One

>>may call this a kind of Samatha or quiet state, where attention and its

>>object are the only activities present. But Samatha is still within

> duality

>>and observer/observed.

>>

>>The above is the 'normal' way in which Samatha takes place. Samatha can

>>never be whole, even if the mind as thought and attention is very stable

> and

>>quiet.

>>

>>However, to proceed from here is possible and that is why Samatha has been

>>considered a 'door' to non-duality. So we have the sense of touch and

>>attention to it , held in a kind of coherency by a subtle act of will.

>>

>> May I suggest that at this point the meditation can go in two directions

>>

>>1) An intensification of this state of controlled attention can and will

>>most probably lead to a kind of Samadhic sense of bliss and so on. It

> could

>>be taken further to complete cut-off-ness from the sense world and general

>>experience. It could be taken further, which is not my experience.

>>

>>2) Attention could be relaxed totally in relation to its object (the sense

>>of touch) leaving the sense of touch existing by itself, without any

>>support. But if we can find our way into this rather subtle situation, we

>>may find that something else presents itself and this is that while

>>attention was in place, holding itself stable on its object, a subtle

>>thought projection crept into the action, and made the assumption that

>>because one can pay attention to this object, 'one' is separate from it.

>>And it is this projection/assumption/deduction, which gives one the sense

> of

>>duality while attention is operating. It interprates the ability to pay

>>attention (which in itself is not an act of duality) as confirmation of its

>>true separateness from the object. And to my insight it is this very

>>sub-conscious act of thought, assuming the subject in all activities of

>>attention (which go on all day in ordinary experience) which creates the

>>ongoing sense of a separate self.

>>

>>So to go back to your sense that while paying attention to just the sense

>>(energy or otherwise) of touch there appears to be an inherent separation

>>between the observer and the observed, is based on this thought projection

> I

>>described above. The act act of paying attention does not create the

>>separation, but the thought projection which says that 'because attention

>>can be paid to an aspect of present arising, 'I' must be separate from it.

>>And as we are totally identified with our thinking this side of

> non-duality,

>>this thought assumes the final reality of our being which is presented as

>>the separate observer.

>>

>>If this line of describing a process of enquiring into the shift from

>>apparent separation to that of wholeness of being, is of interest to you, I

>>will continue further along this road in a next posting.

>>

>>Please let me know. And please give the above your kind, and generous

>>attention.

>>

>>In love,

>>

>>Moller

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>