This very enlightening video reminds me of something Adyashanti said in one of his TH-cam videos that I share here; "Spiritual practice at some point or another will checkmate you. What I mean by checkmate you is that there will be a point at which there is no strategy for the ego to employ. No other subtle intellectual way of being, no emotional strategy. You'll just see them all as the me trying to attain something, trying to get away from an experience, trying to hold onto something. Every move it makes is just more of the same stuff. That's a kind of checkmate." Adyashanti Feb 26, 2020
Thank you for your comments - Yes, exactly. I like Adyashanti - His background history (being a professional cyclist and becoming ill through his realisation etc) is fascinating.
Your videos have been helpful in understand many complex ideas. I have done as you suggested, and true, I find no one controlling my hands, and no one generating thoughts. Then what is doing so? Where is this coming from?
Many thanks for your comment. There are a couple of way of addressing this. In terms of 'thinking of what the answer might be' . . . we are looking for something seperate that is responsible for these things. We realise that the only answer comes from the mind . . . that such a solid, permanent 'self' could never be found. Therefore, perhaps what is responsible is not a seperate thing. Or . . . Why are you asking the question? 'Because I want to know' Would a word or a description satisfy you? Could the answer to your question be encompassed in this way? If everything is in a constant state of change/flux, could you ever find a permanent solid, static 'thing' as an answer?
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Where is the mind to be found? Is this "I", this "body" part of a great source of which I am a part? (Forgive my example of the Internet, and I am one of many sites? all connected? with the illusion of being separate?) I find all this quite liberating.
@@MC-hl2ty My own opinion is that 'mind' is a label used for the continuous flow of thoughts that we have. It is not an inherent 'thing' or container, as it is usually referenced to be (as in 'It appeared IN my mind')
Sorry Buddhist sympathizer, I am not sure if this investigation has anything to do with original Buddhist teachings, but this conclusion of "no inherent self" that is drawn by this experiment is just a result of a confused outwardly mind. "It is illogical to try to find the self this way"-- yes it is! It is illogical to try to point out a witness in the witnessed. "I am witnessing" is a no doubt a thought (or a sensation), but because the 'I' in the thought can not be found doesn't mean the witness is absent. The witness that witnesses the contents of the thought, is the very witness that witnesses the sensation of 'I', it is not the thought, nor the the 'I' . This is not an idea, not a belief, not a concept, but honest account of direct experience that is always there, whether a thought is generated to try to point backward towards yourself, or you just let it be, not 'notice' it, ignore it, the way you are doing. The inherent self, that is the illuminator of your thoughts, sensations, ideas, etc., can not be found in the thoughts themselves, like the lamp can not be found in the thing which it reveals, the lamp is self-luminous, always there with it's all illuminating nature, but nothing illumines it. This kind of investigation may at best be used to see that the self is not the 'doer' of action. It doesn't generate or doesn't participate in an action(such as 'thought') but only reveals it. It is of the nature of all-revealing subject that reveals even the notion of 'I' but itself is not the notion of 'I', a realization that becomes clear to the still and quiet mind. This investigation in no way proves the absence of an inherent real self.
Thanks for your comment. "It is illogical to try to find the self this way"-- yes it is! It is illogical to try to point out a witness in the witnessed." Yes - This is my equivalent way of the Bahiya Sutta - 'In the seen, only the seen' . . . rather than 'in the seen, the seen and a witness' It's the same thing. Please be aware that my method for breaking the first fetter is to realise 'That the self is empty' and not that 'you are awareness/consciousness'. I think this is where the confusion lies. ""I am witnessing" is a no doubt a thought (or a sensation), but because the 'I' in the thought can not be found doesn't mean the witness is absent." Indeed, but that wasn't what I was inferring. I am guiding to show that an inherently existing seperate self cannot be found witnessing. "The witness that witnesses the contents of the thought, is the very witness that witnesses the sensation of 'I', it is not the thought, nor the the 'I' ." This is acceptable in a Direct Path approach (and I agree with you) and other paths that assume a universal consciousness or awareness . . . but this is not acceptable in the Emptiness teachings which is what I am describing, since you are referring to something that is not empty . . . and all things are empty. "This investigation in no way proves the absence of an inherent real self." With respect, the difference is here is between finding and inferring. If you look carefully and consider what you are writing, you are inferring a witness in your commentary.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 "Please be aware that my method for breaking the first fetter is to realise 'That the self is empty' and not that 'you are awareness/consciousness'. I think this is where the confusion lies." I understand, but my point is why is the possibility of the Witness-Conciousness being the self is ignored to prove that the 'self is empty'. Why is the witness not being accounted for just to stick with a certain conclusion. Is this a limitation/narrowness of this particular investigation/approach? " . . . but this is not acceptable in the Emptiness teachings which is what I am describing, since you are referring to something that is not empty . . . and all things are empty." The reason behind it being not acceptable is what I was searching for before I bumped into your channel. Is it only because of the assumption that all things are empty, or there are theories to show this? If there are theories, then in my opinion would they not be just be assumptions, since the witness can never be an object of experimentation. "If you look carefully and consider what you are writing, you are inferring a witness in your commentary.. . " This is not entirely true, since unlike inference here the object of inference is not something that is veiled from my knowledge, rather something that is the most known to me, and revealed in the very inference itself. In practice, it is more like a direct experience of negating whatever I thought to be myself, rather than to concieve of a witness.
@@nirjhardas7333 "I understand, but my point is why is the possibility of the Witness-Conciousness being the self is ignored to prove that the 'self is empty'." Because 'Witness-Consciousness' is empty. It prevents clinging to the belief that 'I am witness-consciousness'. You could repeat my set of examinations and look for 'witness-consciousness' being the witness, and fail to find it . . hence proving that it is empty/has no inherent existence. "Is it only because of the assumption that all things are empty, or there are theories to show this?" I have a video about emptiness if you are not certain about it. The statement 'All things are empty' can be shown to be false if something can be found that has independent/inherent existence. (That would even include Emptiness itself!) "It is more like a direct experience of negating whatever I thought to be myself, rather than to concieve of a witness." But you ARE conceiving it! :-) You are inferring the existence of something (witness-consciousness) which cannot be found! You are coming up with an idea of what is going on! And what you are! Now don't get me wrong - I'm not attacking this position or where you are coming from. There is utility in the idea that 'it's all one thing and I am that'. 'All there is, is awareness / consciousness / energy / experience' . . . but as mentioned, this is not the position being used here. I am referring to things being empty / lacking independent/inherent existence.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 "Because 'Witness-Consciousness' is empty. It prevents clinging to the belief that 'I am witness-consciousness'." Clinging to the belief "I am Witness-Conciousness" doesn't limit me, but rather just replaces my isolated thoughts with an all encompassing thought, the most basic thought, a thought that is an antidote to false identification with objects of experience. It takes the mind more subtle levels to the point it can drop itself and settle in the inexplicability of the Self. It is not like a presumption that I keep reminding myself of, but an constant active withdrawl of my identity from the objects of experience. But all these is a different topic. "... and look for 'witness-consciousness' being the witness, and fail to find it . . hence proving that it is empty/has no inherent existence." This isn't any near to convincing. I cannot locate/find the witness as 'this' but again, the witness is forever found! Me being the witness of all that appears is an effortless spontaneous intuitive experience! Self-luminous like a lamp! It is not a sensation, not any mentally verified cognition. It needs no validation. Again, how is 'failing to find' the witness as 'this'(in my thoughts) a good proof for witness to be non-inherent? Infact it is witness that gives existence to the investigation or any experience. "The statement 'All things are empty' can be shown to be false if something can be found that has independent/inherent existence." I have watched your video on emptiness. Consider this- space(akasha) is abstract, impersonal, all pervasive, much like vedantic idea of Conciousness. Would it be considered to empty of intrinsic nature/inherent existence? You could say that space is a concept that can only be appreciated in presence of two objects. But when you remove the objects, does the inherentness of space dissapear? Or all that disappears is the quality of distance that you had imposed on the existence of space, while space is independent of any such quality, and infact allows the objects to rest on it. If it is the second option, then space is not empty and it exists independent of any other existence. However, space being an element of material existence, is prone to limitations. So, I could be wrong. I just want you to consider. "You are inferring the existence of something (witness-consciousness) which cannot be found! You are coming up with an idea of what is going on! And what you are!" Like I said, me being the witness is a spontaneous intuitive experience, and though it can not be found as 'this', it is not out of my knowledge, rather, it is of the form of self-luminous knowledge! Again, it being self luminous like a lamp is not just a statement, but an intuitive effortless realization. It not an idea that I am coming up with. All that I am coming up with is the thought of negation, that all that appears to me (eg: a thought), is not me. Hope this should be clear now. I have always tried to understand why would the prasangika school lable the witness as empty. I don't get a fully convincing answer anywhere. Most of the explanations that followers give, presume certain things with no proof. May be in the end it's just another path leading to the same goal. May be that's how I should let it rest.
This very enlightening video reminds me of something Adyashanti said in one of his TH-cam videos that I share here;
"Spiritual practice at some point or another will checkmate you. What I mean by checkmate you is that there will be a point at which there is no strategy for the ego to employ. No other subtle intellectual way of being, no emotional strategy. You'll just see them all as the me trying to attain something, trying to get away from an experience, trying to hold onto something. Every move it makes is just more of the same stuff. That's a kind of checkmate."
Adyashanti Feb 26, 2020
Thank you for your comments - Yes, exactly.
I like Adyashanti - His background history (being a professional cyclist and becoming ill through his realisation etc) is fascinating.
Beautiful 🌻
Thank you 🙏🏻
Your videos have been helpful in understand many complex ideas. I have done as you suggested, and true, I find no one controlling my hands, and no one generating thoughts. Then what is doing so? Where is this coming from?
Many thanks for your comment.
There are a couple of way of addressing this.
In terms of 'thinking of what the answer might be' . . . we are looking for something seperate that is responsible for these things. We realise that the only answer comes from the mind . . . that such a solid, permanent 'self' could never be found. Therefore, perhaps what is responsible is not a seperate thing.
Or . . .
Why are you asking the question?
'Because I want to know'
Would a word or a description satisfy you?
Could the answer to your question be encompassed in this way?
If everything is in a constant state of change/flux, could you ever find a permanent solid, static 'thing' as an answer?
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Where is the mind to be found? Is this "I", this "body" part of a great source of which I am a part? (Forgive my example of the Internet, and I am one of many sites? all connected? with the illusion of being separate?) I find all this quite liberating.
@@MC-hl2ty My own opinion is that 'mind' is a label used for the continuous flow of thoughts that we have. It is not an inherent 'thing' or container, as it is usually referenced to be (as in 'It appeared IN my mind')
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 Insert favorite Hua Tou here; (mine is) "who is dragging this corpse around?"
Sorry Buddhist sympathizer, I am not sure if this investigation has anything to do with original Buddhist teachings, but this conclusion of "no inherent self" that is drawn by this experiment is just a result of a confused outwardly mind.
"It is illogical to try to find the self this way"-- yes it is! It is illogical to try to point out a witness in the witnessed.
"I am witnessing" is a no doubt a thought (or a sensation), but because the 'I' in the thought can not be found doesn't mean the witness is absent.
The witness that witnesses the contents of the thought, is the very witness that witnesses the sensation of 'I', it is not the thought, nor the the 'I' . This is not an idea, not a belief, not a concept, but honest account of direct experience that is always there, whether a thought is generated to try to point backward towards yourself, or you just let it be, not 'notice' it, ignore it, the way you are doing.
The inherent self, that is the illuminator of your thoughts, sensations, ideas, etc., can not be found in the thoughts themselves, like the lamp can not be found in the thing which it reveals, the lamp is self-luminous, always there with it's all illuminating nature, but nothing illumines it.
This kind of investigation may at best be used to see that the self is not the 'doer' of action. It doesn't generate or doesn't participate in an action(such as 'thought') but only reveals it. It is of the nature of all-revealing subject that reveals even the notion of 'I' but itself is not the notion of 'I', a realization that becomes clear to the still and quiet mind. This investigation in no way proves the absence of an inherent real self.
Thanks for your comment.
"It is illogical to try to find the self this way"-- yes it is! It is illogical to try to point out a witness in the witnessed."
Yes - This is my equivalent way of the Bahiya Sutta - 'In the seen, only the seen' . . . rather than 'in the seen, the seen and a witness'
It's the same thing.
Please be aware that my method for breaking the first fetter is to realise 'That the self is empty' and not that 'you are awareness/consciousness'.
I think this is where the confusion lies.
""I am witnessing" is a no doubt a thought (or a sensation), but because the 'I' in the thought can not be found doesn't mean the witness is absent."
Indeed, but that wasn't what I was inferring. I am guiding to show that an inherently existing seperate self cannot be found witnessing.
"The witness that witnesses the contents of the thought, is the very witness that witnesses the sensation of 'I', it is not the thought, nor the the 'I' ."
This is acceptable in a Direct Path approach (and I agree with you) and other paths that assume a universal consciousness or awareness . . . but this is not acceptable in the Emptiness teachings which is what I am describing, since you are referring to something that is not empty . . . and all things are empty.
"This investigation in no way proves the absence of an inherent real self."
With respect, the difference is here is between finding and inferring.
If you look carefully and consider what you are writing, you are inferring a witness in your commentary.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136
"Please be aware that my method for breaking the first fetter is to realise 'That the self is empty' and not that 'you are awareness/consciousness'.
I think this is where the confusion lies."
I understand, but my point is why is the possibility of the Witness-Conciousness being the self is ignored to prove that the 'self is empty'. Why is the witness not being accounted for just to stick with a certain conclusion. Is this a limitation/narrowness of this particular investigation/approach?
" . . . but this is not acceptable in the Emptiness teachings which is what I am describing, since you are referring to something that is not empty . . . and all things are empty."
The reason behind it being not acceptable is what I was searching for before I bumped into your channel. Is it only because of the assumption that all things are empty, or there are theories to show this? If there are theories, then in my opinion would they not be just be assumptions, since the witness can never be an object of experimentation.
"If you look carefully and consider what you are writing, you are inferring a witness in your commentary.. . "
This is not entirely true, since unlike inference here the object of inference is not something that is veiled from my knowledge, rather something that is the most known to me, and revealed in the very inference itself. In practice, it is more like a direct experience of negating whatever I thought to be myself, rather than to concieve of a witness.
@@nirjhardas7333 "I understand, but my point is why is the possibility of the Witness-Conciousness being the self is ignored to prove that the 'self is empty'."
Because 'Witness-Consciousness' is empty. It prevents clinging to the belief that 'I am witness-consciousness'.
You could repeat my set of examinations and look for 'witness-consciousness' being the witness, and fail to find it . . hence proving that it is empty/has no inherent existence.
"Is it only because of the assumption that all things are empty, or there are theories to show this?"
I have a video about emptiness if you are not certain about it.
The statement 'All things are empty' can be shown to be false if something can be found that has independent/inherent existence.
(That would even include Emptiness itself!)
"It is more like a direct experience of negating whatever I thought to be myself, rather than to concieve of a witness."
But you ARE conceiving it! :-)
You are inferring the existence of something (witness-consciousness) which cannot be found!
You are coming up with an idea of what is going on! And what you are!
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not attacking this position or where you are coming from. There is utility in the idea that 'it's all one thing and I am that'.
'All there is, is awareness / consciousness / energy / experience' . . . but as mentioned, this is not the position being used here.
I am referring to things being empty / lacking independent/inherent existence.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136
"Because 'Witness-Consciousness' is empty. It prevents clinging to the belief that 'I am witness-consciousness'."
Clinging to the belief "I am Witness-Conciousness" doesn't limit me, but rather just replaces my isolated thoughts with an all encompassing thought, the most basic thought, a thought that is an antidote to false identification with objects of experience. It takes the mind more subtle levels to the point it can drop itself and settle in the inexplicability of the Self.
It is not like a presumption that I keep reminding myself of, but an constant active withdrawl of my identity from the objects of experience. But all these is a different topic.
"... and look for 'witness-consciousness' being the witness, and fail to find it . . hence proving that it is empty/has no inherent existence."
This isn't any near to convincing. I cannot locate/find the witness as 'this' but again, the witness is forever found! Me being the witness of all that appears is an effortless spontaneous intuitive experience! Self-luminous like a lamp! It is not a sensation, not any mentally verified cognition. It needs no validation.
Again, how is 'failing to find' the witness as 'this'(in my thoughts) a good proof for witness to be non-inherent?
Infact it is witness that gives existence to the investigation or any experience.
"The statement 'All things are empty' can be shown to be false if something can be found that has independent/inherent existence."
I have watched your video on emptiness.
Consider this- space(akasha) is abstract, impersonal, all pervasive, much like vedantic idea of Conciousness. Would it be considered to empty of intrinsic nature/inherent existence?
You could say that space is a concept that can only be appreciated in presence of two objects. But when you remove the objects, does the inherentness of space dissapear? Or all that disappears is the quality of distance that you had imposed on the existence of space, while space is independent of any such quality, and infact allows the objects to rest on it.
If it is the second option, then space is not empty and it exists independent of any other existence.
However, space being an element of material existence, is prone to limitations. So, I could be wrong. I just want you to consider.
"You are inferring the existence of something (witness-consciousness) which cannot be found!
You are coming up with an idea of what is going on! And what you are!"
Like I said, me being the witness is a spontaneous intuitive experience, and though it can not be found as 'this', it is not out of my knowledge, rather, it is of the form of self-luminous knowledge!
Again, it being self luminous like a lamp is not just a statement, but an intuitive effortless realization. It not an idea that I am coming up with.
All that I am coming up with is the thought of negation, that all that appears to me (eg: a thought), is not me.
Hope this should be clear now.
I have always tried to understand why would the prasangika school lable the witness as empty. I don't get a fully convincing answer anywhere. Most of the explanations that followers give, presume certain things with no proof.
May be in the end it's just another path leading to the same goal. May be that's how I should let it rest.
@@nirjhardas7333 It's cool - Thank you for your comments and the chat.
I wish you all the best ♥