Your question:
I want to include a more visceral, experiential approach. In the latter paragraphs, you move a lot into desire, grasping, wanting. And while that may be a cause of "self," I want to put more emphasis on "Who am I?" when the grasping falls away! Am I Buddha nature? Am I pure consciousness? Am I emptiness? Am I nothingness? Am I One?
My answer:
Since you have brought up the ideas of Buddha nature, Pure Consciousness, Emptiness, Nothingness, and Oneness, I will defer to my blog on these issues specifically. As to this particular question I offer the following opinion.
In the previous post, I made the following statement: this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment. Therefore, regardless of what one names it, the "I" which has shed grasping and aversion will remain as the on-going flow of experience for each individual. Personally I believe that is an adequate understanding of Buddha-dharma, and the other terms.
Buddha means "awakened one." Awakened to what? Well, awakened to what his teachings point to.....the result of following his path. Call it enlightenment, transcendence, release, or Oneness, etc. I think it is synonymous with the emptiness that is, in each moment, filled with the process of unending contingent-arising which would be understood as nothingness if it were to be apprehended by human thought. It is the vast primordial unfolding of consciousness as well.
What we have to remember is that all these terms are just metaphoric fingers that point to an unknowable moon. When we try to use words, which by their very function narrow our vision and focus, in order to understand the unknowable we actually move further away from correctly understanding.......an understanding that surpasses words.
I read a paper by a young girl (Blair Felder) the other day in which she made these observations. We need to "perceive conventional reality with objective observation laced with awe." I think this speaks to the need to "know the self in order to transcend the self" as Dogen taught. This requires us to find Nirvana, enlightenment, etc. right here - that what is pointed to by these terms is here and now - not somewhere else in another time. She also wrote that if one can, "exhaust the meanings of conceptualization by being contemplative and skeptical of conceptual meaning, one can reawaken to the state of emptiness." That state of emptiness is "I" sans conceptualization, grasping, and aversion.
I hope this leads to further exploration.
March 13, 2011
March 11, 2011
Thoughts on the Identity of Bob
Generally, I think we can agree that the entity we refer to when we say "self" is this mind/body aggregate that we see when we look in the mirror. Other terms I might use to identify Bob's attitudes, experience, or spatial identity of this self are Bob, ego, angry, old, loquacious, yada, yada, yada.
The human brain functions as a dualistically oriented, interpretive hub for sense data. It is also houses the operation responsible for language, and the result is the sense that this self, or this "Bob-thing," is a fixed entity which becomes reified in the mind and thus, appears to be the essence of who we are. Albeit, we might find ourselves unsure from time to time whether this is actually the way it is, but the drive to exist, to be something eternal, is a powerful human motive, and leads us back to the comforting belief that the "self" - as a core essential something - is real. It is hard to imagine, let alone argue with, some other interpretation. I'm suggesting that this is an inherent component of human consciousness and is part of human DNA.
Stephen Batchelor has said that the teachings of the Buddha are about becoming awakened to a new way to live in this world. That they embody, not just a spiritual realization, but they direct us to recognize the "self" as nothing other than that with which we identify. Rather than a concrete, essential something, he says that we are "a project to be realized." This resonates as true for me, and I hope to express why it does so in the following excerpt from my blog entry on September 5, 2010 titled The Illusion of Me. I have made some minor tweaks to the original in hopes of making it more reader friendly. Then again, we'll see.
.......What I want to talk about here is the fact that when I refer to a "part of me" it implies that this me to which I claim ownership, is able to shapeshift or in some other way separate into a second....what shall we say...."alternate me?" Like that entity we hear referred to as an alter-ego perhaps. Philosophically interesting - maybe; and while helpful in describing my experience, it may not be at all helpful in understanding the notions of impermanence and no-self in Buddhist teachings. Each of us must judge for ourselves in these matters.
So now more to the point. Ego is a term that designates an "enduring and conscious element that knows experience," (Philosophical definition based on Random House Dictionary 2010). This definition, along with the term "know," leads us to imagine an enduring and conscious "self" which is refuted in the Buddhist teaching of Anatta (No-self).
Robert Kennedy says, in his book Zen Gifts to Christians, “The self is the sum of its functions in the present moment.” When I imagine a function as an experience, it allows me to understand the essence of ego or self, not as a single entity but rather, as a verb. A verb which denotes a mental construct/process (perhaps we might read as "illusion") manifested in physical behavior and commonly referred to as an act of grasping, wanting, desiring, or evading. In this way it becomes quite easy, in light of dependent-arising, to understand ego as an action arising out of attraction or aversion which arises out of sensory contact. Think about it - the brain, working within its biologically determined functions, responds to sensory contact; from these sensation "wanting" arises, and the result is dissatisfaction or suffering. Why? Because in an ever-changing world we are unable to find lasting satisfaction, or permanently avoid being dissatisfied.
It stands to reason then, if we stop wanting - being attached, and grasping after things - the ego or “I” will no longer arise. In the absence of wanting, this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment. The Buddha told us that life is suffering because of this grasping; our tendency to strive for more and more and never be satisfied. We find ourselves dissatisfied with life; we suffer from want. We tend toward becoming covetous of that which we don't have, neurotically attached to what we do, and in fear of losing it once obtained. Ego, desire, suffer; they are one and the same. We get off track when we think that ego is an actual entity that somehow this sufferer is assaulted by it's suffering from the outside.
To be free from want we must disentangle the threads of "I" in the tapestry of self arising from the world of form that plays behind our eyes.
I would like to address one more question that comes to mind; "So what?" In the piece above there this sentence - "In the absence of wanting, this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment." Even if it happens to be true that understanding the notion of self in the manner described above, assists us in becoming free of wanting, why should we care? Why should we aspire to be free of want?
To "want" is, by definition, to be focusing on something we do not have. If I look longingly at something, figuratively or materially, I am not in the present. I am not connected to the present moment. The more I want the object of my longing, the more I become obsessed with having it. From this obesessiveness arises a further distancing from my actual life. My mental energy becomes increasing caught up in fantasy. The more I become attached to this object of desire, the greater my dissatisfaction with "what is." In addition, the more the notion of "I" will become reinforced as a real entity that is continually assaulted by the whims of an uncertain, bewildering world. Life becomes some variation on the mantra, "It's me against the world." Suffering for the human animal is a disconnection with our true nature; a fluid, interconnected Self. (See the blog entry titled Self or Real Self, in November 2009)
On the other hand, when I can see Bob as a "project" that unfolds from moment to moment it becomes easier to recognize that "I" am what I think. "I am" the ever-changing flow of life - existence. I change each second as part of the interconnected web of arising and passing which is life itself. There is no Bob in the usual sense. There is only the flow of sensory processes, and neither these nor anything else is permanent. There is nothing to cling to, nothing to covet. Bob is the ephemeral changing of a plethora of objects arising out of sensory contact and human ideation. Dissatisfaction is transcended in each moment of this experiential realization. As fleeting as it may be, I find it worth the time and energy to work for it.
The human brain functions as a dualistically oriented, interpretive hub for sense data. It is also houses the operation responsible for language, and the result is the sense that this self, or this "Bob-thing," is a fixed entity which becomes reified in the mind and thus, appears to be the essence of who we are. Albeit, we might find ourselves unsure from time to time whether this is actually the way it is, but the drive to exist, to be something eternal, is a powerful human motive, and leads us back to the comforting belief that the "self" - as a core essential something - is real. It is hard to imagine, let alone argue with, some other interpretation. I'm suggesting that this is an inherent component of human consciousness and is part of human DNA.
Stephen Batchelor has said that the teachings of the Buddha are about becoming awakened to a new way to live in this world. That they embody, not just a spiritual realization, but they direct us to recognize the "self" as nothing other than that with which we identify. Rather than a concrete, essential something, he says that we are "a project to be realized." This resonates as true for me, and I hope to express why it does so in the following excerpt from my blog entry on September 5, 2010 titled The Illusion of Me. I have made some minor tweaks to the original in hopes of making it more reader friendly. Then again, we'll see.
.......What I want to talk about here is the fact that when I refer to a "part of me" it implies that this me to which I claim ownership, is able to shapeshift or in some other way separate into a second....what shall we say...."alternate me?" Like that entity we hear referred to as an alter-ego perhaps. Philosophically interesting - maybe; and while helpful in describing my experience, it may not be at all helpful in understanding the notions of impermanence and no-self in Buddhist teachings. Each of us must judge for ourselves in these matters.
So now more to the point. Ego is a term that designates an "enduring and conscious element that knows experience," (Philosophical definition based on Random House Dictionary 2010). This definition, along with the term "know," leads us to imagine an enduring and conscious "self" which is refuted in the Buddhist teaching of Anatta (No-self).
Robert Kennedy says, in his book Zen Gifts to Christians, “The self is the sum of its functions in the present moment.” When I imagine a function as an experience, it allows me to understand the essence of ego or self, not as a single entity but rather, as a verb. A verb which denotes a mental construct/process (perhaps we might read as "illusion") manifested in physical behavior and commonly referred to as an act of grasping, wanting, desiring, or evading. In this way it becomes quite easy, in light of dependent-arising, to understand ego as an action arising out of attraction or aversion which arises out of sensory contact. Think about it - the brain, working within its biologically determined functions, responds to sensory contact; from these sensation "wanting" arises, and the result is dissatisfaction or suffering. Why? Because in an ever-changing world we are unable to find lasting satisfaction, or permanently avoid being dissatisfied.
It stands to reason then, if we stop wanting - being attached, and grasping after things - the ego or “I” will no longer arise. In the absence of wanting, this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment. The Buddha told us that life is suffering because of this grasping; our tendency to strive for more and more and never be satisfied. We find ourselves dissatisfied with life; we suffer from want. We tend toward becoming covetous of that which we don't have, neurotically attached to what we do, and in fear of losing it once obtained. Ego, desire, suffer; they are one and the same. We get off track when we think that ego is an actual entity that somehow this sufferer is assaulted by it's suffering from the outside.
To be free from want we must disentangle the threads of "I" in the tapestry of self arising from the world of form that plays behind our eyes.
I would like to address one more question that comes to mind; "So what?" In the piece above there this sentence - "In the absence of wanting, this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment." Even if it happens to be true that understanding the notion of self in the manner described above, assists us in becoming free of wanting, why should we care? Why should we aspire to be free of want?
To "want" is, by definition, to be focusing on something we do not have. If I look longingly at something, figuratively or materially, I am not in the present. I am not connected to the present moment. The more I want the object of my longing, the more I become obsessed with having it. From this obesessiveness arises a further distancing from my actual life. My mental energy becomes increasing caught up in fantasy. The more I become attached to this object of desire, the greater my dissatisfaction with "what is." In addition, the more the notion of "I" will become reinforced as a real entity that is continually assaulted by the whims of an uncertain, bewildering world. Life becomes some variation on the mantra, "It's me against the world." Suffering for the human animal is a disconnection with our true nature; a fluid, interconnected Self. (See the blog entry titled Self or Real Self, in November 2009)
On the other hand, when I can see Bob as a "project" that unfolds from moment to moment it becomes easier to recognize that "I" am what I think. "I am" the ever-changing flow of life - existence. I change each second as part of the interconnected web of arising and passing which is life itself. There is no Bob in the usual sense. There is only the flow of sensory processes, and neither these nor anything else is permanent. There is nothing to cling to, nothing to covet. Bob is the ephemeral changing of a plethora of objects arising out of sensory contact and human ideation. Dissatisfaction is transcended in each moment of this experiential realization. As fleeting as it may be, I find it worth the time and energy to work for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
