r/streamentry • u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare • May 15 '21
Practice The SEVENFOLD REASONING - Proving "Self" Impossible: [Practice] Guide
“[Wheels, axle, carriage, shaft, and yoke.]
A chariot is not (1) the same as its parts, nor (2) other than.
It is not (3) in the parts, nor are (4) the parts in it.
It does not (5) possess them,
nor is it (6) their collection, nor their (7) shape.”
—Chandrakirti
The Sevenfold Reasoning is an analytical meditation from the Mahayana tradition. With a thorough examination of the perception of "self", and its relationship with its constituent phenomena (the 5 aggregates), it is proven to be empty of inherent existence, and utterly groundless.
I created this guide on how to practice this as a meditation, by compiling quotes from Rob Burbea, and other sources, sprinkled with my sparse commentary, organized as a concise/precise step-by-step guide.
*See the PDF Practice Guide down below in comments\*
My own experience with this practice is that it helped bridge a gap between the ego-dissolution experiences I've had, and the rational skeptic part of my mind which still "didn't buy it". By engaging this rational part, rather than dismissing it, bringing its conceptual abilities to bear in a phenomenological context, lead to a unification of both rational and a-rational parts of mind. The result was a fading of self on-cushion, a "vacuity" as Burbea calls it, which eventually became more accessible outside of this specific practice. (Of course, I still have much work to do though).
As a comparison, whereas a practice like self-inquiry searches for the self, and through exhaustion, surrenders the search in futility, the Sevenfold Reasoning systematically rules out every conceivable way the self could exist, conclusively showing it cannot be found anywhere (and not just that one hasn't looked hard enough), and the thoroughness of conviction leads to a letting go.
If you have any interest in this practice, I hope this guide can be helpful for getting started.
(Was inspired to post this by u/just-five-skandhas' post)
*See the PDF Practice Guide down below in comments\*
Couldn't put link in OP without it getting marked as spam, strangely
13
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 15 '21 edited Jun 06 '22
Sevenfold Reasoning: Practice Guide (PDF)
BTW this is an updated version, for those who've seen the first post. If link is down, PM me.
9
u/Ereignis23 May 15 '21
By engaging this rational part, rather than dismissing it, bringing its conceptual abilities to bear in a phenomenological context, lead to a unification of both rational and a-rational parts of mind
This is a really important point. It seems like often in popular Buddhism there's an anti intellectual tendency on one hand or an armchair intellectualism on the other, but what's really called for is that clear thinking in a phenomenological context, ie, non speculative thinking aimed at understanding experience here and now.
It's really interesting in the context of the first jhana including 'applied and sustained thought', which Nyanamoli Thero from hillside hermitage translates as 'thinking and pondering'. As you say, 'unification' of intellect with the whole context of lived experience is the result of proper phenomenological reflection. Samadhi.
2
u/no_thingness May 16 '21
but what's really called for is that clear thinking in a phenomenological context, ie, non speculative thinking aimed at understanding experience here and now.
Perfectly agree, I see thinking either indulged in or almost put aside - some traditions even tell you that the goal is to stop thinking.
It's really interesting in the context of the first jhana including 'applied and sustained thought', which Nyanamoli Thero from hillside hermitage translates as 'thinking and pondering'
There are others who translate these in a similar way (thinking and evaluating), But as Leigh B. mentions correctly, the words are written together in a compound - vitakkavicara.
Both vitakka and vicara mean just thinking, considering, examining (and are generally used to indicate discursive thought) - there is no real difference seen between them in the early texts. Here, being compounded together might be just for an emphatic reason (i.e. "with thinking, and more thinking", or considering something at lenght).
People translate them as applied and sustained thought just because that's how the commentaries say they should be interpreted here. There is no grammatical or lexical justification for this. This reinterpretation is required to justify the meditation framework that they were using at the time, otherwise, it would be contradicted by the suttas.
1
u/Ereignis23 May 16 '21
Both vitakka and vicara mean just thinking, considering, examining (and are generally used to indicate discursive thought) - there is no real difference seen between them in the early texts. Here, being compounded together might be just for an emphatic reason
Fascinating! So it's really the straightforward meaning of first jhana that it includes thinking, simply put. Does Leigh B say this?
I've never investigated the jhanas intensely, either theoretically or in practice. So I'm only vaguely familiar with him as someone who has a reputation for teaching them in a fairly 'hardcore' way.
1
u/no_thingness May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
Yes, he does:
http://www.leighb.com/jhana_4factors.htm
This is also discussed quite well here in the draft book from Kumara Bhikkhu:
Other people that consider that it refers just to regular thinking (that came to mind):
Thanissaro (though he says it has to be restrained skillful thinking)
Dhammarato (found in the teachers section on this sub)
Probably most people that learned them from Leigh (which includes a lot of western lay teachers)
6
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 15 '21 edited May 15 '21
I wanted to address a practical point, jumping off of something u/no_thingness said in the other thread, in response to u/just-five-skhandas (and side-stepping the surrounding debate there...):
The exact demarcations of the "chariot" designation/concept are of course arbitrary in the objective sense, but they are not arbitrary "for me" - I cannot call it a chariot any longer after I am no longer able to relate to it in that manner. It is a structural-functional arrangement, but it's just that it's a private one, you can't define it exactly in a public, objective way (though we do have loose consensus on this). Referring to my previous point, when "chariotness" manifests "for me", though an arbitrary designation, it is still a real manifestation that has significance.
In the practice, one would "Target" the direct immediate perception of, say, a chair, and connect to the felt sense of its inherent existence.
Then, in the "Search" step, there are two general approaches: refute it, or disqualify it.
What's being refuted is the conception of the chair's inherent existence, not the perception of chair as it is currently manifesting. For this example, the conception is the chair as a "structural-functional arrangement", which would fall under the 7th relationship (shape).
However, if the conception does NOT correspond to the perception, then it would be disqualified, as "not the object of negation", thus irrelevant for the practice. Indeed, we're not interested in debating pure abstractions; nor denying useful conventional designations; nor denying our immediate experience; but rather scrutinizing the conceptions (of inherent existence) underlying our immediate perceptions.
Why would it be helpful to even address conceptions at all? Because perspective frames perception; aka. conception constructs compounded things (out of constituent parts); aka. the "way it looks" depends on the "way of looking" at it. Change the conception, and the perception follows.
So no_thingness has a point, this practice is not meant to deny the significance or meaning of any thing (i.e. nihilism); the "What is the NOT the Target" section will hopefully clarify this subtle point.
3
u/ReferenceEntity May 15 '21
Thank you for putting this together. I have been on the lookout for other resources on this practice because the STF treatment was not quite enough for me and I haven’t been able to find a guided meditation on this. I might use this PDF as the basis to record a guided meditation for myself. Thank you.
3
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 15 '21
I have been on the lookout for other resources on this practice
me too! that's why I decided to put this together! once I had the basic structure down, it was easy to just pigeonhole every good quote i came across into the right spot.
and if you do end up making a guided meditation, and don't mind sharing it, I'd love to hear it!
3
u/ReferenceEntity May 19 '21
So I did make a guided meditation using this. It is available here: https://soundcloud.com/user-866371394/analytical-meditation-on-the
Full disclaimers apply. I'm not a voice actor, I have never previously used voice recording software and there are a bunch of recording imperfections. There were also some sections where I deviated from the script perhaps not in such a persuasive way. I think it came out ok enough for me to use as a meditation tool although funnily enough I'm super self-conscious while listening to it so it may just be effective at evoking my self-sense.
If anyone does listen to it beware at the end of the audio if listening on soundcloud it immediately transitions into some other random song which I found rather jarring as I was enjoying the emptiness.
1
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 19 '21
That is so rad! Thanks for making this!
Even if it's not "perfect", it seems like a friendlier introduction to the practice, and to familiarize with its structure, than Rob's recordings (he tried to stuff too much in at once).
Also, the song that followed, omg, that had me rolling in laughter.
3
u/aspirant4 May 15 '21
Firstly, thank you. This sort of thing is why this subreddit is amazing.
Secondly, on self inquiry, is it really about asking a question that ends up in futility? I thought the point was to find the Self, the Big Mind, awareness, etc.
Lastly, what would the 7fold reasoning say about my direct experience? -
I'm a knowing void that seems to be "followed around" by the perceptions and sensations of a body. This cloud of tingles, vibrations and images can't inherently be me, being known and impermanent, yet it is always present in some form.
1
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
You're welcome :)
on self inquiry
I'm no authority on self-inquiry, so I dunno, haha xD I was just trying to frame what the "flavor" of this practice is like with a contrasting example.
I'm a knowing void . . .
This could be approached in a few ways, based on how I understood your words.
This could correspond to (1) a self which is identical with the aggregate of consciousness, (2) a self which is other than the aggregates, (5) a perception which perceives itself, . . .
it is always present in some form
I wasn't sure if "it" is referring to "this cloud of tingles, vibrations, and images", or to "knowing void", or both? If the former, this could correspond to (7) temporal continuum of the aggregates in time. If the latter, perhaps some of the refutations in (2).
For (1), identity with consciousness, it is generally axiomatic, in Buddhist thought, that consciousness is momentary/impermanent, and arises/ceases paired with an object known (rather than standing alone). It could be said to depend on the body (i.e. sleeping = unconscious), or is considered a verb rather than noun: knowing of this object, knowing of that object, etc.
If you're referring to Awareness, then Burbea offers some inquiries in some of his talks on Awareness (which I didn't include in this particular guide, but, since you're free to make this practice your own, anything goes, so those approaches could be included too).
1
2
May 15 '21
This looks really interesting, thank you. For certain, there is a middle-way of perception between the two “minds”. A balanced position that protects innocence on the one end, and keeps one awake while dreaming creatively on the other.
2
u/Magg0tBrainz May 15 '21
I've not really read a good explaining for the sevenfold reasoning claims, so I'm lacking some understanding. Why is the chariot not the collection of its parts? Why is the chariot not the shape/function of its parts? (etc for all of the claims).
5
May 15 '21
Anything that's a collection of parts or an emergence from a structural-functional organization won't be inherently existing, because the thing will be conditioned on the structural-functional-organization and the constituent parts. If you assume a substantial entity in there, you get to paradoxes like Theseus' ship and so on.
5
u/king_nine Eclectic Buddhism | Magick May 15 '21
Why is the chariot not the collection of its parts?
Because a jumbled pile of wood planks, wheels, axles, etc. is not a chariot.
Why is the chariot not the shape/function of its parts?
Because many different shapes/arrangements of objects can be recognized as the same chariot: for example, imagine owning a car and changing the tires. One would say, "I changed the tires on my [same] car," not "I have a new car; the tires are different!"
Ultimately the idea here is that there is no property inside of anything that defines its identity in isolation. Nothing inside the chariot screams "I am a chariot!" Rather, it is the observing mind that gives things identities by naming what it perceives about them. This is true for a chariot, and true for oneself.
4
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 15 '21 edited May 15 '21
Ah, good ol' Theseus' Ship
EDIT: then I saw Nameless' comment :p
2
u/Menaus42 May 15 '21
Because many different shapes/arrangements of objects can be recognized as the same chariot: for example, imagine owning a car and changing the tires. One would say, "I changed the tires on my [same] car," not "I have a new car; the tires are different!"
I don't quite follow. If a chariot were the function of its parts, then as long as a part served it's function, the chariot would remain. Thus, a new wheel would not make a new chariot exactly because the new wheel serves the same function as the old. In my understanding, the structure/function perspective remains in tact. What have I missed?
3
u/king_nine Eclectic Buddhism | Magick May 15 '21
I was responding to the "shape/structure" part of this list of 7, which doesn't include function. A new wheel would change the shape/composition of the chariot, but we would not say it is a new chariot based on that.
We can address function with a different argument from Nagarjuna, though, which is: function is not held inside of the chariot in isolation, either - the function of the wheels is dependent on how they interact with the road, space, and time to produce movement. So it is not actually an independent property of an isolated object, but an interaction between things; therefore, it does not imply an independent self.
In fact, it points directly to the alternative: a deeply interconnected, inseparable network of causes and effects without hard binary boundaries.
2
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 15 '21
So far, I have encountered three approaches to the "function" question:
(1) A thing's functioning is not the "object to be negated", the functioning thing is.
(2) When functioning is understood to be totally interdependent, that argues against the thing existing independently as if exuding "its own functionality", by its own merit or essence. (So basically what you said)
(3) Function is a mental imputation. See quote from a student of DKR [DK, 290]:
. . . when you go into the room and the rope is there and you think it is a snake, you think it is a snake because you already know what snakes are, you have some kind of predisposition. But imagine a little baby who had never heard about snakes, and didn’t know what a snake was; when he saw the rope, he would not be afraid. . . . he would not see it as a snake. This demonstrates that the imputation made about the thing is not necessarily connected with the thing itself. So in the case of the car, you may have the functioning car, but if you then say this is ‘car’, ‘my car’, and so on, you are taking something to the situation yourself. It is not coming from the car. We can see this in the way that people have very different attitudes to cars. For example, a little old lady or old man may have absolutely no idea about how a car works, and for them, the way it works is as wonderful as any fairy story. But a garage mechanic would have a completely different idea about his car.
and, something I thought of (for once, lol):
(4) Function is impermanent / non-essential.
If a "dancer" is sitting, are they really a dancer? Or are they a sitter? If I get up and walk, have I now become a different self, a walking self? Also, I am breathing, a different function from walking, so am I two selves: a walker and a breather?
Also, is someone with a physical or mental disability less of a person, because they have less functioning? If I go to sleep, since I'm not performing any function, do I stop being a person?
Maybe I could have included a section for function? shrugs
1
u/Magg0tBrainz May 15 '21
Because many different shapes/arrangements of objects can be recognized as the same chariot: for example, imagine owning a car and changing the tires. One would say, "I changed the tires on my [same] car," not "I have a new car; the tires are different!"
Isn't the pattern still there though? The structure/function hasn't changed.
Ultimately the idea here is that there is no property inside of anything that defines its identity in isolation. Nothing inside the chariot screams "I am a chariot!" Rather, it is the observing mind that gives things identities by naming what it perceives about them. This is true for a chariot, and true for oneself.
This makes sense. I feel the need to say it still exists, but obviously not too sure exactly what that means. It has some existance, even if its 'chariotness' is conceptual/mutually agreed upon/constructed. It's pretty robust, as far as things 'existing' goes.
2
u/king_nine Eclectic Buddhism | Magick May 15 '21
This makes sense. I feel the need to say it still exists, but obviously not too sure exactly what that means. It has some existance, even if its 'chariotness' is conceptual/mutually agreed upon/constructed.
Sure. This is why it's important to do what the Tibetans call "identifying the object of negation," which is to clarify at the beginning what it is, exactly, you are refuting. This reasoning is not trying to prove that the object doesn't exist (as if it's an illusion), or that the concept of "chariot" is totally incoherent and meaningless. Rather, it is trying to prove that there is a certain kind of identity that we tend to assume things have - an inherent identity of what a thing is "in itself" - which nothing actually has, not even us. A fundamental, independent chariot-identity does not exist.
The appearance of the thing, and the function of the thing, can go on pretty much as before. It's just that before, there was a tendency to treat that appearance and function like something more than it is, in a way that gets us confused and hurt; but when we see through that, we don't have to be as confused or hurt.
For example, trying to decide whether we are "fundamentally good" or "fundamentally bad" as though it is a fixed quality we bear inside of us would be very stressful. By comparison, recognizing that good and bad are contingent descriptions of our always-improvable, constantly-unfolding interactions with everything is much more workable. We don't need to go "oh well good and bad don't exist at all in any way," that would be too extreme. It's just that they don't have any kind of fundamental, fixed existence inside of things. They are contingent.
The PDF covers this under the section "What is NOT the Target."
1
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 15 '21 edited May 15 '21
It's not that things don't exist at all, nor is it denied that appearances appear to function according to patterns; what is refuted is "inherent" existence.
One way of framing Emptiness comes from dependentorigination.org: "Everything Leans". Picture two sheaves of reeds propping each other up; remove one, and the other falls. In other words: Nothing Stands Alone, By Its Own Support, Everything Leans on Everything Else.
EDIT: not gonna lie, u/king_nine puts it much better than me
2
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 15 '21
Those are probably the two most challenging ones.
It's easier to reason about the collection, once one understands the first reasoning (sameness). And similarly, for shape, first reason about the collection.
But have you looked at the linked pdf?
1
u/no_thingness May 16 '21
Link to my comment on a parallel thread, going into detail about this:
The reasoning is somewhat faulty (it only works with some contrived assumptions), but it might be useful for people to undermine their sense of reality being made of objects, or objects being inherent to reality).
2
2
u/adawake May 16 '21
Thanks for putting the work into this guide, outlines it clearly for beginners. I've been working on-off with this practice for the last year; the main sticking point for me is the aggregate of perception. I can accept that a percept is not the same as the self but the feeling or idea of a perceiver (or witness, observer etc.) receiving these perceptions, and that perceiver not being the same as the self, is harder for me to grapple with. Is this specific point something you reasoned through...any tips?
1
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
Does this self-sense seem to have a location, or vantage point from which it observes phenomena? Maybe like in the head? In some Western philosophical traditions, that would be called "the homunculus".
You could try questioning "Is that me?" Am I some point in the head? Is that the sum total of what I am? A point?
Or you could try questioning what is its nature, is it a perception itself? What's knowing this perception?
Or examine the link between perceiver and percept; there is this perceiver over here, which is separate and distant from that percept over there: how exactly does the former perceive the latter? Is there really a distance between the two distinct entities?
etc.
But, if you're not referring to "the homunculus", but rather, a disembodied consciousness, then it might be trickier. Or easier, depending. Because then it won't have a location. So it cannot be located or found. Then how do you know it's there? Are you just assuming it is?
Just some ideas.
2
u/kohossle May 17 '21
So it's like that point in the head is like a bundle of sensations. A bundle of sensations is just awareness of it. We are awareness. Awareness can focus on any point. The I is awareness and so is everything else, such as the concepts of the people you imagine to be a separate self.
2
u/adawake May 17 '21
It's actually a bit of all of these! The location in the head and it being like the homunculus is what it feels like, but the perceivers nature also feels like a consciousness that hangs around in the head area, but isn't completely embodied. I'll try your suggestions, and thank you for taking the time to respond.
1
u/no_thingness May 16 '21
the Sevenfold Reasoning systematically rules out every conceivable way the self could exist, conclusively showing it cannot be found anywhere (and not just that one hasn't looked hard enough)
The wife of a customs officer is cheating on him. When the officer returns home suddenly, the lover hides in the dresser. Suspecting something, the officer starts searching the house, while the wife waits anxiously.
He looks under the bed - "nobody here", he looks behind the couch - "nobody here".
He looks behind the curtains - "nobody here", he looks behind the door - nobody here".
Finally, he starts opening the door to the dresser, and before he completes the action, a hand comes out holding a hundred dollar bill. A bit surprised, he grabs the bill and closes the door.
"Hmm, I guess he's not here either"
--------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the joke aside, one can't be sure that the reasoning rules out every possible way in which self can be found. It just eliminates the ways which occurred to the person that came up with it. The argument also starts with some assumptions of what reality is.
One might be able to find another possibility within these assumptions, or reject the assumptions altogether and propose their own - which would allow for the existence of self.
For example, the view that I am the body (in a material world "outside") that generates this personal experience or a soul that it is happening to cannot be countered with the 7fold reasoning. One can only use it if they first accept that conceiving something outside of this experience is not workable (which I propose is the core problem).
I will also shortly mention the fact that the intention was to not find any self from the get-go (making the search rather insincere).
As a side note, the Pali suttas say that if one understands paticca samuppada, "there is self", "there is no self", "the world exists", or "the world does not exist" do not occur to him.
The core problem I see is conceiving anything from or apart from this experience (this automatically stands as a self-view). The problem then is not that things have inherent existence or not, but that any appearance (phenomenon) stands as pointing to something other than what it is (something somehow "outside").
1
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
one can't be sure that the reasoning rules out every possible way in which self can be found. It just eliminates the ways which occurred to the person that came up with it.
Correct. The meditator must reach their own conviction, and not take it on faith, by say, reading a sutta or a vedic scripture that states plainly how it all is. "Every possible way" is referring to the fact that the 7 categories, in theory, cover all possibilities logically; but in practice, yes, your point stands.
One might be able to find another possibility within these assumptions, or reject the assumptions altogether and propose their own - which would allow for the existence of self.
Technically, there are no assumptions attached to the sevenfold reasoning practice. Particular reasonings offered by this or that teacher, and yes, by Chandrakirti himself, involve assumptions, but they are all optional, as stated in this guide.
As Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche says: "The Prasangikas will only speak language that is used by their opponents, as is their usual way." Sometimes the "Prasangika" will even contradict themselves in two places! But that is because they only care to refute each particular opponent on their own terms, picking up this or that assumption, as necessary, but attached to none of them. Language is a tool, applied here with a specific purpose.
There's also the case that this practice simply has no value if one isn't interested in making it work, as a dharma practice with a specific goal... which leads to your next point:
I will also shortly mention the fact that the intention was to not find any self from the get-go (making the search rather insincere).
Yes, that intention is there, but you can't fool your rational mind with faith-based arguments. If you ain't convinced, you ain't convinced. No philosopher has ever written a valid proof, without having a bias, and that's not a problem. That's why "doubt" is built right into the practice as a guiding compass (in the way I framed it).
That's why this is a "practice" rather than a "debate". You'll never be convinced by another person, you can only convince yourself.
The core problem I see is conceiving anything from or apart from this experience (this automatically stands as a self-view).
Yes, those two cases (from and apart) correspond to the first and second reasonings.
The problem then is not that things have inherent existence or not, but that any appearance (phenomenon) stands as pointing to something other than what it is (something somehow "outside").
I think we are in complete agreement here, and this is actually one way of framing "inherent existence" anyway. (Perhaps my guide doesn't make that clear enough? But I didn't want to include a treatise on the definition of "inherent existence" in the guide).
1
u/no_thingness May 16 '21
Technically, there are no assumptions attached to the sevenfold reasoning practice
The way I see it is that it tacitly relies on the assumption that you can only properly look for self in this experience, and that you have to refrain from proposing something outside this experience.
If I hold that what we experience are appearances, and there is a "real" world underneath, I can propose that self is not found in this experience because it is in the underlying reality that causes this experience.
This way I can say that the self is the body made of matter (in a scientific materialist paradigm), or a soul in an energy realm, or a point of pure consciousness outside the aggregates, or mystical "awareness" container that holds these experiences.
I think we are in complete agreement here, and this is actually one way of framing "inherent existence" anyway.
Yes, I'm attempting to present what I think is the core issue in a more precise manner. To me, the 7thfold reasoning seems a bit of a contrived way of addressing this, and sometimes being used to justify problematic views (it's all illusion, nothing exists, nibanna is samsara, etc...) As long as these are avoided, I wouldn't have any grievance towards this.
2
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
you have to refrain from proposing something outside this experience
Technically, you don't have to refrain, you absolutely should bring your views to this practice. You just have to be okay with them getting shredded. Honestly, a comical way of framing this practice is basically a "yo momma" rap battle against your self-views.
I can propose that self is not found in this experience because it is in the underlying reality that causes this experience.
These kinds of "realist" views are not an issue.
In the practice, I made sure to make this initial step clear and explicit: Target. One considers an immediate perception or thing in experience, and is connected to how it feels "real" in a substantial, solid, independent, continuous, and/or separate way. Because we don't care about pure abstractions, we care about our experience.
If one brings curiosity and intrigue into this very sense of the "thing", and examines it, these realist views will actually bite one in the ass. Because if "the thing" is really "out there", removed from experience, then what on Earth is this thing "here"? It would have nothing to do with "the real thing which is somewhere else".
Of course, the meditator will need to explore this for themselves (hey, I have a section for that too), and simply reading someone else's text might not be sufficient.
the 7thfold reasoning seems a bit of a contrived way of addressing this
It's meant to be systematic and thorough, so its structure may seem contrived; especially compared to many "simpler" meditation practices, this one is quite "involved", that's for sure.
it's all illusion, nothing exists, nibanna is samsara, etc...
Well, if you know Burbea, he's the furthest thing from a nihilist that you can get, and I believe that's why he always uses the qualifier "inherent", rather than just "existence" on its own. He did take an entire book to explain the damn concept :P
EDIT: And here's the thing, you don't need a lot of words to assert a misconception. You only need a lot of words to explain why it's wrong.
1
u/TD-0 May 16 '21
The way I see it is that it tacitly relies on the assumption that you can only properly look for self in this experience, and that you have to refrain from proposing something outside this experience.
Actually, this is a completely reasonable and well-justified assumption. It's the same assumption that underlies spiritual practice as a whole. All claims and conclusions apply only within the context of our own direct experience, and not outside of it. So if we say something like "awareness is unborn and unceasing", this is only referring to our own experience of empty cognizance, and not to some mystical phenomenon that exists outside of that experience. Similarly, the "6 realms" are simply referring to the different states of mind that arise in our own samsaric experience, and not to some universal hierarchy that we get assigned to by some unseen mystical force based on our karma.
Basically, the entirety of the Buddhist canon only applies within the context of our own direct experience, and hence is making the same implicit assumption. If anything, it is exactly this point that distinguishes Buddhism from the various other religions, since most of them postulate the existence of mystical forces that we need to believe in if we are to gain salvation or whatever.
That said, as I mentioned earlier, I agree that the logic behind this practice is a bit contrived, but for entirely different reasons.
1
u/no_thingness May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
Actually, this is a completely reasonable and well-justified assumption
It is, I didn't want to imply the opposite. The issue I was pointing at here (among others) is that if I assume something outside (I hold to a wrong view) I can't really apply the reasoning to my situation.
On the flip side, if I'm not holding to a wrong view of "something" outside, I don't need the reasoning, since I don't conceive of things as existing - this is a non-issue for me.
The problem is that the reasoning needs to be applied to the wrong view, and when paired with that, it's incoherent, while for the right view it is superfluous.
My major point would be that the reasoning is at fault for considering this to be the crux of the issue (or where the problem of self lies).
1
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
The problem is that the reasoning needs to be applied to the wrong view, and when paired with that, it's incoherent, while for the right view it is superfluous.
That's really black and white thinking. The concept of alief might be useful here:
A person watching a sad movie may believe that the characters are completely fictional, but their aliefs may lead them to cry nonetheless. A person who is hesitant to eat fudge that has been formed into the shape of feces, or who exhibits reluctance in drinking from a sterilized bedpan may believe that the substances are safe to eat and drink, but may alieve that they are not.
Not all views are explicit beliefs, some may be unconscious, default assumptions, i.e. aliefs. The philosophical position one purports to hold can differ from one's immediate perceptions, and the underlying default assumptions implicit in that perception. A closet homophobe may believe "homosexuality is wrong", but alieves that "some men are sexually attractive".
My major point would be that the reasoning is at fault for considering this to be the crux of the issue
Having read a few of your comments, I still don't quite understand the "major point" of disagreement you're alluding to, I've mostly only seen points I agree with. Very odd.
1
u/TD-0 May 16 '21
The problem is that the reasoning needs to be applied to the wrong view, and when paired with that, it's incoherent, while for the right view it is superfluous.
I wouldn't say this practice is based on wrong view. It's derived from the Madhyamaka school, and so is able to look at phenomena in terms of the two truths. In this case, it's looking at things from the perspective of conventional reality, where things are granted a provisional existence and worldly conventions apply. This makes practical sense, as most people are operating from that perspective by default (even if they have an intellectual understanding of right view. u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare's point on "aliefs" applies here).
The point is that even when looking at things from the conventional perspective, we are unable to find a "self" associated with an object, and that becomes a pointer to the "absolute" truth, which is emptiness. So it doesn't really contradict the "right view" of the suttas. It's also worth noting that these teachings are from Chandrakirti, who was obviously familiar with the stance of the suttas.
1
u/no_thingness May 16 '21
I didn't want to point to it as wrong view. I wanted to say that if you have a course self view, you will not be able to accept the practice's line of thought. If you have a subtle self view, you're not really looking for the sense of self in the right ways. Repeating the sequence will not help.
If you don't have self view, the practice is not needed. So mainly, I don't see it's place.
I also don't find the two truths doctrine very helpful, but that's a different can of worms :)
1
u/TD-0 May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
I wanted to say that if you have a course self view, you will not be able to accept the practice's line of thought. If you have a subtle self view, you're not really looking for the sense of self in the right ways. Repeating the sequence will not help.
I agree. In fact, I don't think this was ever intended as a "practice" for people to sequentially repeat until they are convinced. Rather, it was just a logical scholarly argument that establishes the absence of a "thing" called self attached to appearances. As with many other ideas in Buddhism (like Metta), it was recast into a meditation practice much later on. That said, if there are others who have actually benefited from doing the practice, then obviously there is some value to it regardless.
1
u/aspirant4 May 16 '21 edited May 16 '21
If I was to successfully do this practice for, say, one hour and conclude by saying with conviction, "yes, wow, it's true, I don't inherently exist!", what was was the self that did the practice and arrived at that conclusion?
2
u/kaa-the-wise May 18 '21 edited May 19 '21
The key difference between "pure awareness" and the usual concepts of "self" is that "pure awareness" is featureless, in particular, "your" awareness is exactly the same as "mine", there is nothing personal about it [it's just that our awarenesses are presented with different phenomena], which is different from what we usually think about self.
"Whatever It is that sees" (consciousness/awareness) may be "permanent" in the sense that it is present as long as any experience is present, but it also does not have any distinguishing features, as those features are part of the experience that "it" sees. Since "it" does not truly have any features, its existence is a very special one, unlike what we usually imagine when we say that things "exist".
Also, consider the koan "What did your original face look like before your parents were born?" What it points to is the common feeling of duality of a featured "self" experiencing a featured "world". The key insight would be that this perceived duality is arbitrary and itself a feature of experience, and the true "perceiver" is both featureless and not [the classical featured] self, so we might as well use the passive voice when describing it.
2
1
u/TD-0 May 16 '21
Try framing it in the passive - the practice was done and there was no self to be found. No subject, so no self. :D
Seriously though, this practice cannot rid you of the "sense of self", because the sense of self is an illusory construct that arises and dissolves in time. If anything, that's what the practice will help convince you of.
1
u/aspirant4 May 16 '21
But that's just it. For that hour of practice, there is no discontinuity, the aggregates are seen as impermanent, but Whatever It is that sees that impermanence is itself obviously not impermanent.
1
u/Mr_My_Own_Welfare May 16 '21
oh my, you might be referring to what Burbea called the "eternal awareness", which he alludes to at the end of the first Awareness chapter of StF; apparently this is a subtler perception than "vast space-like awareness", or "awareness as the substance of all phenomena". I don't remember in which later chapter that he deals specifically with that though...
1
u/TD-0 May 16 '21
You're referring to awareness, and I completely agree. In the Buddhist view (Mahayana, but it's also in the suttas if you look hard enough), awareness is just empty cognizance; it's unborn and unceasing. In other views, it's referred to as the "Self" with a capital S, "universal consciousness", whatever. It depends on which of these religious/philosophical views you subscribe to, really.
1
u/aspirant4 May 16 '21
Yeah, well, if I take my direct experience as measure, I can't agree with Burbz. however much I love him.
It seems the Theravada were reductively materialist and - like most non-contemplative folks - overlook the most obvious fact of experience. I'm not sure how Rob fits in there. His background is Theravada, but he includes all streams in his teaching. He also talks about the Deathless, though, which complicates things.
1
•
u/AutoModerator May 15 '21
Thank you for contributing to the r/streamentry community! Unlike many other subs, we try to aggregate general questions and short practice reports in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion thread. All community resources, such as articles, videos, and classes go in the weekly Community Resources thread. Both of these threads are pinned to the top of the subreddit.
The special focus of this community is detailed discussion of personal meditation practice. On that basis, please ensure your post complies with the following rules, if necessary by editing in the appropriate information, or else it may be removed by the moderators.
If your post is removed/locked, please feel free to repost it with the appropriate information, or post it in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion or Community Resources threads.
Thanks! - The Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.