Owen's Practice Journal, Part II

Hey guys, just so that there is no confusion as to what I'm talking about, check this out:

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.than.html

I'm equating the self-contraction/sense of being with becoming - that which is conditioned by craving. As to what disappears at which stage, I don't think it's reliably mapable post technical 4th path. I think there are probably some common features, but we just don't have enough vetted data.

To try and give some idea as to where I am today, when becoming occurs these days, it feels really weird and is read by this body as pain and a perceptual distortion. I think it might be a consequence of near constant grounding of thought.

"... also - why is it OK if it's a delusion? there is no self, right? so why is it OK for a 'self' to arise? (is it really a 'self' arising?)" -- beoman

Good question. I'm as guilty as anyone of oversimplifying by using inexact language, beoman. A sense of self has been a part of my experience since I can remember. It was assumed to be a solid, permanent, enduring thing for most of my life. Turns out it's not that. It's a Will O' the Wisp. Ethereal. It arises and disappears as causes and conditions warrant. Now I know what it is. It is not enduring. It has this set of traits to today and that set of traits tomorrow. It's just another object in my stream of experience. It has none of the privileges, prominence or control over experience I used to think it had. The playing field of objects and experience is a level one. That's something that becomes clear at a certain point.

So, let me restate -- it's perfectly okay for a sense of self to arise. I'm not sure we can eradicate that experience any more than we can eradicate the involuntary experience of a church bell chiming across the street. As I see it, we are not in control of our streAm of experience. What we have a shot at, however, is understanding how all the parts work and from that wisdom reduce our suffering.

Again, YMMV and if it does in diversity there is strength.

"So, let me restate -- it's perfectly okay for a sense of self to arise. I'm not sure we can eradicate that experience any more than we can eradicate the involuntary experience of a church bell chiming across the street. As I see it, we are not in control of our streAm of experience. What we have a shot at, however, is understanding how all the parts work and from that wisdom reduce our suffering.

Again, YMMV and if it does in diversity there is strength.

"

Chris, if we are not (at least on a relative level) in control of the stream of our experience, what is the point of practice? Didn't practice change the stream of experience for you when you got technical 4th? Didn't the delusion of the self as "me" stop for you?

Owen, even though I know that the self sense that arises isn't "me" that doesn't mean that it doesn't arise. Because I know how mind processes the sound of the bell that rings that doesn't mean I don't hear the bell. Objects still arise and pass.

Are you saying you never have a self sense arise, ever? If not then why all the effort to get rid of it?

BTW - it;s pretty clear to me that the sense in which we're using these words isn't quite matching up. Our shared vocabulary isn't up to snuff, probably mostly on my end. In my parlance the "stream of experience" is that over which we have no control - such as sounds and the arising of objects in the mind as created by cause and conditions. We can argue about whether or not the self sense is part of that involuntary stream, of course, or whether it's a "voluntary" process that we can ultimately learn to turn off. I think you, Owen, and others here see it as that. I'm just not convinced.

"
BTW - it;s pretty clear to me that the sense in which we're using these words isn't quite matching up. Our shared vocabulary isn't up to snuff, probably mostly on my end. In my parlance the "stream of experience" is that over which we have no control - such as sounds and the arising of objects in the mind as created by cause and conditions. We can argue about whether or not the self sense is part of that involuntary stream, of course, or whether it's a "voluntary" process that we can ultimately learn to turn off. I think you, Owen, and others here see it as that. I'm just not convinced.

"

Fair point. It might not be possible, but there are some folks in and around the pragmatic community who report having done so.
It's why to be specific I equate selfing with becoming, the 10th nidana or Bhava.

My basic question here could be stated like this:
Given that using Buddhist technology we managed to uproot the delusion that self was me, why isn't it possible to take it a step further and uproot the remaining delusions that allow the sense of self to continue to arise?

Owen, I just don't share the assumption that the arising of a self sense is a delusion, any more than the sound of a bell, the sight of a full moon, or the beautiful face of my daughter is a delusion. We can perceive all these objects as empty, as ethereal, as ever-changing, as not self. But yet there they are, right here in front of us Every time I Iook at the moon, there it is. I don't get to choose to see it or not if I look at it. The firecracker that went off the other night on the street outside my bedroom - I had no choice but to hear it. In the way of all objects in experience, I suspect the sense of self is likewise perceived -- it's empty, yes, and impermanent, unsatisfactory, not self. But yet there it is, arising from the causers and conditions, as always. I think, and my experience bears this out, that as long as I perceive this sense of self as the chimeric, ethereal, conditioned thing that it is it cannot cause me the suffering it used to cause, back when I thought of it as separate, enduring, defining of "me.". Oh, I can let my guard down and Boom! I'm back to the innate, habitual, unstated assumption that there is a "real" self and that it needs protecting from the big, bad world. But the second I regain the awareness of what that "thing" really is, Poof! all that is gone again.

So I would reformulate your question thus:

"Is it necessary, or even possible, to take it a step further and uproot the remaining delusions that allow the sense of self to continue to arise?"

Chris, before you attained stream entry, wasn't the case with the belief that you were a self exactly the same? A belief, an identification that arose based on causes and conditions, presenting to awareness no differently than a firecracker or the moon? In retrospect, you can see that it was not-self, impermanent, unsatisfactory...what good reason did you have to change that belief or identification? How is that situation different from what Owen aims to do?

I'm not sure EndInSight (maybe you can elaborate)) but it seems you're saying that the nature of objects, or at least one object (self), changes as we pursue our practice. Anyway, as I see it the nature of objects is what it is and has always been and it's my perception of them that has changed. The self, the moon and the firecracker, all formerly perceived to be solid, permanent things, are now perceived to be impermanent, not separate, etc. By practicing I learned to go deeper into the actual process of perception, to thus perceive objects differently. Slowly, over time, it became obvious that objects weren't quite what I had always (ignorantly, it turns out) assumed. They are impermanent. Not separate. At some later point it became clear that this "I" object that I had previously also assumed had permanence, solidity, separateness, was likewise just another object and thus just as ethereal, un-enduring, not separate, and so on, just as is true of all other objects.

My understanding is that Owen claims to want rid himself of the arising of the object he might call "me." His sense of self. I'm simply saying that I suspect doing that - ridding ourselves of the sense of self, is potentially not possible and alternatively not necessary. I do not share Owen's aim, assuming I've accurately described it, as I seem to be doing just fine being able to perceive objects, including the previously solid-seeming "me," to be pretty harmless in their emptiness.

Or, maybe we're actually saying the same thing...

I've been following this on and off, and while this is all "what happens post-4th" is kind of above my current level of concerns, I did read something over on Alan Chapman's blog recently (in regards to yet another inflowing of otherness over at DHO, ala AF) that did a find job (IMHO) of differentiating between "no self" and "not self".

To quote:

'˜No self' = the nonexistence of the self.

'˜Not self' = nothing that I experience is a permanent, unchanging essence.

The concept of '˜no self' has created an inordinate amount of confusion. Enlightenment is the direct recognition that the problems of both existence and nonexistence are invalid and always have been; '˜no self' on the other hand claims everything exists except for the self, which does not exist. This is the polar opposite of what '˜not self' means.

End quote. (from bit.ly/nKpN2K )

So, is it that the sense of "self" is the only thing that does not exist, while everything else does? Is it that no thing that is sensed should be thought of as "self" (and therefore, if you're sensing it, it is a problem only if you attribute "self" to it)? Or is it that we should have no feeling of our own presence within the sensations that are currently passing through our awareness? Or something else entirely? I think there might be a subtle apples-to-oranges thing going on here, or at least, pineapple-to-crabapple...

Chris, what I was getting at is that "identification with a 'self'" is an object, just like any other. Clearly you had reasons to want to change what arises in your experience, i.e. prevent that object from arising, and indeed, your experience sounds as if it no longer includes that object. From where I'm sitting, this seems completely analogous to what Owen is aiming at, except instead of aiming at suppressing the object "identification with a 'self'", he wants to suppress something else, whatever thing that arises that he calls "self."

Guys, I don't want to suppress anything. I just want to see my experience clearly. I want to be completely awake. There are perceptions that are arising from conditioned habits built around something that was empty. These perceptions give rise to pain, for both myself and others.

To put this another way, someone please point out phenomena that constitues as solid and enduring self. Or failing that, please point out a reason why it's a good idea to mis-read reality as it arises. These aren't rhetorical questions. I mean it. I'm always willing to be wrong about something.
But if the truth is (just speaking for me here) ego clinging hiding out in equanimity, then that's an entirely different matter.

The only reason you need to justify changing your experience is that you want to.

"To put this another way, someone please point out phenomena that constitues as solid and enduring self. "

What's the difference between "phenomenon that constitutes a solid and enduring self" and "data arising from your present state in the world"? If said data is seen as being welcome information arising but not "a solid and enduring self", is it still a problem?

If this data is held up as "solid and enduring" while other data is not, I can see the problem there. If the data is seen as not "solid and enduring" but IS seen as "something happening within the space occupied by this bodymind" that is arising inter-dependently with all other arising data, then I don't see the problem.

I ask for my own sake here, this is a distinction I have been trying to wrap my head around for a long time now. Can anyone clarify this for me?

'Or failing that, please point out a reason why it's a good idea to mis-read reality as it arises.'

Hi Owen,
I understand your quest to meet reality as clearly as possible, to be completely awake. I'm curious about this myself, but I am also curious about the manner in which we inevitably frame experience. All enlightenment experience is framed and interpreted through a world view, Buddha consctructed one for us in this manner. Bernadette Rogers framed her enlightenment within a Christian context. I'm exploring this as I write it, so...what I'm thinking is...there is a state that is not knowing, I just don't know. I feel this all the time now and a view or frame does not alter it. I realise that delusion, misreading reality and not misreading reality are in fact all part of the same thing. I'm not sure if we can ever say what state is more real than another, the brain is the brain and it has functions that are part of reality as much as perception and non perception do. Ideas of all types and flavours are real, some we consider to be better than others. The real truth for me, is humanity, my connection to that, and being involved in ending or at least reducing suffering. Many enlightened people are ass holes, knowing the so called truth of being and being an ******* at the same time, I'd settle for simply being kind.
Paul

Hey everybody,
Lots of good comment and questions. Wish I had more answers for you, but I'm going to sign off for a while and simply focus on my practice. If anybody needs help through the progress of insight, please shoot me an email at the hamilton project and I'll be happy to assist how I can.
Thanks again for all the support.
-o

"Chris, what I was getting at is that "identification with a 'self'" is an object, just like any other. Clearly you had reasons to want to change what arises in your experience, i.e. prevent that object from arising, and indeed, your experience sounds as if it no longer includes that object. From where I'm sitting, this seems completely analogous to what Owen is aiming at, except instead of aiming at suppressing the object "identification with a 'self'", he wants to suppress something else, whatever thing that arises that he calls "self.""

EndInSight, I suspect we're still not syncing on the terminology or maybe I'm just not doing a good job of articulating what I'm aiming at. I do not want to prevent any object from arising in my experience. That's not what I believe practice is about. I am trying to see experience as clearly and accurately and completely as possible. I want to Know my experience, to understand it, but not to manipulate it. My experience does include the arising of the sense of self, as it always has, but the difference from before to after is that I know what it is, can see the process mind uses to create that sense, in a way to "debug" the thing and through that understanding it loses it's grip and no longer serves as the fulcrum against which mind can push and pull thoughts around to further the chimera of a defenseless little me that needs to be protected at any cost. This deeper, more accurate and granular view of experience is what provides me with the patience and freedom as I go through the day, to sit and listen, not to just react, to consider alternatives beyond the initial, the instinctual or egoic.

So the desire to manipulate my experience, which for me and maybe only me smacks of manipulation (a yellow light for me to watch out for clinging or aversion) simply doesn't interest me. Does that help?

"If this data is held up as "solid and enduring" while other data is not, I can see the problem there. If the data is seen as not "solid and enduring" but IS seen as "something happening within the space occupied by this bodymind" that is arising inter-dependently with all other arising data, then I don't see the problem."

Ian, that is very well said. What, indeed, is the problem if all experience is seen as the arising and passing of empty "stuff." There is nothing we can experience that is not mediated by mind. Nothing, and to know the process of how mind creates the world we live in is the key. Thats' what I have always taken vipassana to be all about. It seems to have worked for me, so the desire to change the experiences I perceive, those things that arise and pass, just doesn't have legs.


"....there is a state that is not knowing, I just don't know. I feel this all the time now and a view or frame does not alter it. I realise that delusion, misreading reality and not misreading reality are in fact all part of the same thing. I'm not sure if we can ever say what state is more real than another, the brain is the brain and it has functions that are part of reality as much as perception and non perception do."

I like this, Paul. It appears to be yet another way of saying that everything we experience is conditioned. It is, is not, both is and is not, all at once. This is a nuance that takes time to grok, at least it did for me. And yes, the mind mediates it all, always. There is no experience un-mediated by mind.

"There are perceptions that are arising from conditioned habits built around something that was empty. These perceptions give rise to pain, for both myself and others." -- Owen

Absolutely -- but once you clearly see the process of the arising of these things doesn't that rob them of their energy? The language you use in your posts smacks of a desire to manipulate your experience. That's what I originally picked up on, Owen. In my personal experience I don't need to manipulate my experience to relieve suffering, I do, however, need to understand and be able to see the arising of the process in real time in order to be non-reactive to it. It's still there, it still arises, but it is known, expected. As a good friend of mine says, "This too, this too."

Edit: spelling, grammar.

"EndInSight, I suspect we're still not syncing on the terminology or maybe I'm just not doing a good job of articulating what I'm aiming at. I do not want to prevent any object from arising in my experience. That's not what I believe practice is about. I am trying to see experience as clearly and accurately and completely as possible."

Let's take a step back and see if we can synchronize our terminology a bit more.

I was going to start talking about your experience, but I realized that smacks of too much hubris, so instead, I'm going to talk about mine.

Once upon a time, my experience was unclear and inaccurate, and I had confused beliefs that concerned whether I was a self and what self meant. Over time, as a result of spiritual practice, I was able to see my experience with more clarity and more accuracy and discard many confused beliefs about all kinds of things.

In the bad old days, if I mistakenly identified as a self, or mistakenly identified with part of my experience, or mistakenly imagined that there was something called a "self" in my experience when there was not, those very things themselves were objects in experience. They arose in awareness and receded in awareness, just like firecrackers and moons and anything else. Today, those objects are suppressed. They don't arise.

I didn't approach spiritual practice by saying "I am going to suppress some objects in my experience!". Instead, I said "I am going to understand my experience!". But understanding my experience changed it; understanding it and shedding delusions was tantamount to suppressing the objects called "delusions"; it's not possible by definition to understand experience better without suppressing the objects that correspond to not understanding it.

This is a strange way of talking about understanding, but it's also true. (cont)

(cont) "Not understanding" means the arising of objects such as false beliefs, false identifications, and so on. "Understanding" means those objects cease to arise. "Trying to understand" was trying to manipulate my own experience by permanently suppressing certain objects, even if it never occurred at me at the time to think about it that way, and even if my intention was to let things arise and merely observe them to understand them better and not to change what arose in any significant way, and even if an explicit attempt to suppress certain objects would have been a total failure.

A shorter way of saying all this is that "understanding" and "clarity" are ways that experience can be, "misunderstanding" and "unclarity" are ways that experience can be, and if I started with the latter and aimed to get to the former, that aim is equivalent to the aim of changing how experience is, whether or not I think about it that way, whether or not it seems that way as I'm practicing.

I count these changes to my experience as very, very good.

Has your experience been like mine? Why / why not?

Just for clarity, by "suppress" I don't mean some way of willing things not to arise. I just mean changing the way the mind works so that some things simply don't arise.

This is excellent! I think we'll quickly come to a better understanding and I suspect find out that our experience is the same. To your comments (and I'll try to connect some of the language) --

- Our experience appears to be very much the same. When you say that certain objects no longer arise I would agree, but would clarify by adding just which objects those are. My experience is that a self-sense itself continues to arise but the objects generated by processes that anchor that self sense in old habits of mind are the objects that no longer arise. In other words, there is still very often a self sense that arises but the reactivity it used to cause, due to the arising of the old mind habits borne of the assumed permanent nature of the self sense, do not arise -- unless I'm not paying attention.

- I believe it's the definition of what I have been calling "self sense" that's causing much of the disconnect. The way I see it the sense of self alone is not the "problem" as much as the old assumptions that lead us to believe there is, when the self-sense arises, a permanent, enduring, solid object behind that sense that can control our experience and protect us from harm, There is no such thing. Practice reveals that truth, brings that clarity (to use your word) to our experience, ending the problem by eliminating the innate assumptions that lead to those previously arising objects.

- As the veils of old habits and thought patterns are exposed when seen completely through dedicated practice and a lot of things open up, are discarded and removed such that the field of experience becomes wider and wider and more accommodating, revealing ever more of the obscuring veils, which through more dedicated practice in turn get discarded when seen completely, and so on.

Thanks for hanging in there.

"In the bad old days, if I mistakenly identified as a self, or mistakenly identified with part of my experience, or mistakenly imagined that there was something called a "self" in my experience when there was not, those very things themselves were objects in experience. They arose in awareness and receded in awareness, just like firecrackers and moons and anything else. Today, those objects are suppressed. They don't arise."


I'm curious if you ever feel like you have been wronged, if your sense of fairness feels violated, feel jealous or get angry. Yes? No?

After reading this topic again I want to re-emphasize something: the true nature of phenomena is being empty, lacking any permanent essence, being conditioned and arising and passing due to causes and conditions. It's the realization, the really deep and heartfelt feeling of it, that powers a lot of the resulting benefits of practice.