Abiding-ing in the event-ing

Alright here's the tidbit:

You get up in the morning, dress, wash your face, and so on;

you call these miscellaneous thoughts, but all that is necessary is

that there be no perceiver or perceived when you perceive—no

hearer or heard when you hear, no thinker or thought when you

think. Buddhism is very easy and very economical; it spares effort,

but you yourself waste energy and make your own hardships.

Source

Here's this monk's current understanding, until those who found the way long before I was born correct me:

Take the screen in front of you right now. Our usual assumption is that

1. the screen object reflects and emits visible light
2. which falls on your retina and is converted into nerve signals
3. and your conscious brain brings this into your awareness

In conventional truth language, we would then say

You ^subject see ^verb the screen ^object.

The subject verbs an object.

Yet Foyan says it is necessary to recognise that there is in fact only seeing happening, no seer, or seen. No subject or object implies that there is no you and no screen.

Then you say 'hang on a minute, I exist, and so does this screen, I paid $599 for it at the nerd store and it has such and such awesome specs'. What could possibly go on here?

I think what this comes down to is an ultimate truth view of mutually dependent arising, where each of the factors are resulting in a simultaneous event of seeing, beyond which there is nothing to hold on to. For all intents and purposes, therefore, there is no separate you outside of this instance of seeing because there is no you that this event externally happens to.

Extrapolating this, there is no fixed you outside of your seeing, hearing, and what over spider senses you have. The you only exists as an integral and inseparable part of the event of perception, that is, all perception, including the thinking of thoughts. It is not you that perceives, 'you' are that which you perceive. You are the screen, the screen is you. And because everything can be seen to be a result of things that came before it, and will turn into other stuff when that particular form has moved on, nothing at all of that is anything you can singularly put a finger on outside of the artificiality of language concepts.

If you spend some time walking around the place bringing this to fruition, what is there to worry about?

What are thinking? ^{see what did there?}

Submitted September 09, 2020 at 05:33AM by Coinionaire https://ift.tt/2GBtdjK