0

Is the seer and seen different?

Is th watcher and watching different ?

Is the observer and observe different?

camera and picture are different ?

For example

I saw a tree?

Tree and "me" different?

Tree and "me" same?

It is very difficult question.

Please correct if i use wrong grammar

  • My mind say.we are mirror. But this is philosophy. Not experience – user17101 Dec 3 '19 at 9:08
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because its Hinduism – Dhammadhatu Dec 4 '19 at 4:54
  • My dear friend. Hindu ,muslim, Christian,buddhism. it is clothes . Please you are Not cloth....You wear muslim cloth,buddhism cloth,Hindu cloth.this is not you .This is not your identity. – user17101 Dec 4 '19 at 5:47
2

A self, a tree are merely concepts - they don't exist in reality. Ultimately one cannot go out and locate a tree or a self. What exist is experiences; the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and thinking.

When you see a tree, there is a seeing going on, ie. the visual process - there is the eye sense faculty and its corresponding object which is light. The idea that it's a separate you or self that is seeing a tree is merely an idea, a mental formation.

In reality there is no seer behind the seeing. There is an object and mind arising to that object at any given moment. This can clearly be seen in Vipassana meditation.

| improve this answer | |
2

You may as well ask: is the left hand the same as the right hand? Both are part of a greater whole, both work together to tie a knot, sure. But that knot wouldn't get tied if the two hands were the same.

When you see a tree, there is you, there is the tree, and there is the awareness that you are seeing a tree. That last is like a knot that you and the tree tie together, forming the basis of a mental object. If you rise to the level of the non-dual then the boundaries of identity disappear; there is no you, there is no tree, and that knot of a mental object unravels.

| improve this answer | |
  • Bro great .. .. – user17101 Dec 3 '19 at 16:04
2

It is the people who rely on the commentaries, like [REMOVED BY A MODERATOR], who talk a lot about ''doer'' They say that being enlightened is when there is no doer, instead there is ''pure action'' or ''pure phenomena''.

for instance Mahasi quotes this

Thus one realizes that feeling itself is what feels the plea- sure associated with pleasant sense objects and so on. We con- ventionally say with regard to the appearance of feeling, “I feel.” 512 In order to point out that there is no doer apart from actual phe- nomena, the commentary says that feeling itself is what feels. 513

https://wisdomexperience.org/academy/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Manual-of-Insight-for-Course.pdf

The pali word they use is ''Karaka atta'' http://www.abhidhamma.com/Mahasi_anatta.pdf

you have to read all their texts to know what they say about ''a doer''. Their obsession with the doer comes from their lack of understanding the baya sutta, where they cram their view of lack of doer, instead of lack of craving, because the popular view is that ''people suffer because they judge, so when they do not judge they do not suffer'', and ''phenomenologically'' it would mean that there is no subject-object, ie no doer, but only phenomena .

If you want a sutta talking about doer (or lack of doer) there is this

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]

“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ... is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is there an element of endeavoring?” [10]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

Bikkhu sujato translate attakāro as ''one's volition''

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks bro ...... – user17101 Dec 3 '19 at 8:39
  • I would say this represents a conventional view, to be balanced by an ultimate view for which there is no doer. Not arguing, just noting that these quotes do not settle the matter. – user14119 Dec 3 '19 at 12:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy