Some background – I have been struggling with the Diamond Sutra [PDF with commentary, Text only] for a few weeks and have been seeking some insight into its meaning and in meditation on Thursday, I received that insight. In focussing on the paradox “I am because I am not” which seems to be at the root of this sutra, I gained some perspective on the unconditioned, original mind that exists at the core of our being. I was not sure how to relate this insight, but this morning I was motivated to speak my thoughts and record them as I drove across the city. What follows is a transcription of that recording.
-------
“I am because I am not” … What a contradiction, or an apparent contradiction at least. How can something be because it isn’t? How can something exist because it doesn’t exist? That’s not so obvious that the only way someone can exist is through the very fact of our non-existence.
Of course we are talking about our perceived ego identity when we say “I am”. And when we say “I exist because I do not exist”, we are saying that we don’t exist and we are looking at the fundamental lack of any ego identity in the non-existence element of that statement.
So, how can we exist? How do we exist? Well we exist in our awareness. As I was saying to my daughter this morning, what we think of as awareness as we get older … we see ourselves as becoming more and more aware of the world, our role within it and how we operate and relate to individuals and that sort of thing, but in actual fact, that terminology is just completely incorrect and wrong. We’re not INCREASING our awareness at all in that aging process and that development of our roles in society, etc. What we are doing is becoming more and more immersed in … well to put it in Buddhist terms, the fraud of Samsara. So, becoming more and more immersed in the phenomenal world that exists around us to the extent that we identify with that world and our role within that world, the characteristics of that world, all the material, materiality, all the materialism … to the point that we even reject that we might even exist independent of that materialism, that materiality, that phenomenal world of gross matter that we see around us. The cars that we drive, the jobs that we hold, the rent we have to pay, the mortgages that we have to pay … all of that sort of stuff is part of our material world and when we identify with that, when we are immersed in that, we’re not more aware. It doesn’t increase our awareness, it increases our confusion. Because all of these things aren’t fundamentally part of our existence, as we can see from the cultures of the past that didn’t have all of these contrivances. But they do add to our confusion and we identify more and more with, as I said, the fraud of the phenomenal world.
But if we can go back to our original state and our original nature, I think we can see quite clearly … maybe through the eyes of our children, that … they’re not … are they more aware or less aware than we are? Certainly they’re not as immersed in our culture, not as immersed in the phenomenal world. But they are very aware of their needs, they are very aware of their relationships, they are very aware in the moment that they exist (within) and of course that moment is never ending. So they are very aware.
Whereas ourselves, as adults, or maturing adults or aging adults, or whatever position we may find ourselves in, have to recognise and agree that we are less aware of the present moment that we exist in, simply because we have all of these other concerns, all these other pressures, all these other … keeping with the Buddhist terminology, delusions.
(traffic incident, beep horn, expresses frustration, then laughs) …like that, very deluded. J
Anyway, that’s what I get for talking while I am driving. So, that’s a little bit about awareness. So … I haven’t addressed the question of why we don’t exist, we certainly are addressing the question of how we perceive our existence to be.
So, as you can see, “we exist because we don’t exist” is the statement. … Pause ….
OK. So how does our existence depend, or our perceived existence depend on our non-existence? How does our nonexistence give rise to our existence? J
It’s a confusing concept isn’t it. It’s not simple, to be fair. To realise … to go beyond our existence as material beings, identifying with ego body, or the ego mind … excluding our greater nature, our original nature, from definitions of ourselves. But when you step back from your material existence and start to consider who you are and what makes you you, you suddenly realise that … you the observer …. is very different from you the actor, your ego, that element that … that identity that you feel is so real, that exists day to day in your world of stress and worry and hurry. But when you step back and start to consider all the issues, and start to reflect upon yourself as you exist in this phenomenal world …. to try and stick to this Buddhist terminology, the phenomenal world is the world of our material existence … and how you operate within that phenomenal world, you very, very quickly realise that it is actually not you, who are operating in this physical world so much as, you’re the observer and you are able to observe “yourself” operating in the physical world. Although, you may feel that you are influencing some aspects of the choices you might make … through greater contemplation … and again it is only through that greater contemplation, only through that extracting of yourself from the concerns that exist and coming back to our awareness in observating yourself that you are making choices that are truly yours. Otherwise, you’re reacting to the phenomenal world and the choices you think you are making are not really choices so much as the results of the conditions … the prevailing conditions that exist and the circumstances, or the events that cause you, to force you into making decisions and choices. So, the choices that you make are only apparently choice made of your own free will, whereas in reality they’re not really your choices. They’re just an outcome of the nature of this reality that we are experiencing and, of course, the nature of the reality that we are experiencing, as I’ve said previously, is of a fractal, self-referential, recursive nature. So, … its very complex, no doubt, but still its not intrinsically you. You don’t have any separateness in that definition of that nature, of that fractal world.
So, hence we can see that it is only a deluded sense of our self with which we identify with … who we are, our bodily vehicle, perhaps, or however you want to consider it … again, it’s a delusion to identify so concretely with the self that you see in the mirror every morning. Is that you, the observer, when you reflect upon your actions … or are you, in fact the observer observing the causes and conditions that are manifested in what you see in the mirror? J
So when you take that perspective, it becomes a little more obvious I suppose, or a little more closer to realising that we might indeed exist, simply because we don’t really exist at all and that identity that we have is confused, to say the least, but nevertheless when we realise that our fundamental nature … when we come back to our original nature, we see that we aren’t the ego identity that we thought we were.
But how is it that we … our non-existence … in fact, is there non-existence? Is there non-existence and if so, how does that non-existence give us our apparent existence? How is it that we exist because we don’t exist? ….
Well, I think we can see that we have no intrinsic, fundamental existence, that the ego identity that we identify with, is not so much us, as a manifestation of the complexities that exist … of the causes and conditions of the world around us that give rise to who we think we are, the role that we play in the ebb and flow of life. J Is that role that we are playing in that ebb and flow of life, is that because of who we are? Or is that just a natural outcome of the nature of things and our awareness is just along for the ride? … I think the latter is closer to the truth. That we see things occur because that is the nature of them and our identity with that occurrence is deluded. We are the observer. ... We are the observer … and that non-existence, that lack of an individual ego identity, that fundamental awareness that exists independent of us … again, of our ego identity, is what gives rise to our ego identity! That is the crux of it. Because our awareness becomes more and more immersed throughout our existence … or in our existence in the phenomenal world, our ego identity grows! J We identify with that, we have a greater sense of “I” and the only way that occurs is because we have awareness in the first place. J
It is that awareness that exists. J It’s the awareness that gives rise to the ego identity. It’s through … and that is how we realise, or come to identify with the phenomenal world and our [apparent] role within it, so drastically … we feel that "this" is us and we are defined by the boundary of our skin, perhaps. But really we are more than that, much more than that and in fact, you can’t define where the boundary of “you” is, as much as you try. As you expand out, there is no boundary. You know that you radiate electro-magnetic radiation that expands out to infinity, although in ever diminishing intensity. There is no boundary. There’s no boundary going out. Is there any boundary coming in? No! There is no boundary coming in. We know that we are made up of … our skin is made up of cells, likewise our bones are all cellular based, the cells themselves are made up of molecules, the molecules are made up of atoms. They are all smaller and smaller components until we get right down to the fundamental elements of nature and we know that … even in the vacuum, in the spaces between all the molecules and all of the neutrinos and the microscopic, pico-particles that are there … even in that vacuum, where there is no observable material, so to speak, there is an infinite energy density! There is still energy … the vacuum vibrates with energy and that … the Plank constant defines exactly that, as we learn in physics and as Nassim Harramein has clearly illustrated [see post below].There is no definition in the microcosm that we can say is us, there is no definition in the macrocosm of the physical world that we can say is us. The only things that exists is our awareness and our awareness, again, is intrinsically NOT “I”. It is not the “I” of the body. The body doesn’t have an “I”. We have just said we cannot identify any boundaries. J …
So how do we exist? If we only exist through that awareness and that awareness is independent of any physical existence … and so our existence is completely and utterly dependent on the fact of our non-existence. Something to contemplate over your morning coffee, I guess. J Wonderful.
So, we exist because we do not exist. How does that non-existence give rise to our non-existence though? We can say that … we can see that our identity is formed through our awareness of this physical phenomenal world and the role that we appear to play within it, but how does that actually give rise to our existence? How does that awareness give rise to that existence? Well, once again we come back to what makes up this universe that we experience. How is it that it actually manifests at all? And as we have already said within our opening observation [see parts 1 – 7], that awareness or consciousness, that fundamental consciousness is actually a fundamental element to our existence. It is embedded. Consciousness is embedded in this world, embedded in with light that forms everything [materially] and our awareness just grows through complexity, to the point that our identity grows with the organism as it manifests within this reality, this perceived reality of the phenomenal world. And with that, comes self-identity and that self-identity comes with free will, and that free will choice is for continued existence once identity is made, once the point of (self) consciousness and awareness exists and develops, from there with greater and greater, compounding layers of complexity. But underpinning it all is this original, fundamental awareness that permeates everything.
Is it like a sea? A sea of icebergs, perhaps. Where our ego identity is defined by the icebergs and we’ve got an infinite number of icebergs in this vast sea. And yet, when the iceberg melts, when we dissolve all of the apparent definitions of form, we come back to the fundamental elements. That the iceberg is water, made from the vast ocean in which it floats. J And if we look at that ocean as being an ocean of consciousness, then we can see that our ego identity only exists because of our original awareness that is completely independent of our sense of personal self.
However, these words of description are wholly incapable of describing the truth. J We can make analogies, we can draw parallels, we can infer, we can try to explain with concepts, but ultimately these concepts are just concepts. They are not the truth, they are words and they don’t convey the truth. They can’t. They can only represent my ability to explain it. … But they are not themselves the truth that we see, they are not … that is not the … these words are, as I said, wholly incapable in expressing, in conveying the truth of our original, fundamental awareness … the nature of that sea, or the ocean, as opposed to the icebergs that we are, floating in it. J
You can’t explain it, you have to experience it and I don’t presume to say that I have fully experienced it … I don’t, I’ve not … I am confused as much as anyone I suppose, but still …. As I said to my Shifu the other night, “it’s clear, but it’s unclear.” J It’s clear that we exist in a delusion, it’s unclear the nature of that really. We don’t see … how do we see exactly what it is that we are? … it’s impossible with these human eyes, with these constraining concepts of self that exclude everything that we don’t choose to identify with. You can’t begin to realise the nature of the ocean without embracing the ocean and becoming that ocean … and that’s a fundamental reality and I think that’s what many of the enlightened masters of the past have really tried to convey. Your experience of the vastness of consciousness is … it’s a personal one. That enlightened mind, that awakening to the enlightened mind, to the original, fundamental awareness, that’s a personal awakening. No definition, no worldly definition can provide that awakening, that individual melting of the iceberg, if you like. You melt your own iceberg, in that sense. J … and you experience that melting in a personal way. The circumstances of which the iceberg melts is personal, its individual. As the Buddha says, the dharma is a raft, it’s a path, it’s a way to follow, it’s a way to reach the enlightened mind. It’s NOT the definition of enlightenment. J It can’t be. There is no definition. One’s awareness is … one’s awareness of self is deluded, original awareness is pure and clear … and it’s that realisation of that original mind, original consciousness, that embracing of the vastness of the ocean, the merging with the ocean of spirit that is enlightenment. That isn’t defined. It cannot be defined. There is nothing in the phenomenal world that can explain that.
And this is expressed in Buddhist writings that I have seen as …. There is nothing … nothing conditioned deserves the unconditioned, nothing conditioned can embrace the unconditioned, nothing conditioned can explain the unconditioned. Things that exist through conditions and causes can’t explain, at all … there is no way, fundamentally it is impossible to explain with any clarity and truth the unconditioned that exists … that which exists unconditionally, without definition. J That fundamental awareness, that original mind, that original awareness … nothing that’s conditioned can explain that. So it’s so true that in our existence, no words that I can say or others can say can embrace that reality, can embraced the unconditioned, can embrace the truth of our existence.
And so we can see that, just like the iceberg exists because of the ocean, we exist because we don’t exist. We are because we are not. We, you are … I am because I am not. J We start and we end in paradox. Again a fundamental teaching of all the enlightened masters and here we are, again arriving at that very same thing.
Thank you. Namaste. Thank you for the thoughts. Thank you for being able to express these thoughts this way.
And with that I will conclude.
