Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post Reply
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by wei wu wei »

I have some basic familiarity with the instructions about identifying the object of negation according to Tsongkhapa's instructions but would love to hear the first-person experience of others who have engaged in this type of analytical meditation. What helped you? What were the pitfalls? Were there turning points in understanding? Any general advice?

Thank You!
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13255
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by Ayu »

I have been engaging a bit on this practice. But I find it quite difficult to say anything about it in general, without having a really specific question.

All I can say is that meditation on it is mandatory and talking about it might spoil and confuse proper understanding. In my POV therfore a pitfall can be to try to get it purely intellectually - and then imagine you got it.

It's smart, I think, to doubt the own realizations. Just don't judge too much, rather observe.
I think, therefore access to a wise teacher's direct personal opinion can be gold at times in order to get one's feet grounded.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by wei wu wei »

Ayu wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 8:40 am I have been engaging a bit on this practice. But I find it quite difficult to say anything about it in general, without having a really specific question.

All I can say is that meditation on it is mandatory and talking about it might spoil and confuse proper understanding. In my POV therfore a pitfall can be to try to get it purely intellectually - and then imagine you got it.

It's smart, I think, to doubt the own realizations. Just don't judge too much, rather observe.
I think, therefore access to a wise teacher's direct personal opinion can be gold at times in order to get one's feet grounded.
Thanks. If a more specific question helps, then how about: do you feel like you have a reasonably clear sense of the inherently existent self you're looking to refute? If so, how did you arrive at that sense?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wei wu wei wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:35 amdo you feel like you have a reasonably clear sense of the inherently existent self you're looking to refute?
I think that’s a counterproductive approach.
Our everyday experience already creates fully the sensation of independently existent phenomena (including self). There’s no need to go chasing after proof of your own nose.

Per the original question, what made things clear to me was a simple turn-around phrase:

“It’s not that the object doesn’t exist;
It’s that nothing exists that is the object”.

I also prefer to use the term “occur” rather than “exist” because “occur” is a term usually applied to passing events. “A loud noise occurred”.

The truth is, All phenomena are passing events. Lightning is a quickly passing event, and a rock is a very slowly passing event. But being as they are composites, they can only be said to occur temporarily. I find that using “occurs” rather than saying “relative existence” is helpful in processing the whole understanding.

For example, if we start out by saying a table doesn’t exist, that’s very confusing nonsense, especially to a new student, because the table is right there and if you fall and bump your head on it, it will hurt. So, establishing something only to refute it, to me, is a waste of time. I think it’s much easier to mediate on the idea that “it’s not that no table occurs (because what does occur is the temporary arising of the experience of the table) but that nothing which is occurring, the wood top, or nails or legs, is the table”.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13255
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by Ayu »

wei wu wei wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:35 am Thanks. If a more specific question helps, then how about: do you feel like you have a reasonably clear sense of the inherently existent self you're looking to refute? If so, how did you arrive at that sense?
:thinking: 'The sense of my inherently existent self' is simply the mere feeling of 'I', isn't it?
Possibly that sense differs individually, I don't know.

In my case, I sit in meditation, I breathe, calm myself down and ask myself: Where is me?
I then sense it somewhere between my eyes - knowing, this sense must be an illusion, because Tsongkhapa explained so.
Then the journey starts, trying to get what Tsongkhapa meant, asking myself through my Skhandas:
Am I my body? Easy to answer 'No', since I locate myself near the body, but not identical with it.
Then pondering calmly about one after another:
Am I emotions?
Am I perceptions?
Am I thoughts?
Am I consciousness? This last one appeared difficult to me. But it's a really good and valid point to ponder about: Where is this I in times of unconsciousness?

In effect, the sense of my inherently existent self starts to jump from here to there, appearing to say: I am here... ah, no, wait,.. I am there... uh... seems to be wrong... but I 'm there then..."

Due to pondering about this (vipashana) in a deeply calm mood (shamata), the sense of "I am" is being examined thoroughly.

This is the great difference between merely talking about the refutation or really getting it deeply.

This is an excercise just for getting what the sangha saints were talking about. If I leave the meditation seat and enter my day to day life, the sense of inherently existing self is there again. It's an ancient habit to think that I am not a mere appearance, quite sticky.

Therefore this meditation is just like an excursion.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by Astus »

“What is this grasping at self?” enquired Drom.
“This is something that wants all positive qualities for oneself alone and wants others alone to take on all misfortunes.”
“Then please explain this in such a manner so you can say ‘This is selfgrasping,’” asked Drom.
Atiśa replied: “Where would one find something of which it could be said that ‘This is the reified self-grasping?”’
“In that case, please explain to me how it is that [this self-grasping] wants everything and transfers [all] blames onto others.”
Atiśa replied, “Upāsaka, why even ask me? This is pervasive in sentient beings. You know this, so what need is there to ask? Even so, I have also seen attachment and aversion labeled as self-grasping.”
“Atiśa, there are people who possess such forms of grasping?”
“Where do they exist?” responded Atiśa.
“They are [within] our own mental continuum,” replied [Drom].
“Upāsaka, what is one’s own mental continuum?”
“It is that which wants everything and grasps [at it all] replied Drom.
Atiśa: “I, too, would say the same.”

(The Jewel Garland of Dialogues, ch 6, in The Book of Kadam, p 121-122)

Consider, for example, that someone accuses you of having committed an offense which you did not do. When you are accused of this, you say, “I didn’t do that.” With this accusation, because thinking “I” rises from deep in the center of your heart, this clarifies how we perceive the “I” which is innate self-grasping.
(The Quick Path to Omniscience: a Practical Guide for the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment by Panchen Lama Blobzang Yeshes, p 141-142)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by wei wu wei »

Ayu wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:41 am
wei wu wei wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:35 am Thanks. If a more specific question helps, then how about: do you feel like you have a reasonably clear sense of the inherently existent self you're looking to refute? If so, how did you arrive at that sense?
:thinking: 'The sense of my inherently existent self' is simply the mere feeling of 'I', isn't it?
Possibly that sense differs individually, I don't know.

In my case, I sit in meditation, I breathe, calm myself down and ask myself: Where is me?
I then sense it somewhere between my eyes - knowing, this sense must be an illusion, because Tsongkhapa explained so.
Then the journey starts, trying to get what Tsongkhapa meant, asking myself through my Skhandas:
Am I my body? Easy to answer 'No', since I locate myself near the body, but not identical with it.
Then pondering calmly about one after another:
Am I emotions?
Am I perceptions?
Am I thoughts?
Am I consciousness? This last one appeared difficult to me. But it's a really good and valid point to ponder about: Where is this I in times of unconsciousness?

In effect, the sense of my inherently existent self starts to jump from here to there, appearing to say: I am here... ah, no, wait,.. I am there... uh... seems to be wrong... but I 'm there then..."

Due to pondering about this (vipashana) in a deeply calm mood (shamata), the sense of "I am" is being examined thoroughly.

This is the great difference between merely talking about the refutation or really getting it deeply.

This is an excercise just for getting what the sangha saints were talking about. If I leave the meditation seat and enter my day to day life, the sense of inherently existing self is there again. It's an ancient habit to think that I am not a mere appearance, quite sticky.

Therefore this meditation is just like an excursion.
This is great, thank you. I relate with a lot of this, especially how the sense of I "moves.'

In terms of am I consciousness, one thing that might help you out there is noticing that consciousness is always conscious OF something, therefore it is dependent on it--indeed, mutually dependent. Search as you may, you'll never analytically find some pure entity without an object called "consciousness." (Though I know there are meditation practices that tend towards this, but they have different goals.)

Thanks for sharing your personal experience.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:34 am
wei wu wei wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:35 amdo you feel like you have a reasonably clear sense of the inherently existent self you're looking to refute?
I think that’s a counterproductive approach.
Our everyday experience already creates fully the sensation of independently existent phenomena (including self). There’s no need to go chasing after proof of your own nose.
It may have turned out not to be helpful to you but the instructions I'm using should should align to Tsongkhapa's approach, in terms of identifying the object of negation. In one sense, yes, it is as obvious as your nose, but in another, it takes some time to really get a handle on what we're looking for.


“It’s not that the object doesn’t exist;
It’s that nothing exists that is the object”.
I like that turn of phrase. But, with Tsongkhapa, we do want to refute the conception of an inherently existing self, which amounts to knowing directly that it never existed. I think other schools may disagree with this approach, though.
I also prefer to use the term “occur” rather than “exist” because “occur” is a term usually applied to passing events. “A loud noise occurred”.

The truth is, All phenomena are passing events. Lightning is a quickly passing event, and a rock is a very slowly passing event. But being as they are composites, they can only be said to occur temporarily. I find that using “occurs” rather than saying “relative existence” is helpful in processing the
whole understanding.

Sorry to hound on about Tsongkhapa here, but I'm just trying to be clear about using one approach for the time being.

Thanks for joining the conversation. I like your points.
That's a cool way to reframe things, but it's kind of an attempt at skillful means, like an attempt to linguistically mitigate our incorrect cognition of something. I think it's perfectly okay to start with existence/non-existence since these are the categories we typically think in.

For example, if we start out by saying a table doesn’t exist, that’s very confusing nonsense, especially to a new student, because the table is right there and if you fall and bump your head on it, it will hurt. So, establishing something only to refute it, to me, is a waste of time. I think it’s much easier to mediate on the idea that “it’s not that no table occurs (because what does occur is the temporary arising of the experience of the table) but that nothing which is occurring, the wood top, or nails or legs, is the table”.
I'd make the same comment as above. I do really like the skillful reframing here and think it does help kind of jostle our usual ways of thinking, but, with Tsongkhapa, for example, we never start by saying the table doesn't exist, nor do we end there. As you may well know, for him, we are searching for the inherently existing table and leaving the conventionally existent table alone...which doesn't mean that there's "really" some type of table there, but that's another thread.

Sorry to hound on about Tsongkhapa but I'm trying to keep it clear by using one approach. I really like the points you've made.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by wei wu wei »

Astus wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:31 am “What is this grasping at self?” enquired Drom.
“This is something that wants all positive qualities for oneself alone and wants others alone to take on all misfortunes.”
“Then please explain this in such a manner so you can say ‘This is selfgrasping,’” asked Drom.
Atiśa replied: “Where would one find something of which it could be said that ‘This is the reified self-grasping?”’
“In that case, please explain to me how it is that [this self-grasping] wants everything and transfers [all] blames onto others.”
Atiśa replied, “Upāsaka, why even ask me? This is pervasive in sentient beings. You know this, so what need is there to ask? Even so, I have also seen attachment and aversion labeled as self-grasping.”
“Atiśa, there are people who possess such forms of grasping?”
“Where do they exist?” responded Atiśa.
“They are [within] our own mental continuum,” replied [Drom].
“Upāsaka, what is one’s own mental continuum?”
“It is that which wants everything and grasps [at it all] replied Drom.
Atiśa: “I, too, would say the same.”

(The Jewel Garland of Dialogues, ch 6, in The Book of Kadam, p 121-122)

Consider, for example, that someone accuses you of having committed an offense which you did not do. When you are accused of this, you say, “I didn’t do that.” With this accusation, because thinking “I” rises from deep in the center of your heart, this clarifies how we perceive the “I” which is innate self-grasping.
(The Quick Path to Omniscience: a Practical Guide for the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment by Panchen Lama Blobzang Yeshes, p 141-142)
This is a relevant citation, thank you. I think I'm more interested, though, in what people's personal experiences are, in regards to identifying the object of negation.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wei wu wei wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:41 am I'm more interested, though, in what people's personal experiences are, in regards to identifying the object of negation.
What do you mean by experiences ?
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

“Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...”
-William Hughes Mearns, 1899
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:32 am
wei wu wei wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:41 am I'm more interested, though, in what people's personal experiences are, in regards to identifying the object of negation.
What do you mean by experiences ?
What do you mean? I'm just talking about good ol' fashioned experiences like one might have during meditation, prior to and not including those that might occur during meditative equipoise, when subject/object duality might totally collapse.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wei wu wei wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:59 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:32 am
wei wu wei wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:41 am I'm more interested, though, in what people's personal experiences are, in regards to identifying the object of negation.
What do you mean by experiences ?
What do you mean? I'm just talking about good ol' fashioned experiences like one might have during meditation, prior to and not including those that might occur during meditative equipoise, when subject/object duality might totally collapse.
Well in that case, I sometimes see everything as paper, like I’m sitting in the middle of a pop-up book, with nothing substantial to any of it. Is that what you are asking about? Those kinds of experiences? But mostly, when sitting in meditation, I just sit, with no particular thoughts arising at all.

I don’t think there is a particular “experience” where subject/object duality might totally collapse, because to consciously experience it not being there, you’d have to contrast it with a feeling of duality, of when it is there, and doing that itself would require a dualistic experience.

There’s a feeling of bring one with everything that people often get under the influence of hallucinogens that is pretty vivid. In Buddhist practice I think it tends to be more subtle, almost automatic, like not noticing where your hand ends and the rest of your arm begins.

Elaborate experiences tend to be both convoluted and temporary. It’s too easy to cling to them and not get beyond them. So I think many practitioners will have a difficult time saying that “here was an experience of negation”. But it’s an interesting idea.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Identifying the object of negation in meditation

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:16 am
wei wu wei wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:59 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:32 am
What do you mean by experiences ?
What do you mean? I'm just talking about good ol' fashioned experiences like one might have during meditation, prior to and not including those that might occur during meditative equipoise, when subject/object duality might totally collapse.
Well in that case, I sometimes see everything as paper, like I’m sitting in the middle of a pop-up book, with nothing substantial to any of it. Is that what you are asking about? Those kinds of experiences? But mostly, when sitting in meditation, I just sit, with no particular thoughts arising at all.

I don’t think there is a particular “experience” where subject/object duality might totally collapse, because to consciously experience it not being there, you’d have to contrast it with a feeling of duality, of when it is there, and doing that itself would require a dualistic experience.

There’s a feeling of bring one with everything that people often get under the influence of hallucinogens that is pretty vivid. In Buddhist practice I think it tends to be more subtle, almost automatic, like not noticing where your hand ends and the rest of your arm begins.

Elaborate experiences tend to be both convoluted and temporary. It’s too easy to cling to them and not get beyond them. So I think many practitioners will have a difficult time saying that “here was an experience of negation”. But it’s an interesting idea.
Thanks for re-connecting. Folks who are working on refuting the object of negation DO experience a liberative a-ha! It is the a-ha of not finding it!
Post Reply

Return to “Gelug”