Observer of the Observer

[Śūnyatā]

A question that has been floating about in my mind lately:

If the observer is observing the doer, who is observing the observer?


Warmly :
Nik

[reflection]

There are no such things as 'doer and 'observer'. These are only words to classify experiences - just teaching tools.
You could also say they are 'activity' and 'watching' or something along those lines.
Then the question would be, is 'watching' watching itself? Which is kind of nonsense, because it's just a verb, not a thing. You can't watch a verb.

But funny thing is, the mind (which also would need a verb, but anyway) can see the mind, but usually this does not happen - only in deep meditation. It's like a mirror, but then again not.

Metta!

[pulga]

Api c'Udāyi titthatu pubbanto titthatu aparanto, dhammam te desessāmi: Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati; imasmim asati idam na hoti, imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhatī ti. Majjhima viii,9 <M.ii,32>

But, Udāyi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases.

To my mind Ven. Ñanavira offers the most convincing explanation of the paradox you've inquired about.

http://nanavira.org/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=51

[kirk5a]

who?

The Buddha called this sort of questioning inappropriate attention. I do not see anywhere that he talked about "the observer observing the doer." Trying to practice like this can lead to confusion. As you are currently experiencing.

This is how he attends inappropriately: ... he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I?
...
He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[daverupa]

Api c'Udāyi titthatu pubbanto titthatu aparanto, dhammam te desessāmi: Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati; imasmim asati idam na hoti, imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhatī ti. Majjhima viii,9 <M.ii,32>

But, Udāyi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases.

To my mind Ven. Ñanavira offers the most convincing explanation of the paradox you've inquired about.

http://nanavira.org/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=51

who?

The Buddha called this sort of questioning inappropriate attention. I do not see anywhere that he talked about "the observer observing the doer." Trying to practice like this can lead to confusion. As you are currently experiencing.

This is how he attends inappropriately: ... he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I?
...
He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

And daverupa delighted in the words of these good Dhamma friends.

[pulga]

This is how he attends inappropriately: ... he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I?
...
He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.

If you look over the Sabbásavasuttam more closely you'll see that the Buddha is contrasting the ayoniso manasikara of the assutavá puthujjana with that of the sutavá ariyasávaka, i.e. whereas the puthujjana is incapable of yoniso manasikara, the sekha, the sutavá ariyasávaka, with the arising of the dhammacakkhuu is able to "attend to the source" of the dukkha that the Buddha's Teaching is meant to alleviate.

[kirk5a]

If you look over the Sabbásavasuttam more closely you'll see that the Buddha is contrasting the ayoniso manasikara of the assutavá puthujjana with that of the sutavá ariyasávaka, i.e. whereas the puthujjana is incapable of yoniso manasikara, the sekha, the sutavá ariyasávaka, with the arising of the dibbacakkhu is able to "attend to the source" of the dukkha that the Buddha's Teaching is meant to alleviate.

I have looked at the sutta more closely and I do not see what you are talking about.

[pulga]

I have looked at the sutta more closely and I do not see what you are talking about.

This is apt to pull us into a digression, but here is the part of the Sabbásavasuttam that we're referring to:

"Idha, bhikkhave , assutavā puthujjano – ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto– manasikaraṇīye dhamme nappajānāti, amanasikaraṇīye dhamme nappajānāti. So manasikaraṇīye dhamme appajānanto amanasikaraṇīye dhamme appajānanto, ye dhammā na manasikaraṇīyā, te dhamme manasi karoti, ye dhammā manasikaraṇīyā te dhamme na manasi karoti.

‘‘Katame ca, bhikkhave, dhammā na manasikaraṇīyā ye dhamme manasi karoti? Yassa, bhikkhave, dhamme manasikaroto anuppanno vā kāmāsavo uppajjati, uppanno vā kāmāsavo pavaḍḍhati; anuppanno vā bhavāsavo uppajjati, uppanno vā bhavāsavo pavaḍḍhati; anuppanno vā avijjāsavo uppajjati, uppanno vā avijjāsavo pavaḍḍhati – ime dhammā na manasikaraṇīyā ye dhamme manasi karoti.

‘‘Katame ca, bhikkhave, dhammā manasikaraṇīyā ye dhamme na manasi karoti? Yassa, bhikkhave, dhamme manasikaroto anuppanno vā kāmāsavo na uppajjati, uppanno vā kāmāsavo pahīyati; anuppanno vā bhavāsavo na uppajjati, uppanno vā bhavāsavo pahīyati; anuppanno vā avijjāsavo na uppajjati, uppanno vā avijjāsavo pahīyati – ime dhammā manasikaraṇīyā ye dhamme na manasi karoti.

‘‘Tassa amanasikaraṇīyānaṃ dhammānaṃ manasikārā manasikaraṇīyānaṃ dhammānaṃ amanasikārā anuppannā ceva āsavā uppajjanti uppannā ca āsavā pavaḍḍhanti.

18. ‘‘So evaṃ ayoniso manasi karoti – ‘ahosiṃ nu kho ahaṃ atītamaddhānaṃ? Na nu kho ahosiṃ atītamaddhānaṃ? Kiṃ nu kho ahosiṃ atītamaddhānaṃ? Kathaṃ nu kho ahosiṃ atītamaddhānaṃ? Kiṃ hutvā kiṃ ahosiṃ nu kho ahaṃ atītamaddhānaṃ? Bhavissāmi nu kho ahaṃ anāgatamaddhānaṃ? Na nu kho bhavissāmi anāgatamaddhānaṃ? Kiṃ nu kho bhavissāmi anāgatamaddhānaṃ? Kathaṃ nu kho bhavissāmi anāgatamaddhānaṃ? Kiṃ hutvā kiṃ bhavissāmi nu kho ahaṃ anāgatamaddhāna’nti? Etarahi vā paccuppannamaddhānaṃ [paccuppannamaddhānaṃ ārabbha (syā.)] ajjhattaṃ kathaṃkathī hoti – ‘ahaṃ nu khosmi? No nu khosmi? Kiṃ nu khosmi? Kathaṃ nu khosmi? Ayaṃ nu kho satto kuto āgato? So kuhiṃ gāmī bhavissatī’ti?

19. ‘‘Tassa evaṃ ayoniso manasikaroto channaṃ diṭṭhīnaṃ aññatarā diṭṭhi uppajjati. ‘Atthi me attā’ti vā assa [vāssa (sī. syā. pī.)] saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati; ‘natthi me attā’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati; ‘attanāva attānaṃ sañjānāmī’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati; ‘attanāva anattānaṃ sañjānāmī’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati; ‘anattanāva attānaṃ sañjānāmī’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati; atha vā panassa evaṃ diṭṭhi hoti – ‘yo me ayaṃ attā vado vedeyyo tatra tatra kalyāṇapāpakānaṃ kammānaṃ vipākaṃ paṭisaṃvedeti so kho pana me ayaṃ attā nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo sassatisamaṃ tatheva ṭhassatī’ti. Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave , diṭṭhigataṃ diṭṭhigahanaṃ diṭṭhikantāraṃ diṭṭhivisūkaṃ diṭṭhivipphanditaṃ diṭṭhisaṃyojanaṃ. Diṭṭhisaṃyojanasaṃyutto, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano na parimuccati jātiyā jarāya maraṇena sokehi paridevehi dukkhehi domanassehi upāyāsehi; ‘na parimuccati dukkhasmā’ti vadāmi.

20. ‘‘Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako – ariyānaṃ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto, sappurisānaṃ dassāvī sappurisadhammassa kovido sappurisadhamme suvinīto – manasikaraṇīye dhamme pajānāti amanasikaraṇīye dhamme pajānāti. So manasikaraṇīye dhamme pajānanto amanasikaraṇīye dhamme pajānanto ye dhammā na manasikaraṇīyā te dhamme na manasi karoti, ye dhammā manasikaraṇīyā te dhamme manasi karoti.
‘‘Katame ca, bhikkhave, dhammā na manasikaraṇīyā ye dhamme na manasi karoti? Yassa, bhikkhave, dhamme manasikaroto anuppanno vā kāmāsavo uppajjati, uppanno vā kāmāsavo pavaḍḍhati; anuppanno vā bhavāsavo uppajjati, uppanno vā bhavāsavo pavaḍḍhati; anuppanno vā avijjāsavo uppajjati, uppanno vā avijjāsavo pavaḍḍhati – ime dhammā na manasikaraṇīyā, ye dhamme na manasi karoti.

‘‘Katame ca, bhikkhave, dhammā manasikaraṇīyā ye dhamme manasi karoti? Yassa, bhikkhave, dhamme manasikaroto anuppanno vā kāmāsavo na uppajjati, uppanno vā kāmāsavo pahīyati; anuppanno vā bhavāsavo na uppajjati , uppanno vā bhavāsavo pahīyati; anuppanno vā avijjāsavo na uppajjati, uppanno vā avijjāsavo pahīyati – ime dhammā manasikaraṇīyā ye dhamme manasi karoti.

‘‘Tassa amanasikaraṇīyānaṃ dhammānaṃ amanasikārā manasikaraṇīyānaṃ dhammānaṃ manasikārā anuppannā ceva āsavā na uppajjanti, uppannā ca āsavā pahīyanti.

21. ‘‘So ‘idaṃ dukkha’nti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti yoniso manasi karoti. Tassa evaṃ yoniso manasikaroto tīṇi saṃyojanāni pahīyanti – sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīlabbataparāmāso. Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā

The point at hand -- as I understand it -- is that the Buddha is making a marked distinction between the puthujjana's ayoniso manasikara from that of the ariyasávaka's yoniso manasikara. The puthujjana isn't an ariyasávaka, and I think it is probably a mistake, a significant mistake, to over look this. This puthujjana/ariyasávaka distinction runs throughout the Suttas, and though it makes our attempt to make progress in the Teaching demanding, almost to the point of appearing hopeless, it is nonetheless there.

[kirk5a]

The point at hand -- as I understand it -- is that the Buddha is making a marked distinction between the puthujjana's ayoniso manasikara from that of the ariyasávaka's yoniso manasikara. The puthujjana isn't an ariyasávaka, and I think it is probably a mistake, a significant mistake, to over look this. This puthujjana/ariyasávaka distinction runs throughout the Suttas, and though it makes our attempt to make progress in the Teaching demanding, almost to the point of appearing hopeless, it is nonetheless there.

Are you suggesting that one cannot even practice appropriate (or wise) attention unless one is already a stream enterer?

[tiltbillings]

[
If you look over the Sabbásavasuttam more closely you'll see that the Buddha is contrasting the ayoniso manasikara of the assutavá puthujjana with that of the sutavá ariyasávaka, i.e. whereas the puthujjana is incapable of yoniso manasikara, the sekha, the sutavá ariyasávaka, with the arising of the dibbacakkhu is able to "attend to the source" of the dukkha that the Buddha's Teaching is meant to alleviate.

You can only make that argument if all the sutta discussions of yoniso manasikāra support that point.

[pulga]

Are you suggesting that one cannot even practice appropriate (or wise) attention unless one is already a stream enterer?

Yes, though one needs to keep in mind that yoniso literally means "from the source" which ties into "Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati...".

[tiltbillings]

Are you suggesting that one cannot even practice appropriate (or wise) attention unless one is already a stream enterer?

Yes, though one needs to keep in mind that yoniso literally means "from the source" which ties into "Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati...".

And your "from the source" point is?

[kirk5a]

Are you suggesting that one cannot even practice appropriate (or wise) attention unless one is already a stream enterer?

Yes, though one needs to keep in mind that yoniso literally means "from the source" which ties into "Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati...".

That's not what the sutta says. It is clearly describing how one gets to stream entry - by the means of wise attention. I don't know what you're getting at with "from the source" either.

As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices.

[tiltbillings]

Are you suggesting that one cannot even practice appropriate (or wise) attention unless one is already a stream enterer?

Yes, though one needs to keep in mind that yoniso literally means "from the source" which ties into "Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati...".

That's not what the sutta says. It is clearly describing how one gets to stream entry - by the means of wise attention.

As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices.

Yes.

[ground]

A question that has been floating about in my mind lately:

If the observer is observing the doer, who is observing the observer?

That is not possible. Self consciousness can adopt different "me" identities switching between them but not appropriate them at the same time and this is not observing.
However doing can be observed because there is the eye and the body.

[Śūnyatā]

I'm enjoying observing this discourse.

[pulga]

That's not what the sutta says. It is clearly describing how one gets to stream entry - by the means of wise attention. I don't know what you're getting at with "from the source" either.

As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices.

‘‘So ‘idaṃ dukkha’nti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti yoniso manasi karoti, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti yoniso manasi karoti. Tassa evaṃ yoniso manasikaroto tīṇi saṃyojanāni pahīyanti – sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīlabbataparāmāso. Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā.

How is the puthujjana supposed to apply yoniso manasikara to the four ariyasaccáni prior to enlightenment, i.e. prior to the arising of the dhammacakkhu? He can't. But when he does so -- note the genetive absolute -- the three fetters are extinguished. "These āsavā, monks, are to be abandoned through seeing." (Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā.)

[kirk5a]

How is the puthujjana supposed to apply yoniso manasikara to the four ariyasaccáni prior to enlightenment, i.e. prior to the arising of the dhammacakkhu? He can't. But when he does so -- note the genetive absolute -- the three fetters are extinguished. "These āsavā, monks, are to be abandoned through seeing." (Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā.)

I'm sorry but you're just not making sense. You say "he can't" and then you say "when he does so." Well, by what means does he manage to do so, if he can't?

Also, since this isn't the Pali forum, I think your points would be better made if you simply used the English translation for the terms you are talking about, or at least put it in parentheses. My familiarity with Pali is at the "hunt and peck" level.

What I see contrasted there is the following:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention.

vs.

The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention.

I don't see any reason to assume that the latter case is already a stream enterer. Rather, he is following the path to stream entry, sounds logical to me.

[pulga]

I'm sorry but you're just not making sense. You say "he can't" and then you say "when he does so." Well, by what means does he manage to do so, if he can't?

When he "properly attends" to the Four Noble Truths, he ceases to be a puthujjana.

Also, since this isn't the Pali forum, I think your points would be better made if you simply used the English translation for the terms you are talking about, or at least put it in parentheses. My familiarity with Pali is at the "hunt and peck" level.
What I see contrasted there is the following:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention.

vs.

The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention.

I don't see any reason to assume that the latter case is already a stream enterer. Rather, he is following the path to stream entry, sounds logical to me.

I find that the translations available are so biased and misleading that they're next to worthless. They all seem to reflect the agenda of those translating them, and it doesn't add to the credentials of a translator to admit that he doesn't really understand what he is translating, not at least as far as the message the Buddha was trying to convey. And no teacher wants to be the bearer of such bad news, so his only option is to water down the Suttas to convince his followers that they're making progress in the Teaching, that it is just a matter of "instruction" as to whether one is an ariyan or not. And of course we've all been "instructed", so we're all ariyasávaká. Such nonsense.

There is a passage from Anguttara Nikaya II,xi,7-9:

There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and improper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view. There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and proper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of right view.

So I suppose we're at the mercy of the utterances of another -- or a whole of host of others -- which is fine and good so long as they're enlightened. But is such the case?

I don't want to enter into any polemics, but Peter Masefield's Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism has a chapter on just this subject. Much of the book is far too speculative for my tastes, but this particular chapter I find convincing. His familiarity with the Suttas is impressive, and he clearly has a sense of the nuance conveyed in the original Pali. That his interpretation on this particular matter concurs more or less with the likes of Ven. Ñanavira and Ven. Ñanamoli, both of whom weren't really interested in teaching the Dhamma to others, should instill in one at the very least the ambition and initiative to read the Suttas in their original Pali.

[tiltbillings]

There is a passage from Anguttara Nikaya II,xi,7-9:

There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and improper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view. There are, monks, these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which are the two? Another's utterance and proper attention. These, monks, are the two conditions for the arising of right view.

NDB 178. You have yet to give an actual argument for reading this text and the text from MN i 6 them way you do. These texts can be read just as they are written, yoniso manasikāra is what is cultivated as a tool for right view. If you wish to argue this further, please start a new thread.