Before Talking To The Teacher: Observe Yourself

[SodaChanh]

From Namkhai Norbu 

 

Quote

Before talking to the teacher it is better to observe yourself a bit, in that way you might find the answer for yourself. It is better to be one’s own teacher or master rather than assigning this job to someone else. That is why the teacher, and above all a Dzogchen teacher, teaches us to observe ourselves and to discover our own condition, and always asks us all to become responsible for ourselves. Why do teachers ask these things? It is not because they are worried about being bothered, but because they know very well that always turning to one’s teacher is not a solution. The solution lies in observing ourselves and resolving our own problems by ourselves. Then, if we have no way of finding a solution, the teacher can certainly help us. If everyone did this it would be much easier.

 

[Tommy]

Thank you for your thoughts about this.

So when teachers talk about self observation, don't teachers talk about mindfulness? What is mindfulness? Google defines it as, ...

"Mindfulness is a practice of being fully present and connected to oneself, without getting caught up in automatic thoughts and reactions. 

 

 

• Paying attention to the present moment
• Observing thoughts and feelings as they arise
• Accepting them without reacting or judging
• Cultivating a non-judgmental attitude
• Focusing on the breath or other sensory experiences
• Returning to the present moment when distractions occur 
   

In essence, mindfulness is a practice of being fully present and connected to oneself, without getting caught up in automatic thoughts and reactions. "

 

So, I would say that being mindful is self observation with the added focus of not identifying with the thoughts or emotions that may arise thru out the day. Self observation is fine but if one loses oneself in the moment then where is the benefit of self observation? So, teachers are needed along the way as well as a sangha.

[steve]

If we have the good fortune to connect with a teacher who has truly “gone before” and demonstrates mastery, walks the walk, I think it’s invaluable to learn as much as we can, to observe as thoroughly as we can, while we have the chance. A good teacher will let us know in no uncertain terms when it is time for us to fly on our own. We may think we know when we’re ready as well, and we may or may not be accurate. Either way, I think it is fine to follow our instinct, even if we prove to be wrong. We will learn something either way.

 

I had the experience with both my neijia/neigong teacher and my Bön teacher. I tended to be a bit dependent on both and took their queues when they came. After teaching for a while and coming to him periodically with challenging questions from students, I remember my taiji/neigong teacher telling me something like, ‘It’s your turn to figure it out now. You can’t depend on me forever.’ It felt very harsh at the time. I didn’t feel quite ready to be the “authority” but him pushing back gave me the confidence I needed to accept that authority, whether it felt warranted or not. When my Bön teacher pushed back, it was similar. I would email him experiences and questions and one day he said something like, ‘As much as I like to help, I’m very busy and you need to learn where to look for your own answers. You know where to look, you need to trust that.’ Now, whenever a question or uncertainty comes up I simply stay with it, not pushing it away or trying to figure it out, just being with the question, with the uncertainty. If I am quiet enough inside and open enough to the subtle, inner winds, the answer is nearly always already there and usually in the voice and aura of my teachers. If the answer isn’t there, I have learned to be OK with that too. With time it comes and if it does not, perhaps it’s not something I need at the moment.

[old3bob]

right do not lean too much on a teacher,  which is not cool.

 

then again our ego's can not see our own ego's very well but some one else often can....and point same out.

[steve]

Many years ago my karate sensei told me to sign up for a black belt test.

I told him I wasn't ready.

He got pissed, and he never got angry.

He said something like, ‘You think you know better than me whether or not you’re ready? Sign up!'

We can’t always see ourselves clearly and we can have a much better picture if we can also see ourselves through the eyes of others.

This is one of the values of interacting on this forum for me.

It’s taught me a lot about myself.

[SodaChanh]

7 hours ago, Tommy said:

So when teachers talk about self observation, don't teachers talk about mindfulness? What is mindfulness?

 

In Dzogchen context, a second step is needed, observe 'who' is mindful. Otherwise you won't penetrate duality. 

[Tommy]

2 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

 

In Dzogchen context, a second step is needed, observe 'who' is mindful. Otherwise you won't penetrate duality. 

I think the question of, "Who is mindful?" is much like the Koan, "What is MU?" the answer is there just out of reach. Try as much as I might, I can never reach it. 

 

Another Koan popped up while I was sitting. It was the question, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?".  So, sitting there, it came to me that my awareness is not unique and must be the same as everyone or everything. But, to say yes then how would a dog find Buddha nature as it seems only humans have that ability. To say no then it is to deny that awareness or Buddha nature does exist in a dog. Again I am stuck. 

 

So, yeah, otherwise I won't penetrate duality. Haven't yet.

[old3bob]

 

kind of a trick question, change to ,"can a dog fully realize Buddha nature?) , then there should be no problemo.

 

 

[steve]

4 hours ago, Tommy said:

I think the question of, "Who is mindful?" is much like the Koan, "What is MU?" the answer is there just out of reach. Try as much as I might, I can never reach it.

 

There’s an important difference. 

He did not say “Who is mindful?”

There is no question being asked or answer expected.

Observe ‘who’ is mindful.

 

Look directly at who is looking, no question or answer there, just look directly. ‘Who’ is behind my name and face and profession and thoughts-feelings !  What is there left or left to do, when there are no more designations, not even who..

 

Rest the body, speech, and mind and just be open.

 

Look for it in stillness of the body,  in silence of inner and outer voice and narrative, and in the experience of spaciousness, openness of the mind and heart.

 

If you look properly, you will see.

 

It is always there, you can never move away from it. But it needs to be pointed out by someone who knows how to point, the one that goes before, because it is too habitually overlooked, too unfamiliar, too simple. Some see it spontaneously, others not, and it’s always crystal clear and open, with the potential for giving rise to all appearances and experiences, the Great Perfection.

 

 

This is also where “What is nothing (MU)?” will take ‘you’ if you take enough time with it. What is nothing exactly? The question eludes and exhausts the conceptual mind and in a flash you see what is always there, where thoughts and feelings come from and where they go and what is left when they have passed, if you are quiet and open enough. But it looks like ‘nothing’ because none of the labels work, the eye can’t see itself. So it’s called empty. But it’s not absence or non-existence because it’s all playing out here and now, so vivid and present with, or without ‘who’

just leave everything just as it is.

 

And the thoughts and emotions, they’ll be back.. And you know ‘who’ will be back, already is I’d wager. And so it goes 

and you’ll notice, and reconnect with the stillness, silence and spaciousness 

over and again until it is more than familiar, until it is trusted, Refuge.

 

That’s one way to practice.

 

Edited April 6 by doc benway

[Tommy]

15 hours ago, doc benway said:

There’s an important difference. 

He did not say “Who is mindful?”

There is no question being asked or answer expected.

Observe ‘who’ is mindful.

 

Sorry, my mistake. When I read the word Who, it brings to mind the beginning of a question.

15 hours ago, doc benway said:

If you look properly, you will see.

 

It is always there, you can never move away from it. But it needs to be pointed out by someone who knows how to point, the one that goes before, because it is too habitually overlooked, too unfamiliar, too simple. Some see it spontaneously, others not, and it’s always crystal clear and open, with the potential for giving rise to all appearances and experiences, the Great Perfection.

 

Yeah, haven't gotten that far. I am stuck trying to understand with this mind that I lose what is in front of me.

15 hours ago, doc benway said:

This is also where “What is nothing (MU)?” will take ‘you’ if you take enough time with it. What is nothing exactly? The question eludes and exhausts the conceptual mind and in a flash you see what is always there, where thoughts and feelings come from and where they go and what is left when they have passed, if you are quiet and open enough. But it looks like ‘nothing’ because none of the labels work, the eye can’t see itself. So it’s called empty. But it’s not absence or non-existence because it’s all playing out here and now, so vivid and present with, or without ‘who’

just leave everything just as it is.

 

And the thoughts and emotions, they’ll be back.. And you know ‘who’ will be back, already is I’d wager. And so it goes 

and you’ll notice, and reconnect with the stillness, silence and spaciousness 

over and again until it is more than familiar, until it is trusted, Refuge.

 

That’s one way to practice.

 

I barely have quiet. The mind still wants to race and cover all things. The stillness eludes me. So, the question , What is MU? stains the quiet. It persists and remains a focus. At times, I can not let it go. If I do then I lose myself in thoughts trying to find an answer. I am guessing that I do not have enough concentration to go beyond just listening to my breath.

 

I do thank you for your words of encouragement. 

[Mark Foote]

On 4/5/2025 at 3:54 PM, Tommy said:

I think the question of, "Who is mindful?" is much like the Koan, "What is MU?" the answer is there just out of reach. Try as much as I might, I can never reach it. 

 

Another Koan popped up while I was sitting. It was the question, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?".  So, sitting there, it came to me that my awareness is not unique and must be the same as everyone or everything. But, to say yes then how would a dog find Buddha nature as it seems only humans have that ability. To say no then it is to deny that awareness or Buddha nature does exist in a dog. Again I am stuck. 

 

So, yeah, otherwise I won't penetrate duality. Haven't yet.
 

If I understand correctly, the teacher Joshu answered the question "yes" on one occasion, and "no" on another.  

 

 

[Mark Foote]

On 4/5/2025 at 5:53 AM, Tommy said:

Thank you for your thoughts about this.

So when teachers talk about self observation, don't teachers talk about mindfulness? What is mindfulness? Google defines it as, ...

"Mindfulness is a practice of being fully present and connected to oneself, without getting caught up in automatic thoughts and reactions. 

 

 

• Paying attention to the present moment
• Observing thoughts and feelings as they arise
• Accepting them without reacting or judging
• Cultivating a non-judgmental attitude
• Focusing on the breath or other sensory experiences
• Returning to the present moment when distractions occur 
   

In essence, mindfulness is a practice of being fully present and connected to oneself, without getting caught up in automatic thoughts and reactions. "

 

So, I would say that being mindful is self observation with the added focus of not identifying with the thoughts or emotions that may arise thru out the day. Self observation is fine but if one loses oneself in the moment then where is the benefit of self observation? So, teachers are needed along the way as well as a sangha.
 

From the piece I'm currently writing for my own site:
 

The mindfulness that was Gautama’s way of living was composed of sixteen observations and contemplations, each to be made in the course of an inhalation or exhalation. I have summarized what I consider to be the actionable elements of that mindfulness:
 

1) Relax the activity of the body, in inhalation and exhalation;

2) Find a feeling of ease and calm the senses connected with balance, in inhalation and exhalation;

3) Appreciate and detach from thought, in inhalation and exhalation;

4) Look to the free location of consciousness for the automatic activity of the body, in inhalation and exhalation.
 

Why the emphasis on breath? As I wrote previously:

There’s a frailty in the structure of the lower spine, and the necessity of breath can place the point of awareness in such a fashion as to engage a mechanism of support for the spine, often in stages.

 

The key to detaching from thought is to appreciate thought--I can usually do that, even if I only appreciate that I still have a mind that thinks, regardless of what I think of the contents!

Something else you might find useful, also from my current write:
 

In Gautama’s most famous sermon (Satipatthana, MN 10), the mindfulness of feelings consisted of mindfulness of the pleasant, the painful, and the neither-pleasant-nor-painful of feelings. In the mindfulness that was Gautama’s way of living, the mindfulness of feelings consisted of a mindfulness of feelings of zest and ease, feelings that he identified as belonging to the first concentration.

In my experience, the feeling of ease associated with concentration is the feeling of ease associated with activity of the body by virtue of the location of consciousness. Activity of the body can follow automatically as the location of consciousness leads the balance of the body. Automatic activity of the body by virtue of the location of consciousness has a feeling of ease, and initially a feeling of energy (or “zest”) as well.

Gautama spoke of the extension of the feeling of ease, an extension such that “there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this… ease”. He used the words “steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses” to describe how the feeling of ease pervades the body, indicating that the feeling is accompanied by a fluid sense of gravity.

The extension Gautama described maintains an openness of the body to the placement of consciousness at any point, and to ease through automatic activity of the body by virtue of the location of consciousness at that point accompanied by a sense of gravity.
 

 

Regarding the location of consciousness:
 

Modern neuroscience now includes the study of the “bodily self”:
 

A key aspect of the bodily self is self-location, the experience that the self is localized at a specific position in space within one's bodily borders (embodied self-location). 

(Journal of Neuroscience 26 May 2010, 30 (21) 7202-7214; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3403-09.2010)
 

The “self… localized at a specific position in space” is commonly associated with consciousness. The Indian sage Nisargadatta described the self as “the consciousness in the body”:

 

You are not your body, but you are the consciousness in the body, because of which you have the awareness of “I am”. It is without words, just pure beingness. Meditation means you have to hold consciousness by itself. The consciousness should give attention to itself.

(Gaitonde, Mohan [2017]. Self – Love: The Original Dream [Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s Direct Pointers to Reality]; ISBN 978-9385902833)
 

 

The “specific position in space” of the “consciousness in the body” is often assumed to be fixed somewhere behind the eyes. Zen teacher Koun Franz suggested that the location is not fixed:
 

… as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture (legs crossed in seated meditation) and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.

(“No Struggle [Zazen Yojinki, Part 6]”, by Koun Franz, from the “Nyoho Zen” site, parenthetical added)

 

 

Edited April 7 by Mark Foote

[Keith108]

On 4/5/2025 at 6:54 PM, Tommy said:

I think the question of, "Who is mindful?" is much like the Koan, "What is MU?" the answer is there just out of reach. Try as much as I might, I can never reach it. 

 

Another Koan popped up while I was sitting. It was the question, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?".  So, sitting there, it came to me that my awareness is not unique and must be the same as everyone or everything. But, to say yes then how would a dog find Buddha nature as it seems only humans have that ability. To say no then it is to deny that awareness or Buddha nature does exist in a dog. Again I am stuck. 

 

So, yeah, otherwise I won't penetrate duality. Haven't yet.

 

Koans are interesting, in that any kind of thinking doesn't help. It's a "lock and key" kind of practice, where the teacher is the lock, and you are the key. Wrong key and the lock doesn't open. 

 

Being stuck is a wonderful thing...it's where the magic happens.

 

_/|\_

 

 

[old3bob]

 

yea, that one hand clapping is empty without another hand...

 

[Tommy]

On 4/5/2025 at 7:34 PM, old3bob said:

 

kind of a trick question, change to ,"can a dog fully realize Buddha nature?) , then there should be no problemo.

 

 

So change the question? What is the sound of two hand clap? Easy.

[old3bob]

 

aka duality...

 

 

[Cobie]

“‘one hand clapping” is a category mistake.

[stirling]

11 hours ago, Tommy said:

So change the question? What is the sound of two hand clap? Easy.

 

Ah... because you have used your clever thinking mind to come up with a conceptual answer, OR because you have the experience that is being pointed to?

 

These are two different things, and only one of them is the "answer".

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, Cobie said:

“‘one hand clapping” is a category mistake.
 

As in, "category theory"?

 

 

The second fundamental concept of category theory is the concept of a functor, which plays the role of a morphism between two categories C1 and C2: it maps objects of C1 to objects of C2 and morphisms of C1 to morphisms of C2 in such a way that sources are mapped to sources, and targets are mapped to targets...

 

(Wikipedia, "category theory")

 

 

Sounds right to me.  The relationships involved in "one hand clapping" don't morph onto the relationships of "two hands clapping", they express fundamentally different relationships.

 

I'm with Dylan, though:  "well, I don't think it's likely to happen; the sound, of the one hand clapping..."

 

 

 

Edited April 9 by Mark Foote

[Cobie]

16 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

As in, "category theory"?  …

No.

[Tommy]

On 4/9/2025 at 6:02 PM, Mark Foote said:

As in, "category theory"?

 

 

The second fundamental concept of category theory is the concept of a functor, which plays the role of a morphism between two categories C1 and C2: it maps objects of C1 to objects of C2 and morphisms of C1 to morphisms of C2 in such a way that sources are mapped to sources, and targets are mapped to targets...

 

(Wikipedia, "category theory")

 

 

Sounds right to me.  The relationships involved in "one hand clapping" don't morph onto the relationships of "two hands clapping", they express fundamentally different relationships.

 

I'm with Dylan, though:  "well, I don't think it's likely to happen; the sound, of the one hand clapping..."

Sorry, you lost me. All I was doing was turning the Koan into a different question so it can be answered because Old3bob said,

 

On 4/5/2025 at 7:34 PM, old3bob said:

 

kind of a trick question, change to ,"can a dog fully realize Buddha nature?) , then there should be no problemo.

 

 

which wasn't the real answer but a way to bypass the Koan. Which then I replied with one hand clap is changed to two hand clap and the question is thus abled to be answered. But, of course, it isn't. It is just another iteration of the answers which do not answer the Koan.

 

As someone said before that Koans are more like a lock and key. The teacher is the lock and the student is the key. If the student figures out the key (or Koan) then the lock opens the teacher. Or something to that effect. To me. it seems the Koan is just another crutch for the student to use in order to focus his concentration and be able to maintain the silence. This allows the awareness to depart from this mind. 

 

Of course, I do not know if any of this is true. But, I try to make things simple for me to understand.

[Mark Foote]

2 hours ago, Tommy said:

 

To me. it seems the Koan is just another crutch for the student to use in order to focus his concentration and be able to maintain the silence. This allows the awareness to depart from this mind. 

 

Of course, I do not know if any of this is true. But, I try to make things simple for me to understand.

 

 

 

Sounds pretty much right to me, not that I have any authority to say so.

Reading your remarks, I'm thinking, "one hand clapping, the kind of dull thud you get when the thoughts come to an end, and you find awareness broadening out involuntarily."

 

I've heard some Zen teachers give readings of the koans that I knew for a fact were wide of the mark, but then--they were Soto teachers.  Maybe Rinzai teachers know better than to stick their necks out! 

[SodaChanh]

Koan would probably lead to I AM realization if exhausting the mind 

 

From Awakening to Reality 

 

Quote

The key aspect that distinguishes I AM realization from I AM experience is that there is the quality of complete doubtless certainty of Self that is unshakeable, a Eureka moment where you have found out what you truly are, and that certainty remains from that point onwards.

 

Furthermore - the I AM is not a fabricated state. It is Unfabricated Presence-Awareness. You do not “cultivate” the I AM Presence. It is not merely a state of Witnessing to be maintained. It is not a maintenance state. It is not a state to be reached through effort and cultivation. Instead it is discovered and directly realized to be one’s doubtless shining core of Existence, much like the clouds dissipating (our misidentification with perceived objects of mind and body as self) revealing the shining sun that was all along present but never noticed.

 

[stirling]

6 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

Koan would probably lead to I AM realization if exhausting the mind 

 

From Awakening to Reality

 

Some clarification:

 

A "state" is a temporary experience that comes and goes, sometimes seemingly dependent on a single or multiplicity of circumstance. When that state fades, the persons experience goes back to the duality of "self" and another. This what we call "Kensho" in Zen.

 

Complete realization is not a state (it does not come and go) but a realization of a permanent, underlying reality that is omnipresent. We call this "Satori".

 

There is no reason why a koan should only lead to a "state". Truly, in any moment, something (anything) could be the event that appears to precipitate realization, though realization actually has nothing to do with causes and conditions, which are a "relative" construct. 

 

Initial realizations can be either "non-dual 1" (I AM), or "non-dual 2" (Emptiness/all appearances are enlightened). Every enlightened "being" I have ever met eventually realized "non-dual 2" eventually. 

[SodaChanh]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

There is no reason why a koan should only lead to a "state". Truly, in any moment, something (anything) could be the event that appears to precipitate realization, though realization actually has nothing to do with causes and conditions, which are a "relative" construct. 

 

Just look at that which

has no beginning and no end,

is uncaused,

cannot be fabricated,

cannot be touched by events,

is forever shining,

then you are done 😊