The Knower and the Thinker
Please go to the 20.00 minute mark for a question and answer on who is Ajahn Suchart and who is the questioner. The “million dollar answer” is given. Also he clarifies "the knower" by going further to introduce the term "knowing element."
I appreciate this monk very much because he gives unfiltered answers.
-
I listened to a few minutes after the indicated mark. It seems to me that what is referred to as meditation is specifically a more advanced level, that implies sensual withdrawal. I say that because the concept of knowing is addressed or mentioned.
Knowing comes about as an exploration of the world by the sensory organs. They are the means by which life is experienced, known and learned. Therefore sensual withdrawal, pratyahara in order for true meditation to begin.
Then, there can be understanding of one’s self, aside from the intellect that is described in the lecture in different terms.
But there are no further instructions or distinctions as far as what I have listened to so far when it comes to the actual breakdown of the elements that constitute the mind as generally understood.
-
Because this monk is terse and precise in his explanations, he is a bit hard to follow. I went back and listened to the entirety of his answer again.
The mind is well understood by advanced Buddhist meditators, but the terminology varies, even among Buddhists!
You wrote:
Knowing comes about as an exploration of the world by the sensory organs.
In Buddhism, this is technically wrong. The exploration of the world through the senses produces CONSCIOUSNESS. It is a major aggregate of the mind, which does not comprise a self and which needs to be renounced as such.
Knowing is a function of mind. It can only be understood as a VERB. Often the term "the knower" is discussed but technically there is no subject, no actual knower, but just a process, an action, of knowing.
Regarding the lack of breakdown of what constitutes the mind, I can say what I have learned and understood. The mind is comprised of:
- feelings (pleasant, neutral and unpleasant sensations)
- perception (labeling/cognizing)
- mental formations (thinking/memory/biases/interpretations/imagination)
- consciousness
On thing about consciousness is that consciousness does not arise by itself. When the senses or the mind come in contact with sensual and mental objects respectively, mental factors always arise too. However as one practices and practices and practices, one will develop the skillful means to observe contact with bare attention. Again, this is territory that I am only beginning to explore. The Abhidhamma goes into this in detail. However, one can successfully meditate without the study of Abhidhamma.
I admit to being inadequate in my ability to respond to you. It's taken me many years to wrap my head around these concepts, and actually this is a side feature. The heart of the practice is a VERB, the actual doing of meditation as instructed. For me, the understanding usually follows. Thus I stumble around intellectually to respond "correctly."
Regarding pratyahara and meditation, I wholehearted agree that pratyahara is needed. There seems to be a simple trick to it, that is very elusive. Right now I'm working on that---on how to consistently turn away from thinking and sensual contacts, and situate myself in awareness.
It's not enough to have random experiences of advanced pratyahara. I want to get the skill of knowing how to do it and of doing it regularly.
The terminology is secondary to all of this. As you noted, it's so important to understand what remains when the intellect is left aside.
I appreciate your response and I'm sorry if I have created any confusion.
-
At this level of dialogue, I see similarities. The semantics might be the cause of confusion. But out of that, I believe comes further clarification as well as a deeper practical understanding for oneself, therefore the benefit of such exchanges.
I am not well-read of the scriptures by any measure. I have some practice as well as guidance from my main guru, those are my sources for the most part.
My confusion regarding the ajahn’s presentation started with the title “The Knower and the Thinker” because I rather see Thinking and Knower.
I believe there can be Self knowledge, and that can lead to freedom from suffering, which implies rising above sensorial perception because one who doesn’t feel or perceive the inconvenience is freed from their repercussions too.
That knowledge will also possibly become immaterial at some point as suggested in the quote:
“ Knowing is a function of mind. It can only be understood as a VERB. Often the term "the knower" is discussed but technically there is no subject, no actual knower, but just a process, an action, of knowing.” But that is not the level of my current practice therefore I should not speculate on it one way or the other. Though understandable that at some point there is no process either, just the awareness of self, however, it is defined or characterized as.
For certain from where I now operate the senses count, because I cannot subjugate them into submission or live at this time unaffected by their objects, and their created consciousnesses be that pleasure or suffering or others.
Only from the perspective of pure consciousness does knowledge not matter. One would be positioned beyond attention and awareness. Otherwise, although thinking is a function of the mind, the atma is greatly affected by the senses, especially for one who ignores the path to the way out, the atma will remain helpless. And subsequently, rebirths are bound to follow one after the other.
These aspects can be difficult to explain indeed, and I may sound confusing, but I’d like to create objectivity and awareness of my process.
-
Thank you!
We have to keep going with the flow of our respective practices, taking help from our teachers. In all honesty, I no longer understand what it means when you say:
the atma is greatly affected by the senses
I used to just accept that blindly without really knowing exactly what the atma is and exactly what the consequences are when it is affected. You do not need to explain. I understand that the atma (core self) is not normally seen objectively and I am not challenging anyone.
Good luck! Keep practicing and sharing.
-
Thank you! For the opportunity to debate and question practices. It is beneficial.
Saying that the atma is affected by the senses, I am not meaning in the same manner as the physical body or the subtle body. I want to say that it is helpless and therefore victimized.
But I can also see that the atma as stated in most religious belief system is not affected. It is not of the same nature as anything else, therefore in absolute terms it is contradictory to say that it is greatly affected, by any-thing for that matter, pun intended.
