equilibrium wrote:Is that not the same as:
For everything that exist it must depend on something else.....except Nibbana.
Do you mean in general or are you refering to one of the interpretations above?
TNH's comment, at least if one is reasonably familiar with his other writings, might be seen that way. He tends to harmonize Zen "nonduality" and emptiness, Hua Yen interprenetration and regular dependent origination in his concept or term "interbeing" and describering how things "inter-are". Even so I dont get how he ties "awerness of the body IN THE BODY" with that kind of stuff without explanation. a long time ago I heard a talk from him, and the way he spoke about it suggested he meant something along the lines of an immersive, direct experience of the kinds of vibrations, sensations and whatnot that U Ba Khin & Goenka draw attention to, while following the instructions of say Anapanasati, rather than a sort of disassociated observer examining parts of the body according to a formula.
Actually, to be honest thats pretty much how I sense it or relate to it. So his "one with" language in this book surprised me a little. I might get what he means but I could see it sort of creating misunderstanding of what he might be trying to say.
Actually later in the same book he elaborates but its still not much clearer. Basically he states that the mindfulness itself
is the "subject" and, say, the breath - is the "object". And when the mindfulness "shines its light" on the object it (the object) is "transformed" into something else (like a baby from two parents maybe), sort of. Like breathing becomes "conscious breathing". Ok, kind of transmission-y and intuitive, but he doesnt really tie it back to "what or who" is observing, or "the knower" or the "mere" or "bare" awareness (free from elaboration etc). As such "no-self" is perhaps implied. Just mindfulness, an object of mindfulness, coming together and no imputed owner of the experience. I guess. I dont know. Maybe its just a translation thing, or from a talk with a particular audience who might follow what he is saying.
But yeah... Body in the body. What's that?