p.263

move, there is nothing──an object, a substance or a self──that can persist or endure.  If a thing cannot endure within the impermanent nature of things, then, a perdurable self that grasps after things is not possible.   If an entity were to exist, it must exist as part and parcel of the dynamics involved.   That is to say, it is possible only in terms of achieving the status of a dynamic nonself, the ultimate goal in Buddhism.

The Dynamic Nonself

　　We have now seen that the ordinary conception of the self is not advanced in Buddhism.  This is not to say, however, that the self does not exist at all in everyday practical affairs.  The so-called conventional self is admitted, but it is classified as unreal.  It exists only in an apparent world where experiences are understood in “abstract” ways.  As discussed earlier, a thing or an object is not real but exists only as an abstraction because it has been abstracted from the dynamic nature of experience.  In this sense, the abstracted thing or object, if grasped and clung to, disrupts and impedes the flow of experience.  As shown previously, Buddhist experience is free flowing at all times.  This means that there should not be any obstruction to the flow in any way.[4]

　　The conventional nature of the self is not admissible for another reason.   The inception of the self, so-called, is at once the inception of a dichotomy.  That is to say, the fact that a self appears means that it has separated itself from the rest of the realm of perception.  This is not easy to detect or to know.  Indeed, for the most part, the dichotomizing self is not apparent, but it becomes a necessary ingredient in our perception of things.  Coupled with this

p.264

dichotomy, the thing or object is projected on our perceptual screen, and thus the abstracted nature of the thing or object becomes a part, indeed a content, although unrecognized in the perceptual process.  In consequence, dichotomous perception becomes a normal way of our experiences.  But it took the Buddha’s enlightenment to unravel the question of abstracted things and objects in our understanding of things by going to the inception of perception that is dichotomous to begin with.

　　Buddhist doctrines then do not refer to discrete fragmental things or elements, especially those derivable from dichotomous perceptions.  Instead, the reference is always on the holistic content of experience in which things happen.  It is because of this condition, i.e., doing away with discrete elements, that the Buddha’s enlightenment proffered a unique dynamic nonself doctrine.  The doctrine is unique but difficult to grasp since it strains our minds to merely understand what it really means.  It sounds like an oxymoron to speak of a nonself that is at the same time dynamic.  Again, it has been said earlier that the mind is not capable of grasping the nature of a dynamic phenomenon, except by way of referential elements, which had already expired as abstractions.  In a way, we do get to know things perceived by reference to things already transpired.  But reality resides in the present dynamic state and not in a past state.  This is the ultimate dilemma we face in trying to seize the nature of the dynamic in terms of the temporal flow.  In the dynamic nature of things, moreover, how can we reconcile the nature, so-called, of a nonself?  Furthermore, it taxes our imagination to understand the notion of a dynamic nonself.  Is there a way out?  The answer is definitely positive but it behooves us to be patient, understanding and honestly try to accommodate novel but nascent phases of our ordinary experiences.  In other words, there is much “hidden” in our experiences that need to be explored and utilized in very intimate ways.

p.265

　　The first step is to have an open attitude and accommodate the traditionally proven method of meditation.  Needless to say, meditation has been overlooked, if not denied by the general public who think that it is solely in the preserve of the monks or other religious aspirants who practice it merely for religious purposes.  The gap between the priesthood and laymen has been rendered so wide that today it seems almost impossible to bridge. Although meditation has become a near sacrosanct commodity, it is time to take a second look at it since there are elements in it that are quite applicable and contributory to solving present day problems.

　　For the Buddhist, meditation (samaadhi) is a vital and necessary ingredient in everyday living, although this is not obvious to most people.  The two principal facets of meditation are calm or tranquillity and insight (samatha-vipa`syanaa).  Calm or tranquillity is something we aspire for in a troubled life.  But the irony of it all is that human nature is basically calm or tranquil.  It is our contrivance, ignorance and delusion that occlude and prevent us from revealing the naturally inherent tranquil nature.  The Buddha’s own use of meditative discipline was to seek salvation from his troubled life, but his enlightenment (nirvaa.na), preceded by calm and superceded by insight, exhibited a purely natural means of resolving the travails of humankind.  It was not beyond human effort although later writings seem to attribute his feat as beyond it.   It was, in truth, a human resolution achievable within human means, a meditative discipline that resulted in the eradication of human suffering that at once opened up new vistas in human existence.