Ajahn Brahm’s Insightful “Fruit Salad Simile” and the Principle of “Non-self”

The Watercooler
1

Inspired by Ajahn Brahm’s insightful “fruit salad simile” which describes experiences in Theravada Buddhist meditation, we develop an original model to reveal the principle of “non-self” by introducing “awareness of awareness” out of the framework of the five aggregates:

If we regard each aggregate as an “awareness” which is the state of being conscious of something, then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal the existence of “awareness of awareness”, and discern that it arises a moment after each aggregate and they do not appear simultaneously.

Thus, the slowing down of “speed” in vipassana would reveal that the notion that there is a constant entity always there knowing or experiencing all aggregates just results from the alternation of “awareness” (or “aggregates”) and “awareness of awareness”, something that under ordinary conditions happens very quickly. (That’s like a torch spinning so fast that it looks like a solid ring of fire exists.)

This would lead to the insight of “non-self”: no subject (or mental entity) of awareness at all.

Intrinsically, the illusion that there is a self underlying the five aggregates means a two-tier structure like that of Cartesian Theatre or “Cogito, ergo sum”. However, the slowing down of “speed” in vipassanā reveals that the reality is single-tier. (The “self” in Buddhism’s “non-self” is actually the “I” in Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.”)

2

Hi WengeHuang,

Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. You can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in. Forum guidelines are here: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.

If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.

Regards,
Sasha (on behalf of the moderators)

3

Hi Sasha,

Happy New Year!

Thank you very much for your kind consideration!

Best wishes,

Wenge

4

Here is the link for the paper:

Here is a diagram to express the core of the paper:

5

This model is inspired by prestigious Ajahn Brahm and supported by prestigious P. A. Payutto’s empirical materials.

What my innovation is introducing “awareness of awareness” out of the framework of the five aggregates.

6

On the basis of Ajahn Brahm’s insight “Fruit Salad Simile”, the key to build this model to interpret the principle of “non-self” is to argue that the five aggregates should be regard as “awareness”:

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rupert Gethin, Sue Hamilton and Alexander Wynne, different from the traditional mainstream view that the individual person consists of five ever-changing aggregates, the five aggregates should be regarded as descriptions of the individual’s subjective experience. Therefore, we view the five aggregates as a stream of moments of awareness or consciousness.

7

According to P. A. Payutto (2019: 23-24), when we regard each aggregate as an “awareness” which is the state of being conscious of something, then contemplating the five aggregates would reveal the existence of “awareness of awareness”. For instance, when one feels happy, one knows that one is happy. (Note that feeling happy is not the same as knowing that one feels happy.)

8

According to Ajahn Brahm, the stream of consciousness is not a continuously flowing process, but a series of discrete mental events. In his famous “fruit salad simile” (2006: 118), he describes experiences in Theravāda Buddhist meditation in this way:

“Suppose on a plate there is an apple. You clearly see this apple completely disappear and in its place appears a coconut. Then the coconut vanishes and in its place appears a banana. Then the banana vanishes and another coconut is there. … In this analogy, the apple stands for an event of eye-consciousness, the banana for an incident of nose-consciousness, … and the coconut for mind-consciousness. …

Mind-consciousness, the ‘coconut’, appears after every other species of consciousness and thereby gives the illusion of sameness to every conscious experience. To the average person, there is a quality in seeing that is also found in hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. We can call the quality ‘knowing’. However, with superpower mindfulness, we will discern that this knowing is not part of seeing, hearing, and so on, but arises a moment after each type of sense consciousness. Moreover, this knowing has vanished when, for example, eye-consciousness is occurring. And eye-consciousness has vanished when knowing (mind-consciousness) is occurring. In the simile of the fruit salad, there can’t be an apple and a coconut on the plate at the same time.”

By drawing this analogy, Ajahn Brahm attempts to illustrate the principle of “non-self” through undermining “the illusion that there is a knower, constantly present, which is always there to receive the experience of the world”. But it seems that he confused the concept of “mind-consciousness” with what Buddha defined in MN 148 and SN 12.2. In MN 148 and SN 12.2, “mind-consciousness” as one of the six consciousnesses, refers to intellect/mind receiving inner thought, imagination or memory, while the other five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are sense bases.

For the logical consistency, “mind-consciousness” shouldn’t have different meanings simultaneously in the framework of the five aggregates. However, Ajahn Brahm’s keen insight for realizing “non-self” inspires us to look for other relationship like that of “knowing (mind-consciousness)” and “each type of sense consciousness” in Buddhist meditation.

9

The principle of “non-self” in Buddhism: the self is just the illusion emerging out of the rapid alternation of “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”.

10

Yes, and then what realizes the ‘awareness of awareness’?

12

Nothing besides “awareness” and “awareness of awareness”!

Please see the diagram:

1 Like
13

Abhidhamma, and i think also science, assumes there is an element of knowing even when there is no sense vinnana. There is this ability to receive raw sense-info, before it is given any meaning. This basic receptivity (maybe, basic awareness).

This is itself not a sense vinnana but all 6 sense-vinnana’s have this basic receptivity, which is an element of knowing, as their condition. They cannot arise without.

This also means that an element of knowing is never absent in deep sleep, under narcosis, totally unaware of anything, in the absence of any sense vinnana.
Also then sense info is still received, processed but this does not lead to a sense vinnanas.

And any sense vinnana is an interpretation arising of raw sense info received by this basic receptivity. Via sensing we never see things as they really are but always how it is for us as humans. Via the 6 senses we experience an interpretation, but not how all really is.

But i believe the EBT show that we can arrive at this dimension which is refered to as signless, desireless, uninclined and empty. Then we understand, see, that this whole world of perception via the senses, is a karmic interpretation. It is always a world for us. And this breaks with the deepest illusion we have: they we believe we live in a given world in which things have fixed characteristics like colours, shapes, hardness, softness etc. For us it is very difficult to really see this is only our human perception.
A Buddha knows this and also shows that. He can walk on water, dive into the Earth, fly etc. But for us it is very difficult to realise that the same moment we see something as green, that is merely our conditionally arising perception. Not some fact of life.

We never have an objective understanding of the world. And we are also not able to arrive there. But we are able to arrive, i believe, at the end of suffering.

But in general, i have seen many buddhist masters emphasizing one must really distinguish how we know via the 6 senses and what the knowing element really is.

14

Oh yes, I understand, but it goes too far beyond the Buddha’s teachings. Thank you!

15

“Dependent Origination” is a “Automatic Process”.

16

It depends. It’s not inertia. And it’s a matter of being observation as far as I understand it. For Right View.

17

“Non-self” means a natural automatic process. It is like Adahn Brahm’s “Simile of the Driverless Bus”!

1 Like
18

There is no process, there is no bus, much like there is no self… But I may be thinking about it from a different angle.

Self grasping comes from grasping to a perceived existence. Even in a world that is manifest, here, and tangible, there is no existence from the ‘perspective’ of Nibbana because extinguishment of the Kleshas, and ‘the All’ of this body in Mahaparinirvana holds no existence for any entity, and that is the true aspect of the Dhamma and the true aspect of all Dhammas, in fact, even if you posit Brahman or God or a Soul or a self… These things are extraordinary to ponder, but they are not on the level of existence, because they are the end of perceived existence too, in Enlightenment and Nibbana. When Buddha came back, He came back not as a God or a human, but as a Buddha, so even if a Deva Themselves is Enlightened, they are above both existence and non-existence, Transcendent, Transcendental, and crossed over to the Other Shore.