Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Transience and non-movement
taiyaki
Veteran
"Movement is perceived when it is falsely perceived that there is some unchanging self-entity that links two moments together.
For example as a bystanding observer on the roadside, it appears that a car quickly moves through your field of vision. So it appears that you, as an observer, observed an object moving across. What if however, you are on a vehicle moving at the same speed as the other vehicle, do you perceive movement of another vehicle? No. Why? Because the observer is now at the same speed as the observed object, and movement only occurs as a contrast between the unmoving subject and a moved object. But what if there is no observer at all (which is what we realised to have been always the case in the insight into anatta - the observer being merely a constructed illusion) - with no reference point, is there movement? No. Because movement requires a dualistic contrast, and without a perceiving subject, perceptions have no reference point to compare with. In fact there is no 'perceived object' either - there is just disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing images that has no link to each other. Without a self and an object, only unsupported and disjoint images, each manifestation being complete and whole in itself with no dualistic contrast, transience reveals itself to be non-moving. You don't say "You" walked from Point A to Point Z. Because there is no 'You' there to link or observe movement. Instead, Point A is
Point A, Point B is point B, and so on... Z is Z, whole and complete in itself. Each moment, ever fresh, whole, complete, and leaving no trace the next moment.
As for defilements: defilements only arise along with the sense of self. If the sense of self
arise, there is reference points, (sense of self itself being merely a clinging to a falsely
constructed reference to a person, a self) and so there can be a perceived movement. If
there is no sense of self/Self, then also there is no sense of movement (such as during a PCE,
even though PCE is just experience and need not imply realization). We realise that any
sense of a movement is merely a dualistic referencing and contrasting, a referencing that
asserts an entity (a subjective observer) that links the process and sees movement no from
the transience itself but from the perspective of a dualistic bystander (an illusion)."
-AEN (Who am I?)
from:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
For example as a bystanding observer on the roadside, it appears that a car quickly moves through your field of vision. So it appears that you, as an observer, observed an object moving across. What if however, you are on a vehicle moving at the same speed as the other vehicle, do you perceive movement of another vehicle? No. Why? Because the observer is now at the same speed as the observed object, and movement only occurs as a contrast between the unmoving subject and a moved object. But what if there is no observer at all (which is what we realised to have been always the case in the insight into anatta - the observer being merely a constructed illusion) - with no reference point, is there movement? No. Because movement requires a dualistic contrast, and without a perceiving subject, perceptions have no reference point to compare with. In fact there is no 'perceived object' either - there is just disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing images that has no link to each other. Without a self and an object, only unsupported and disjoint images, each manifestation being complete and whole in itself with no dualistic contrast, transience reveals itself to be non-moving. You don't say "You" walked from Point A to Point Z. Because there is no 'You' there to link or observe movement. Instead, Point A is
Point A, Point B is point B, and so on... Z is Z, whole and complete in itself. Each moment, ever fresh, whole, complete, and leaving no trace the next moment.
As for defilements: defilements only arise along with the sense of self. If the sense of self
arise, there is reference points, (sense of self itself being merely a clinging to a falsely
constructed reference to a person, a self) and so there can be a perceived movement. If
there is no sense of self/Self, then also there is no sense of movement (such as during a PCE,
even though PCE is just experience and need not imply realization). We realise that any
sense of a movement is merely a dualistic referencing and contrasting, a referencing that
asserts an entity (a subjective observer) that links the process and sees movement no from
the transience itself but from the perspective of a dualistic bystander (an illusion)."
-AEN (Who am I?)
from:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
0
Comments
this will all end in tears.... trying to combine and correlate a religious philosophy with an exact science is a relatively difficult concept to analyse....
This can be seen directly and experientially. Just a complete, non-dual happening without direction and source... no movement.
Those who experienced non-dual will definitely understand directly and intuitively (through experience) what I meant... there is nothing 'science' or 'analytical' about it.
Also, I back up @federica. Or perhaps it's just not my thing.. But have fun with it
then there cannot be movement unless there is a mind that links one reference point to another. and even such mind is an imputed reference point.
this is what the heart sutra points to.
not sure where you guys get scientific theory?
But this has nothing to do with price of bread....
But you guys have fun with this.
Behave yourselves, be nice, be polite and consider each others' views with openness and fair-mindedness.
I'll come up in an hour with a warm cup of cocoa....
"Everyone thinks that this is extremely difficult teaching, something beyond their reach or experience. How can things appear and disappear, and yet there is, originally, even in this constantly moving world, no appearing and disappearing? A student once asked me, 'The Mahaparinirvana-sutra seems very confusing. Everything is always moving. And yet everything is not moving? I don't understand this Buddhism . . .' But there is a very easy way to understand this: Sometime you go to a movie. You see an action movie about a good man and a bad man--lots of fighting, cars moving very fast, and explosions all over the place. Everything is always moving very quickly. Our daily lives have this quality: everything is constantly moving, coming and going, nonstop. It seems like there is no stillness-place. But this movie is really only a very long strip of film. In one second, there are something like fourteen frames. Each frame is a separate piece of action. But in each frame, nothing is moving. Everything is completely still. Each frame, one by one, is a complete picture. In each frame, nothing ever comes or goes, or appears or disappears. Each frame is complete stillness. The film projector moves the frames very quickly, and all of these frames run past the lens very fast, so the action on-screen seems to happen nonstop. There is no break in the movement of things. But actually when you take this strip of film and hold it up to the light with your hands, there is nothing moving at all. Each frame is complete. Each moment is completely not-moving action.
"Our minds and the whole universe are like that. This world is impermanent. Everything is always changing, changing, changing, moving, moving, moving, nonstop. Even one second of our lives seems full of so much movement and change in this world that we see. But your mind--right now--is like a lens whose shutter speed is one divided by infinite time. We call that moment-mind. If you attain that mind, then this whole world's movement stops. From moment to moment you can see this world completely stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Like the film, you perceive every frame--this moment--which is infinitely still and complete. In the frame, nothing is moving. There is no time, and nothing appears or disappears in that box. But this movie projector--your thinking mind--is always moving, around and around and around, so you experience this world as constantly moving and you constantly experience change, which is impermanence. You lose moment-mind by following your conceptual thinking, believing that it is real."
Dogen:
...When you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that nothing at all has unchanging self.
Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.
This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.
Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring...
I would say that even if there is noone who walks there still is walking.
Even if there is noone to react on hunger there still is hunger and the possibility to act on it.
No?
/Victor
the purpose of discerning impermanence is for the mind to see unsatsifactoriness & develop letting go buddha refuted this with the analogy of the new born infant, which is full of defilement but has no sense of self. if the mind does not see it is defilement that creates the sense of self rather than the sense of self that creates defilement, buddhism & dependent arising are not discerned not according to buddhism, which teaches seeing movement causes the sense of self to disappear. but AEN teaches the sense of self results in movement.
buddha taught:
"Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the conceit 'I am' will be abandoned."
The tradition of the Patriarchs, of Bodhidharma... is not Theravadin Buddhism. If you think this is a debate about "Real" Buddhism.. you are nothing but a pain on either side, a Zen pain.. a Theravadin pain.
"Zen" is a word. "Theravada" is a word. Reality is reality. The inability to let go is an ability to let go. The need to concretize is the need to concretize.
And Wally.. I don't care if you don't respect that.. I'm just stating outright that sect based debates over "right " Buddhism are a pain. End of discussion.... at least my part of it.
most children have little, if any, self-consciousness about sex. but when they reach the period of puberty, they become very self-conscious about sex. this demonstrate clearly it is defilement (sexual hormones & urges) that creates self-identity (about sexuality)
why do we cling to our cherished masters & gurus when reality & nature can teach us? :-/
is there a consciousness observering the object?
or
is the object and consciousness the same thing.
my understanding and experience is that consciousness itself is the arising of phenomena as it is. there is no observer separate from the arising.
Phenomena as it is arises based on causes/conditions it is empty of a fixed, permanent, independent essence.
Because everything experiencable is coreless, it is like bubbles or rainbows. Everything appearing, but ungraspable and transient.
What is being assert is that there is motion/movement and change. But no entities + change. Just change.
And if there is just change be it self or phenomena, then movement or non movement would not apply to reality. a moment in time is a thought in relationship to another thought. and such thought itself is dependent on causes/conditions so it too vanishes.
I sincerely would like to understand your point of view.
Motion is non motion. One is dualistic, whereas the other is non dualistic. Both describe reality.
If such experiential account of reality is deluded then I'd love to know how and where the delusion is.
I AM realization is Hinduism, not Buddhism. And it is just the first stage in my e-book, or Thusness's Seven Stages ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ).
Anatta and emptiness, which is described later in my book/journal, is unique to Buddhism.
Consciousness is nothing static as you know - it is an act of knowing (knowing is a better translation than consciousness for 'vinnana' in fact), and there are six types of knowing (vinnana) that dependently originates corresponding to six types of sense faculties and sense objects. The suttas state that vinnana simply 'knows'. Never did it say 'vinnana is the knower'. There is a difference. Vinnana is the act of knowing, but not a knower. There is no knower apart from the direct experience of knowing. There is no dichotomy of knower or known.
Many Thai monks who reify consciousness into Poo Roo (The One Who Knows) are in fact making the same mistakes as Hindus - reifying a Knower. This is not just I who said so, even Ajahn Brahmavamso said so himself.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.
- Kalaka Sutta
Sometimes I wonder if I should change my book name... but I might keep it the same.
Appreciate suggestions if anyone has any.
This total exertion and dropping off is the essential message of Dogen.
"That is, permanence means the steadfast quality of the Buddha-nature which exerts itself totally and drops itself off completely in each and every situation. In this respect, the impermanent is permanent, the permanent is impermanent."
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.91
On an unrelated note, something by Thusness in 2007:
(9:23 PM) Thusness: why i have stated 6?
(9:23 PM) AEN: stated 6?
(9:23 PM) AEN: u mean why have u stated that 6 is needed?
(9:23 PM) Thusness: 6 stages
(9:23 PM) AEN: oic
(9:24 PM) AEN: erm bcos need to go through different level of understanding first?
(9:24 PM) Thusness: because i want to include other religions and mysticism form of enlightenment
(9:24 PM) Thusness: all are included
(9:25 PM) AEN: oic..
(9:26 PM) Thusness: in buddhism only stage 5 onwards is enlightenment
(9:27 PM) AEN: icic
(9:27 PM) Thusness: in christianity and mysticism and hinduism, stage 1 - 4 is enlightenment
(9:27 PM) Thusness: stage 5 onwards is unknown to them
In some sense there must be something like a self. Because different things resonate. My Dad is trying to explain something to me about Eagles and Great Horned Owls. It is very important I sense, and it is calling me.
But would someone else care what is going on in my family? They might think of something totally different from of these birds because they don't have all the heart connections you could think neural connections if you will.
Thus it seems to me this idea of resonance.
There is no self that can be found separate from these myriad of heart connections, however.
no. the food when seen & eye-consciousness appear to be the same thing but the food & tongue consciousness are separate (until the food is tasted)
when the food is sitting on the table, the mind thinks: "What does that food taste like?" the mind does not know what that food tastes like until it is eaten
how can eye consciousness & visual objects be the same thing when one can disappear & the other remain?
:hiding: :hiding: :hiding: :hiding: :hiding: :hiding:
countless suttas denote the reality of objects (ayatana), namely, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches & mind objects, including Nibbana, which is an ayatana
in the Kalaka Sutta, the words "construe a cognizer" do not refer to regarding consciousness aggregate as the "cognizer". the words "construe a cognizer" refer to construing a "self" to be the cognizer
Dependent origination asserts that all arising is conditional. The arising of color is based on conditions being met. But the color itself is the effect aka eye consciousness. There is no eye consciousness outside of the color.
Same goes with the other five. Hence anatta is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just sounds. No "thing" being conscious of the object but there is only the transcient phenomena arising out of conditions met.
For there to be a consciousness seperate from the object would be hinduism and not a buddhist view. It is only distinct in conventional language. In direct experience there is only phenomena. The subject is always an inference.
So i do not see your position. Unless we are just talking semantics.
Or i am just confused, which is probably more like it. But direct experience doesn't lie.
'Self' is just an ignorant person's proliferation, such as a person with catarac seeing flowers in the sky, misperceiving a rope as a snake, or a man thinking that santa claus is real. Their deluding themselves into seeing flowers, snakes and santa claus does not mean they truly exist.
No 'self' can be pinned down inside or apart from the five skandhas as the Buddha has taught.
Yet it's important to point out that we can use these manifestations of our so called attachments to do something positive.
Mahayana arose as a reaction to the misunderstanding of Theravada teachers. Including not understanding the emptiness of phenomena (Madhyamika, Prajnaparamita) or stuff like non-duality (Yogacara, Dzogchen, etc).
Yet we find in the very core teachings of Buddha, the Pali Canon suttas, what is taught in the developed teachings in Mahayana. Even in the Bahiya Sutta, we find the most precise teaching of non-dual. Even in Kaccayana Sutta and Phena Sutta, we find a very clear exposition on the emptiness of phenomena.
So why the need for the latter schools of Mahayana? Because of misunderstanding by Theravada people. Due to only understanding anatta (as in emptiness of person) but not emptiness of phenomena resulting in the substantializing of Dhamma (phenomena) into ontological or ultimate objective realities in the latter commentaries of Abhidhamma, therefore the Mahayana Prajnaparamita sutras and Madhyamika arose. Due to not understanding non-dual of subject and object, latter expositions (Yogacara, etc) emphasized on this.
In actuality, if you understand the basic teachings, all are already implicitly so. Bahiya Sutta's teaching of anatta clearly is already implicitly non-dual without even need of emphasizing it.
There is a problem with many Theravada (not all, of course) teachers, they teach dualistically even though they talk about anatta. This means they have not experientially realized anatta. Then anatta becomes a practice of dissociation, not what Buddha intended.
So Thusness have said,
(10:39 PM) Thusness: It is difficult to find one that has arising prajna insight.
(10:39 PM) AEN: that means insight into emptiness?
(10:40 PM) Thusness: Yes and DO.
(10:40 PM) AEN: icic..
(10:41 PM) Thusness: Despite it being a raft, it enables the mind to have a right view of our pristine nature.
(10:41 PM) AEN: oic..
(10:42 PM) Thusness: The way that even many dzogchen practitioner expressed is still very much dualistic
(10:42 PM) Thusness: But no comments
(10:42 PM) AEN: icic..
(10:42 PM) Thusness: Many practitioners wants the direct path and ended up neither here nor there.
(10:43 PM) AEN: oic..
(10:44 PM) Thusness: Even practicing the simplest teachings in Theravada will bring us there.
....
(7:13 PM) Thusness: it is quite pitiful that the teaching of Theravada despite so clear is being distorted to such an extend.
(7:13 PM) Thusness: that anatta is not understood as non-dual.
...
(12:50 PM) Thusness: for now, just know about anatta.
(12:50 PM) Thusness: u see, even for one to know that anatta is non-dual and as manifestation, it is already rare.
(12:51 PM) Thusness: for so many Theravada practitioners misunderstood it.
...
(11:34 PM) Thusness: When a practitioner see anatta and insight arise, he sees non-dual directly and naturally
(11:35 PM) Thusness: However when we see Element, he can't see it and said Buddha did not teach abt non-dual
(11:35 PM) Thusness: how amazing
(11:36 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:36 PM) Thusness: And many Theravada masters
(11:36 PM) AEN: u mean they also dun understand
(11:37 PM) Thusness: Buddhism is going through a period of great distortion
(11:37 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:38 PM) Thusness: Even the most clearest teachings can be distorted
(11:39 PM) Thusness: One vehicle against another
...
(9:19 PM) Thusness: When I said what I understood, I merely talk about my experience.
(9:19 PM) Thusness: neither do I represent Dzogchen or Mahamudra.
(9:19 PM) Thusness: or Theravada or Mahayana.
(9:20 PM) Thusness: It is just my experience that I have undergone after practicing the teaching of Buddhism.
(9:20 PM) AEN: icic..
(9:20 PM) Thusness: No views at my current stage can confuse me.
(9:20 PM) AEN: oic..
(9:20 PM) Thusness: Coz I have already stabilized my experience.
(9:20 PM) AEN: icic..
(9:21 PM) Thusness: So it really doesn't matter who said what.
...
(4:24 PM) Thusness: all path are the same, there is no different. Be it Dzogchen or Theravada. It is all the same when understood correctly.
...
(3:21 PM) Thusness: therefore concentration is still needed until insight arises, that it is always so.
(3:21 PM) Thusness: there never was a self and no-self is a seal.
(3:21 PM) Thusness: that always is.
(3:21 PM) Thusness: then it has to sink deep into our inmost consciousness
(3:22 PM) Thusness: it will come a day that we are so clear of non-dual luminosity and emptiness.
(3:22 PM) Thusness: and all the teaching of Buddha.
(3:22 PM) Thusness: u will be able to c the links of all the teachings from Theravada to Dzogchen. All are the same.
(3:23 PM) Thusness: No point arguing really. :P
...
(3:02 PM) Thusness: u should focus on this. As it requires deep experience and insight to realise it.
(3:03 PM) Thusness: that DO and emptiness and anatta, seeing 'verb' as the right view of non-duality.
(3:03 PM) Thusness: right understanding.
(3:03 PM) AEN: icic..
(3:03 PM) Thusness: then Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen becomes one.
...
(9:07 PM) Thusness: u must have deeper clarity of the difference between Advaita and Buddhism.
(9:08 PM) Thusness: u must know that Buddhism is really talking about non-duality
(9:08 PM) Thusness: every aspect of the teaching
(9:08 PM) Thusness: is to point to the correct understanding of non-duality
(9:08 PM) Thusness: from Theravada to mahayana to dzogchen
(9:09 PM) Thusness: but the right understanding of non-dual experience
(9:09 PM) AEN: icic..
(9:09 PM) Thusness: That includes yogacara
(9:10 PM) AEN: oic..
(9:10 PM) Thusness: But the right view towards non-duality The most important thing is the liberation of self view. Because without the realization, no matter how we practice, we still hold on to a view of a self. This will cause us to continue clinging.
So even the experience of No Mind is not liberating. Practice is not liberating if it is geared towards experience only. That is why Right View is the foremost of the Noble Eightfold Path. Without it, we are practicing blindly.
What is needed is the realization of the falsity of inherent self and objects... When we see the falsity of a self, then the experience becomes natural, effortless and our daily life is simply the natural actualization of the right view and realization in every moment. At one point it becomes non-meditation - because everything becomes effortless and spontaneous, but until the realization of twofold emptiness we cannot overclaim (many people at the I AM phase too claim to be effortless and spontaneous but in actuality they are still geared towards clinging, abiding in a purest state of presence).
But without the realization, no matter how we practice, or try to remain in No Mind or Non Dual, we will not liberate. It is the View that is holding us... that is causing us to delude ourselves and hold. Therefore the importance to strengthen the right view and to directly realize the right view. Realization and releasing self-view is the beginning of liberation... without it, we will not be able to see the path towards liberation. It is just this.
Examination of the Five Aggregates
Written by Sramaa Chéngguan
It is asked, “The common person seeks liberation. How should he practise”
We respond saying that one should practise the two examinations.
What are the two examinations The first is the examination of the emptiness of persons. The second is the examination of the emptiness of phenomena (dharma).
The root of birth and death – nothing goes beyond the two attachments of persons and phenomena.
One misunderstands the body and mind's characteristic of totality and thus grasps the self of the person as an actual existent.
One misunderstands the five aggregates' individual characteristics and thus conceives the self of a phenomenon as an actual existent.
etc... ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/httpssites.html )
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
- Kaccayana Sutta.
Some people in Theravada treat consciousness as not-self, but still see dualistically in terms of subject and object. In other words, impermanent observers observing the object.
On an unrelated note... (more related to my previous reply), http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/view.html
I have just come to a new realisation of the implications of views in daily life. I could have misunderstood what goldisheavy meant but I think it has to do with the fields of meaning. I have realised how ideas, beliefs, notions, views pervade our life and causes attachment.
I now see that every single attachment is an attachment to view, which, no matter what it is, comes to two basic clinging: the view 'there is' and the view 'there isn't'.
I started by noticing how in the past I had a sense of self, body and awareness... That these all seem so real to me and I kept coming back to that subjective sense and this is no longer the case now: I don't even have a sense of a body nowadays. Then I realized that all these clingings are related to view.
The view of There is.... Self, body, mind, awareness, world, whatever. Because of this clinging on to things as existent, they appear real to us and we cling to them. The only way to eradicate such clingings is to remove the root of clinging: the view of 'there is' and 'there isn't'.
The realization of anatta removes the view of 'there is self', 'there is awareness' as an independent and permanent essence. Basically, any views about a subjective self is removed through the insight that "seeing is just the seen", the subject is always only its objective constituents. There is no more sense of self, body, awareness, or more precisely there is no clinging to a "there is" with regards to such labels. It is seen that these are entirely ungraspable processes. In short the clinging and constant referencing to an awareness, a self dissolves, due to the notion "there is" such things are being eradicated.
The realization of dream-like reality removes the view of 'there are objects', the universe, the world of things... One realizes what heart sutra meant by no five skandhas. This is basically the same realization as anatta, except that it impacts the view "there is" and "there isn't" in terms of the objective pole, in contrast to the earlier insight that dissolves "there is" of a subjective self.
What I have overlooked all these while is the implications of views and how the thicket of views cause all clingings and suffering and what underpins those thicket of views, and how realization affects and dissolves these views.
----------
Related stuff:
A view is a fundamental belief one holds about reality. For example, "everything exists" (sarva asti)
....
The root of both these mistaken positions is "is" and "is not" -- for example "I exist now, and I will continue to exist after death" or "I exist now but when I die I will cease to exist".
~ Loppon Namdrol
At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:
"Form is similar to a foam,
Feeling is like water bubbles,
Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,
Formations are similar with a banana tree,
Consciousness is like an illusion."
...
"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."
~ Loppon Namdrol
(My comments: Vinnana is not knower. It is an act of knowing exerted by all the causes and conditions, including sense faculty, sense object, attention, etc, in one instantaneous manifestation undivided in any way. Therefore there is no subject-object dichotomy)
On another note. Early last year, relating to the importance of right view, Thusness wrote to me:
Indeed it is important to have the keen eye to discern correctly the difference between 4 and 5. Even after the realization that a background never really existed and what left is just the 'world', practitioner even after maturing the experience of no-mind can still be attached to the a ground in the 'here and now'. This too must be thoroughly seen through that it is no more than another subtle attachment to a 'center'. When this is further penetrated, whatever arises will turn disjoint and unsupported. Before that, experience maybe said to be luminous, present and blissful but not exactly liberating. After that, it is more about 'liberation' than being 'blissful'.
One point I would like to add is about 'wrong view' vs 'right view'. In many of your recent posts, although you have described quite clearly the experiences and the realizations you have undergone, the aspect that how 'wrong view' has contributed to the refication/personification of a non-conceptual non-dual experience isn't clear.
The view that the nature of all things relies not upon their 'essence' and 'substance' but upon supporting conditions is unique in Buddhism. Why must there be a 'source' and a 'starting'? It comes from this latent tendency of 'inherent view' that runs deep. This 'inherent view' is the cause that practitioners got stuck in ur diagram 1,2,3 as they rely their view on 'substance' rather then dependent origination.
The subtlety of the latent tendencies of our dualistic and inherent view cannot be under-estimated. Do not rush into any experiences but refine our understanding of the view. Before we mature our insights, it is advisable to hold firmly to the right view and not to discard it too early in the name of direct non-conceptual experiences. All views will dissipate in their own accord when our momentary experience turns blissful and liberating.
but do not be concerned. there are many Theravada Buddhists, such as the Bhikkhu Nanananda, lost in the non-existence of non-conceptuality, becaues they believe the buddha spoke certain notions of proto-Hindu dhamma entered into the Digha Nikaya.
Buddha did not teach about 'subject' & 'object'. the continual reference to "subject" has no basis in the reality of sense awareness (apart from being another term for "self").
Buddha explained 'sense organ' & 'sense object'. Buddha did not teach non-duality. in fact, buddha taught duality, where he referred to the internal group (kaya) of aggregates & the external body-minds (nama-rupa) which form a duality or dyad
Tomorrow morning I am dropping my son at school and getting a haircut, then going to work. I am meeting my partner Jennifer for lunch, because she was just shoved out of her Job after 12 years by budget cuts... I want to listen to how her morning went, and encourage her... and talk about all the opportunities she has.
Non-existence is an extreme that can only be established when an existent object is established firsthand. Only an existent object can become non-existent, there is no other possibility to assert non-existence.
For example, a self that cannot be established and thereby existence and non-existence don't apply has been taught by Buddha here: The same of course applies to all phenomena - cannot be established, and thus the four extremes do not apply.
Kaccayana Sutta and Phena Sutta are other suttas which emphasize more on the emptiness of phenomena than of persons (like Tathagata, you, him) - coreless, substanceless, free from extremes. Cannot be established. It has nothing to do with Hinduism since Hinduism asserts an eternal self and thus belongs to eternalism.