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.
The one that see's and the seen are the same?
?
0
Comments
As a Zen Master put it, "When I heard the sound of the bell ringing, there was no I, and no bell, just the ringing."
This is Sautrantika. Mind-Only moves up from the experience and the experiencer to the object that is experienced, the experience, and the experiencer as being the same essential nature.. which is far more radical.
The problem in either case is not whether subject and object are different - they are different - but rather how that difference produces problems in an afflicted mind.
Isn't what you call subject merely more sensations, thoughts, phenomena, which cannot be actually made a solid separate subject, and the apparent object simply more sensations, thoughts, and phenomena?
As I see it, all such phenomena are 'aware' where they are, without a localized watcher separate from what is perceived. This contradicts any notion of a soul-like entity or a disembodied watcher of things, a thinker of thoughts, a feeler of feelings, a seer of scenes, but is totally in accord with Buddha's teachings of the five skandhas or eighteen dhatus -- that all we are is simply a bunch of experiences without any localized self-entity or experiencer, in other words no self can be found in or apart from these skandhas. When all there is is these skandhas, there cannot be such a thing as a subject or an object.
I believe the Buddha taught that the difference between an arahant and others is that one has clinging to the skandhas (panca upadana khandha) and the other only has the skandhas without clinging.
It is the clinging that causes dissatisfaction with what is.
However if we still think there is some separate Subject apart from Objects, that's where we should investigate our claims.
Clinging happens when there's ignorance, when our ignorant dualistic views and views of 'inherency' is seen through by deep wisdom, then clinging naturally ceases. It can't cease permanently without wisdom (though it can be temporarily surpressed by absorption).
Do you see the necessity of having to say it this way? It's because the sense consciousness still entirely depends on the external object even though the mental consciousness and the experience are 100% dependent on the karmic seed.
That's Sautrantika and part of Mind-Only. Mind-Only goes on to deny that the external object itself is a different entity, in a very specific way.
Persons are established by valid cognition. Persons function. Persons exist specifically as conventional truths which obscure ultimate truth.
To say a self is not findable is not to deny any particular existing object or to deny the valid cognition which establishes them, rather it's to deny what ultimate truth tells us is denied: a person that could be self-standing and substantial (self in Sautrantika) or unchanging, singular, and independent (self in Vaibhashika).
Big Love
Allan
Ps: I usually find the simple way the best. As a scientist once said: If you cant explain quantum physics to your barmaid, in a way that she'll be able to understand it, you dont understand it yourself.
For example sound of bird chirping arise. There is no separate hearer behind it. The mental consciousness 'I heard the sound' is incapable of hearing the sound. The mental consciousness is an after-thought of the experience, which is incapable itself of perceiving the experience. The thought 'I heard the sound' is not the experiencer of the sound. It is itself another arising experience, in this case an after thought.
So there is actually just experiences arising, and even the mental consciousness or after thought is simply another arising experience without a truly findable thinker or experiencer. All there is are experiences: thoughts, sights, sounds, without a findable entity behind these phenomena. Which is why the Buddha taught in Kalaka Sutta there is just the Suchness of the seen, the heard, and the wise does not hold onto notions of a cognizer or an object cognized.
Of course in the conventional sense there are I, you, him, etc, but in direct experience I cannot find such a thing as an experiencer and experience.
Its straightforward. Subject and object are two sides of one experiential coin. No subject, no object. No object, no subject. They co-arise. ...and if they dont arise? can't say, can only project , whether its being or non-being. So best to sit and not project, in Non-duality.
It is this kind of imputedly knowable person which is empty of being self-standing and substantial and/or unchanging, singular, and independent.
And that implies that there is no experiencer / me?
Then obviously there can't be such a thing as selflessnes since there is no thing that is empty of self. The absorption of an arya cognizing selflessness does not negate conventional truth and dependent arising in any way, but a worldly sophisticated absorption on nondiscrimination is certainly incorrectly taken by various schools as ultimate truth and nirvana (I'm not necessarily implying that this pertains to you).
Zen Master Dogen puts it this way which I paraphrase: Firewood does not turn into ash, birth does not turn into death. Firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash. Understanding this, birth is no-birth, death is no-death.
It is as he said -- each manifestation a complete reality of its own, therefore no before, no after, no movement, no coming, no going.
The sense of a continuous identity or experiencer breaks down when this is seen. There are only disjoint ownerless, selfless experiences. 'Me' is just a convention and is true in the relative sense and cannot be done away with when we're using language (it would be weird and inappropriate to address another person as 'another bunch of aggregates' instead of calling by his name), but in the ultimate sense, there is just flickering experiences comprising the five skandhas, which are all transient, causal (arising due to causality), self luminous, flickering sensations arising and vanishing moment to moment. Selflessness is not a thing, it is the condition of all experience at any given moment. That is we cannot at any point find an experiencer or self in or apart from experiences, from five skandhas. I agree with you, first of all ultimate truth does not negate conventional truth, and also absorption does not lead to liberation -- wisdom and insight into the nature of reality does.
http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2009/spring/magical.php
Excerpts:
For the meditator who sees things as they really are, it is obvious that the mental and physical phenomena are different. They are not taken as one and the same anymore, as they were before the practice of meditation. When the meditator observes the rising movement (of the abdomen when breathing in), he or she can at least discern between the rising movement and the noting mind. Similarly, the meditator can differentiate between the falling movement (of the abdomen when breathing out) and the noting of it; the sitting posture and the noting of it; the intention to bend, the bending movement, and the noting of it; the intention to stretch, the stretching movement, and the noting of it; the visible form, the eye, the seeing, and the noting of it.
Before a drum is beaten, its sound does not exist in the drum itself, the drumstick, or anywhere in between. Even though a sound occurs when the drum is beat, the sound does not originate from the drum or the drumstick. The physical phenomena of drum and drumstick are not transformed into a sound nor does the sound originate from anywhere in between drum and drumstick. In dependence on the drum, the drumstick, and the hitting of the drum, the sound is a completely new phenomenon each time the drum is hit. The drum and the stick are different from the sound.
In the same way, before you see something or someone, seeing does not exist in the eye, in the visible form, or anywhere in between. The seeing that takes place neither originates in the eye nor in the visible form. The seeing consciousness neither originates in the eye nor in the visible forms, which are physical phenomena. It also does not originate from anywhere in between. Seeing is actually a new phenomenon that arises due to the combination of the eye, the visible form, light, and your attention. Thus, the eye and the visible form are different from the seeing. The same is true for the other senses.
When you understand the difference between mental and physical phenomena, you are likely to reflect that neither the mind nor the body alone can perform actions such as sitting, standing, walking, bending, stretching, seeing, hearing, and so on. Only the mind and body together can perform these activities.
Because of this, the mind and body together are mistaken for “I.” One thinks, “I am sitting; I am standing up; I am going; I am bending; I am stretching; I am seeing; I am hearing,” and so on. In reality, there is no “I” or “being” that sits, stands up, and walks, but only mental and physical phenomena. That is why the Visuddhimagga (2, 231) says:
The volition to drink is mental, but what actually drinks is the body.
The volition to speak is mental, but what actually speaks is the body.
The volition to sit down is mental, but what actually sits down is the body.
The volition to stand up is mental, but what actually stands up is the body.
In the same way, a being is so called because he or she is composed of the five aggregates of clinging, i.e. mental and physical phenomena. However, if you pay attention to each of these phenomena separately, you will no longer have the conceit that, “I am so and so,” or the wrong belief that, “I am a person.” You realize that, in terms of ultimate reality, there is no being that exists. All that exists is the mind, which is able to incline to the object and know the object, and matter, which is not able to know the object and is subject to alteration. This realization is called “seeing things as they really are.”
When the characteristics of mind and matter have been understood as they truly are by noting the presently arising objects, the meditator comes to see the causes of those phenomena. With this, the insight knowledge of conditionality will arise: the realization that certain causes give rise to certain phenomena, whether in the past, present, or future. This insight knowledge can take various forms, depending on a person’s aspiration, spiritual maturity, and intellectual ability. The Visuddhimagga identifies five forms, which are explained in the sections below.
It is only at the time of the generation of the mental consciousness when due to the habit of ignorance there is a deluded appearance (something very specific about the chirping bird). It is only at this time that ignorance arises which allows for a person to seriously believe that the characteristics seen and that which sees them are different entities, as though for example there is a thought and the seeing driver and witness of the thought. In this case it is the imputed characteristic appearing as an outer object as though being a completely different entity than the mental consciousness.
Again this is Sautrantika and they assert truly existing outer objects. In the case of Mind-Only there's cognitive obscurational ignorance because there's a grasping to true existence at the time of the eye consciousness apprehending physical form which gives rise to the delusion "oh hey there's an outer object". But I don't think there is an element of that in what you're saying,
I think this can cause confusion if "no being really exists" is taken too far.
When persons are examined they are found to be empty of self, because by debunking the mistaken appearance which says persons exist in an impossible mode, we find that persons are devoid of existing in impossible modes of existing.
In this sense there is no real experiencer, but there is a mind which cognizes objects that cannot themselves cognize and are only available for alteration.
This and the example of the tree are pretty clear in my mind. There is no treeness (no known characteristic of that type of particular tree) at the time of the eye consciousness. The external tree is cognized IN DEPENDENCE on the category 'this particular type of tree', but that appearance is 1) not the external tree 2) is imputedly knowable (ie. there is base experiencer driving the experience).
ps. most tenet systems accept that cognition by definition happens after an event. I think it's only like Mind-Only and some Mind-Only leaners in Madhyamika which say specific parts of events and the awareness of them necessarily happen simultaneously.
S: “You see is only what your mind makes of you eye sense's signal to your brain.”
S9: Not even that. We must actually learn how to see. This was found out recently by our improved technology of giving sight to those who were born blind. It can take up to 6 months or more to learn how to translate seeing, what is seen, and to make sense out of it.
S9
X: Mental consciousness and is no more an experiencer than any other experience. It is an experience, it is not an experiencer. If mental consciousness are simply experiences why call it an experiencer?
S9: I agree with you that mental experience is just one more flavor of experience. But then, don’t we next have to ask, why any experience at all? Plants (experiences) don’t just float in the air with no roots.
Warm Regards,
S9
A: “Most tenet systems accept that cognition by definition happens after an event. I think it's only like Mind-Only and some Mind-Only leaners in Madhyamika which say specific parts of events and the awareness of them necessarily happen simultaneously.
S9: Believing that cognition happens after the event is actually a very materialistic point of view, and based upon the assumption that there IS an out there. There are also many views based upon the idea that there is only the mind, and so out there is only a projection of the mind, much like a dream.
The whole assumption that experience and experience are simultaneous would be similar to co-dependent arising, don’t you think? In other words the up part of a ladder cannot exist, or even come b/4 the down part of the ladder. They are in fact one and the same thing, merely viewed from two perspectives.
But again, I am forced to ask. Is that ladder, (up, or down, or both up and down), out there floating in space, with no essential reality to support it?
Warm regards,
S9
However at the non-dual level, it is clearly seen that you cannot separate luminosity from whatever is experienced. Luminosity is not reified as an entity separated from whatever is seen, tasted, smelled, felt. Everything is self-felt because luminosity does not stand apart from everything, everything is it.
X: Simple, experience arise due to luminosity/awareness/clarity/intelligence, which should be very obvious to you.
S9: Yes, my friend, but when I call “luminosity/awareness/clarity/intelligence, my Ultimate Self, or the 'I Am' you object. You call this 'I Am,' which is “luminosity/awareness/clarity/intelligence,” (one and the same) a figment of my mind. This seems contradictory to me. Could you please explain why you do/say this?
X: However at the non-dual level, it is clearly seen that you cannot separate luminosity from whatever is experienced.
S9: Quite so, like you cannot separate ice, or steam, from its originator; water. But then, wouldn't water 'BE' the very Self of both steam and ice?
X: Luminosity is not reified as an entity separated from whatever is seen, tasted, smelled, felt.
S9: Perhaps not reified, as you say. But you couldn’t go on to DENY water, either.
Water would not be co-dependent upon ice, or steam. Yet, at the same time, steam or ice WOULD be dependent upon water and/or circumstance. Ice and steam would be becoming. Water would remain. So that ice and steam would be less fundamental, and than in no way equal to water. Am I making myself understood here?
Warm regards,
S9
At Anatta and Shunyata level of insight, the luminosity is not denied, only the reification of luminosity as a metaphysical essence. Luminosity cannot be separated from appearance, which is like an illusion but not an illusion, no essence anywhere but vividly clear.
Nevertheless I will paste an excerpt of what I wrote to someone else in my Buddhist forum last year:
Thusness just had a discussion with me... there's some things that are not so correct with your (rokkie) reply on 一切相不二 (all appearances are non-dual)
First of all the statement "water is the 自性 [Self-Nature]，wave is the 相 [Appearance] of water, so no matter what's wave like, the water is the same." is wrong understanding...
Because if we propose there is a 自性 [Self-Nature] (Water), then there is no need for 一切相不二 [All appearances are non-dual]. The illustration also implies there is a permanent unchanging essence (water) in this case, 一切相不二 [All appearances are non-dual] is no more necessary.
The purpose of telling ppl 一切相不二 [All appearances are non-dual] is not to discard 相 [Appearance]. It is to tell ppl that because 一切相不二 [All appearances are non-dual], there is no need to be attached to a particular 相 [Appearance]. For the illustration, one must be aware that both water and wave are all 相 [Appearance].
It is wrong to say water is 自性 [Self-Nature] and wave is 相 [Appearance]. Therefore you must see water as 相 [Appearance] and wave as 相 [Appearance], therefore 一切相不二 [All appearances are Non-Dual]. Thus 无自性 = 空性 [No Self-Nature = Empty Nature]
When one speaks of 性 [Essence], people think that there is a 性 [Essence] call water, that is call 着相 [Grasping Form]. It makes ppl seek for 自性 [Self-Nature] therefore giving ppl the impression of 有所得.
In actual case there is always only 相 [Appearance] and 相 [Appearance] is already the 妙有 [Miraculous Existence/Manifestation] but 其性 [Nature] is 空 [Empty]. It is not that waves are all 相 [Appearances] and we should shunt from 相 [Appearances] whereas as water is 性 [Essence] and we should seek and attach to 性 [Essence]. This will lead to 有所得 [Holding] and 有住于心 [Abiding/Latching on to Mind]. The reason why we think that there is truly a 自性 [Essence] is because it is the tendency of the conventional (dualistic) mind to trend towards '得' [Holding].
The idea that 'there must be something otherwise how...' is due to a deeply latent dualistic tendency of seeing things inherently (This is similar to the question 'if there is no soul then what is being reborn'). If this 'knot of essence' is gone, practitioner will naturally feel that there is no need to have a something to grasp.
Once we truly see that there is always and only 妙有 [Miraculous Existence/Manifestation] and nothing else, then all experiences is naturally non-dual (no-self) as there is no a 性 [Essence] that separates from 相 [Appearance].
So 离相无佛性可言 [There is no Buddha to speak of apart from Appearances]. We cannot separate 性 [Essence] from 相 [Appearance] and to be more precise there is not really a 性 [Essence] that can be grasped anywhere -- 性空 [Essence/Nature is Empty]. The nature of all 相 [Appearance] is luminous/aware, it's essence is empty, i.e. no findable, inherent essence.
Let me just ask you one important question, if you don’t mind. What stage are you at, 4,5,6? I would like to know if these ideas/experiences actually belong to you, personally, or if these are the ideas/experiences of a teacher, whom you trust very highly.
Let me explain why I am asking:
I am beginning to wonder if this isn’t a matter of semantics, between us. Could it be that we are looking at the very same thing, and that you are simply describing it differently?
I also see both what is manifest and the I Am to be empty. (We won’t get into empty of what, right now.) I see nothing that can be grasped in either of these. I do not see the manifest as separate from the I Am. How could that possibly be so, as I Am is omnipresent. Are you seeing what I mean here?
Now let us say for the sake of argument that I am in stage 4, like you say. Is there anything that I should be looking for that could enlighten me to that fact, other than your words, and move me along?
The Buddha obviously pointed out sickness, old age, and death, as sort of an alarm clock, if you will, to wake us up to where we were and why we couldn't stay. This I Am is beyond these, beyond suffering, so where is the incentive to move out of complete satisfaction?
I did notice one statement in the article that you posted that was quite interesting. That was the idea that we couldn’t move out of manifestation, as a whole, it was a given and remained, but that we could stop taking each separate (individual) manifestation quite so seriously. Is this in fact a higher capacity of choice that he was speaking of, and we could thereby avoid those things which we felt to be without value to our lives, or to avoid unskillful actions, more easily, because of this lack of identification with them? If so, this seem close to what some describe as the improved freedom within a lucid dream?
Warm Regards.
S9
As Rob Burbea said:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Rob%20Burbea
But either way, whether it’s through letting go or through disidentifying, whether it’s through using this reasoning, we see that time is actually empty. Time is also a kind of fabrication. What happens? What does that imply in terms of Awareness and the reality of Awareness? Awareness as said in the different traditions is unfindable, we can’t find Awareness. You can’t find the Mind. We can’t find Consciousness no matter how much you look for it, in it’s essence. Now, one meaning of that is I can’t see it because it has no form, no shape, no color. It’s formless. And sometimes people again attempted to stop there as a kind of seeing the complete unfindability of consciousness, but there’s more to it than that.
That’s what the Dalai Lama would call, the conventional truth about Awareness. It’s that it doesn’t have a form, and so you can’t see it. But relating to what we said, if there’s nothing real to know, because the objects are empty, because I’ve seen the objects are empty, how can we really talk about a real knowing? There’s nothing real to know. And if there’s no time for the mind or awareness to exist in, how is it really going to exist? So we say Awareness is without essence. But seeing all those reasons why it’s without essence – because of the time, and because the emptiness and fabrication of objects – all of that’s involved there.
So what’s happening in all these is we’re seeing that Awareness completely counterintuitively, is actually something built. And because it’s built, it’s Empty. We build Awareness, and it’s Empty. And the Buddha in a lovely quote, said, “Consciousness, when examined, is empty, void, without substance.” Now if we just stop the quote there, that could sound like the vast, spacious, insubstantial Awareness. But he doesn’t finish there. He goes on to say, “Like a magician’s trick, like an illusion.” In other words there’s some hocus pocus going in the mind, and baadaabim baadaaboom – there’s awareness. And it’s a trick. It doesn’t actually exist as something real. Consciousness, the Buddha says, is like a magician’s trick, like an illusion, and in the formal Dharma language, it lacks inherent existence.
.....
Talk summary: Through practice we can glimpse a sense of the nature of awareness as something ever present and awesomely vast, and this sense can be cultivated as a profound resource for freedom and peace in our lives. But eventually we must see even beyond this to know the ultimate nature of the mind - empty, completely groundless, and dependently-arisen - a seeing which brings an even deeper freedom. This talk explores some of the ways this realization might be encouraged and developed in meditation.
And as the Dalai Lama said:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/07/happiness-karma-and-mind.html
We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind.
There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state.
All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.
Of these two aspects, viz. the ultimate true nature of mind and a knowledge of that ultimate true nature, the former is the base, the latter an attribute. Mind (self) is the basis and all its different states are attributes. However, the basis and its attributes have from the first pertained to the same single essence. The non-self-created (depending on a cause other than itself) mind entity (basis) and its essence, sunyata, have unceasingly existed as the one, same, inseparable essence from beginningless beginning. The nature of sunyata pervades all elements. As we are now and since we cannot grasp or comprehend the indestructible, natural, ultimate reality (sunyata) of our own minds, we continue to commit errors and our defects persist. I AM stage actually, I don't think you're stage 4 yet I think it should be a natural progression. And I doubt what I said is going to be quite convincing to you due to your current experience and view.
As Thusness said:
Lastly this realization [of I AMness] is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom.
I think that you should admit to yourself, at this point, that if you are not in stage 4 of the I Am-ness, yourself, personally, that it would be very hard for you to put forth anything that isn’t either assumption on your part, or opinion about this stage.
There isn’t one person, I daresay, on this forum, who hasn’t heard the words of others, perhaps either a teacher or a traditions, and has preferred one explanation over another. But, and this is very important to understand, by all of us, that if you are not looking directly at the I Am, and describing it as what you personally see and experience, then you are weaving thoughts into thoughts with no actual authority to say which is the correct description of the I Am. Do you see what I am saying here?
Now, I am not saying that we must all remain mute on this topic, by any means. Our stretching and intending to understand what comes next, or what is an even deeper understanding, is a part of the whole journey. It IS how we eventually bloom or take wing. But, if and when we decide that ‘we know best,’ and can therefore map out the whole game plan, before the fact of actually knowing or seeing, in this event we are actually creating an obstacle to our own receptivity within this particular area. Can you see what I am saying here?
And:
To me, receptivity is the whole name of the game. Without receptivity, we are destined to just one more ‘dead story,’ within our dead mind, which is a dead end. In other words, it isn’t the answer that is most important. It is the open-ended question that moves us along.
A: I do not think you see the I AM as empty [of essence or inherent existence].
S9: I do see the I Am as empty of person (AKA personality or ego). The only way that you could say that I Am doesn’t have essence of I Am, would be to say there is no I Am, so that is circular. But what I see as BEING the I Am is certainly not anything that could be called a mind object, like the witness portion of our mind, or some anthropomorphize God. So now we are speaking of the ineffable Presence.
A: You see it as formless, but inherently existing, an unchanging essence. The formlessness is just a relative aspect of the Mind, but treating it as a metaphysical essence is non-Buddhist.
S9: There you go again. Declaring someone who doesn’t agree with you to be non-Buddhist. You might be interested to know that an Enlightened Zen Master, Adyashanti, does agree with me.
Q: “I am not speaking to who you think you are. I am speaking to You, the Awareness behind the mask called ‘me,”
“The direct path of spiritual inquiry begins not with seeking something that you yearn for, but with seeking the seeker, the essential.”
“In order for inquiry to be powerful and liberating, it needs to be understood that spiritual inquiry is not something to be performed by the mind. Inquiry is a tool that points you directly back to your own being, to the experience before the mind.”
By the way, glimpsing the I Am as an object is entirely different than the experience of BEING the I Am. From the outside, we are left guessing. From the inside of Being, there is a dynamic Aliveness that feels like home.
Respectfully,
S9
Then you might think, isn't right view or any views or conceptual understanding merely an obstacle to realising naked unadorned awareness? In actuality, it is not so.
I wrote before (basically written by Thusness actually, I just arrange the paragraphs):
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/10/right-views-and-spiritual-practices.html
<u4>:p></u4>:p>Right View
Right View is indispensible in Buddhism, it is the 1st of the 8 fold path. And that view essentially, is Emptiness/Dependent Origination.
In Buddhism, the path (naked awareness of everything as it is) alone cannot lead to fruition (liberation), having right view (Emptiness) is necessary and crucial. That is, only through having the right view with the right practices (path) then fruition of liberation can arise.
Even after the arising of non-dual insight, there is a period of desync between what is experienced and the existing paradigm we used to orientate the world. It is a de-synchronization between views and meditative experience. That is, a practitioner will find great difficulties when trying to express the experience based on a subject/object dichotomy. It can be quite frustrating and the practitioner may get himself confused during the process.
In Buddhism there is a complete system of thought to orientate ourselves non-dually, that is, the viewless-view of Emptiness. It is a raft but it is the antidote for the conventional mind to orientate itself in a non-dual and non-local context. It also led to the amazing insight that ‘duality’ is really the result of seeing and taking things ‘inherently’.
In the practice of non-conceptuality, the firm establishment of right view is not a problem.
In the practice of thoughtlessness, thought is not a problem.
In the practice of selflessness, self is not a problem.
Experiences of our non-dual nature can still surface intermittently even when the tendency to see things dualistically is still strong. At times when the layer that divides is temporary suspended, non-dual is most vivid and clear and practitioners may wrongly conclude that ‘concepts’ are the problem because the presence of ‘concepts’ divides and prevent the non-dual experience. This seems logical and reasonable only to a mind that is deeply root in a subject/object dichotomy. Very quickly ‘non-conceptuality’ becomes an object of practice. The process of objectification is the result of the tendency in action perpetually repeating itself taking different forms like an endless loop. This can continue to the extent that a practitioner can even ‘fear’ to establish concepts without knowing it. On the other hand, the continuous enquiry can also lead an inquirer into a situation of utter confusion to the extent that he/she doubts even his/her own existence.
It is not uncommon to find practitioners totally giving up this attempt to synchronize "views" and experience and conclude that it is an absolute futile endeavor to do that. They prefer to rest fully in naked awareness.
By doing so, the practitioner will miss something valuable -- the insight of the importance of "non inherent existence".<o>:p></o>:p>
In fact, dualistic view is merely a subset of seeing things 'inherently'. Further understanding will also reveal that the bad habit of 'searching' is the result of seeing things 'inherently'. Our inability to sustain a non-dual experience is also the result of it. The formation of a 'center' that we are so unwilling to give up is merely a natural phenomenon of our deeply held 'inherent' views.
Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an attribute of the mind... and in Buddhism we recognise that there are other realms' beings who can see something completely different. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena. They are empty of any inherent objective existence in a 'really-out-there' kind of way.
As you've seen, there is no ‘The Flowerness’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). ‘'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This is the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attributelessness of our nature. But this does not mean that awareness is void or nothing, it is full of forms, full of colours, as Emptiness is Form... just empty of 'inherent existence'. So Emptiness, in Buddhism, strictly means Dependent Arising.
There is something well written related to this topic:
http://www.nichirenscoffeehouse.net/dharmajim/DharmaView.html
<!--QuoteEBegin-->...Apophaticism rests on the idea that ultimate nature is somewhere else, than the realm in which we live. Utterly removed from, and different from, the realm of experience, ultimacy can then only be accessed through a step by step process which disengages me from this realm in which I dwell. In other words, apophaticism and mysticism are dualistic, creating a division in existence, minimally between the conceptual and ultimacy, and in extreme cases between ultimacy and everything which I experience.
My understanding of the Dharma does not regard the realm in which I dwell as removed from the ultimate nature of Interdependent Transformation. Ultimacy does not exist somewhere else. It is not a matter of contacting some other domain in order to access ultimacy. Rather it is a matter of shifting our attention so that I can perceive and comprehend the actuality of things. From this perspective, my understanding of existence is misconstrued and my perception of things is askew. The purpose of Dharma study and practice is to correct these misunderstandings, both conceptually and perceptually, to overcome ignorance and the habits that give rise to this ignorance. When that is done, the ultimate nature of all existing things and existence itself, stands forth as the Interdependent Transformation nature which permeates all of existence, unlocated, ever present, never far.
I realize that this way of comprehending the Dharma sets me at odds with those traditions which regard the ultimate nature of existence, Buddha Nature, Nirvana, as something which can not be accessed through study and thinking. I can only say that at one time I agreed with this view, but that my undersanding has now moved to a view which encompasses thought, conceptuality, study, and thinking within the domain of ultimacy without ejecting anything else from that domain. To set thought aside, from the perspective of Interdependent Transformation, makes no more sense than asking someone to set aside hearing, or to set aside seeing. Just as all visual phenomena have the nature of Interdependent Transformation, just as all sonic phenomena have the nature of Interdependent Transformation, so also all thoughts, all concepts, also have the nature of Interdependent Transformation. For this reason rejecting thoughts and concepts means limiting the extent of the play of ultimate nature. But Buddha Nautre as Interdependent Transformation marks all existing things. Marking all existing things, this nature marks all thoughts. Marking all thoughts and concepts, thoughts and concepts, when comprehended in their totality, and as Interdependent Transformations, graciously display the true nature of all existing things. Words also have a luminously clear nature. Thoughts also sparkle with elemental transformative energy. Concepts also shimmer with the ever flowing and present energy of all things. Rejecting nothing, the words of the Dharma compassionately guide me to ultimate realization...
Because liberation is empty of the four extremes (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), it is difficult to see. It is better and safer to practice with the firm establishment of right view as taught by Buddha. When we practice, the path of practice should be non-conceptual whether in bare attention or surrendering or dropping. When we have certain direct and transcendental experience, the experience must be validated with the right view. If both views and practices coincide and liberation is experienced from moment to moment, the holding of ‘right view’ will naturally dissolve in its own accord as it is fully authenticated in real time from moment to moment.
When the view and experience are harmonized, the practitioner can progress further. He rests neither in concepts nor non-conceptuality.
Of course, having the right view without right practice will also not bear fruit and simply remains an intellectual view/understanding. Right view (1st of the 8 Fold Path), right practice (remaining 7 of the 8 Fold Path), then fruition.
(Also see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/02/thusnesss-reply-to-longchen-at.html) Ok, which is why I/Thusness said that dropping of personality is not the same as dropping of I AM. The latter occurs at the insight of Anatta (Stage 5) when the sense of metaphysical essence and the grandeur and necessity of an Ultimate Reality is seen through, even though the luminosity, Presence, vividness, remains the same. At present though, it is more practical for you to dwell into the aspect of impersonality. I believe Adyashanti is generally seen as Advaita than Buddhism. Also obviously his level of insight (Stage 4) does not yet allow him to see the difference between Advaita and Buddhism which I explained at the Adyashanti thread.
He is also not a Zen Master, even though he is given permission to teach in a lay sangha. There are different levels in Zen -- a teacher level is not the same as the Master level. Also, anyway, not all Zen masters realise emptiness either, sad to say. I do not blindly follow someone's words just because of his lineage status, the wisdom is the more important criteria. Yes and I am familiar with and continue to grow in intimacy with this "inside of Being, there is a dynamic Aliveness that feels like home"
When this was said, the elder monks said to Ven. Khemaka, "We didn't cross-examine Ven. Khemaka with the purpose of troubling him, just that [we thought] Ven. Khemaka is capable of declaring the Blessed One's message, teaching it, describing it, setting it forth, revealing it, explaining it, making it plain — just as he has in fact declared it, taught it, described it, set it forth, revealed it, explained it, made it plain."
That is what Ven. Khemaka said. Gratified, the elder monks delighted in his words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of sixty-some monks, through no clinging, were fully released from fermentations — as was Ven. Khemaka's.
Khemaka Sutta: About Khemaka
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html
I bet we both could write books about what “Right View” meant to Buddha. So let me just tell you how I see it. ‘Right View’ could easily be called ‘Naked View,’ or that which we see when empty of concepts and ego.
I believe practicing ‘Right View” can STINKS of concepts. Practice by definition is not empty. Practice could easily be called “mimicing” what we presume to be right. If we are not careful, we will look like a little girl dressing in mommy’s clothes and parading around that way.
So, what did the Buddha have in mind when he spoke of “Right View?” (Or for that matter ‘Right Action,’ etc.)
Some years back, when reading about “Virtue,” a wise fellow said that “Virtue wasn’t something that we do, so much as virtue was something that naturally came about, when we got our heads on straight.”
In this same manner, I see “Right Action” as something that comes about in a natural manner, when we get our heads on straight, “Wake Up,” as Buddha did.
These glimpses that we all have, sooner or later, are mind glimpses in this way, our trying to hold them in our minds changes them almost immediately. Were it not so, we could not lose them. Now I am not saying that you didn’t glimpse anything wonderful. That would be both cruel and untrue. But, I am saying that, much as you described the witness earlier to me; that you have wrapped your glimpse up in presumption. The presumption, if nothing else, that it COULD be LOST.
The only possible way for us to begin to understand the Buddha is, to rediscover in our very own life, what he originally discovered in his life b/4 us. It makes absolutely no difference to you, even if you have his words tattooed all over your body, if you cannot see them within yourself, and therefore live them yourself.
‘Right View’ once seen requires absolutely no validation of any kind. It is so obvious that, “It knocks your socks off.”
AND:
You will never lose it. You will actually see just how IMPOSSIBLE that is.
Warm regards,
S9
For example as Thusness said,
If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.
Likewise when standing in front of a burning fire pit, the entire phenomena of ‘fire’, the burning heat, the whole sensation of ‘hotness’ that are so vividly present and seem so real but when examined they are also not inherently “there” -- merely dependently manifest whenever conditions are there. It is amazing how dualistic and inherent views have caged seamless experience in a who-where-when construct.
Anyway just curious what is your personal view on this matter? Regarding your last sentence: if you mean Mind as in Awareness, then you should know that the Knowing cannot be separated from objects being cognized, they co-arise, and in fact, Awareness is itself the Manifestation, it is not the case that there is a separate Knower cognizing objects.
Then again, if you are talking about mind as in the mental echo and after thought I'm talking about that labels and interpretes experience, then that in itself is an arising thought, a distinct, disjoint manifestation of its own.
So in short, there is no Mind (capital M as in Pure Awareness) or mind (small 'm' as in mental cognition) apart from these sensory and mental manifestation. Neither of them are actually a separate 'cognizer'. If you are talking in terms of Mind as in our true nature, everything experienced is Mind. There is just pure non-dual cognition. Right. Prior to that there is just pure awareness of these colours and forms, without even comprehending or labeling these colours and forms as 'red', 'tall', etc. I don't think it's simultaneous.
You must see the tree first before you know or label it as a tree right? There must be some milisecond reaction time between seeing it and mentally recognising it don't you agree? Before mentally recognising 'it's a tree' isn't there moment of just pure thoughtless awareness, pure experience? What is there in the gap between two thoughts?
X: What is there in the gap between two thoughts?
S9: I think if you will examine this directly, (the actual space between thoughts, and not the’ blank thought’ that some erroneously consider to be no thought.) you will not see a tree standing there naked of labels. You will not see red with nothing to adhere to. You will see “nothing at all,” as far as mind is concerned. Labeling isn’t the only thought. Tree without a label is also a thought. And blank is another thought. Red without anything to adhere to is also a thought.
So what is in this gap for heaven sakes, you might well ask? I say it is Presence. Not presence outside looking at you, like some God. No, just ‘You,’ (the I Am), period.
This gap (Pure Awareness without any objects to be aware of) is the very thread upon which every bead of thought is strung.
Sincerely,
S9
"These mountains and rivers and this land are all the sea of Buddha-nature...To see mountains and rivers is to see Buddha-nature."
Shobogenzo, Buddha-Nature (Bussho)
Presence is no longer 'One', it manifest as diversity, yet having only a single taste.
However the commonly taught instruction to look into the 'the Isness in the gap between two thoughts' usually leads to the I AM first.
Eventually we will also look into 'the Isness of the thought between two gaps', and experience thought as luminous emptiness itself.
If every tree is experienced as Presence, and every mountain is experienced as Presence, than wouldn’t it be a correct to say that, “Presence is the common denominator behind all of these, much like a red car, and a green car, and a blue car, are really all just cars?"
Said differently, wouldn't car be fundamental to red car, etc, much as Presence is fundamental to both tree and mountain?
Yes a red car is a car, granted, but, this is the thing, we can remove red, and paint it green, and yet the car remains. In this same way, we can remove tree, or mountain, and ‘Presence’ remains. See what I mean?
So in this way, red is not equal to the car. Red is dependent upon the car for something to hold to, or allow for red to adhere to it. You will not come along one day and see red just floating in the air and car somewhere else.
This is much like Presence. Presence allows the tree to adhere, but is not dependent upon the tree to do so, in order to be Presence.
Have you ever heard of what the Hindu’s call the 'Night of Brahman?" (This does not have to be as time related as they have it, in order to understand that Brahman [AKA Presence] can be without any object at all. Presence is not dependent, or does not come up as one more co-dependence thing does. Presence is omnipresent. Tree is not.
Q: "These mountains and rivers and this land are all the sea of Buddha-nature...
S9: Yes, much as red and green are car-nature (on a red or green car, anyway.) We can look at red and see right through red all the way to car, just as we can look right through both tree and mountain and see Presence. All concepts are transparent in this way.
A: Presence is no longer 'One', it manifest as diversity, yet having only a single taste.
S9: Presence was never “One’ as that is far too limiting. But Presence is not multiplicity either, that also is far too limiting. This does not mean however that the I Am is zero. That too would be far to limiting.
So what is Presence than? This is where we hit a stonewall, in what the mind is able to comprehend. We feel ourselves as a Presence without definition, without center, and without circumference.
Presence cannot be caged in words, in concepts, in pictures, or even in worlds. (AKA dreams) What has the mind to do with such as this…this Suchness?
We cannot just look into this gap between thoughts, or we will automatically describe it as thoughts/words, like silence or peace. These are also limiting.
We must jump right into the gap, or Presence, in order to know it. Then we will not say this gap appears to be oceanic, another descriptive thought. We will say that we are this gap, and it feels like home, or it feels like my 'Original Face,' or it is simply ‘Me,’and I Am.
I think we must realize that describing this as the I Am also falls short, as description is impossible. Discription is a poor substitute for knowing. But, that is the closest I can come to what it feels like (this I Am) from the inside looking out of Being.
Kind regards,
S9
Although there is non-duality in Advaita Vedanta, and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta rest in an “Ultimate Background” (making it dualistic), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change.
If we realise that transient phenomena, thoughts, sensations, are all Dharmakaya, then there will no longer be an attempt to resort to a Source, to an ultimate, to something permanent behind change. Everything is unique and yet equally vivid as Pure Presence, the Pure Presence that has no fixed or inherent forms or existence or attributes (even of the attributes of formlessness) other than all forms and existence it manifests due to condition, not an unchanging behind reality but all the changing self luminous sensations themselves, each expressing in its uniqueness due to varying conditions yet never having another nature than the Luminosity and Emptiness nature of reality -- One Taste. This doesn't mean there is a One behind the Many, it means the Many are all 'of' the single flavor, single taste. Every experience is a unique and equal experience of Presence, there is no some 'purer essence' beyond all manifestation when everything is already the Presence spoken of.
The nature of Presence is empty of any essence and attributes, as Thusness have said before,
Since appearance is all there is and appearance is really the source, what gives rise to the diversities of appearances? “Sweetness” of sugar isn’t the “blueness” color of the sky. Same applies to “AMness”… all are equally pure, no one state is purer than the other, only condition differs. Conditions are factors that give appearances their ‘forms’. In Buddhism, pristine awareness and conditions are inseparable.
As Adam_West from another forum states:
...When I realize Rigpa, luminous cognizance is its dominant feature and all is an empty phenomenological presentation of that luminosity or basic awareness. There is pristine clarity with no center and there is phenomenology with no-thing; all is just Isness or suchness - inseparable and non-dual...
...Then there is the question of suffering. Not pain of course, but the experience of rejecting, resisting and judging one's experience, and the suffering that follows this. This is not possible in Rigpa - all is simply experienced in its perfect suchness that is fully cognizant of its particularity and uniqueness; and as such there is no struggle to push it away or to grasp after something else - there is perfect ease in simply what is; and an intrinsic joy and perfection of 'being'...
Now if we experience all transience as Dharmakaya, then naturally it is transience that liberates and is self-liberating, which is basically the teaching of Dzogchen -- all transience is equally the expression of Dharmakaya and is all self-liberating. Seeing this there is no attempt to disassociate from transience and cling to a transcendental Absolute, it is seen that this is not the way of liberation but a subtle and strong attachment/clinging. At that moment of realising anatta, non-dual of absolute/relative, subject/object, etc is already implicit.
That said whatever is said will not be appreciated and cannot be experienced unless there is insight into anatta. Without the insight it is impossible to experience self liberation. Self-liberation and seeing transience as dharmakaya is the direct path, everything else is the gradual, non-direct and non-natural way.
However it is necessary for most to go through this path as the 'most direct path' is not suitable for everyone. Therefore first experience the I AM, the clarity, the spaciousness, the pristineness. There is nothing wrong with practicing it in this way but one must realize that it is only the beginning and not over claim it.
Regarding 'One', 'Many', etc, Guru Padmasambhava addressed it very clearly:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html
7.
Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,
awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.
..."Victim of a prolonged fit of madness, of a lifelong hallucination (and by "hallucination" I mean what my dictionary says: apparent perception of an object not actually present), I had invariably seen myself as pretty much like other people, and certainly never as a decapitated but still living biped. I had been blind to the one thing that is always present, and without which I am blind indeed -- to this marvelous substitute-for-a-head, this unbounded clarity, this luminous and absolutely pure void, which nevertheless is -- rather than contains -- all that's on offer. For, however carefully I attend, I fail to find here even so much as a blank screen on which these mountains and sun and sky are projected, or a clear mirror in which they are reflected, or a transparent lens or aperture through which they are viewed -- still less a person to whom they are presented, or a viewer (however shadowy) who is distinguishable from the view. Nothing whatever intervenes, not even that baffling and elusive obstacle called "distance": the visibly boundless blue sky, the pink-edged whiteness of the snows, the sparkling green of the grass -- how can these be remote, when there's nothing to be remote from? The headless void here refuses all definition and location: it is not round, or small, or big, or even here as distinct from there. (And even if there were a head here to measure outwards from, the measuring-rod stretching from it to that mountain peak would, when read end-on -- and there's no other way for me to read it -- reduce to a point, to nothing.) In fact, these coloured shapes present themselves in all its simplicity, without any such complications as near or far, this or that, mine or not mine, seen-by-me or merely given. All twoness -- all duality of subject and object -- has vanished: it is no longer read into a situation which has no room for it."...
X: The nature of Presence is empty of any essence and attributes, as Thusness have said before.
S9: What exactly do you think ‘essence’ is? The essence of Presence is certainly Presence, is it not? How could Presence be empty of Presence, and still be Presence? Does that make sense to you?
Could I ask you to please to answer me in your own words, if you would? I would greatly appreciate hearing your ideas on this, and not what Thusness might say. If he were here I would gladly speak to him. But he is not.
You know x I almost feel like I am talking to a ghost. You print that this guy said this, and that guy said this, but in a way you are not hardly showing up to talk to me. Why is that?
I mean this in a friendly way, believe me. I know you feel that you are being helpful to me. But, I feel cheated in this conversation, talked at, and not talked to. Do you see what I mean?
Peace,
S9
Sorry for my unskillful style of posting. I understand why you stressed so much on Presence, the pure sense of existence, the 'You' that is more real than real. Frankly, if there is any 'what' that can be considered 'Reality', it must be this undeniable 'I'. However even though I am having similar experience as you I do experienced what is described as non-dual and therefore know.
I have also spoken to many practitioners undergoing the various phases over the years. Since I am at the same phase, the deconstruction of personality in meditative experience is important and also to stabilize this experience. At present I am told to 1) experience impersonality in real time and direct experience, 2) from that experience understanding and also understand the 'power' of conditioning, 3) understanding the 'power of conditioning is as important as the direct experience of Presence.
It is important to experience Impersonality and so we move from 'I AMness' to 'AMness'. (AugustLeo writes well about this aspect in a few posts just posted recently, Post 15 and 16 in http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/3499287/AugustLeo%27s+Practice+Notes )
No, forgive me for being pushy. What a brat I am.
I guess I was just disappointed that we couldn’t talk like friends. : ^ )
X: “Frankly, if there is any 'what' that can be considered 'Reality', it must be this undeniable 'I'.
S9: Could you elucidate a bit more on what you mean by this, please? Frankly it seems different than what you have previously been saying to me. Color me confused. ; ^ )
X: However even though I am having similar experience as you I do experienced what is described as non-dual and therefore know.
S9: Could you possibly give me a detailed description of what you are experiencing in this area?
X: The deconstruction of personality in meditative experience is important and also to stabilize this experience.
S9: I think that I may be past the deconstruction of personality, (depending of course how you describe this). I do not see S9 as being me, anymore.
Stabilizing this experience of not being personality seems to be more like a surrendering to no-mind, if you will. In other words, I do not insist on anything, any more.
X: At present I am told to 1) experience impersonality in real time and direct experience.
S9: Yes, I would say that was a correct way to do it, all right. Presence isn’t something that requires any effort what so ever. And Presence is everywhere, all of the time, and so requires no ritual of any kind, not even sitting meditation.
X: From that experience understanding and also understand the 'power' of conditioning.
S9: Being a long time metaphysician, my mind finds these questions interesting. But, I now realize that understanding is not the necessary precursor to Realization.
X: Understanding the 'power of conditioning is as important as the direct experience of Presence.
S9: Actually it is not. Of course, mind believes this to be the case. But the mind thinks it is far more important than it actually is.
X: It is important to experience Impersonality and so we move from 'I AMness' to 'AMness'.
S9: I’m sorry. But, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Could you, perhaps, say that a little differently?
I enjoyed this much better.
Thank you,
S9
I never deny the experience of "I AM", I simply refine the views. What is experienced at the current moment is the intermingling of 'dualistic and inherent tendencies' and pure presence at work. It is far from being thorough as I have mentioned in the phases of insights and I shall not go into it.
When we move from "I AMness" and mature the deconstruction of personality, we experience God-Like qualities. Seeing everything as one manifestation of 'One Life' and Presence being the same for everyone.
Impersonality is as AugustLeo described: Amness without I. Just the isness without the individuality. As Thusness told me, once this individuality is gone (whether permanently or temporary), one intuits that all is sharing the Source or as Manifestation of this Source. But that is not non-duality. It is also not Anatta, where even the reification of a universal consciousness is removed. Rather, that is impersonality.
Non-dual is like what Ken Wilber has described. When one gets into non-dual, one will realize that non-dual and anatta are same experience but just further refinement of views. And that views will help one further experienced presence as a process than an entity. Once one gets into that, one will have direct knowledge of what Buddha is talking about.
And I have also witness how many practitioners (through conversations with them on forums) and others have gone through the phases, in a similar way as Thusness have listed them in his 7 stages.
A: I never deny the experience of "I AM". I simply refine the views.
S9: Okay, fine. I guess we could always call 'a deepening' the same thing as a refinement on a theme. But, if you refine it to a point where you have redefined it, is it really the same thing any more?
To say there is an 'Am' without the obvious subjective experience of 'I' is not the same as the 'I Am', now, is it? to me, 'Am' would be a dead thing, like a rock.
It all comes back to a matter of degrees. Or when does a detail, and a detail, and one more detail, become a mile of difference?
A: What is experienced at the current moment is the intermingling of 'dualistic and inherent tendencies' and pure presence at work.
S9: I prefer to stay away from the concept of 'intermingling, (as they do not actually intermingle), and call it superimposition. In other words, finitude is superimposed on top the Eternal Now. Or, as the Christian’s say, The Christ (AKA the Original Face) is in the world, but not of the world. Some might even say that they are two dimensions, (This is close, but not exact).
A: When we move from "I AMness" and mature the deconstruction of personality, we experience God-Like qualities. Seeing everything as one manifestation of 'One Life' and Presence being the same for everyone.
S9: I believe that you still have some misunderstandings about I Am. I Am is not a personality, not a thinly disguised ego self. It is a subjective feeling (intuition may be closer) of the indefinable Presence, or is your Buddha Nature, or your Ultimate Self.
Every single person feels themselves to be this exact same Buddha Nature or Self at their center, but they feel this intimately. Omnipresence feels like (is lived as) everywhere center, and personal. Omnipresence does not feel like oceanic, and impersonal, like a white washing of the universe.
If you feel that I am wrong in this, then I know that you are still standing out side of the I Am, and looking at it with the mind. As mind certainly conceives of the ‘I Am’ in this way after it has been privileged to have a glimpse. Been there/done that.
Quote: Eckhart Tulle:
“The One Life, the one consciousness that pervades the entire universe and takes temporary form to experience itself as a stone or blade of grass, as an animal, a person, a star or a galaxy.”
S9: The way that Life (Buddha Nature) appears in finitude is “I Am”… a person, “I Am”… a tree, I Am”… a dog. Dog is superimposed upon Buddha Nature or the “I Am.”
The dog knows it IS. This feeling of knowing you ‘IS’, is the ‘I Am.’ Life/Self is not in hiding. It is everywhere center, obvious.
Q: AugustLeo: the Source or as Manifestation of this Source.
S9: This Source is the I Am, which is the subjective Being experience, not objective. The Source is intimate.
Q: Ken Wilber: …will help one further experienced presence as a process than an entity.
S9: Sorry this is incorrect. I can only hope that this was taken out of context. ‘I Am,’ or Buddha Nature is NOT a process. Process is change, and change is time, and time is impermanent/temporary. Buddha nature is Not impermanent.
I spent my childhood surrounded with a bunch of Christians (nice people) who were “out to lunch,” spiritually. Their sheer numbers did not give them a 'corner on the truth.'
Many of these persons felt 'saved', and even saw Jesus at given intervals. The mind seems to give us proofs of what we believe strongly enough. This is why the Buddha cautioned us to drop all beliefs and to look directly. Accumulated conversations may be helpful, but they are no kind of proof, no how.
Warm Regards,
S9
Yes, I too enjoyed it. : ^ )
Later my friend,
S9
Anyway, for example, some schools assert that physical objects exist through their own defining characteristics. For example, you see the external tree with the eye consciousness and then your mental consciousness, specifically the conceptual mental consciousness imputes the category 'tree' onto the characteristics existing in the object that are picked up by the eye+eye consciousness. Non-duality then is relegated to correcting a problem in the conceptual mental consciousness only.
But in Mind-Only, non-duality is relegated to [additionally] correcting a problem with the eye consciousness itself. It is not the case that there appears an external tree with its defining characteristics which are then picked up by the eye+eye consciousness. Rather, the eye consciousness and the object it holds are devoid of possessing different essential natures (but they are still not identical things). So, the consciousness and the so-called outer object arise at the same time. Then the mental consciousness deals with it.
So I suppose it's true what you are saying then. The label is always given after the bare sense awareness.
Regarding the pit of fire, it's difficult. Emptiness is much more profound than selflessness (ie. conceptual mental consciousness imputing abstractions, similar to 'tree' on the eye consciousness). And even if we have a strong notion of it it is much harder to become fluent in. But I would have to say yes the fire, as in the fire that melts all the flesh off your bones, and not merely the category fire which is imputed, is empty.
Do you have any further discussion on this some place?
If you really want to live in the here and now...Simply start living in today.. when you get good at living in the day, you might be ready for the "moment"
C: Simply start living in today.. when you get good at living in the day, you might be ready for the "moment."
S9: When you say ready for the moment, are you speaking about a moment in time, or a more metaphysical understanding of the moment?
Respectfully,
S9
Is he Madyamika? No, as far as I know, he does not consider himself Madyamika and he thinks that the approach may be too academical and intellectual when I asked him. He does however like Dzogchen and Mahamudra, which are considered 'practice traditions' in contrast to 'scholasticism' (see the article Mahamudra and Dzogchen, Two Systems of Buddhist Yoga) leads to the realisation of the union of Luminosity and Emptiness, however he considers himself a non-sectarian even though he took refuge under H.H. Sakya Trizin. He once said in 2007 that if he discovered Dzogchen and Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche 5 years ago, he would have taken refuge in that tradition, however he now feels no urge to do that. Also, his understanding is derived from his personal experience and realisation, and not from intellectual analysis like some Madyamika schools do.
Loppon Namdrol states:
There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."
Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.
Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.
Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:
I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
not ceasing, not arising
not annihilated, not permanent,
not going, not coming,
not diverse, not single,
was taught as peace
in order to pacify proliferation. If you look at his 7 stages of enlightenment, Stage 1 and 2 pertains to the Luminosity aspect (the aspect of Presence, Intelligence, Awareness) but the Empty nature is not seen, Stage 3 pertains to a very deep letting go of the 'self' to a point of samadhi, Stage 4 pertains to the realisation of Non-Duality. These 4 stages can be found in other religions, with 1, 2 and 4 emphasized in Hinduism and some other religions/traditions, Stage 3 is emphasized in Taoism. Now if the luminosity is experienced but the empty nature is not seen, the practitioner will grasp it as a Subjective metaphysical essence like some Hindus, an ultimate reality with inherent existence, as seen in religions reifying it as some Godhead, the Atman-Brahman (Self=Brahman).
I should however clarify something about 'non-duality' because the term 'non-duality' itself has like more than 10 meanings depending on who you speak to, so I will just simply state my definition: Non-duality is the non-separation of subject and object. Means, in seeing, the seeing is the seen -- the mountains, the rivers, the scenery. Everything is self-felt, self-seen, self-cognized, everything is aware 'where they are' without a sense of a localized observer being separated and having a distance from what is perceived. There is no sense of an observer as awareness is realised as non-dual. Same goes for hearing, etc, as a Zen Master put it, "When I heard the sound of the bell ringing, there was no I, and no bell, just the ringing."
However I should also mention that Non-Duality (Stage 4) is not the same as Anatta (Stage 5) or Emptiness (Stage 6). These three are three distinct insights that complements but are different from each other. All three are necessary and important. A person can realise Non-Duality and still make Awareness into some Subjective metaphysical essence (such as Thusnes Stage 4). A person may understand emptiness very well but not have the realisation of Non-Dual luminosity.
Now is duality just a mental problem? I think it is deeper than that because the root of the conditioning of perceiving dualistically goes far more than on a mental level, it functions on the subconscious level as well, and that is why the Yogacarins talk about the 7th Consciousness, even subtler than the 6th (mental consciousness). The 7th Consciousness (the consciousness of a self) is the arising of duality, while the 8th consciousness* is pre-duality but is the source of all dualities. Even if you are not aware of any objects there's still this sense of an 'I', and that is the 7th consciousness. If you remain thoughtless, you may not necessarily perceive non-duality. Your 6th consciousness may be inactive and yet the 7th consciousness remains active. Certain conditions must be there, and you must practice insight meditation, in order to breakthrough and realise the insights (nonduality, anatta, emptiness), and then the various Consciousness transforms into the 5 wisdoms -- the consciousness of Objects out there (the first six consciousness) and the consciousness of a Subject in here (seventh consciousness) dissolves into non-dual wisdom, non-dual awareness, in which there is no perceiver and nothing perceived, only a flow of perceiving not separate from the flow of phenomenality. You see through the falsity of there being a perceiver perceiving objects. In other words it is not 'you' as an inner perceiver being aware of the 'sound out there' (which is the meaning of consciousness), rather there is just the entire phenomenological universe self-aware as it is, non-dual self-reflexive awareness.
So as Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso Rinpoche says, "Know that perception involved with the duality of perceiver and perceived is consciousness. Know that awareness itself, liberated from perceiver and perceived, is primordial awareness: the dharmadatu."
This is also nicely explained in the article I mentioned earlier which I think you should read: Mahamudra and Dzogchen, Two Systems of Buddhist Yoga
It is not easy to experience non-duality due to the karmic seeds and propensities that are deeply rooted, producing the dualistic consciousness. Non-duality doesn't mean (at this point) you realise that everything is empty, you just realise that in your field of perception, nothing is divided into a subject and an object.
The only way to remove ignorance is to realise the nature of reality through those insights I mentioned, and then these seeds of ignorance in the 8th consciousness eventually gets uprooted and no longer produce dualistic consciousness. Consciousness transforms into the 5 wisdoms. Yet, realising non-dual itself is not enough for liberation and the full transformation of consciousness into wisdom.
There are two kinds of bonds:
Stage 5 is crucial to Buddhism: it is the realisation of Anatta. At this point the practitioner no longer clings to even the subtlest sense of a metaphysical essence or ultimate self. The practitioner clearly sees and experience life as simply a process like the 5 skandhas, having no essence whatsoever, only processes, events, phenomenon, happening to no one.
However there is Stage 6 because, as Thusness stated,
Phase 4 and 5 are the gray-scale of seeing through the subject that it does not exist in actuality (anatta), there are only the aggregates. However even the aggregates are empty (Heart Sutra). It may sound obvious but more often than not, even a practitioner that has matured the anatta experience (as in phase 5) will miss the essence of it.
As I have said earlier, phase 5 do appear to be final and it is pointless to emphasize anything. Whether one proceed further to explore this empty nature of Presence and move into the Maha world of suchness will depend on our conditions.
An important concept here is the twofold emptiness, an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary on the definition of twofold Emptiness states:
Now as you stated, some schools, particularly the Hinayana schools, while clearly teaching anatta or selflessness and seeing through an ultimate Subject, continues to posit that the basic elements of reality (say, the physical elements, etc) have some sort of an irreducible objective 'essence', svabha. However the development of Mahayana in the Prajnaparamita literature is meant to refute this basic misunderstanding of Buddhism. It clearly states that other than the Emptiness of Self, what is equally important is the Emptiness of Dharma. That means Dependent Origination basically refutes any sort of essence including of the dharmas, for what is dependently originated, what essence is there? Is there a subjective or objective existence anywhere or is there seamless ungraspable relativity?
And this includes the emptiness of any 'inherent characteristics' as clearly refuted in Heart Sutra: Shariputra, all Dharmas are empty of characteristics.
In short, non-Buddhist non-dualism: (stage 4) sees through subject and object division but reifies reality as an ultimate Subject that is one with all objects.
Buddhist Anatta: (stage 5) i.e. Emphasized in Hinayana, sees through an Ultimate Subject of any sort, only processes and phenomenality and events, yet may not yet see through the emptiness of Dharmas
Buddhist Emptiness: (stage 6) i.e. Emphasized in Mahayana, clearly sees through the Emptiness of Dharmas due to deep insight into dependent origination.
Note: all these insights are equally important, it is not that Emptiness is more important than Non-Duality, for example. Realising Emptiness of Dharmas also does not mean that Emptiness of Self is less important. Furthermore one realisation doesn't invalidate a previous, for example the non-dual experience of Stage 5 & 6 is the same, equally non-dual and vivid as Stage 4, except no longer with the extra reification of an ultimate essence.
Yes and no.
Mark