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.
Dis-identification vs. Dissociation
RichardH
Veteran
This seems to be a contradiction, but one needs to fully "own" a mind state, in order to properly dis-identify with it. Does anyone have thoughts on the difference between dissociation and dis-identification?
Thanks
Thanks
0
Comments
I think we could also refine dis-identifying by attaching the term "transience" to it. Can you see how the purpose isn't to push it away, such as disassociation, but to embrace it fully, from where you can see the impermanence of the experience and realize that it doesn't create a lasting definition upon you (if you don't force it to through clinging)
As these experiences continue, I view the declining of the solid self-identity as natural result of viewing the impact of the events in this dis-identified, transient way.
Does that help at all?
With warmth,
Matt
Thanks
bwahahahaha
the house is alive with juices...
bwahahahaha
Laughed almost till I choked.
Brilliant
Matt
Long answer:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html
(excerpt, author is Thusness)
3. On Ignorance, Disassociation and Liberation
Most of the articles you posted recently are about non-dual experience and vast open spaciousness of awareness. My advice is not to over-skew yourself into just the non-dual aspect of experience and neglect 'ignorance', having direct insight of ignorance is as important. For non-dualists, Presence pervades everywhere but this is equally true for Ignorance. It pervades in all aspects of our experiences and that includes deep absorptive state or non-dual, non-conceptual, objectless state. So deeply feel the amazing blinding power of ‘ignorance’, how latently deep, how it shapes and distorts experiential reality. I cannot find any magical spell more hypnotic than our inherent and dualistic view.
If we were to practice observing impermanence of phenomena while the ‘blinding spell’ is still strong, the purpose of the practice appears to swerve towards dispassion, dis-identification and disassociation. In fact it is quite fine even if it is understood that way but many can’t stop at dispassion and dis-identification and rest in perfect contentment in groundlessness. Somehow they will ‘conjure’ out a permanent unchanging state to rest upon. ‘Not self, not mine’ sounds as if there is something ‘Mine or Self’. I would prefer practitioners to treat ‘anatta’ as ‘there is absolutely nothing that can be said to be mine or self’; even then this realization that ‘there is absolutely nothing that can be said to be mine or self’ should not be misunderstood as the experiential insight of anatta (see On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection). I have placed stronger emphasis on this aspect as in Buddhism, nothing is more important than to arise the insight of anatta and dependent origination because it is wisdom (prajna wisdom in particular) that liberates (since the cause of suffering is ignorance). Do not take it too lightly.
Nevertheless this progression seems quite inevitable because the mind is ruled by ignorance (dualistic and inherent tendency). More amazingly, the mind can fabricate such a state and that is the resting place, nirvana. This is the danger of all danger because like what Rob said, it is so beautiful and fits so nicely into the ideal model of an inherent and dualistic mind. When a practitioner gets into it, it is difficult to let go.
However if insight of anatta arises and we revisit the practice of observing phenomena, we will realize that liberation does not require ‘such permanent state or self/Self’. We just have to dissolve ignorance and impermanence turns self liberating. So what we discard turns out to be our ultimate goal and the reason why we can’t find liberation becomes obvious -- because we are running away from liberation; likewise, the reason why we suffer is because we are actively seeking suffering. This is exactly what I meant by the following 2 paragraphs in your forum:
~ Thusness (source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)
"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
~ Thusness
Lastly, I am not suggesting that there is a definite order of precedence for realizing the profound meaning of the dharma seals; it all depends on the conditions and capacity of each practitioner. But given the choice, start from penetrating the true meaning of anatta first, we will have very different understanding of impermanence, suffering and nirvana once we mature our insight of anatta.
Dissociation - Putting distance between oneself and the other
Reading this response got me thinking about just where this practice is at.
-Sometimes delusion holds sway. Identification with a personal narrative is strong from habit, but after years of practice, there is a reflexive recognition of this.
-Then there are times where there is a basic grounded awareness, but it isn't non-dual in that the awareness is fragmented. Incomplete.
-Then there are times when bodymind and world, internal, external, subtle and gross, present equally, at once. At these time there is absolutely no self-sense and no trace of its absence. Effortless, tensionless, the world is full and unfolds alone.
-Karmic buttons are pushed, habit energy asserts itself, the dream kicks in, practice goes on. There has been a change over time from being virtually fused with thought, to knowing thought as object, to thoughts flowing of their own accord, however, under certain conditions the habit of identification reasserts itself.
One thing I hear about often in the non-dual tradition is the unavoidableness of non-duality, that even in the midst of delusion you are already there. It is true but at the same time, it seems off to me, because an unexperienced experience isn't one. If one is experiencing delusion then at that moment non-delusion is just a notion. To wake up from delusion and call the delusion just experienced non-delusion is like blessing the marriage after the elopement.
Perhaps this view has something to do with being a Zen/Theravadin hybrid, but it is honest. There may be “nothing to do”, but there is definitely something to do.
Just implies? It seems to me that it creates the 'self'.
I'm going to go with the development of a frontal cortex. Once we had the ability to process information quickly enough to get ahead (or behind) of our environment, it seems like 'ignorance' is more like 'un-learned' on how to process it skillfully. It seems first we'd be able to remember, then reflect on those memories, then assign meanings to those reflections... and on and on until we're reflecting on a collection of memories we assign to our individualized experience of "me". Certainly not an error, but not intentional either. Once we learn how to relate to experiences skillfully, it seems like much of the self-sense would be unnecessary and just fade away.
Just some ideas...
With warmth,
Matt
My Stroke of Insight
Jill Bolte Taylor
Another thing is.. realization is very important. It is Realization that brings about a 360 degree change, your entire view, life, and entire experiential reality. The impact of Realization is powerful and transformational change, and that is the whole purpose of practice. Otherwise nothing changes, nothing transformational happens.
We think we must do this or that, but many do not know that it is the 'insight' that brought about the 360 degree transformation. Suffering too is to bring about such insight. Hence, it is not about doing nothing, neither is there 'many things' to do, it is all about deeper seeing. For awareness practice, 'insight' is all that matters, it is not about 'chi', 'chi gong', mudra, visualization... etc. From the perspective of awareness practice, what matters is the arising insight that brings about the change/transformation - that is all that matters to Awareness.
When insight matures, naturally everything is transparently clear and obvious, only and purely aggregates, only the 18 dhatus, 'only the world referencing itself'. The tendency to reference back to a 'Self/self' is replaced by the thorough insight of anatta and DO. No more looking and referencing to a behind reality.
p.s. a post by a friend 'longchen' came to mind:
To me, 'whatever arises already is' is a distinctive stage and insight. It allows me to maintain non-dual in activities... as there is the realisation that no 'need/effort' can be done to acheive non-dual.
Prior to this insight, there was the effort to drop the 'sense of self'. .. but the mind didn't realise that the effort was the split.
After a while, it gets really clear 'why' there wasn't a split in the first place... and therefore 'how' a split(subject-object division) can never occur in reality.
Before 'whatever arises already is' insight there was much unconscious/habitual effort to fix the split. After the insight, the experience is that no-split have ever occured at all... which enable no-self experience to be better 'integrated' with activities. With this, the benefits of the practice is more clearly experienced.
This post is very much appreciated. It cuts to some key points.
The first reaction to what you say here about insight into anatta was "there has been experiential insight, not just theory" .
But, having taken some time to reflect it is clear that, yes there is experiential insight, but it is incomplete. I have been regarding as complete an insight that is partial. The good news is that this practice is authentic, and the faculties developed through practice are workable.
Thank you
X: My short answer is... Disassociation still implies there is a Self that can dis-associate from the 'other'. True disidentification requires no 'Self'.
S9: I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense to me. If there is “dis-Identification with” going on, who exactly is it that is dis-Identifying?
This always sounds to me like there is a movie going on, but the audience went home a long time ago, or never was there; like a ghost world. Even a ghost is viewed by someone or is simply non-existent even as a figment of our imagination, or simply never was. But then the next question has to be, why is there a movie at all? Or even, who exactly is it that is getting enlightened?
When we look at the emptiness of this illusion, and we see the character that we conventionally call our ego self is also empty, this does not prove that there is absolutely nothing else.
The hole in the donut doesn’t prove there is no donut. ; ^ )
Just like when you wake up in the morning from a dream, and the dream itself and the dream character within the dream dissolves as one, this does not remove the Ever-Present Awareness.
Granted this Awareness isn’t a self of the conventional definitions that the mind would have us believe. But don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, just because mind says so.
I think our mind often gives us to believe that what we can do with words, we can also makes possible in Reality. This is simply not the case. Disassociation and dis-Identification does not take place in a vacuum.
Warm Regards,
S9
5B: It's not that disidentification requires no self, it's that the self, which is identifying gets out of the way.
S9: Gets out of the way of what? I can fully understand that in order to see Reality with any Clarity, whatsoever, that we have to remove what we have mistakenly taking as Reality, our ego self and all of the co-dependent puppets that live in our minds only. We must disassociate with their suffering, and dis-identify with mind. But what exactly is Reality if there is no Self at all nor any Pure Awareness, which I Identify as Being Self? Reality without any Ultimate Self, of any kind, would be absurd, IMO. It would be like dust blowing in the wind, simply a dead process.
Respectfully,
S9
- there is a difference between 'i see a thing ' and 'seeing
this is theory'i see a thing' is the duality and 'seeing' is the non-duality
- experiencing of the subtle difference between 'i see a thing' and 'seeing'
this is the insight into anattasee/know non-duality
Seer-seeing-seen is quite an abstraction. It is a habit that runs deep and is the operating assumption of ..well... everyone it seems. Every interaction reinforces this assumption. This is why practice in Sangha is so helpful. Alone, this guy would get sucked in. yet again.
Thanks for the Sutta Five Bells. that about says it.
"There is seeing but no seer therein"
The habit of a seer is so pervasive and deep. Insight , times of openness, do not make this habit up and vanish like that. We used to joke about dying on the cushion during a retreat, then growing back on the drive home. Ofcourse there is nothing to die, but you get the joke. Habit takes time to turn. But there are openings for sure.
R: We used to joke about dying on the cushion during a retreat, then growing back on the drive home.
S9: Yes, but you didn’t actually die on the cushion, nor did your friends. Just like Buddha didn’t die when he ‘Woke Up.’ What is this Living Awareness that is you?
You were Aware every moment on the cushion, Aware of being Aware. More like what Xabir said about not dividing into seer and seen, the duality of the mind. Mind creates an objective self (ego) and in so doing overlooks our Pure Awareness, which is our Ultimate Being.
You sat in the Being of Awareness. You were healed of separation. But, on getting up from the cushion, and going home, descriptive (mind) identity bled back in.
R: Habit takes time to turn. But there are openings for sure.
S9: Yes we are opening to this constantly, and only stop overlooking it at times. I sometimes think that we require the ritual of sitting on the cushion, in order to give ourselves permission to look deeper into what is going on all of the time, to look at what is obvious if we only knew what we were looking at.
Warm Regards,
S9
we stop the clock to postpone the death/ expanding the living time on the cushion during a retreat
and
running towards the death/ shortening the living time on the drive home
But in Buddhism, what matters is not disassociation of Self from self (small self), it is the arising of insight that there is no one, no agent, no behind reality, no Self/self in or outside of the five aggregates... just the five aggregates arising and subsiding moment to moment due to dependent origination.
So what liberates then, is not disassocation, but insight. Insight is what removes identification, it is not disassociating but seeing that there is no Self/self. Who realises? This is a wrong question, since there is no 'who', 'where', 'when' to Awareness. At the I AM stage, the self-inquiry into 'Who' leads to the direct cognition of the I AM... but in the Anatta insight the 'Who' is deconstructed (but it does not deny the experience, see below). Realisation is the direct seeing that subject and object are not divided (that would be still dualistic), nor unified (that would imply an inherent non-dual metaphysical essence, an Ultimate Subject/Self that is 'one' with all things)... since there is no Self/self. Meaning that through anatta we deconstruct the deep seated notion of Awareness being an Ultimate Subject. If we experience non-dual, we feel that everything is IT. There is no divison anywhere, all appearances you see, hear, etc are IT, you do not feel any 'distance' from anything. Everything IS Awareness. Yet there may still be a lingering sense that there is an Ultimate Subject that is ONE with objects, and even that is another subtle mental construct/reification.
Anatta is a realisation that subject and object cannot be found in or apart from the transience. There is the experiential insight that there is no one 'behind the transience'... no one behind seeing, hearing, no seer, hearer - just the seeing/scenery, hearing/sound, happening without a behind agent.... nor does the transience imply separate, persisting 'objects'. It does not mean nothing exist or it's just all a dream, but nothing exist in the way we think of it: in terms of persisting and independent entities/subject and objects. So your question of 'who's enlightened' is similar to 'who sees' - there is seeing, there is realisation, there is awareness, but no seer/realizer. Manifestation IS, transience rolls, without a knower, and without an object known. It is not that there is some background Witness cognizing the transience... but rather, the transience, the sound, the sight, is itself the Witnessing... is all the self-luminous Presence of Awareness. And the transience is so complete, so thorough, that nothing is formed in the first place to be impermanent. As Steve Hagen (one of the clearest Zen teachers that I and Thusness have come across, wrote a review on his book here) says: "What Nagarjuna is pointing to is that believing things are impermanent involves a contradiction. First we posit separate, persisting things (in effect, absolute objects); and then we refer to them as impermanent (that is relative). What we fail to see is that we are still holding to a view of substance. We don't really appreciate the thoroughgoing nature of change, the thorough-going nature of selflessness. Nagarjuna makes it abudantly clear that impermanence (the relative) is total, complete, thoroughgoing, Absolute. It's not that the universe is made up of innumerable objects in flux. There's Only flux. Nothing is (or can be) riding along in the flux, like a cork in a stream; nothing actually arises or passes away. There's only stream."
In Buddhism we teach that both Self and Phenomena, both Subject and Object are empty. This is known in Buddhist terminologies as the 'Twofold Emptinesses'. Yet 'No I' does not deny Witnessing consciousness, and 'No Phenomena' does not deny Phenomena. (not that Witnessing Consciousness and Phenomena are two different poles, anyway) The teaching of 'No I', 'No Phenomena' is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs, it does not deny the experience of 'witnessing consciousness'/'phenomena'/'aggregates'. In fact you cannot deny that, for you I'm sure you have experienced the undeniable certainty of Being... when you have direct experience of the transience, the aggregates, there will also be this undeniable certainty, and you will realise the meaning of 'One Taste'. It is clearly seeing that luminosity and Presence is not other than these transient aggregates. All experiences have One Taste, luminosity and emptiness inseparable. What is not denied (and cannot be denied) is this certainty of luminosity. What is denied are all the subtle mental constructs and reifications, such as an inherent Behind Reality. You will eventually come to see luminosity as the manifestation that dependently originates. Without such reifications there is just One Taste in all experiences that dependent origination, no need to reference back to a Self. And you will also know 'why is there a movie' (if you're refering to life in general) - dependent origination.
And if you're wondering where 'Buddha-Nature' 'Ever-Present Awareness' fits in...
Lama Surya Das:
Now, doesn't anybody want to say, "I didn't hear anything about Buddha-nature in the five skandhas. Where's the Buddha-nature? Who made that up?" That's the right question. What Buddha-nature? I never said anything about it. Who made that up? What enlightenment? What nirvana? Who made all that stuff up? Is it in us or elsewhere? How to get from "here" to "there"?
We're all looking for something to hang our hopes on, but when we really get down to the present moment, to our own experience, to clear seeing, we come to what Buddha said: "In hearing there is only hearing; no one hearing and nothing heard." There is just that moment, that hearing. You might think, "Oh, a beautiful bird." How do you know it's a bird? It might be a tape recorder. It might be bicycle brakes squeaking. In the first moment, there is just hearing, then we get busy, our minds and concepts get involved. The Buddha went through all the five senses. "In seeing there is just seeing; no one seeing and nothing seen." And so on, with tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking. Thoughts without a thinker. In thinking there is just thinking. There is just that momentary process. There is no thinker. The notion of an inner thinker is just a thought. We imagine that there is somebody thinking. It's like the Wizard of Oz. They thought there was this glorious wizard, but it was just a little man back there behind the screen, behind the veil. That's how it is with the ego. We think there's a great big monkey inside working the five windows, the five senses. Or maybe five monkeys, one for each sense; a whole chattering monkey house, which it sometimes feels like. But is there really a concrete individual or permanent soul inside at all? It seems more like that the lights are on, but no one is home!
Shurangama Sutra:
"Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral phenomena, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. Who would have thought that production and extinction, coming and going are fundamentally the eternal wonderful light of the Tathagata, the unmoving, all-pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of True Suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, one will never find them."
.
.
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb itaccording to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words."
And regarding 'who realises'...
Daniel Ingram:
So who is it that awakens? It is all of this transience which awakens, though for a more mystical, thorough and seemingly ridiculous answer take a look at"No-self vs True Self" in Part III.
X: You still assume there is a 'Who' behind who can disassociate from aggregates.
S9: You still assume that there is not a “Who” (AKA Pure Awareness, without an object) behind or fundamental to what appears to be going on in the mind. What if I told you that it wasn’t an assumption on my part, and that I actually witnessed this directly? Wouldn’t you simply go on to say that I was viewing it incorrectly? But, than couldn’t I turn around and say that about what you claimed to be witnessing. Knowing, or is it believed that Thusness was witnessing and telling you?
X: (You assume) that, there is a Behind reality, an Ultimate Subject that can disassociate from phenomena.
S9: Buddha said that suffering could be made to cease. Cease for who and/or what? Or if there is no who or what, “So what?” What is all of this concern? What is all of this effort? Are we simply trying to improve the non-existent?
X: But in Buddhism, what matters is not disassociation of Self from self (small self), it is the arising of insight that there is no one, no agent, no behind reality, no Self/self in or outside of the five aggregates... just the five aggregates arising and subsiding moment to moment due to dependent origination.
S9: Insight has absolutely no meaning, nor is it significant in any dimension if there is no recipient of that insight, and insight into what…non-existence?
I think that the idea of a ‘separate (ego) self’ is what doesn’t exist. I think this world of co-dependence, or separate things which are imagined by the mind, are what do not exist in any separate form. I think that there is only the “One,” which mind finds it difficult if not impossible to understand in its complete wholeness. I do not, on the other hand, think that when all is understood there will only an empty, dead void or process where the Vital Living Awareness used to be.
X: So what liberates then, is not disassocation, but insight. Insight is what removes identification, it is not disassociating but seeing that there is no Self/self.
S9: Certainly it is clarity that removes illusion. But, that only begs the question where does this illusion rest and who exactly is it that is confused? Isn’t it rather circular to say that illusion itself is confused? How can there be a mistake without a Truth to be discovered behind or beyond it? Or are you saying that it is the mistake itself that is eternal, and constantly supports the mistake?
Or even, why see through the impermanent if that is all there is? What exactly is the point of all this effort? Why not leave it be, and let it simply run down, or run out of steam?
X: Who realises? This is a wrong question, since there is no 'who', 'where', 'when' to Awareness. At the I AM stage, the self-inquiry into 'Who' leads to the direct cognition of the I AM... but in the Anatta insight the 'Who' is deconstructed (but it does not deny the experience.
S9: But, that is what I have been saying all along, that the ‘Self’ is simply an experience of Self, "Self experiencing Self IS what Self Is," an obvious intrinsic experience, and nothing to do with the defining (mind) factors.
X: Realisation is the direct seeing that subject and object are not divided (that would be still dualistic), nor unified (that would imply an inherent non-dual metaphysical essence, an Ultimate Subject/Self that is 'one' with all things
S9: In order to escape duality, it doesn’t mean that truth must therefore incorporate the mistaken view. The mistaken view is just that, 'a mistake,' and it can and is simply dropped, melts away. This does not mean that Samsara is not. It means that how we presently view Samsara is simply not the case.
X: Since there is no Self/self. Meaning that through anatta we deconstruct the deep- seated notion of Awareness being an Ultimate Subject.
S9: No, Pure Awareness is not the Ultimate Subject by any means, because there are absolutely no separate objects. The Ultimate One cannot be co-dependent and still be Ultimate. Awareness does not require an object to BE.
X: If we experience non-dual, we feel that everything is IT.
S9: Everything is What?
X: There is no division anywhere, all appearances you see, hear, etc are IT, you do not feel any 'distance' from anything.
S9: Perhaps no distance is required from a ‘mistaken view’ in order to drop it? It is not required that once a mistake is made, that in order to circumnavigate the claim of dualism, we must collect all of our mistaken views, and keep them forever. Ultimate Awareness does not incorporate both name or form, nor any collection of such things. Ultimate Awareness does not incorporate impermanence. To say that the Ultimate Awareness is in part name, form, and impermanence, certainly muddies the issue a bit. What the heck is Ultimate Impermanence? Or is Buddha wrong in pointing out impermanence. You cannot stand on both sides, and in the middle, and yet still claim to be making sense, like your staement that “Everything IS Awareness.” Even mistaken views?
Isn’t it rather that, there is only “Awareness,” and what you call “every thing” is a temporary or impermanent mistaken view,” or a dream?
X: Yet there may still be a lingering sense that there is an Ultimate Subject that is ONE with objects, and even that is another subtle mental construct/reification.
S9: Could be a construct, but not necessarily. If mind tries to hold the Ultimate within mind, (which is impossible), it morphs the Ultimate into a mind object, simply because you are sitting in the mind looking AT the Ultimate as an object. But if you are sitting with in the Ultimate as the Ultimate, and there IS absolutely no outside, with absolutely no objects either, than the Ultimate is neither an object nor a subject, as both of these would be dualistic constructs. The Ultimate is the One without another.
X: Manifestation IS, transience rolls, without a knower, and without an object known. It is not that there is some background Witness cognizing the transience... but rather, the transience, the sound, the sight, is itself the Witnessing...
S9: Sounds an awful lot like a dream to me. How it is different?
Respectfully,
S9
The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"
The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada.
The same applies to questions like 'Who is having illusions', 'Who is seeing', 'Who is feeling', 'Who is clinging', 'Who is having sense perceptions'... etc. The Buddha teaches through Anatta that all experiences does not reference to a self/Self. They are not arising to or in a self/Self. Arising experiences only reference itself, but are dependent on various factors and conditions for its arising (dependent origination).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
SN 12.12 PTS: S ii 13
CDB i 541
Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna
translated from the Pali by
Nyanaponika Thera
© 2006–2010
Alternate translation: Thanissaro
<!-- robots content="none" -->
<!-- #H_meta --> <!-- #H_billboard --> <!-- /robots --> "There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."
After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:
"Who, O Lord, consumes1 the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.'2 If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?'3 And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness4 is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence;5 when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"6
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.7
"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;8 through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."
The point is not to disassociate from impermanence. The point is to see the impermanent AS impermanent, via Vipassana. In fact Awareness is the impermanence, the impermanence is Awareness ("Impermanence is Buddha-Nature"). Seeing everything as impermanent, and the insubstantiality of anything including 'Awareness', there is no more clinging to identities, including a transpersonal Self, or clinging to anything as solid objects.
It is the insight that liberates, it is the insight that realizes the nature of all experience, it is the insight that leads to removing all identifications without disassociating from experience.
As Thusness told me: You do not resort to a background from disidentification. If you do that (resort to a background), you are dis-associating. But from disidentification, one realizes the essence and nature the aggregates in its primodial and pure state. (For example) when you dis-identify from your body, you free yourself from the 'inherent aspect of the body construct' but is having a full vivid experience of the sensations.
Also, from an older article in <!-- Content --><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am" -
Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. (See The Spell of Karmic Propensities)
There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own. It is not a dream because it is undeniably present and is the very Presence-Awareness you are speaking of, do you may deny or not be aware of that since at the moment you are still insisting in a permanent, formless Self. It is very hard for me to point out now.
I have been reading quite a bit about and by Nagarjuna lately. What I believe Nagarjuna said was that all (mental) things are empty of any substantial being, and that even the concept of empty is an empty concept within this conceptual mind. Absolutely nothing can stand alone, or everything is co-dependent.
He did not go on to say that absolutely nothing stood outside of the mind, or challenge the Transcendent Absolute, as that would be impossible to prove rationally. All of his statements were “LIMITED” in this way, what could be proven through close attention to mind experience only. He did not even touch on intuition.
X: What we fail to see is that we are still holding to a view of substance.
S9: We cannot extrapolate on what others are or may be failing to see, simply from our own limited experience. Perhaps, there are dimensions beyond substance. So that if someone says, "I have experienced my Absolute Self," you could easily be in error to think this must also be a substance of some kind. Is Awareness a substance? I don’t think so.
X: There's Only flux. Nothing is (or can be) riding along in the flux, like a cork in a stream; nothing actually arises or passes away. There's only stream."
S9: If co-dependence is so empty that it is even empty of the concept of emptiness, than my guess is that Nagarjuna saw clearly that it was also empty of flux, motion, change, time/space, etc. Because with nothing whatsoever TO change, what the heck IS change anyway? Can’t you see how like a dream this all is…only apparent?
X: You I'm sure you have experienced the undeniable certainty of Being.
S9: As have you my friend. What we are talking about here is, what exactly this Being IS. After witnessing “Being,” directly, do we jump right back into mind? I don’t think so. Sure the dream goes on as usual. But you realize exactly what you are not.
X: You will realise the meaning of 'One Taste'.
S9: One Taste is not a banquet. ; ^ ) After you are Purely Certain of the One, why would you wrap yourself back up in illusion and call illusion part of the One?
X: All experiences have One Taste, luminosity and emptiness inseparable. What is not denied (and cannot be denied) is this certainty of luminosity. What is denied are all the subtle mental constructs and reifications, such as an inherent Behind Reality.
S9: Did I say that Reality stood behind Reality? NO! I said that our mind temporarily covers up Reality with a mistaken understanding. Is a mistake equal to the Truth in any way? Is a mistake the Reality? Of course not, Reality stands right Here and Now Constantly, and it is the clouds of illusion, which confuse the mind. These clouds are the impermanent.
X: You will eventually come to see luminosity as the manifestation that dependently originates.
S9: I seriously doubt that. You honor the impermanent far too much.
X: You will also know 'why is there a movie' (if you're referring to life in general) - dependent origination.
S9: Why do you say this? Do you know why there is a movie? If so share this insight, please.
X: Where's the Buddha-nature? Who made that up?"
S9: Our Buddha Nature refers to this longing within us that starts us on the path towards Enlightenment, and keeps us going even though often we would want to give up. No one has to make it up. It is purely obvious within personal experience.
X: How to get from "here" to "there"?
S9: No, that is not the right question. It should be, how to get from there (out in the illusory mind world), back to Here/Now in this very Immediate Eternal Moment.
X: The Buddha went through all the five senses.
S9: All of the senses are dreaming. When we ‘Wake Up’ as Buddha did, we too will be Awake in a dream.
X: There is no thinker.
S9: The thinker is a dream character.
X: It's like the Wizard of Oz. They thought there was this glorious wizard, but it was just a little man back there behind the screen, behind the veil.
S9: That simply represented the ego self…not Pure Awareness. The wizard was misrepresenting.
X: But is there really a concrete individual or permanent soul inside at all? It seems more like that the lights are on, but no one is home!
S9: Just because there is no substance, doesn’t mean the lights are out too. Obviously something is Present.
Respectfully,
S9
For example he refuted the extremes of rang tong which is inclined towards nihilism, as well as shen tong which is inclined towards eternalism and which view is rather similar to Advaita.
Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]:
If there something subtle not empty,
there would be something subtle to be empty;
as there is nothing not empty,
where is there something to be empty?
And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]:
Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,
the conditioned is not established;
since the conditioned is never established,
how can the unconditioned be established?
Awareness isn't something more ultimate nor is something other than than transient mind, the transient sensation, sound, etc. Yet there may be the tendency to reify Awareness, the Brilliance into an Unconditioned essence, separate from arising and ceasing phenomenon cognized as 'conditioned'. It is just about seeing that everything is of one taste. If all phenomena are the luminosity, empty, unconditioned, essence and nature, one realises there is no Awareness more ultimate than everything else and there is full embracing of the transience.
For example there may be the conception that conditioned phenomena comes and goes within an unconditioned container-like Brahman without coming and going. There are different levels of experience to this. At the I AM stage it already seems this way, at this stage experience is still dualistic - there is still no clear non-dual experience and insight that the perceiver and all phenomena perceived are not separate. BUT even if there is non-dual realisation like in Stage 4, one can still cling to a Unconditioned Absolute that has no coming and going that is 'one' with all 'coming and going phenomena'. It is still reifying Absolute and subtly separating it from the Relative due to tendencies of perceiving inherently, even while non-dual is perceived. But to even begin to comprehend anatta and emptiness in direct experience one must give rise to direct experience and realisation of the non-dual nature of consciousness, because if we still experience Awareness as dualistic, then we will not be able to see how phenomena is itself the Awareness (and not just 'dream' or 'mind') that is spoken, and that it is the Awareness that we are speaking of, nothing about concepts, 'dream' or 'mind'. One must have the same certainty of the self-luminosity of the transient phenomena, as one had with the I AM.
This notion (of The Unconditioned/Transcendent Absolute/Ultimate Existent) cannot stand in Buddhism because the conditioned is realised to be empty without coming and going. Right in the transience, no movement, time, entities, coming, going, can be found in direct experience. In direct experience of the transience, no such things can be found, it is only by reifying and cross-referencing to a Self or Background that we establish Unconditioned vs Conditioned, some unchanging Self behind changing phenomena. And if the conditioned is not even established in the beginning, how can an unconditioned existent that is Transcendent (transcending the conditioned) be established? In other words how can there be an Ultimate Unconditioned Existent 'transcending coming and going of phenomena' when all phenomena already is self-luminous in essence and empty by nature transcending coming and going, movement, time, locality, birth and death, etc, and as such the conditioned cannot be estalished? The whole notion of some unconditioned transcendental existent then goes down the drain, because precisely Phenomena itself is Transcendent, and the notion of Transcendent cannot stand without something else to be transcendent of. Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche wrote in details on that in his well written article Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta.
(Thusness, 2007):
The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.
However due to the karmic propensity that divides,
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.
The ‘unchanging’ appears unimaginably real,
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.
In essence the luminosity is itself empty,
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing.
There is no this that is more this than that.
Although thought arises and ceases vividly,
Every arising and ceasing remains as entire as it can be.
The emptiness nature that is ever manifesting presently
Has not in anyway denied its own luminosity.
Although non-dual is seen with clarity,
The urge to remain can still blind subtly.
Like a passerby that passes, is gone completely.
Die utterly
And bear witness of this pure presence, its non-locality.
................
And hence... "Awareness" is not anymore "special" or "ultimate" than the transient mind.
~ Thusness
Experientially when one truly sees dependent origination, one sees the essence-less, attribute-less, trait-less, center-less and connectedness and at the same time, sees the full vividness and luminous presence of appearances. In other words, “Emptiness” is 'the wisdom' to see the Absolute in the Relative without the need to 'abstract' the Absolute from the Relative and seeing Reality as one seamless functioning. In fact any attempt to separate is due to our lack of understanding of dependent origination.
~ Thusness, Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience
Thusness also wrote in <!-- Content --> <!-- google_ad_section_start -->A casual comment about Dependent Origination: Lastly if practitioners that have direct realization of the ‘Self’ can have similar sort of intensity in both realization and experience of their ‘Emptiness’ nature (as they have in ‘Self’), they will appreciate the beauty and find delight in seeing our nature as dependently originated. For what that dependently originates is empty, unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise and does not cease.
Unknowingly to him at that time, Nagarjuna also wrote something similar:
“I pay respect to the best among speakers who, having attained Enlightenment, has taught relative origination (PratityasamutpÄda) which is no-cessation, no-origination, no-annihilation, no-abiding, no-one-thing, no-many-thing, no-coming-in, no-going-out; being the termination of linguistic description (PrapañcopaÅ›amam), it is the good (Åšivam) [RÄm Candra PÄndey & Mañju, 1999, pp.1]
And also: Since the three marks are conditioned, [i.e.] origination, duration and cessation do not exist, therefore there is not the slightest conditioned not unconditioned [phenomenan].
The truth of Dependent Origination once cognized ends all conceptual views and contructs, it is the 'termination of linguistic description'. It is the true nature of everything, it cannot be cognized through conceptual mind, but can only be realised through direct insight into the nature of reality.
*According to Wikipedia, In Mahayana Buddhism, dharmadhātu (Tibetan: chos kyi dbyings; Chinese: 法界) means "realm of phenomena", "realm of Truth" and of the noumenon, where Tathata (Reality "as-it-is"), emptiness, dependent co-arising and the unconditioned, uncreated, perfect and eternal Buddha are one.
Also, consider these verses by Nagarjuna which like Shurangama Sutra clearly elucidates that the eighteen dhatus, the phenomena, in its pure and primordial state is itself Buddha-nature.
Dependent Arising of Consciousness
An important passage by Nagarjuna explaining that all manifestation are in essence Dharmadhatu or Buddha-Nature. It explains Dharmadhatu and Consciousness as the very manifestation that dependently originates and is empty.
Arya Nagarjuna:
38. When eye and form assume their right relation, Appearances appear without a blur.
Since these neither arise nor cease,
They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.
39. When sound and ear assume their right relation,
A consciousness free of thought occurs.
These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics,
But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually.
40. Dependent upon the nose and an odor, one smells.
And as with the example of form there is neither arising nor cessation,
But in dependence upon the nose-consciousness’s experience,
The dharmadhatu is thought to be smell.
41. The tongue’s nature is emptiness.
The sphere of taste is voidness as well.
These are in essence the dharmadhatu
And are not the causes of the taste consciousness.
42. The pure body’s essence,
The characteristics of the object touched,
The tactile consciousness free of conditions—
These are called the dharmadhatu.
43. The phenomena that appear to the mental consciousness, the chief of them all,
Are conceptualized and then superimposed.
When this activity is abandoned, phenomena’s lack of self-essence is known.
Knowing this, meditate on the dharmadhatu.
44. And so is all that is seen or heard or smelled,
Tasted, touched, and imagined,
When yogis [and yoginis]* understand these in this manner,
All their wonderful qualities are brought to consummation.
45. Perception’s doors in eyes and ears and nose,
In tongue and body and the mental gate—
All these six are utterly pure.
These consciousnesses’ purity itself is suchness’ defining characteristic.
That would depend on what you mean. If substance implies a permanent, independent identity, then 'Absolute Self' would imply a belief in a substance.
But if you see Awareness as Nagarjuna explains, as the very manifestation that dependently originates, then there is no such reifications. As explained in the previous post, No I does not deny Witnessing consciousness, No Phenomena does not deny transient Phenomena. The I AM experience is the direct experience of luminosity, and has the characteristic of undeniable certainty. This undeniable certainty will also be experienced in all transient phenomena when one experiences non-dual, and especially in anatta.
What is denied then is not the luminosity but the permanence and independence or inherent existence of subject and object, the mental constructs we have imposed on direct experience of the Witnessing consciousness and the Phenomena. The true experience of Awareness is simply the Phenomena which is undeniably in constant flux and change - but not in the way we think.
As Zen Master Dogen says, the expression of firewood abides in the expression of the firewood, the expression of ash abides in the expression of ash, it is not the case that firewood 'turns' into ash.
What is not denied here is that phenomena is presently and vividly appearing as an expression of Awareness, and that it is transient and ungraspable and does not persist/stay the same even for a moment, yet as Steve Hagen points out, to assume existence of imaginary persisting entities and attach them to the flux is delusion. Or as Thusness puts it since many many years ago... 'there is change, but no changing things', and '‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.'
If we think of firewood as being a persisting entity undergoing transformation/flux, we will inevitably see an image of firewood as transforming and 'going into' a state of 'ash'.
But if we do not see firewood as being an entity, but simply an ungraspable luminous image and expression of Just Firewood - an expression that is Complete in itself, Just Ash is a Complete expression in itself, we do not experience movement, time, coming, going. There is the direct true experience of transience/whatever is appearing, but no holding to any of constructs of persisting identities/entities.
That is why, there is no 'impermanent things', you do not experience 'things' that 'undergoes transformation', 'things' that 'change'. Direct experience of Transience is totally ungraspable in any way, vividly present like drawing an image on water, but vividly gone as it appears leaving no traces, the well known analogy in Dzogchen to describe the 'self-liberation' of all phenomena. But not that Awareness is some background behind appearance... it is the appearance itself. If your question is 'why are we born in this life and moment to moment', then the 12 links of dependent origination pretty much covers it. Yes, here and there are dualistic notions.
Yet as Thusness points out in http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/331569 :
Even when insight of anatta arises and no-self is experienced, the 'who' may be gone, but still the 'tendency to remain as a center' remains and is taking 'forms' in a very subtle way. It manifests as the sensation of the 'hereness', 'nowness' and 'this Presence'. Quickly the 'here and now and presence' becomes the 'goal' of practice.
In truth 'here-ness' and 'now-ness' is as inherent as 'selfness' that is equally empty of inherent existence and must be correctly experienced as equally empty (non-inherent) in nature. Practitioners will have to replace this core with 'dependent orginination' but this need must arise as an insight. This is the essence of stage 6.
Ajahn Amaro also had a similar insight on this in his article at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html
Terms like “single place” and “separate places” are seen to apply only as convenient fictions at certain levels of scale; at the level of the ultimate field, the sea of quantum foam, “place” has no real meaning. When you get down into the fine, subatomic realm, where-ness simply does not apply. There is no there there. Whether this principle is called nonabiding or non-locality, it’s both interesting and noteworthy that the same principle applies in both the physical and mental realms. For the intellectuals and rationalists among us, this parallel is probably very comforting.
I first started to investigate this type of contemplation when I was on a long retreat in our monastery and doing a lot of solitary practice. It suddenly occurred to me that even though I might have let go of the feeling of self—the feeling of this and that and so on—whatever the experience of reality was, it was still “here.” There was still here-ness. For several weeks I contemplated the question, “Where is here?” Not using the question to get a verbal answer, more just to illuminate and aid the abandonment of the clinging that was present.
Recognizing this kind of conditioning is half the job— recognizing that, as soon as there is a here-ness, there is a subtle presence of a there-ness. Similarly, establishing a “this,” brings up a “that.” As soon as we define “inside,” up pops “outside.” It’s crucial to acknowledge such subtle feelings of grasping; it happens so fast and at so many different layers and levels.
This simple act of apprehending the experience is shining the light of wisdom onto what the heart is grasping. Once the defilements are in the spotlight, they get a little nervous and uncomfortable. clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function properly. In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom around. Clinging operates best when we are not looking. When clinging is the focus of our awareness, it can’t function properly. In short, clinging can’t cling if there is too much wisdom around. He said, lights are on, but no one is home. Not that there is no light.
For example he said "We identify with thoughts and reify a solid thinker out of that mere shimmering luminescence.", and also "...everything is Buddha-ness, everyone is Buddha by nature, and everything is essentially radiant luminosity. What an amazing and marvelous way to experience the world, to the extent that we can learn to do so authentically!"
- he does not deny thoughts, for thoughts itself is the 'shimmering luminiscence', it is the experience of luminosity itself. What is denied is a thinker, perceiver, etc.
Re: X: But is there really a concrete individual or permanent soul inside at all? It seems more like that the lights are on, but no one is home!
Re: S9: Just because there is no substance, doesn’t mean the lights are out too. Obviously something is Present.
X: He said, lights are on, but no one is home. Not that there is no light.
S9: Yes, I can see now, that I misread here, sorry. : ^ (
Let me just add that although the dream goes on, that Presence is the actual, and dream characters and the dream character’s thoughts are all just a part of the dream, more like imagination. Going on is of course imagination, too.
I will answer you at some length as time allows. I just wanted to apologize, and acknowledge my mistake here. : ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
So while its content is illusory, the thought is at the same time, the 'shimmering luminiscence'.
As Shurangama Sutra explains, Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms.
Hence the point is not to disassociate from thoughts and phenomena and resort back to a background. In true dis-identification, you are not denying the transience and resorting to a background state. If one dissociate by resorting to a background, it prevents us from experiencing the color, texture, fabric and manifesting nature of awareness. Instead, the transience aggregates are vividly present and direct experienced in its pure and primodial state without the 'stories and content'. This is also part of the purpose of Mindfulness practice in Buddhism. It is to experience moment to moment manifestation and activities in bare naked awareness, while at the same time being mindful of the three dharma seals. Actually even all arising thoughts are Awareness, just that its stories and contents are illusory, and we tend to identify personally with or get lost in the stories but fail to see the luminous essence and empty nature of a thought.
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal Rinpoche:
"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.
"Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.
Any thoughts on integration? or is the very notion of integration a sign of not penetrating fully? Are you saying that to truly penetrate it cuts the root in one fell swoop?
From what I have noticed in people, when they come to see the stillness through Zen, there needs to be a continuation of practice in order to uproot the habituation that prevents the view to stabilize. For instance, you may have a moment of still mind, but then as you observe a phenomena you being to make attributions to it again.
The goal then becomes to see into reality as it is, without any solid qualities of its own, then when you have still mind arise and are viewing it, the habituated projections are slower to occur. Once there is a complete cessation of these projections, the experience doesn't fall back into the cycle.
It is possible then to simply jump off the cliff so to speak, embracing the formlessness of self and other, but it seems difficult to do for most people, as the ruts of projecting meaning onto phenomena are deep. Does that make sense?
With warmth,
Matt
There is a Sufi quote: “Everywhere I look, I see the face of God.” I believe this is alluding to what you are speaking of, that there is no need to completely remove the illusion, or thinking, in order to see that Reality is right here/now all of the time.
I have come to the point in my personal practice that I can look right through the thoughts and forms like they are a window, and see Reality in its Purist Form right in front of my eyes, as I go about my daily life. . They are simultaneous. It is similar to a lucid dream, where you are awake in the dream. Mind/body continues to present this ongoing movie.
But this does not in fact mean that, the dream and Reality are equal in every way. Dreaming isn’t equal to Waking Up. Dreaming without fully realizing it is a dream, is the very cause of suffering. Although it is true that once you do ‘Wake Up’ like the Buddha that you "can’t be fooled again." It all becomes so very obvious.
It is a little like an ancient story about a man who saw a rope, and thought it was a snake. Was the snake in fact a rope? Same/same? No! Is Reality in fact illusion? No! But the man didn’t have to kill the snake to get back to the rope, or get rid of the snake altogether either. He simply at some point Realized that the rope wasn’t a snake. After that whenever he saw a snake, he would simply look closer and not assume that all ropes are snakes.
I live on a farm surrounded by the great beauty of this dream world and play all day long. I have pets, and plants, and excellent friends that I love dearly. So I do not in fact see this dream world as my enemy and am not at war with it by any means. I see this world as a great big toy box just bursting with fun and entertainment. However, if I were not able to see Reality, I might have easily fallen into the negative emotions of taking this dream way too seriously. I might have feared change and also harm. Now I fully Realize that I am beyond harm of any kind. I am stainless.
I see that the body is due to go back into the elements from which it sprain, (death) I see the it can grow ill and feel pain (sickness/old age), I see that there is suffering involved in fearing these changes and identifying with them. But at the same time, I fully Realize that this is not me.
Yes, now and then the mind says, “You are going to die,” and an assortment of other unpleasant notions due to lingering habits of mind. But, I simply say, “I know you Mara,” and do not fall for her scare tactics. ; ^ ) “This too will pass. “
Respectfully,
S9
I think in Zen, enlightenment implies full integration into activities. Any lack of such insight is not 'enlightenment in Zen'.
The arising of and maturation of insight into anatta will also lead to full integration of activities. Thanks for the sharing
once we see the Truth life is smooth flowing , nice floating
we do not have to give up everything instead we can accept everything without suffering
the fruit of vipassana practice is not for after life but this life itself and people should inspire by this type of posts
thanks for sharing
U: Once we see the Truth life is smooth flowing, nice floating.
S9: Yes, and no. : ^ )
What I mean by this is that life for the ongoing ego self, which continues like any normal life, is not all-smooth sailing by any means.
For instance, I had to go into the hospital to have a malignant cancer removed last year, not anyone’s idea of ‘a good time was had by all.’ The big difference was that I did not overly fret, nor did I fear the outcome like I might have in an earlier time. I think that the reason for this (acceptance?) was because I could see only too clearly that what might happen was automatic and built into the story, and completely out of my hands. This clarity affords a good deal of distance from the dream events.
This is similar to how a friend described the difference in his new reactions to life, to me. He said, "I often find myself curious about what will happen next, in instances where I used to be afraid."
Of course, I had my preference that all would go well, but I could see that was built in too. It is all about perspective.
U: We do not have to give up everything instead we can accept everything without suffering.
S9: It is not that you keep everything either, is it. It is more like you get to watch someone you know very well living, (your previous ego self).
Mind of course knows that it is dreaming, and this does seem to add a certain amount of calmness to the whole process. But, still at the same time, the dream goes on to get sick and die just like all of the other dreaming egos. So what is the difference?
The difference has to be that you do not add an overlay of suffering to the situation, because it is just a dream.
You are also relieved of many burdens that had you jumping around like a chicken. You do not have to improve, or progress, or leave some legacy behind to be remembered by. A big thing for me was I no longer had to find meaning within the dream, and so on. “You can just relax and enjoy the ride,” as an old Enlightened Guru of mine once said.
U: The fruit of vipassana practice is not for after life but this life itself.
S9: Life is the Ultimate, and synonymous with Awareness, or rather ‘Vital Awareness.’ That IS our TRUE NATURE. Within this ‘perspective’ there is no before nor is there an after, there is only “IS.”
U: People should inspire by this type of posts.
S9: I certainly hope so. Isn’t that why we are all reaching out to each other?
U: Thanks for sharing.
S9: You are quite welcome. Thank you for sharing too. This is an act of love,
Warm Regards,
S9
__________________
1. Subject is total identification as bodymind
2. Subject is not bodymind. Bodymind as object.
3. Subject loses mass (so to speak) to bodymind, and becomes more and more subtle.
4 Clarified subject as "no-self" subjective pole, or the unconditioned space-like timeless "container" of body and mind
5. No unconditioned subjective pole, no conditioned objective pole. "This"
At a certain point having establish "true nature" there is the realization that the perception of non-arising is dependent on the perception arising, and the perception of arising is dependent on the perception of non-arising.
This Koan was recently spoken of...
- Hekiganroku, Case 29
"When the great kalpa fire flares up, will it [the Ultimate, the Unconditioned, Emptiness] perish or not perish?"A monk asked Master Daizui:
"Yes, it will perish."
"Will it be gone with the other?"
"Yes, it will be gone with the other."
While I don't recognize some of the symbols in the koan, I do appreciate the difference you're pointing to in these words. Is there a term you attribute to the space that exists beyond the polar conventions? You have seemed to use ellipsis.
xabir (who is apparently a sharp fellow) quoted this term.. 'termination of linguistic description'. Thats that. The lap top is about 18 inches from my head. The coffee cup is to my left.
Last night in group practice, my teacher (Seon) read from his teacher
" no small i, no big I, dont check" Then he said... "keep don't-know, just go straight, go straight......just do!"
Others may have a different approach.
I would venture to guess that there are countless other approaches. However, I do feel I understand the state you are pointing at, thanks for the clarification.
R: Last night in group practice, my teacher (Seon) read from his teacher
" no small i, no big I, dont check" Then he said... "keep don't-know, just go straight, go straight......just do!"
S9: There is nothing wrong with approaching the search for Liberation without preconception(s). But, I DO HOPE that you can see that going on to say (assume) that there is absolutely nothing outside of this practice which taking place within your mind, (AKA the practice of “don’t know mind,”) is in itself a preconception. It is bit like stacking the deck. ; ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
"With respect to S9 who has a different approach to the matter"
Your characterization of what my teacher said, and our practice, is a misunderstanding, so much so that I would not know where to begin to address it.
I respect your way. That post about how you live is beautiful. This practice that I am describing, is not being imposed on you. You are not being judged. You have a different way. Lets leave it at that. There are other things around which we can have really fruitful dialogue. This is not one of them.
Okay, fine. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
mu!
but sometimes he says the opposite depending on the student. the funny thing is wondering whether or not the teacher is following the precept not to lie, but words malleability blurs the distinction of lying and not lying.
I think that it is a mistake to believe that anything that has ever been ‘spoken of,’ with the use of words, does not exist outside of words themselves, although words can never capture some dimensions in their subtle wholeness. The fact that someone once made an attempt to say something is not proof in itself that it (the thing spoken of) is only a word thing.
Words are a very good indicator of or towards (the finger pointing), what exists beyond their cages of concepts.
In the beginning, certainly we spend a good deal of time discovering what we are not. But at some point, when we turn away from this dream and look at 180 degrees differently, turn our face, we finally come upon what/who we are.
Respectfully,
S9