stirling

The larger realization you are really looking for is into no-self, if we are using the Buddha as our reference. Nagarjuna classifies a few other ways in, including insight in the the illusory nature of time and space. Non-doership is functionally related to the no-self insight and could precipitate it, but is not an insight on its own. I know you are big fan of this doership idea. Have you read Ramesh Balsekar? He is an Advaita teacher whose primary theory revolves around the non-doership concept. You might like him. https://rameshbalsekar.com/the-teaching/

Buddhist translator and author Ken McLeod recommends the term "struggle" instead of suffering. This is a much better translation, since it captures the larger point that the problem isn't with the world as it is, the problem is our STRUGGLE with the world as it is, expressed and clinging and aversion (imagined stories about how things were, are, or will be) to past, present, and imagined future events. The struggle and karma are OURS. We can stop generating both once we change our perspective about how things are, and the results are obvious quickly.

The problem with the topic of "self" is the multiple sets of terminology that we encounter when discussing it. I'll contrast the idea of "self" in Buddhism vs. Self in other the Bhagavad Gita. If you can sit in meditation and become proficient enough to rest in quiet, empty, awareness (and have this verified by a teacher that can do this themselves) then you have achieved the environment where it is possible to see what "self" is for yourself. This can happen with guidance in under a month for most people with patience, diligence and 20 minutes a day to spare. What you find is that: Your mind is an extremely busy place indeed. There are moments where the mind goes quiet. With some work one can rest briefly in that quiet. One can watch thoughts arise from this quiet awarness and disappear into that same quiet awareness. You are able to watch thoughts arise without "being" them, but rather from the spacious awareness that perceives them. Now you know, experientially that what you are is NOT your thought process, but the awareness. The iterative, noisy though process IS "self" in the Buddhist sense. When Upanishads speak of the "Self" it is the quiet awareness, called Rigpa, Beginner's Mind, Buddha Mind, the nature of mind, etc in Buddhism. Keep in mind that recognition of mind in this sense is not INSIGHT into it. This is the introductory understanding that allows further progress by working to bring this awareness into every moment of your life. Somewhere along the line there is a moment where experience/understanding/awareness permanently shifts into a much deeper NON-CONCEPTUAL insight into this awareness - this is "Stream Entry, or "awakening". Just as the initial experience and understanding is experiential, the insight is also. - Edited to add: Taking apart experience via the sense doors or aggregates can be done in countless ways. What I am offering above is a common Mahayana approach, not the only approach by any means.

Thanks Mark. _/\_ Just a note to add: The next move is to realize that the aggregates (and indeed everything else) is ALSO empty of an abiding self. This is the difference between Tripitaka teachings and the Mahayana teachings, though as I suggested above, the Bahiya sutta points to this next move. BTW - You are a lot closer to "it" than you realize.

I absolutely agree, and buried in that monolgue is the assumption that the voice of that monologue is what we are. The monologue is the extension of the suffering yes. As the Buddha puts it: Translator and scholar Ken McLeod suggests the use of the word "struggle" instead of the "suffering for the word dukkha, and I think he is right. It is our struggle with the reality of how things are, and our internal dialogue about that, that creates most of our misery. There is no need to do anything! It is fine to be as you are, of course, especially if you are happy with how things are. I find that people come to be interested in these practices for two reasons: They are tired of their dissatisfaction/struggle/suffering and want a way out They want to understand the nature of reality and have exhausted all the options, OR resonate with one of the practices.

Anatta is seeing that not only are we surrounded by a universe of objects, but that our deconstructed experience of the "self" (the disassembled aggregates) are ALSO just objects. "Self" does not occupy an exalted place in experiencing. Realization of Anatta is the moment where the universe is understood to be only by phenomena (as you say, your experience of sight/touch/sound/smell/taste/"mind") - objects arising and passing moment to moment. What is non-dual is the understanding that what "I" is composed of is merely these sensory objects blinking in and out. I think of this as the non-dual 1 insight. a good place to read about this, and see how that understanding deepens, is the Bahiya Sutta: The non-dual 2 insight is the realization that in fact ALL phenomena do not have a "self", and even a philosophy of the "self" or universe has no reality of its own. This is the insight of "emptiness", and why all descriptions, philosophies and epistimelogical, ontological, etc. descriptions of this understanding (including the Buddha) are just a scaffoldings to give you the IDEA, not the actual "truth" of the understanding. The understanding is ONLY ever experiential.

Ah, Northern California... the bluejay is ALWAYS vying for attention, eh? This is a perfect (if poetic) statement of the complete understanding. If you haven't had "sudden realization", however, the way through is in deconstructing the "self", and the method of realizing the "witness" is a powerful one.

Anatta, or no-self is non-dual understanding from the Buddhist perspective.

Indeed it is. You have to start somewhere! Where you are is always a good place. If you were working with a Mahayana Buddhist teacher the chances are that you would probably get pointing out instructions right off the bat. Some percentage of those that have that introduction just get it immediately, but it is pretty rare.

One way to look at it might be this: When you see a bird land in a tree, you don't assume it is something that is happening to you. By learning to take apart your sense of how things happen and where, it can eventually be seen that when a thought, or feeling arise that they also aren't necessarily "yours". By learning to witness our thoughts and feelings we change our relationship with them. You don't ignore or deny them, but simply learn not to get lost in them, or spend ours lost in the internal monologue that makes many of us so miserable, the monologue we assume is who we are. It is great first step in transforming ever-day experience into a "path" . A great book that is non-denominational and full of relatable exercises for seeing this sort of thing is Michael Singer's "Untethered Soul". It is slight volume and a New York Times best seller, but you can find it used for next to nothing, often with an un-cracked spine.The mind of many people won't want to read it.

Nagarjuna says of his earth-shattering and rigorous Madhyamaka that it was STILL, just like all teachings of the Buddha, a scaffolding - a conceptual structure to pin a non-conceptual understanding of reality on. It is as hard an understanding to talk about (ineffable definitely covers it) as it is a relatively simple thing to understand experientially. If it is understood experientially by a teacher it can at least be demonstrated to most students, if only as a glimpse initially. A "monism" is a conceptual designation like any other and therefore can never adequately describe what is being pointed to here. Describing "why" would just be getting further tangled in other conceptual constructs that are also inadequate. Conceptual ideas, like scientific models, cannot adequately encapsulate real-world systems because to do so would require ALL variables, not just a narrow set. Creating relatively simple and repeatable experiments is often possible, but NO model is the real thing. The effect of the experimenter on an experiment alone shades the result. This is the genius of "dependent origination", another scaffolding: Nothing arises that is not dependent on something else for its existence. Because of this, ultimately nothing exists as an independent entity. As a scientist might style it: - Nicely said. This is the natural consequence of the the subject/object relationship being a delusion - we ALSO lose the past/future and here/there. When you remember your vacation from last year, the thoughts about it, and the picture in your mind of the beach you sat on all arise HERE and NOW. The conceptual dualities that enable your story of a vacation all arise in a non-dual fashion. You can only experience the past or future, or other places as thoughts now. Ultimately all dualities are resolved and dissolved, seen as the delusions they always were, and there is liberation. Yes. Surprisingly, that looks just like where you are right now.

You might be thinking of the term "Clear Light" here, which specifically refers to the "nature of mind" or the primordial awareness. It's not actually as obscure as it sounds. Most people have glimpses of the "nature of mind" every day, but would need pointing to it to understand or recognize what it is. Yes! Exactly - this is what is meant by the "two truths" doctrine. The nature of things is naturally free of dualities, and yet the dualities are still possible to see and interact with. Duality isn't seen through, only understood to be illusory.

It sounds like you are a little tangled up. Rather than attempt to untangle you, do you mind if I ask what it is you want from Buddhism in general, or (perhaps in a single simplified statement) what it is you are trying to understand in particular from this set of teachings? I *think* a lot of your questions could be answered with a little perspective about enlightened understanding vs. conventional intellectual knowledge, and or an explanation of "skillful means" as a whole.

I would point you to the Heart Sutra, if you want simplicity, though it may not engender clarity for you. The Buddha is saying here, in the first paragraph, that the objects in the world of things have no sepearate intrinsic reality of their own, yet still appear as separate objects, and that BOTH ways of seeing can be understood to be true moment to moment. Their nested reality as objects exists within the larger "emptiness" of their existence - Two Truths. If you have a meditation practice where the mind can rest in its own awareness, any realized teacher can direct you to see this, at least partially. It is much easier in person, though. There are also many commentaries on the Heart Sutra that might illuminate. I can recommend Hakuin, for example. Generations of enlightened teachers have repeatedly taught the most popular sutras, and still do today. Enlightened teachers are all over the place - in fact, the very fabric of what you find yourself in is enlightened itself. Forgetting for a moment whether the Buddha actually said or didn't say any of the available teachings, you can be sure that they the balance of them have been verified by those with understanding. What REALLY matters is taking them apart for yourself, hopefully with some guidance.

What matters most about whether you eat meat or not is whether you are creating identity or karma around it. If you feel slightly guilty that living beings are dying for your sustenance, then you should think carefully about this diet choice. Precepts and practices around diet and way of life are principally about reducing created karma. I am a vegetarian of 30 years, for what it is is worth. I don't personally care what anyone else eats, and have never honestly understood why anyone else would care either.

Absolutely. Only at the realization of an arahant would you be completely free of "self" view. Until then, I would personally suggest you work on softening and reducing your karma. Working for the benefit of all sentient beings is one of many methods for reducing self-cherishing. Being that it is probably impossible for you to do anything at all without involvement of the "self", you might has well work on purifying your obscurations and reducing self-cherishing now. The Lojong teachings are specifically for working on increasing bodhicitta and reducing self-cherishing. Each student is taught according to their ability. There are many relative teachings with cosmological (though metaphorical) basis. Dzoghen itself couldn't be more simple, once understood. I also have no taste for mythology or dogma. Can you sit in meditative absorption with your mind quiet and empty in Rigpa? Ask yourself how much dogma or mythology exists in that space. You may not know what you are looking at there. You are right. Everything is already always enlightened, so why would there be a need for anything to be different? The only thing a Buddha, Boddhisattva, or you are in charge of is how we respond to what happens in the world. Again, it is a matter of perspective. Many of the things we take for granted are nonsense from the perspective of enlightened mind. You should absolutely choose whatever path you are drawn to! You may one day be surprised to realize that the end of the path lef you at the same destination as the other paths. Best of luck with your work in Theravada!

Dzogchen is still my primary practice after over 25 years. It is direct pointing, and a true blessing where it arises and meets an inquisitive mind. Having said that, the reality of emptiness is present moment to moment everywhere when you know where to look. A pointer from any non-dual tradition will suffice for the right person. There are no higher (or lower) paths. Sufism is a fine vehicle for insight and could work just as well for a particular type of person. I myself explored Daoism, Sufism, and other paths before finding resonance with Nyingma/Dzogchen as well as Soto Zen, eventually. Insight doesn't happen because of fortune or past lives. Insight happens when causes and conditions meet naked awareness in singular moment outside of causation. If you want to know whether you have the karma to find insight, or a particular set of teachings, look at YOUR story of the past. Intention is what matters here. Choosing in this moment to dedicate yourself to a path you have confidence in, and intending to attain enlightenment for benefit of all sentient beings is a good start.

What are "created things"? They are our relative view of reality, based on our beliefs and ideas about how things are. They are the products of our conceptual model of reality, adjusted moment to moment to accommodate unpredictable circumstances. Yes, they are hallucinations, in that they are particular to our "karma", meaning our way of seeing the world based on our models. Our view of reality is like these shifting, flashing, impermanent images, constructed on the fly by our fevered explanations. Life is dreamlike, much like our sleep experience. Time is disjointed and entire sections of it are inexplicably missing in our every day lives if we examine it closely. People at traumatic events rarely tell precisely the same story for this reason. Some events are remembered in great detail, other with almost none. How we imagine we are as a person, how we look, act, feel about events shifts moment to moment. This morning you looked pretty good in the bathroom mirror, but catching yourself in a shop window your whole image is unsettled. Our personal items disappear and reappear in random locations. All of this we usually explain away. "I must have been lost in thought when I missed my turn". "I must have set it there and forgot. " "I must be misremembering what Mike said". Reality isn't a shared experience. There is no-one who can see reality as you do. This is something worth DEEPLY and logically examining.

Definitely, as well as the sloughing off of all other possible dualities, identity or otherwise.

The ultimate "morality" in Buddhism, for lack of a better word, is Prajna or "Wisdom" as embodied by countless realized beings in a multitude of traditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism)# This is at the "absolute" level - the view from enlightened mind. Actions done by a "person" with this insight are accomplished without a "self" view and are the result solely of causes and conditions and not from the karma (story) of the person. This is precisely the same as having true realization of the Dao, and thus being in alignment with it. At the "relative" level practitioners are recommended to follow the precepts which are intended to help the monk or student slow the generation of new karma. One is not punished for making a mistake. You just dust yourself off and try to do better. There is also the Bodhisattva, the promise to work to become enlightened for the benefit of all sentient beings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_vow Both the Precepts and the Bodhisattva Vow are good open-ended behavioral guidance to begin to shape a student (or teacher) continually into a more kind, compassionate, and thoughtful person. I 100% agree with the concept and practice of Prajna. The true values of Buddhism from the Mahayana perspective are embodied in the actions of the Buddha - being free of self, recognizing the struggle and suffering of sentient beings as they interact in the world deluded by their grasping and aversion to empty phenomena , and acting in loving kindness with them because of this. This is not codified specifically in teachings as any kind of mandate, it is just what we see Syd and other buddhas and bodhisattvas do. It is the natural result of complete insight in all non-dual traditions. I do not believe in any conceptually expressible moral or cosmological law, no, and yes this is because of experiential gnosis, as you say. All conceptual ideas and constructs are stories about reality, not the thing itself. The map is not the territory. This doesn't mean I don't go the speed limit, though. Thank you for your question.

Back on topic, my entire sangha is comprised of women. This isn't because I chose them specifically. My experience is that the women often have something that the men seem to lack: the all important ability to truly surrender to the causes and conditions of this moment. For whatever reason there is just less struggle with how things are, and less struggle with letting go of concreted ideas, two things that make for a truly successful practice. My teacher is ALSO a woman. I am grateful to be constantly learning from ALL of them.

Well, I am definitely happy to stop. Having said that I really have to say one more thing! The illusion is that things ever had intrinsic existence (existence as a separate thing). The mountains disappear, and then REAPPEAR, yes, but when they reappear they RETAIN their no-mountain-ness. That the form of the mountains that is still extant was always "empty" and that mountains never had intrinsic existence is the insight that is gained. This is the insight that "form is emptiness, emptiness form" from the Heart Sutra teaches us. The same idea is presented here: Despite gnowing experientially that everything is "sea" we are still able to see the "names and forms". You are just color and light to Brahman, and yet you still answer to "oldbob", after all.

Did you miss me? I would say that the ego is impermanent and therefore not a construct of ultimate reality. I would also say that all dualities, including periods of creation, maintenance, destruction, or cycles are stories we tell about the world. These ideas are in Buddhism too - with stories about realms, etc. They are teaching tools that are set aside once the nature of things is understood. These sorts of stories exist in every non-dual tradition I have encountered. The teachings are the map, not the destination (or the raft, not the shore) and all offer different perspectives on what the journey looks like. Ultimately what is "real" is ineffable. It doesn't fit into ANY cosmology, model, or belief system. Those too get set aside. I reject the idea of adopting views or beliefs and suggest each person use the free and dogma-free tool of meditation to see how things are. Having faith in a practice that demonstrates its efficacy is what is valuable to me. With a little pointing from an experienced teacher (Hindu, Sikh, Sufi, Buddhist, etc. etc.) you can examine for yourself what is just a mental construct and what always exists underneath in awareness In the quiet of a still mind.

I understand your reasoning here. The thing that makes this the case is that the "self" is understood to be a delusion upon "awakening", and is eventually seen through (arhat). Once that happens the dualities associated with "self" drop away too. Someone without a "self" also naturally ceases generating karma. This doesn't mean that the person won't continue dressing a particular way, or appear as a particular sex or gender in the world, only that identifying with it (or any other sex) ceases.

In Zen and the Tibetan traditions of Buddhism, my experience is that the experience of the paths will be different, yes, but the teachings and eventual realization are the same. My experience is that people often traditionally opt for one of the other, but in the West many will oscillate between the two, as I have.