stirling

Would it be correct to say this level: Is the deepest reality? This is from the Alice Bailey piece you linked above. - Sorry to resurrect this, but I think it could answer a lot of the questions you are asking about "enlightened beings".

An "enlightened" human is simply a person with something less than the others. They have seen through the illusion of being a separate self in a universe of things with their own existence, and no longer construct a fictional reality from that delusion.

I'm fine with that. Shall we both stop the pigeonholing?

We might have different ideas about what "insight" is. I am speaking specifically about complete insight into Sunyata (emptiness), which changes EVERYTHING. http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Emptiness Shamatha and Vipassan arise naturally in Dzogchen practice effortlessly. Those "qualities" balance themselves, in my experience. I agree. What you are talking about sounds different. My understanding of the jhanas is that it is possible to follow them through increasingly deeper experiences of emptiness, progressively experiencing the dropping of subtler levels of being. They are ONLY states, but are entirely possible to actually HAVE as ACTUAL experiences and understanding at a MUCH deeper level than any state, in the same way that time/space/self distortion with psychedelics is not the ability to see or understand those experiences after they wear off - but they ARE real understandings. This sounds more like end of life Tibetan practices, like Togal, etc. If you are doing jhanas without insight into Sunyata none of that is going to happen in reality, from my understanding. Weird things might happen during meditation, but what about when you are off the cushion. My experience is that it takes insight into Sunyata to get there. Sounds like we are talking about siddhis now? Insight into the nature "empty" of reality/Sunyata DOES come with both of those. Sure. Agreed. No problem. I'd be curious to hear about your experience. Most of my teachers were either actual Tibetans who escaped in the 50's, or Ngakpa Tertons. Agreed. Without a have a lot of information, I agree that they sound similar. Wait! Isn't this the thing appears in the sky most nights! I assume you are talking about the aurora around it? Are you asking me if I see it around most things I observe? Awareness IS the source! The witness observing a separate world is a delusion. There are only subjects... no object. Are birth and death real, or are they stories we tell ourselves about experience we haven't actually had? Trick question: How many other moments are there than this one? Seeing through duality ramps it up even more.

I honestly didn't know you had some much resentment and vitriol piled up at me. I'm sorry if I have somehow slighted or insulted you in some way. Honestly, I am here to make friends. My intention isn't to brag, it is to be helpful. I'm sorry that hasn't come across. I did do a stint in tech and met any number of Hindus of different levels of philosophical knowledge and got a real feel for what the non-dual aspects mean and how they relate to Buddhism. I was surprised to find myself accepted... the Buddha being just another avatar, I guess. Despite my Zen priesthood I am still a HUGE fan of Tibetan Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, The Upanishads, Taoism, and even chaos magic and Crowley Thelema and more. My intention isn't to convert anybody, but point to the fact that so many traditions come from a single simple origin. I realize this idea doesn't resonate with you. You are convinced that these are different understandings. I get it. Feel free to put me on your ignore list. I would understand. Either way, I'll try to be more sensitive to your feelings on the matter in the future.

Dogen is the head to the Soto Zen lineage... my lineage. Students become teachers when they have been recognized to have prajna and are entrusted to speak for themselves. They are my words, but not an interpretation... not necessarily Zen, just how things are understood from emptiness. In Buddhism it is an understanding often popularly expressed in the Heart Sutra. Do you know it? Just as Sat Chit and Ananda are illusory qualities of ultimate reality, in the Heart Sutra: Meaning that no thing has a reality of its own. Though individual things appears distinct from one another in the world they are all ultimately "empty" of their own existence, and thus NOT separate in any real way. They are all "not two". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda#:~:text=Satcitananda (Sanskrit%3A सच्चिदानन्द%2C IAST,of Hindu philosophy%2C especially Vedanta. Sat Chit and Ananda can be spoken of as separate things, but they are ultimately NOT separate, ultimately all Brahman like everything else. If you think I have it wrong, Bob, why don't you take a little time to explain to me why?

Definitely! This is also my experience with computer hardware, cars, machinery, you name it. If "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" all appearances are awareness, certainly including all mechanical devices. Loving kindness should be extended to ALL appearances in consciousness. It is a tall order, of course.

I'm sorry if you feel like I am forcing something on you. I understood us to be discussing the Alan Watts video you linked to. From the perspective of Zen Buddhism (and my experience) this is correct.

It meets with my understanding and teaching perfectly. It is worth looking at at the referenced texts and authors, IMHO. Shankman in particular is a great resource on this topic. Have you practiced the jhanas with a teacher?

It absolutely is. Hinduism isn't some unique view of absolute reality, and neither is Buddhism. Enlightenment doesn't belong to any particular tradition or conceptual construct... it COULDN'T. The nature of satcitananda is empty - this is why it is referred to as Satcitananda. None of the 3 aspects wholly captures it. It is all 3 at once, just as emptiness is form and form is emptiness, OR the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are merely 3 ways of looking at God.

My bold: There is a lot there that is very much like enlightenment, if we add insight to that list. IMHO, "self", "Self", "mind", and "Mind" are all delusions ultimately.

You remind me of philosopher Riccardo Manzotti. There are nice pointers in his work. His premise is that the "I" is where awareness is. I only differ from him in that I would say it is EVERYWHERE. We can discover this put meditating in such a way that we take in the whole of experience. Why be hopeful about awareness appearing in the body? A beautiful quote. Blindingly excellent stuff. This can be done BEFORE death too! Why not kill ones "self" before death and live a little? See above! Bodhi svaha!

Would it be correct to say this level: Is the deepest reality?

Allow me to share a bit about my background: I am a Soto Zen teacher in the Shunryu Suzuki lineage, this for the last 8 years. Both of my teachers have been transmitted. Before that I worked in the Tibetan Nyingma/Dzogchen tradition for 25 years with a number of realized teachers. The only realization that matters in the Mahayana tradition (and in my opinion) is insight into Sunyata, which encompasses both "no-self", and more wholly, "emptiness". In my work we are using the combination of Vipassana and Shamatha to see through the delusion of intrinsic existence. Yes. Somewhere past 6th jhana or so into the formless realms. I stopped eventually, as it isn't insight into actual things, but rather into states that resemble insight. I did this all backwards (like everything I do in my life) having had insight first, then learning the jhanas out of curiosity to see how attainable they were. Keep in mind that the jhanas are not typically an object of study in many of the Tibetan schools (for this reason above). They are considered counter-productive. That is kind of you to say, but I have met any number of people/teachers who have deeper experience with jhanas than I do. I am by no means a natural, or a great meditator, I just had a distinct advantage before I began. I'm fine with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyana_in_Buddhism#The_jhāna/dhyana-stages It honestly doesn't. It isn't anything like what I have learned first hand or read in the traditions I have worked in. It sounds like cultivation-type activity which is entirely at odds with my practice history and outside of my experience. Maybe you mean shamatha? You need both for jhana. The practice of Dzogchen in Tibetan Buddhism (and shikantaza in Soto Zen) IS both shamatha and vipassana. It is meditating and taking in the entire dharma field moment-to-moment. Doing so breaks down time, space, and self, giving the practitioner a first hand view into the construction of reality AND non-duality. In my experience the earliest stages are all body-bound. They are initially about inclining toward, first, bliss in the body, then bliss in the mind then having those drop out, moving further and further toward the sense doors dropping out. It is from 5 on that are the "arupa" (formless, or "no body") that are where consciousness of body and outside world drops away. It isn't like the death process in my experience... not that I remember dying ever. It isn't really like.... anything. The point of it being formless and "empty" is that conceptual designations or consciousness of any separateness become finer and finer and drop away. I'll have to take your word for it. Awareness of awareness is the what Dzogchen and shikantaza are about. I imagine this is what you are getting at. Yeah, absolutely! Part of what makes this all so fascinating is the psychonautic aspect of the practice and what we discover about reality as we go along. Love that stuff. It only gets weirder and weirder. I like Brassington because of the clean simplicity of his instruction. I haven't seen instruction from Beth Upton, but if I ever take up looking at the jhanas again I'll check her out. Cool. I confess I started and have stayed in the Mahayana, so I don't know much about Pau Auk, though I have read some of the more well-known Tripitaka canon here and there, mostly where there is talk of "no-self" or "emptiness. Thanks for chiming in!

Watts is talking about the perspective from enlightened mind. The "catch" is that you have to realize how the world really is. How would this be different from realization of the "Self"? It ISN'T. It's all over your Upanishads as well. Are the Upanishads making it seem too simple? This first one is EXACTLY on topic. These are all accurate! They are full of simple practices which point straight at the heart of the matter.

I don't believe they are necessary for insight. The reason for this is that there are plenty of students who have realization in any number of traditions without jhana training. Vipassana is a quality of meditation available in myriad different traditions and in many different techniques. Success with the first few jhanas isn't that difficult, in my experience. The formless jhanas take more work and pointing to. Anyone interested in jhana would do well to take a course with Leigh Brassington, or find an experienced teacher to work with them, perhaps in concert with his text: http://rc.leighb.com/index.html

Bows. Opening up the gaze to the room is splendid advice, and a variation on "shikantaza" in practice, since it takes in the whole of the field. Ultimately in such practices we can come to see that "Mind" is everywhere and "mind"(sense door) is nowhere. This is jhana instruction, first jhana specifically. I don't know if you have worked with the jhanas or know about them, but they are "states" analogous to enlightened mind in various forms. Perhaps we talked about them before? Some believe they can be helpful in learning to recognize insight when it happens. They are challenging. I never mastered them before insight, but now see how they could have been helpful perhaps. I don't think they are necessary by any means. Recommended reading on the topic (which I have probably shared before as well: http://rc.leighb.com/index.html The first few jhanas are about working with piti and sukkha as a way in, but eventually in the later jhanas there is just resting in various degrees of formlessness, which is also a feature shikantaza. Ultimately, in my experience, the important activity to drop to witness the non-doer/agencyless perspective is getting the mind quiet enough by dropping illusory "processes" and to notice that "self" has dropped away. Being able to call up "no-self" in daily life is the work, for sure, in all experiences. I have found that just learning to recognize it and having the intention to be present with that realization makes it happen more and more.

I am always interested in conceptual maps of enlightenment. What are the stages of enlightenment in this case, and where does this system hail from? My experience is that once the non-dual nature of reality of seen into, the reality of anything like initiations, brethren, Sirius, requirement and especially individuals is only dreamlike... not anything truly real, empty of intrinsic reality.

I am all for simplification. I honestly think that all that is really needed for realization, regardless of tradition, is: 1. Pointing out instruction by a realized teacher (showing a student the non-dual nature of reality directly) 2. Ongoing reduction of obscurations/hinderances (having a teacher work with the student to help them see where they limit their understanding) 3. A meditation practice where the student rests in the pointed out non-dual realization in objectless shamatha with vipassana where all technique is dropped and there is just pure presence, i.e. open awareness/Dzogchen/shikantaza meditation.

...and it's source: Worth a read on its own: https://terebess.hu/english/hsin.html#23 Probably not. Its modern terminology meant to bridge the gap between disparate traditions. Still, it is mentioned descriptively in the Wikipedia entry for shikantaza by Merv Fowler, Zen Scholar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikantaza ... and commonly used amongst modern teachers, including me. There isn't anything controversial about it. I read that passage by Rutschman-Byler, but am not convinced by it. I have read and heard tales of the Hara too, actually from one of Harada's own students, who lives in town here with me. Despite receiving a similar instruction, it was never pushed or mentioned more than once to him, and despite experimentation has not become any kind of important practice. Based on my own experience, I am positive that it is unnecessary for realization. From the "it's a small world" department, though I haven't heard of him, I can say after looking him up that we actually share lineage through Sojun Mel Weitsman, who my late teacher Jana Drakka had lineage through. Looking at his involvement with Green Gulch and Steve Stucky, I can also say that my teacher most certainly would know him well. The topic of the "Hara" has never come up, and has never been part of any practice suggestion I have had in any tradition I have worked in. It certainly wasn't part of my formal shikantaza instruction. At its core, shikantaza is formless presence, not attention on any specific place or thing. One excerpt isn't going to sway me there. Been there! I usually forgo posting after that and come back to it fresh. Sigh. The purpose can't be thinking these slogans over and over again, surely? Perhaps they are more like intentions? I dunno, I suppose it could be helpful somehow to the right person, but it isn't anything I would suggest to a student. It probably goes without saying that this isn't anything like Zen practice. None of this would apply to the practice of zazen or shikantaza... it is full of "doing". Nothing wrong with it, but the two aren't really compatible. While the result might end up being pretty much the same (though the Tripitaka realization of "no-self" is only a portion of the realization that is "form is emptiness/emptiness is form") the intent of the practices is very different. Missing especially from the former is the assumption in Mahayana that we are all ALREADY enlightened, so it is quite possible to shift to understanding by just recognizing the "natural state", which is the whole purpose of learning to rest in it. My experience with Mahayana is that this is definitely true. Question: What does "thought applied and sustained" mean to you? How does that manifest in your practice. This is the way I practice: I adjust my posture so no muscles are tensed in keeping me upright and straight, and my spine is like a stack of coins. With my eyes closed I take a pass through my body, dropping any muscle tension, usually found in my shoulders. I take a deep breath and relax the mind, letting all thoughts settle out and cease. This might take more than one go. I witness sensation and phenomena arise and cease, unlabeled, unconceptualized and empty of "self" nature, my gaze panoramic and mind quiet. Thank you for your candidness and for sharing your practice. Bows.

Reminds me of:

The mistake lies in thinking that somehow the world is something separate from what YOU are. Unless you see things as they are, you always need help. The world is ALWAYS helping you, by pointing out where you are stuck. The fabric of reality is always ALREADY enlightened, as are you. You simply lack the perspective shift that would allow you to see it.

I agree. I am DEFINITELY out of control. I suppose I could use "one", but it seems awkward? You seem interested in understanding agency/doership/"indeterminate thought and action", so I am sharing the most obvious places to look in my experience. Does that answer your question? Advice on concentration and insight in daily living is all over the place in Buddhism, isn't it? I pointed to where you can get complete insight into the aspect you are exploring in my last post here. I think what you might mean is that the SPECIFIC expression of advice in this one statement is what is attractive to you? It is worth pondering that these are all the same voice, giving teaching on myriad ways in. Even a tax adjustor could be showing you your attachment or delusions around increase/decrease or lack/abundance. The Genjo Koan is beautiful. I am reminded of the first lines which are magically apropos to what I am getting at above: I know your feelings on this. "Perfect clarity" is the same as "don't know" or "beginner's mind", or the mind in Rigpa or Shikantaza. In Shikantaza, body and mind drop away, but sometimes some pointers are needed to recognize just what that means. I'd wager this isn't hard for you and you are already doing it, or HAVE done it. This very technique is also used in Tibetan Buddhisms "sky gazing" instruction. Having the widest possible gaze causes the mind to go quite, as the small amount of extra effort required quiets the mind without introducing a meditation object (like the breath) so that the object becomes "everything". There are some simple techniques one can use to get the gaze to be more and more panoramic, and eventually beyond what you would imagine is physically possible. If you have complete insight, the gaze naturally begins to widen in this way and STAYS this way. These questions aren't rhetorical, IMO, they are pointers. He is advocating for sitting in "open awareness"/shikantaza. This is why such sitting is also referred to as "actualizing the fundamental point". It is nothing less than resting in enlightened mind, and is not different than enlightenment while the mind rest there. He literally means "actualizing enlightenment". How does sustained thought enter in here? This sounds like a poor translation or something. Thought is a construct of "mind", the 6th sense door. The buddha would see the input of all sense doors as just dharmakaya, undifferentiated and not particularly important I can't see a buddha spending time in sustained thought. There isn't a reason to do so. Things occur naturally and perfectly where they are, without any kind of pondering. For "dzogchen" substitute "shikantaza" here. Same difference. The mind of a person "actualizing the fundamental point" is the same as a buddhas Right on! Same as I was saying above with the Dalai Lama's quote. Yes, and more! Including the entire arising and passing of the dharmakaya in attention, mind quiet and empty. There is no-self where there is resting here. Absolutely! The difference between shikantaza and enlightenment. Where there is enlightenment, shikantaza (or dzogchen) arise naturally as the underlying way reality IS, no effort required. This is why I doubt the buddha would be sustaining any thought. Everywhere. Nowhere.

Hahahaha! True! Though it seems dependent on where you live, and which service is interpreting. For some reason most weather predictions where I live aren't great, but Wunderground (for whatever reason) is quite accurate. Still, I would say that the amount of variables needed to truly model ANY aspect of reality would be... ALL of them. Considering that we couldn't even name a small portion of those variables (including when and where a beetle shits in a field, and when the wind blows a particular leaf off of a rock on a desolate road in the Montana) the task is and will probably always be impossible. This is a great passage! It does a nice job of discussing the no-self of the sense doors. The last bit (my bold) IS the Prajna that I mentioned in the previous post. This isn't the ONLY set of criteria, or way in which to approach it by a long shot, and it ISN'T a practice. It is a set of conditions. A practice for it might be noticing in meditation that this is always already so. When the mind is quiet and empty ALL 6 sense (including mind) arise and pass without volition already. It isn't something to force, or "do" as a "self" it is something to notice. It is learning to disidentify the mind with being our "self", and to disidentify the arising and passing of events and phenomena in the dharmkaya as actions we take (out of "volition" or doership, if that helps). So, the noble 8 Fold Path is not a list of things to do, it is a series of interlocking aspirations. Practicing it is not achieving it, it is put into action effortlessly by having Wisdom, or Prajna. Prajna arises naturally in the mind that isn't perturbed or contrived. Yes. This one way in amongst many. It is the delusion that you are separate from what you experience and are, in any way, in charge or in control of that which surrounds you. I have insight into this. You would probably need to experience this many many many times, before you understand what it is you are looking at. In fact, you DO already experience this many, many, times every day. Examples where it is most obvious could include when you are driving, riding, a bike, or playing an instrument. You can't do these successfully by attempting to guide action with your mind. You have to learn to drop thinking about the process of doing them and just inter-be with the process of them. This is inter-being and effortless activity without recourse to mind is what you are looking for. Your practice could simply be noticing that it is happening and surrendering your delusory control of whatever process is happening. You lost me there. This is your quote, yes? I remember your position on this, and respect it. From my perspective, regardless of whether the source is the Buddha or not, it is Right View. It has been around for a couple thousand years, and still gets taught by enlightened masters the world over. If it is obviously (to me) Right View, and is supported by the body of teachers for many lifetimes. That is all that matters to me. It is a pointer, and a clean accurate one. There are plenty of teachings from realized sources that aren't the Buddha that I prefer to the Tripitaka teachings. There were even teachings from enlightened beings, such as the Upanishads and the works of Patangali that predate the Buddha that are absolutely valid and worth reading What matters to ME is that teachings are expressed from the perspective of Right View. That's good. Now notice that it happens on or off the cushion. "Zazen gets up and walks around" our mutual friend Kobun once said. Take a day and do 40 minute sits with 15 minutes of Kinhin in there and notice that not only do body and mind drop out, but also doership and agency do, amongst a great many other things (everything!). This practice is VERY clean and simple and 100% achieves what you are attempting to do. When body and mind have dropped out, where exactly do "ligaments" fit in? They don't. If they do, you haven'd dropped body and mind yet. Ligaments and the rest are mind generated delusions when you are "actualizing the myriad things". I disagree. You do it all day! See above. Where body and mind drop off, ALL activity takes care of itself effortlessly. It could be you are still attempting to watch the breath? If so, understand that watching the breath is merely a way in. When, in your practice, you start to realize that there have been moments when you lost the breath and your mind was quiet and empty, you should then switch your practice to watching for those gaps in and learning by non-grasping how to slowly extend those gaps. That simple resting in those gaps is shikantaza, and is what you are aiming for. "We" are is always where awareness is. Where attention is captured by phenomen,a awareness becomes that phenomena.This isn't a problem, just how awareness is. It is in trying to CONTRIVE how and where awareness is that we step away from enlightened mind. Sure. It is one way in, but can't be achieved when the mind is convinced it is in charge and "doing" something. Returning in my experience is best accomplished by watching where we hold tension in the body or mind and dropping attachment to those. Once the ligaments, and everything else have been dropped there is just resting in things as they are, the "nature of Mind".

You are a good egg, my friend. I appreciate your even-handedness, kindness and respect. Deep bows, to you sir.