stirling

I think you'll find a fertile ground for exploration and questioning here. Welcome!

Welcome to the board! An intriguing question!

There isn't really any need for an ethnic element, though some words in other languages have a conceptual accuracy that is unrepresented in most Western thought, like "dharma", or "rigpa" for example. In my opinion the spiritual path could be reduced to a very simple set of instructions, but most people will fail to understand what is meant by them. For example, how to change suffering is covered wonderfully here: ...but most people will need substantially more guidance in learning to find the stillness necessary to stop the identification with their overwhelming personal dialog.

Well... it was nice to briefly understand what you were talking about, but you've made yourself inscrutable again. My hat's off to you... you truly are an enigma, Bob.

I'm sorry the idea upsets you. Isn't it "grace" that enlightens in many of the Hindu (and Sufi) philosophies? What you can do ahead of that is prepare the playing field. Practices can get the mind to the point where it is receptive, open and spacious. The openings for realization tend to happen where there is this stillness, in my experience.

You might have a different experience, but, speaking for myself, I worked through a lot more trauma in meditation than counselors offices. What would natural dissolution mean to you? By "removed", do you mean that they no longer effect your behavior? I see what you mean now. One could decide that kundalini is somehow necessary, or is present in both processes, but I have never seen evidence of it in this context, and am unsure that kundalini has been a real feature in my path besides on particularly interesting episode, which might have been kundalini, or not.

Yeah... I'm still lost. Have a lovely day Bob.

How do you go about destroying them at their roots? Do they no longer exist? We can drop our attachment or aversion to past events by understanding what they are, and why they formed in the practices we use. Eventually they just become memories that have no power to color experience. Fortunately you can do the same thing (taking much more time) using psychological processes, but my experience with both is that the net effect is precisely the same. I honestly don't know how anyone would remove the stories. It seems to me that they are just part of reality in the same way that history is. JFK will always have a murderer, our grandfathers will have died in WWII, and we all remember the child we were that experienced trauma. I see this part of liberation as being able to realize that reality is just how things are today, and not see the world through those traumas.

_/\_

Bob can't hurt my feelings... I just don't know what he means, or is referring to.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "modern" non-dual realization. Maybe you mean neo-Advaita? Descriptions of enlightenment from Hinduism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Sufism (amongst many) all recognizably point to the same realization, despite the fact that they might choose different characteristics to emphasize. I tend to use descriptions of my own in English, rather than the language of ancient traditions in an attempt at clarity, but I could relay it in an number of different vocabularies. I don't feel that enlightenment is ever perfectly represented by language, since language by its very existence counts on a subject/object relationship that has no reality to enlightened mind. Why do you ask? ...but it is YOURS, yes? It borrows from other systems and nomenclatures for its existence, assembled into something you find logical? Conceived of... sure, OK, but some or all of those aren't necessary experienced are they? As you say, you conceive of them... they are imaginal. This is what I am talking about. I once had a system of beliefs about how the universe was constructed, and trusted it enough to let go of seeking... until it got blown out of the water. What about the selves that you ACTUALLY experience, selves that arise when you interact in the supermarket check-out, a dinner party, with a loved one, talk with people about your beliefs on the internet, or interact with colleagues at work, all them arising due to the causes and conditions of the moment, slightly different from each other, each telling different versions of your story to the world, and all of them temporary. This is the "self". None of it is what "you" are, or it wouldn't be temporary, wouldn't change constantly. We attribute all of them to the tiny, imagined driver of our body behind our eyebrows.

?

Definitely the "self" has states - "non-dual awareness" doesn't change and is always present, whether you have realization or not. The "self" is never extinguished, though it has much reduced footprint on the experience of being. The "self" is seen to be what it actually is, the story you tell about yourself. When you stop telling the story, it loses its potency and its importance diminishes. Even before realization, this happens more often than most people realize. Emptiness is present all the time, we simply fail to identify it most of the time. If you experienced it in this moment it would be wholly familiar to you. I think of the fear of death being the fear that there is some "ending", just as the loss of the "self" would be. Not really possible, in my experience.

Sure. In my opinion paths, practices, models, traditions and religions are entirely conceptual and do not precipitate "awakening". It is very often dropping the methods and practices that creates the opening. Many traditions acknowledge this. One of my favorite quotes is: While practices can clear the way, enlightenment is definitely post practice, post concept, post model, post tradition, or religion. Only experience with it would allow you to decide either way. I can only talk about my experience. You are obviously free to do as you choose. It isn't any model I believe in, but rather my experience of this moment. Sure. Conceptual ideas about it might sound scary. Your description does sound horrific. In reality it looks just like your life does now. You should do as you are driven to do. If cobbling together your own path appeals, do it. I did the same, though it heavily leaned on Buddhism. In the end none of it was what I thought it would be... still isn't. A friend of mine asked, "what will happen to my "self" if I don't love it, or ignore it... doesn't it deserve love too". I understand the perspective that might give rise to such a question from one perspective. From another, it doesn't actually make any sense, since it doesn't really exist in the way that you might assume.

I never intimated that this was the way forward, and "you" can't disidentify with them anyway. What you can do is realize that they are a view that you distilled from your suffering that doesn't accurately portray the world. You can take the teeth out of them so that they don't color the way you experience reality. The more life you can experience without your story, the more clarity you have, and the less suffering you encounter. To end suffering, we need to see reality plainly as it is, instead of through the models we build for ourselves about it.

The short answer is: It is obvious once you see it. I realize that this not the most satisfying answer. "Emptiness" is reality's salient characteristic, once it is seen and understood. It is impossible for it to be negative because it truly embodies no characteristics. If you had to assign it characteristics you might say it is loving, just, and kind, amongst a short list. In the same way that a realized teacher acts, it is intentionally pointing out our attachment and aversion moment by moment so that we can wake up. Every time some else's post here makes you angry, or afraid, that is what is happening. It is love, actively loving you. It isn't separate for a moment from what YOU are... is the same. To imagine that its action is nihilistic or negative in any way is to misunderstand it entirely. It is a constant hand on your shoulder in your darkest moments, gently pushing you toward realization, regardless of how you pursue it. I agree with you here, for the most part. But the karma is OURS. We generate and reinforce it moment to moment by retelling our stories of trauma. Those stories distort our understanding of the world, but only until the moment that we can drop our attachment and aversion to their message and just see them as stories. Criminals often see the world as a place where only crime is a way to get ahead. Jilted lovers see the world as a place where no-one can be trusted. Really, the world is just, loving and kind, at least in my experience, now. What stories do we tell ourselves about the world? Waking up itslef isn't really complicated at all, but needs the space created by dropping as many of the stories that obscure it as we can to open up. It IS real, until you day that you see it isn't. Karma can ruin our lives if we let it. It isn't the sensations of pain that go away, it is the story about the pain lasting forever, or being deserved for our actions. It isn't relationships ending that stops, it is our dialog about being undesirable, unlovable - about being alone and lonely forever now. It isn't the car accident that goes away, but our story about reality being fundamentally unsafe, about how we are an inch from being erased from existence, or left in the hospital in debilitating pain for the rest of a lifetime. All of these stories can be beautiful, bittersweet experiences without our story about them. Worrying about the past or future can be an exquisite torture. I also tried for many years to take apart reincarnation, or learn to love it because I wanted to tow the Buddhist line. Now, I am certain it doesn't happen, and no longer worry about it. We are reincarnated all of the time, live in the 6 realms all the time. It happens when we open a door, or put on a different persona for work or for a dinner party. We think we live in a contiguous experience, but in fact reality is disjointed and haphazard, full of missing time, awkward transitions, and transitions we completely make up by explaining our experience. The one thing that we can experiment with and ALWAYS find is the awareness that lies under ALL experiences. It is always there underneath everything else. Thank you for your thoughtful reply Bindi.

I am completely with you on this, and Doc Benway. Is it possible? Sure? Do I know? Absolutely not. I don't know anyone that has died and can tell me, or anyone else about it, and I am disinterested in adopting beliefs, since I know intimately that they entail creating stories in time and space, and neither exist in the way we imagine they do. I actually HAVE experience with spirits, gods, and angels, but none of those experiences are sufficient to demonstrate that they enjoy any greater reality or power than any other appearance in consciousness, and certainly not any greater understanding than the host of realized "beings" in the world I have encountered. Everything you could possibly need to know is right here.

There is an important clue here. Abiding in the natural state is NOT DIFFERENT than enlightened mind... in fact, not different from Nirodha, or the cessation of suffering. The Buddha's promise of some respite from suffering can be experienced relatively easily, at the very least for short periods of time. Sitting in such a way, with a little pointing, can allow almost anyone to see whether karma is real, or "self" is real, or... anything else, in the way that we typically imagine it. That is the utility of meditation when it is free of all practices and other contrivances. Karma isn't really a thing that has its own existence. Karma is a story you tell about yourself, like, "I am a vegetarian", or "I am a cancer survivor", or "I am a Buddhist", that subtly (or not so subtly) filters the way you encounter your day to day experience. When you realize unity, the gossamer and unreal quality of such stories loses its teeth. Over time, these stop being stories we tell about the self, and there is just the joy of simply being in this moment. It isn't that the stories are transcended, it is that they are seen and understood to be based on a false premise, just as birth and death are. What happens after death? How would anyone know? Have you or I ever experienced death first hand? In my opinion, stories about death are just stories until they become our experience. If there were karmas from previous lives, or previous lives at all, how would you know? What truly matters is what is happening in this moment.

If you step on a snail and feel guilty, realizing that it happened without intent could be enough for you to drop your feelings about it. This could happen in a few seconds. Realizing what your attachment or aversion to something is usually arises as an "aha" moment. I have students write down the major emotional traumas they can remember in a notebook for their own use. Most traumas beyond them correspond to one or another of them. As I mentioned previously, it is meditation that provides the environment for contemplation, not the thinking mind. If you are really curious about how such a process might work, I could recommend some reading. There usually isn't anything hidden about most emotional wounds, except the deepest ones. Attachment to things changing is the problem. Being attached to anything is problematic, since reality is in constant flux. That is one way to go about it. You are welcome to your opinion, but I think there are number of misunderstandings there. See above. Bindi, I am answering your questions in an effort to be helpful. Do you know why are you asking them?

The Buddha isn't saying it is the only alternative, but that it is the alternative commonly sought by those that don't have the alternative of a practice. The Buddha's ultimate alternative is Nirodha (cessation) which is caused by complete realization. In the interim there is learning to identify with awareness rather than "self". In spacious awareness there is temporary Nirodha and great clarity about personal attachment and aversion. Suffering can often be dropped quickly once the process that creates "2nd Arrow" suffering is understood. I have around 10 students at this stage, processing their karma, and dropping their self-imposed suffering with various degrees of success. It is quite possible to learn to do within a few weeks or a month. Absolutely. See above. In fact recalling emotional wounds in meditation, examining their roots and allow those feelings to fall away is part of the process. These wounds, but also opinions and ideas that are deeply clung to, are obscurations that create karma and color the way the world is seen. They are also processed. Eventually, with some skill, karma is processed as it forms, so that there is no new karma being created. Emotional pain happens because of attachment or aversion to reality. Where attachment and aversion drop out, there IS no trauma. The Traumatic events can be remembered still, but encounter no reactivity or resistance (tension) in the body. That would be news to me. I've never heard of anything like that. Usually there is awakening, then some years later (around 10) another awakening style event that signals complete anatta. All of that has taken place here, with stability for about 10 years beyond. If something changes I'll let you know, but I'm not concerned. People have been following these paths for thousands of years, I'm sure there would be more talk about such event if they occurred with any frequency. Frankly, from my perspective, such a thing would be impossible. There can be only one outcome, in my opinion. All of those things are fine when you are on the path and primarily working through relative practices. In the raft analogy, the Buddha dharma is no longer needed when the path is complete. So it is with any relative practice.

Absolutement, mon ami!

Yes, you might say that from a conceptual perspective. In my case, there is just sensation. The body may shrink from some sensations, and there can be generally brief emotional reactions to things that happen where there is awareness. There is liberation from the 1st Arrow. See below. Pain is felt, but isn't identified with. The Buddha explains this well: Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow No. Thoughts and emotions arise naturally, like everything else in the universe, they just aren't "mine". Here is Zen teacher Bankei's short exposition on the point I am trying to get across here: What is described by Bankei is actually a fairly simple thing to see experientially - all that is necessary is an average meditation practice lasting a month or so and some pointing out by an experienced teacher. This is a substantial first lesson on the path. What I am arises naturally, and uncontrived, moment to moment, just like the rest of the universe, and always has. What you suggest would imply someone existing that has a long term intention or drive to "be" something. That isn't happening here. Karma and samskaras belong to a "self" - neither arise here. How would you know if your idea is true, or mine is? Does it matter? Ideas and opinions aren't ultimately of any importance. Finding out for YOURSELF is the actual point of talking about it. If you aren't driven to pursue it, I understand, but your initial question IS a question about non-dual/unity understanding. This is what "Awareness of the Absolute" actual is. I was exposed to a number of teachings, but wasn't sure what had actually shifted until I had some contact with my Buddhist teachers. It wasn't what I was expecting at ALL. None of the descriptions I had read before or since capture it exactly. I love this quote for that reason: Paths are for BEFORE you have realization. Realization shows you that the path was just a map, not the terrain. I agree with this statement completely. It is experiential knowledge that is valuable, not intellectual contrivance. What would the danger be exactly? Pretending to get it? Few actually bother with that, and they are easy to pick out. Most of them are kind, and want relieve samsara where they see it. On the path, thoughts and emotions are the fuel for transformation. There are integral to the "self", and understanding how it is built and causes suffering. After there is realization, there are still thoughts and emotions, but they are realized to be part of the larger field of experience. And yet they still appear, and are referential to the Relative world. Not transcended at all, now seen with great clarity in their real context.

Welcome to the forum, and best of luck with your question.

Nicely said. We essentially have become in the habit of collecting certain types of phenomena into a mental model of a "self", then attributing this mental model as having some separate reality. It is a mistaken supposition. My experience is that all phenomena in the world, the so-called aggregates and everything else, simply happen, where they are, by themselves and don't have any sense of belonging to anything separate, or any real story that connects them to the past or future. All of that "context" is invented by the (m)ind. Sounds weird right? It's just the world as it is. Looks just like what you are seeing in this moment.

That is very thoughtfully written explanation Bindi, thank you for sharing it. Where does it come from? Speaking for myself, in MY experience the ideas of transcendence and integration present a false dichotomy. What I have seen be the case is that before "awakening" there is an identification with the internal mental dialogue, which we most often identify with "self". At some point a variation on meditation practice is encountered where it is noticed in stillness that pure awareness can watch the internal dialogue do its thing - constructing "self" moment-to-moment - but ISN'T "self". Commonly this is expressed as, "I am not my thoughts". This is actually fairly simple to accomplish, and on its OWN demonstrates that suffering can be attenuated by meditation practice, as the Buddha (amongst others) suggested. Once this is realized there is reinforcement of the efficacy of identification with the awareness, rather than the internal dialogue. Suffering is reduced. Sometimes, with continued refinement and practice with this initial understanding, at some point identification flips for a moment and it is understood that awareness is actually the real primary "identity". This is where the idea of "Self" in some practices and religions comes from, in my opinion. A little further down the road, in another shift, all identification with the thought process, drops and this part of the path is completed. Even though this identification has dropped out, the world we are all used to seeing, of cars, people, trees, and everything else, goes nowhere. The content of the world isn't changed in the slightest, it is HOW the world is seen that changes. Same world, seen differently. So, going back to the models, there IS no transcendence. The world is as it always has been. You still see "you" live your life, have your friends and loved ones, feel feelings, only there is no attachment or aversion to what happens. You don't identify with the story of your "self", even though it continues, have no attachments to the identities or fictions you constructed around yourself or others. You love and are loved, but increasingly your dislike, bias, anger, etc. dry up. They aren't needed, and were only propped up by your mental story about being a separate person in a world of separate people where things could, should, or need to be different than they are. Is there future transcendence? How would you know? Transcendence of WHAT? Similarly there is no integration. There isn't anyone TO integrate, and isn't anything to integrate with. The carefully curated and constructed "self" you once believed you were starts to unravel where you had attachment or aversion, but it is a natural process unguided by the awareness you now are, and comes about because there is no longer any driver to curate or construct the illusory "self" you once believed was "you". Much of this is guided by the other primary insights that come with realization: seeing through the illusion of time and space. That would be a much longer post, but for example, if you knew that this moment was the only real one, how would an attachment to what happens next make sense beyond what you do NOW (how you respond to THIS moment)? The idea of transcendence IS the idea of going beyond I think. In my experience, thoughts emotion and ego don't go anywhere, but are realized to be external to what we really are. Without reinforcement, they lose potency and the negative qualities once propped up by attachment and aversion to reality.