stirling

In this case I am referring to having a meditation practice that precipitates resting in Rigpa/Nature of Mind/Emptiness (with teacher induced recognition) and the deceptively simple techniques of Singer's book to recognize how the voice in our head generates duality that leads to suffering, and his techniques of the recognition of contraction and surrender.

Recognition of Rigpa/Nature of Mind/Emptiness is a tool anyone can have, and begin using immediately to remove suffering with dedicated practice. It's not really that difficult, honestly. In my opinion any open awareness meditation, be it Zazen or Dzogchen or something else is the simplest most direct path, IF you are someone who suits such a path. This IS the promise of Buddhism, actually, though that suffering relief can be VASTLY deeper and transformative.

Some relatively simple practice can actually get you to the Buddha's promise of relieving suffering. I'd recommend Micheal Singer's "Untethered Soul" to anyone that can sit in open awareness for even short periods of time. I have many students (Soto Zen) that have used these two pieces to become aware of the causes of suffering, and the path to its reduction and the reduction of karma.

Or just a session or so with a realized teacher. Zen and Dzogchen are VERY similar. Indeed.

To me, this discussion is a classic "category mistake". The way Mahayana Buddhism (one simple, but clean perspective amongst many) discusses this problem is to introduce the concept of the "two truths" doctrine: https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/two-truths/ In this case, "spiritual development" is very much a "relative" idea. Our experience of the relative world is that: time passes, "work" creates change, the "self" changes, space shifts. This is at odds with how enlightenment knows the world to be, to wit: Time, Space, and Self are mental constructions. So, at the moment of realization it is understood that there has never been any place but this enlightened moment, there has never been a "self" separate from the arising phenomena of this moment, and there has never been any other place but the field of experience where this all takes place. This is also the persistent understanding, afterwards, forever. The idea that years of cultivation, meditation, work, or anything else led to this moment of enlightenment is obviously a delusion to enlightened Mind. Now is where awakening/realization/enlightenment always is happening, and it is always here, and without a "self" to precipitate it. To the "relative" mind there is years of practice, and a moment of supreme clarity. To enlightened mind there is always just "this" happening NOW, to no-one whatsoever. What use is this idea to the those who cannot see from this perspective? It is entirely possible (and does occur) that just some simple contact with these ideas might be (relative) what precipitates an awakening. This is the reason exposure to enlightened teachers has any value whatsoever.

I like to imagine a few might know me here now, and of course you link out to your site where someone feasibly might go venture, so... Yes, they are practices for learners, but they are impossible for the learner to perfect. They are perfected when enlightenment makes them fully understood through prajna, adding the additional two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#The_eight_divisions I know that this is your theory, but it has nothing to do with the jhanas. You should really give jhana practice a go, Mark, and once you have a few under your belt see how they compare. I think to anybody who knows the jhanas the references are clear. The preparatory practice for the jhanas is "access concentration": https://www.lionsroar.com/entering-the-jhanas/ Sorry... it's Leigh Brassington. He DOES know what he is talking about, in my experience. Did I share with your that he has taught the jhanas at Tassajara a number of times? He actually taught BOTH of my Zen teachers, as well as some quite well known ones I would share if I could remember who. Maybe one was Steve Stucky? Just sitting is just sitting to me. Once mind drops out, it should be free of any contrived ideas or activity about what you are doing. I'm glad to be helpful. Honestly, I am hoping to be helpful when I post on your threads. One step further than: ...is to drop the "consciousness of need". In the jhanas, awareness of breathing, or a need to, or even the feeling of being in the body drops off when you get into the formless ones, the arupa jhanas. It is interesting to see your ideas evolve, Mark.

I have already responded to your comments regarding one pointedness, Right Concentration, etc. here: I'm comfortable with my answers on that thread. Maybe you should be quoting my responses if you are quoting me as part of your thoughts here? Actually, does it seem fair to quote me without context on your website? I still think you are confusing instruction on the Jhanas, which is a very specific set of practices, with general meditation. They are NOT the same, nor are they interchangeable, IMHO. I won't say that I think this is what Guatama intended, but it looks fine as a practice. I think most meditators will find that consciousness is already free and breath is already automatic activity once thought is detached.

There ABSOLUTELY isn't.

Honestly, this isn't where I would get my information about what Buddhists think: https://heartfeather.substack.com/p/beyond-the-beyond-pt-1 There are "Buddhists" with different levels of understanding that might mention a lot of things. You can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the internet. Discrimination is key. The Buddha doesn't mention a soul in his teachings. He doesn't because, in Buddhism, the existence of separate things that have a reality of their own is a delusion, including any kind of "self" existence or separate soul. This is what the central tenet of Buddhism (no-self) is about. This is the fundamental argument between Buddhism and Hinduism. I can see it both ways... the conceptual overlays may not jibe, but from the perspective of emptiness, labelling all awareness as "Self" isn't a problem, since it where the perspective of being can appear to come from. It's a silly argument to have, IMHO... these are conceptual frameworks... enlightenment is ultimately neither of these.

Would you mind clarifying what are you trying to say in the second part of this sentence? Which person was not an Arhat? I think I can help with your confusion - you have your cases mixed up. An easy lens to use to make this clear is the "Two Truths" doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine# A relative truth exists in the realm of duality as a teaching mechanism. An absolute teaching points directly at non-dual reality. Dependent Origination is a relative scaffolding, as are Nagarjuna's teachings on emptiness. They are intellectual constructs to give you some idea about what is being pointed toward, they are not the complete understanding themselves. The absolute truth of enlightenment cannot be adequately expressed in language, because it does not exist in a subject/object frame. Emptiness and Nirvana are absolute truths, but can be demonstrated effectively to an unenlightened person by a teacher that has actual knowledge of them. The 3 Characteristics are relative truths and exist in unenlightened mind as concepts only. To enlightened mind they can be seen both as a relative truth, and as having no essence. Anyone can come to an intellectual understanding of no-self, but it takes insight to realize it.

That's a blinder! Bears repeating.

There is a complete path tailored just for you available to anyone who is truly ready to do whatever it takes to finish it. It always begins in this moment. Awakening is happening all of the time. The entire fabric of reality is awakening to itself over and over and over again, moment by moment, day by day, and always has. There are Buddhists using pointers that are 2500, 1000, 500, 100, 50, or even 1 year old. It doesn't have to be Buddhism, or Daoism or Hinduism, or any of the legitimate paths, though. Something someone says to you at the supermarket, a song on the radio, or a stone you step on today could cause awakening if you are paying attention. There are enlightened "beings" everywhere. A few here actually, some in your local Buddhist centers, probably some amongst your homeless, if you knew what you were looking for. The chance of liberation could happen to you RIGHT NOW, if you are ready to give up your concreted ideas about the world and how it is. Since we are on the topic of Buddhism specifically, I'll share this document which I can wholeheartedly attest to: Of course, you can go about this many ways, this is simply to say that Buddhism in particular CAN be one of those routes.

Which one? The one you posted and said you liked or the one I posted? They are saying the same thing. They aren't nihilistic - the world of people and things doesn't GO anywhere, it simply has a salient quality that dramatically shifts your understanding that you have never noticed. If anything the world is MORE meaningful, MORE joyful, MORE engaging than ever after you see how it is.

In Mahayana Buddhism there are two ways to discuss such things, from the relative or absolute perspectives: https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Two_truths I have had completely realized teachers (arhats) who have passed away. They are, in relative terms, dead. As your quote in the post after suggests, it is possible to see that death is also a delusion in this moment. Death is both a constant as we see phenomena appear and disappear (including buddhas), fluxing in this moment, but also a delusion when it is seen that emptiness is omnipresent, still and eternal.. It is ultimately the deeper unchanging emptiness that defines reality, once seen and gnown (gnosis) as experience.

It is obvious to me that it is right there in the Bahiya Sutta, however: ...not that it matters. I personally would take the word of a living Buddha over a dead one any day.

... as well as: All teachings, religions and philosophies, including teachings on emptiness and dependent origination are only rafts intended to get one to the far shore.

Just a note to say that the realization itself precludes the possibility of there being a deeper realization. It is literally seeing that the way you were perceiving reality was always wrong. From a relative perspective, once the perspective has completely flipped (in Buddhism this would be an "arhat") full realization is stable over a lifetime. It is impossible to even see things the way they were previously. I've never heard of anyone historically or living today that has had this simpler, more real perspective shift back. This has been demonstrated over thousands of years. This is naturally something I would urge anyone to explore for themselves.

Definitely form and emptiness exist as a dance together, though the emptiness is the single salient recognizable characteristic of all form, and exists within all expressions of it. The Heart Sutra, in my opinion, is the best document covering this particular question. I think I would like that, yes.

I use the term duality because it is in English, and I feel it is easy to relate to than something like sunyata, which means emptiness. Sunyata begs the question, "empty of what"? A simple answer might be: duality. Another I like to use is "intrinsic existence", but this also requires more thinking. Neither are strictly correct, of course. See my discussion above about subject/object language.

Every time either of us write a sentence we use the convention of language, which requires that we use the structure of subject and object. This necessary convention for language also creates a "duality" or a separateness between us and what we discuss, or who we interact with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_and_object_(philosophy) Buddhism considers the true nature of things to be devoid of a subject/object relationship. The subject/object delusion is actually the cause of our suffering, whether we are talking of the simple duality of "self" (no-self), or sunyata (emptiness). Carefully examined this subject object "dualism" can be intellectually taken apart: ...this is STILL, however only an intellectual understanding. An abstraction or scaffolding - NOT our lived experience. If we are fortunate there is a moment, after some practice, where the intellectual understanding can become an experiential understanding that stands the test of weeks, months, years, and eventually a lifetime, changing everything we understand about reality. This moment is awakening/kensho/stream-entry, and the insight or understanding is sometimes called prajna (wisdom). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism) This initial glimpse makes it so that we can appreciate this "non-dual" nature of reality any time we stop contriving our reality with the mind and our "dualistic" thinking. When the mind drops out, prajna (wisdom) arises and the simple phenomenal experience of arising and passing becomes visible. Eventually, as karma (our story) is exhausted, the effort to prop of the false sense of "self" drops away, and prajna becomes the permanent way of seeing. This is nirvana (with residue). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)# Nirvana with remainder is the highest attainment possible by a living Buddhist.

Which is all there is. In my experience the "grace" is the bit that actually matters. Waking up could happen while using the toilet or getting a speeding ticket. I think you can probably do better than that! No problem, friend

All delusion means that you no longer mistake duality for reality. Unskillful desire is a motive of self-interest, and is mostly decimated by losing "self" view, though not always entirely. Keep in mind - this is "nirvana with residue". My suggestion would to check out the "Four Stages of Awakening", one of the earliest maps for this in Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Path_and_fruit All of these are entirely possible, but not in a way that makes sense if you believe you are a "self", or separate from the phenomena you observe.

Is it your opinion that there are actually easy to complete instructions to become enlightened? How would you describe the result? Enlightened or not, there is water to carry and wood to chop, yes? Most (all) of the enlightened "people" I know ARE pretty normal. Some are priests, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't drive cars and pay taxes. Many hold down jobs, have families, etc. While certain initial parts of the cycle can be challenging, this mostly due to not really know what happens next in my experience. Usually within a few months or a year, it becomes the normal way of being. That can be true, but I would say that most who are obsessed end up finding a moment where they realize that "they" aren't going to be what precipitates what "they" seek.

I'll bet you have, Maddie. My experience is that there are at least a few in almost any decent sized, open-minded town where there are a variety of spiritual centers. In Buddhism there are two types of nirvana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) Nirvana with remainder is absolutely possible in this lifetime. Anyone with realization that is still embodied would fit in this category. In Buddhism, complete realization of no-self and shunyata would be the qualifications. I know a number of other teachers where this is the case based on speaking to them about their understanding, including my own root teacher, and several of my previous teachers. There are a few people on this board that meet this qualification. While rare, it is far from impossible.

Yes, absolutely... instead there is just experience the experiencing itself. Love that Advaita stuff.