xabir2005

I think Lucky7Strikes will be the best person to reply you because he struggled a long time over this question. Nevertheless, here are some things for you to consider: From: J Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:46 AM To: (xabir2005) Subject: On Free Will from Dharma Dan (xabir2005), I wrote to Dharma Dan and asked the question about Free Will. Below is his reply for your inforamtion: ============================================================================ Dear J, Thanks for your email. I have been working a lot so it took a little while to get back to you. Hello Daniel, I just read your blook. Your chapter on No-Self vs True Self is very good. I feel it is much better than the chapter on the same topic in the book Path with Heart by Jack Kornfield. Could you allow me to ask you a couple of questions here? According to this chapter, basically you don't agree with Advaita's concept of True Self and Oneness. Is this correct? Second, all Advaita people basically assert that humans have no free will. Here is a sample short article to show what I mean: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/freewill_balsekar.htm I think this view is closely connected to their another view which is seeing this world completely as an illusion and dream. I think Buddhism's dependent origination is a better description for perceived reality. As I read some Buddhism books, when they talk about Karma, they all say humans have a choice to change the future course. I interpret this as saying that humans have free will in Buddism's view. Is this correct? If so, how does this reconcile with no-self/ego teaching? Best regards, I am a pragmatist, so I think that concept that help people are key. Tbe Buddha addressed this topic, and I agree with his answer. He said that when training in Morality assume free will, as it helps. Thus, you presume that you can make healthy choices about how to speak and act and think, and so you proceed with the notion that you are in control and can make yourself and your world better. When doing Insight practices, you do the complete opposite as much as possible. You assume that sensations arise on their own in a causal, natural way and as much as possible you try to see that aspect of things. That said, until concentration, mindfulness, and continuity of practice are strong, one makes a lot of effort to see things as they are and stay with the natural arising and vanishing of sensations. From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality. Helpful? Daniel ------------------ (comments by Thusness on Konomonte's questions) Thusness says: *komomonte cannot understand the question of free will this way. *he must first experience no-self and understand how subject/object view affect us then when he look at the question of free will, he will be able to understand better. *because when our mind and experienced are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes. Me says: *oic.. Thusness says: *what did u write to him? Me says: *u mean previously Thusness says: *yeah Me says: *basically i said what u said, that things do not happen by chance or ramdomly or determined, but due to conditions. so there is no control, but there is influence by intentions and imprints. Thusness says: *yes *Dharma Dan's answer i also along that line. *It is causal. Me says: *icic..

Chuang Tzu: "The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame."

Even "skillful means" is done with the same principle to prevent suffering. Yes, plants do not have consciousness by birth. If, however, a spirit/ghost chooses to inhabit in a tree, they are known as tree-spirits. Such beings exist but not in all trees. Insects, fish have nervous system and are capable of suffering, fear, emotions, attachments, thinking (though much less developed), etc. Since they have minds and afflictions, they will be in great suffering. In Buddhism there are 6 realms of conscious beings. Three lower realms are Hell, Ghost, Animal. Three higher realms are Human, Asuras, Devas (celestial beings in heaven). These are the six destination that one may be reborn in according to karma. If you have suspected that it is killed for you, then it is no longer 'pure meat'. Nevertheless if there is no reason to suspect, or you have not witnessed, nor asked for its killing, then the meat is permissible for consumption under the 3 conditions. That is, if you do not choose to be a vegetarian. As long as the meat is not killed *for you* then it is permissible under the 3 conditions. As a lay person, it is highly advisible to follow these 3 conditions to prevent creating bad karma. Example of 'pure meat' are frozen meat, because even though it is killed by the butcher, you do not witness the killing, nor did you directly ask for its killing, nor do you suspect that the killing is done for you alone. Example of 'impure meat' are live seafood - because when you order seafood from these restaurants, you are in fact asking those lives to be butchered for your food. Therefore the karma is much heavier due to the intention involved that led to the killings.

Yes as far as I know, the story is only in Mahayana Buddhism. From my discussions with Theravadin Buddhists, they are very strict on their precepts and generally want to abide by them faultlessly with no 'excuses', and their scriptures do not give examples of how 'skillful means' may override precepts. 'Skillful means' overriding precepts is a Mahayana development as far as I know. Do they have minds? Are they capable of thinking, suffering, being reborn, etc? Or do they simply react 'intelligently' but without such minds (like plants, bacterias, etc)? It is not contradictory. Sentience means mental factors and consciousness. These mental factors and consciousness are also not self, not 'I', or 'mine'. Though conventionally speaking we talk about 'sentient beings', ultimately speaking there are only 'conglomerates of sentient phenomenas'. Actually in Theravada Buddhism which carries on the original tradition of the Buddha and his sangha, they receive meat from lay people, but they do not buy meat. They simply receive whatever food the lay people give, on the condition that it is edible, that it fulfills the 3 conditions, etc. They don't want to be too picky and only demand vegetarian food. In some places, this is not feasible due to the vegetation of the region. In Mahayana Buddhism however, all monks are vegetarians.

There is an "I", just like there is a "weather". Awareness, Witnessing, Consciousness, whatever you want to call it... is not denied. But what is weather? Can you pinpoint or locate the 'weather' as 'something' 'somewhere'? No, it is just the process of weatherly phenomena - rain, clouds, lightning, etc, ever changing moment to moment. This is the same case for "I", conventionally yes there is an "I", yet it is not a locatable entity apart from the arising and passing phenomena. There is hearing, but apart from hearing a hearer cannot be located. The hearer precisely is the process of hearing. As J Krishnamurti speaks from his realization: The observer IS the Observed.

In Buddhism, as Thusness said, Consciousness/Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting (a feeler/observer) but rather a manifestation. Luminosity (vivid awareness) is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is without subject and object separation. One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

Things don't happen spontaneously, I agree. But things happen without an experiencer or a doer. Actions arise dependent on intentions and other factors, but no 'I' that is a doer or experiencer could be found. Sounds arise due to the ear, the soundwave, the air, and so on... coming together. Yet there is no hearer apart from hearing. There is no experiencer-experienced division. “When I heard the sound of the bell ringing, there was no I, and no bell, just the ringing.” - Zen Master Lastly, when you realize non-duality and anatta, there is no question of 'being hard to maintain'. It is only before insight and realization arise that effort is required to 'maintain' some experience. After realization, No-Self becomes effortless, spontaneous, permanent rather than 'arrived' through doing something concentrative and contrived. For example: it is seen that in hearing, there is always only just sound and no hearer, in sensing/feeling, always only sensations with no sensor. After realization, there is no longer a contrived practice of 'letting go the sensor so that sensations are experienced as-they-are without a sensor' or practicing to 'become the sensations', since it is seen that always already, in sensing, there is (always in actual case) no sensor, only sensations, in seeing (always in actuality) only scenery without seer, etc. As a result, self-immolation occurs, not that there was a really existing self to immolate through efforting, but more like a false identity is realized as false and hence relinquished forever, and thus PCE (pure consciousness experience) turns permanent, spontaneous and effortless. There cannot be a moment where one says one has 'lost the PCE/the observer has returned' because the illusion (false identity) that there had ever truly been an observer at any time is lost. The so called 'practice' is thus different from prior-realization as there is no longer a need to do something to get some state (e.g. let go, concentrate/attend to sensations, etc, to drop the 'self' and dissolve into 'just sensations', etc) but simply an effortless and spontaneous 'actualizing of view/realization' in every moment, sensation/experience/action, in other words just seeing, just hearing, just walking is itself spontaneous perfection and is not what ordinary people think of as 'practice'. As Thusness wrote in his Stage 4 realization: There is no gap in between, no longer a few months gap for it to arise… There never was a stage to enter, no I to cease and never has it existed There is no entry and exit point… There is no Sound out there or in here… There is no ‘I’ apart from the arising and ceasing… The manifold of Presence…. Moment to moment Presences unfolds…

By the way, as I said, I do agree there is a form of intelligence (you can call it Qi) - but this intelligence is non-sentient in the sense it is incapable of thinking, suffering, being reborn, etc. What Shurangama Sutra is arguing against is a view that insentient objects have a consciousness that suffers and is being reborn. It does not deny the intelligence and vitality that spins the universe and grows your fingernails. The lifeforce or 'Qi' you're talking about is not necessarily a personal consciousness or mindstream that makes karma and is being reborn. It is quite impersonal. So on hindsight I do not think I am contradicting you after all.

As much as I respect your opinion on this matter, the view of universal awareness is not accepted by Buddhists throughout all the traditions. For example, Shurangama Sutra states one of the Hindu false views as such: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Buddha (44) Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has already ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity. Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding. This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness.

Don't let speculations bind you and go for direct experience/realization. I can assure you life goes on quite well in recognition of non-duality. Actions arise, without doer. Seeing happens, without seer. Hearing happens, without hearer.

This is a controversial point. The classical Theravadin Buddhists hold tightly to their precepts and do not budge regardless of circumstances. Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes skillful means over strict adherence to precepts (but whether that particular action is truly 'skillful' is another matter of debate). For example in Mahayana Buddhism, there is a story as such, A wealthy merchant, who was a disciple of the Buddha, went with a very large caravan of other merchants and his servants to a certain island, to bring back for trade some of the gem stones for which this island was famous. On board ship, on the way back, the merchant learnt that another passenger on the boat intended to kill all the hundreds of people on board, in order to be able to steal the cargo of jewels. The merchant knew the man, and knew that he was indeed capable of killing all those people, and he wondered what to do about it. In the end, despite the fact that he had taken a vow with the Buddha never to take the life of another being, he had no alternative but to kill the would-be robber. He was very ashamed of what he had done, and as soon as he returned home he went to the Buddha to confess his bad action. But the Buddha told him he had not done wrong, because his intention had not been to take life, but to save life. Furthermore, since he had in fact saved the lives of hundreds of people, and had saved the robber from the very negative karma of killing hundreds of people and the inevitable consequences of such a bad action, the Buddha explained that the merchant had in fact done a good action. ~ Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche I do not believe bacterias have consciousness. They are not sentient beings. And as far as I know, no bacterias have a nervous system. My Buddhist master told us that viruses and bacteria are 'fine to kill' because they are not sentient. Similarly, plants do not have consciousness and are not sentient beings. Sure, it can be argued that plants have a form of intelligence or awareness (such as being aware of sunlight and growing towards them), but they do not have a nervous system, are not capable of thinking, or suffering, or hating, or being reborn. That is why we can eat plants blamelessly. As for meat - Mahayana Buddhism encourages vegetarianism. Pali Buddhism says, Buddha: "Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." [2] Why three conditions? Because it reduces much of the karma involved, hence 'pure'.

See On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

The first thing is you have to generate a resolve and vow to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. There is a scripture that states an occasion where the Mara wanted to meet the Buddha, but he could not do so. Manjusri told him if he wishes to meet the Buddha, he needs to first vow to attain Buddhahood. So the Mara contrives to lie about his creation of the intent; but the trick was on him - to even pretend to make a vow on Buddhahood, he has already planted an irreversible seed to attain Buddhahood. So the seed is already there, but how long it takes is another matter and depends on the person's practice, level of aspiration, etc. Apart from training to realize the twofold emptinesses, a Bodhisattva strives to develope bodhicitta, compassion, paramitas, etc. Why don't you make a resolve now to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. It does not prevent you from attaining whatever there is to be attained in MCTB - only that your Buddhahood will be assured in the future. Also, according to various sutras, the attainment/realization/afflictions-removed in an Arhant can be compared to a 6th or 8th bhumi Bodhisattva. Not elaborated much by Thusness. For instance I just wrote: However, there is still a further realization on ‘the arising and passing sensations are the very awareness itself’ that is sort of combining the first and second stanza into one (but this is not mentioned on that particular Thusness’s article). However, Richard has talked about it somewhere in his articles. The 'On Anatta and Emptiness ...' article is a good read and covers many of the core insights and experiences.

More like 'you can't' than 'you don't'. Even if you wanted to, at that level you cannot give rise to Lust/anger/etc because the afflictions, fetters, defilements are removed. They will use wisdom to save whoever there are but not cause harm to anyone. I'm not sure what you have in mind but I think you'll be interested in this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html

See Buddha's high standards/criteria for claiming 'Arahantship': http://www.yellowrobe.com/component/content/article/120-majjhima-nikaya/318-chabbisodhana-sutta-the-sixfold-purity.html "Discourse on six ways of testing Arahatship"

It is not a matter of training in morality... more like a combination of wisdom and samadhi perhaps, in the process of eliminating fetters. However, when the afflictions are totally ended, it will also be a kind of perfection of morality. In traditional Buddhism, Arhants are also known to be perfect in sila or morality. Therefore, the 'emotional elimination model' does in fact lead to the 'action elimination model' both of which are supported in the original scriptures by the original Buddha. For example - if you do not have sexual lust anymore, you cannot rape someone. You cannot '...' (insert crime) because the afflictions/lust/anger are gone.

Actualism is pretty good and their online resource and articles are worth going through, but there are some problems - particularly the over emphasis on the practice. Right view is equally important to achieve Realization. Even though Richard had realized Anatta, he under-emphasized the Realization part, over-emphasized the practice to induce PCEs (Pure Consciousness Experience - which is simply an experience but not the realization of anatta), and over-emphasized his achievement. Also, whatever Richard experienced is found in Buddhism even though he thinks he is the first in the world to realize/experience whatever he experienced due to a lack of understanding of Buddhism (see my 47 pages document titled 'Actual Freedom and Buddhism' about this at http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms ) I and Thusness do not think Richard has overcomed all subtle dispositions. Richard still actively have sex and have a smoking habit, for example. Though he claims to be above passions, we doubt so. There is a 'grayscale of no self/Self' as Thusness puts it. This grayscale could be the difference between Stream Entry to Arhatship. After maturing the insight of Anatta, afflictions may be reduced to a large degree (but not totally removed) and one may easily over-estimate one's achievement, but without going through all aspects of life, it is best we do not over-claim. As Thusness said, even after maturing the insight of Anatta to a high degree, one still does not eliminate the deeper dispositions. However, Thusness did talk about (from personal experience) transcending sexual lust since many years back. So yes, if you reach a very deep level of enlightenment, you go beyond lust. He also talks about fearlessness, anger-lessness, etc. However he recently told me that these are not totally removed (though reduced to a very high extent). As I wrote in the 'Actual Freedom and Buddhism' document: Update: Thusness just informed me that emotions still arise on some occasions, and that he has as-of-yet not completed his path, however emotions (if and when they do arise) recoils/self-liberates/subsides as soon as they arise. Still, my above mapping of the various stages of realizations and the observation that Thusness does not deny the ‘Buddhist 10 fetters/emotion-elimination model of enlightenment’ still stands valid. He also notes from experience that the momentum of the experience of pure sensate clarity without a self/soul in waking life will eventually carry on into dreams (even though he doesn’t dreams nowadays except when physically ill), and thereby allowing fears and negative emotions to subside in the dream state (PCE continues throughout the dream state and no affective quality/emotions are present therein). Even though he does not deny that there is a link between the experience of Anatta and the ‘freedom from emotions/passions’, he also warned people not to over-claim what they have attained. He seems to think that it is highly possible to be tricked into thinking that one has attained something (like total and complete freedom from emotions) prematurely after the realization of Anatta. He said that one has to go through life (and its hardships) before proclaiming such things, and that there is a ‘grayscale of no-self’ and we have to go through life to experience the many faces of self/Self in the forms of attachments. He thinks that it is very naïve to think that one has overcome all sufferings and attachments when one has not faced with tremendous hardships in life (without the hardships, of course everything is fine) – for example being nailed to the cross like Jesus Christ. We should not make premature claims because we simply have not experienced all scenarios in life. He also said that (after the realization of Anatta), it may seem like complete freedom from emotions where emotions and passions never arises at all, but actually there are deeper dispositions than just a matter of directness. In directness, there is no subject-object division or gap, there is no separation, and without this separation it is simply ‘too short’ to have time and too simple to have thoughts, and one might think that therefore it is final, as stated in the 7 Phases of Thusness’s insights. Nevertheless, Thusness Phase 5 still leaves traces. He also mentioned that in practice, one should be sincere about tendencies because it conveys the deeper disposition. For example, when I asked Thusness for his opinion on Richard’s self-confessed habit of smoking, active sex-life, etc, he talks about them as examples of ‘deeper disposition’ that will not be removed even after maturing the insight of anatta. In fact according to Buddha’s standards, if you are still having sex and smoking, you cannot by definition be an arhant since you have already transgressed 2 out of 9 principles (the third and the fifth) that an Arhant cannot transgress due to the complete end of fermentations and the ‘deeper dispositions’ and any subtle cravings that Thusness spoke of. (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.007.than.html) By Buddha’s standards (the commentaries, and the modern masters, and Daniel Ingram all have different standards), I would say that perhaps Richard has only reached the level of Sotapanna or likely Sakadagami (first or second out of four levels of enlightenment towards Arhantship (complete liberation): see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakadagami , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An%C4%81g%C4%81mi , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arahant). Having a realization of Anatta does not mean you have ended the deeper dispositions.

No, removing afflictions and sufferings are achieved even at the Arahat level. Buddhahood is on a totally different level and confers things like omniscience, perfection of virtues (paramitas), skillful means, powers, 32 major and 80 minor marks etc etc. I am not aware of any living Buddhas today among the ranks of the enlightened - mostly those who are enlightened in Buddhism are Bodhisattvas and Arhants (or Non Returners, Once Returners, Stream Enterers). Even though Daniel Ingram has very deep insights and enlightenment, I do not think he has achieved Arahatship in Buddha's definition. His definition of Arahatship is in some ways at odds with the Buddha, whose criteria for Arhatship is strictly the elimination of fetters (such as greed, hatred, ignorance, etc) and afflictions and clinging and suffering. Also, in terms of realization, through his previous practice he realized the 1st Stanza of Anatta, but only over the past few months through practicing 'Actualism' he is starting to experience and realize the 2nd Stanza of Anatta (see Thusness's article On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection). Well actually the 2nd Stanza of Anatta is all over Buddhism as well, and especially emphasized in Zen and some other traditions, but somehow he overlooked that aspect. But there is more insights on Anatta and Emptiness than the two stanzas. Also, he is starting to be more accepting to the elimination of afflictions because he is seeing how it is possible in experience. His understanding and experience is still improving. He used to think that on the insight/wisdom front (in contrast to say, morality) his achievement is final and complete, but this position is recently challenged and he no longer holds this view. Nevertheless, you can take MCTB to be your practice guide because it already has very deep insights and practical advice and has led many people to enlightenment - there are few books out there that has this level of clarity and helpfulness/practicality. The MCTB guide will lead you very far before you need to worry about the other subtler aspects. Thusness commented last year in his article Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience: ...Similarly in Theravada mind is being de-constructed and not experienced as an entity but as mind moments. The transience is also fully embraced when we clearly see that mind as an arising moment is itself non-dual, non-local and complete. Mind moment does not arise or cease anywhere in particular. This is what I tried to bring out in Dharma Overground unfortunately the conditions aren't there and I am unable to convey this message across clearly. :-) An interesting point worth mentioning is about the maps and techniques detailed in Daniel's MCTB (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha). It is a very systematic way of leading one step by step towards the full integration of the transience. It is also the state of "No Mind" in Zen. Paraphrasing from Kenneth, "once we are familiar with the vocabulary, we are effectively talking the same stuff". That said, I think what lack in the approach of MCTB is an effective way to allow practitioners to have adequate experience of the vividness, realness and presence of Awareness and the full experience of these qualities in the transience. Without which it will not be easy to realize that "the arising and passing sensations are the very awareness itself." A balance is therefore needed, otherwise practitioners may experience equanimity but skewed towards dispassion and lack realization...

Freedom from all clingings and afflictions (as taught by Buddha) are possible, despite his dissing of the emotional-elimination model of enlightenment in his book. Daniel is recently starting to see how it is possible to be rid of emotions and attachments. He is still progressing. We want enlightenment because it promises nothing short of the end of all sufferings.

What you call Awareness, Maharaj-ji calls Consciousness. What you call Consciousness, Maharaj-ji calls Awareness. Apparently Maharaj-ji uses different terminologies from the Upanishads.

Interesting topic, I just commented on something related yesterday which I then updated into my Who Am I? e-book/journal: Found some quotations by Indian teacher Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, and wrote some comments in red: "Now the consciousness, when it gets involved with the body-mind, is the individual. It is conditioned by body and mind. Mind is concepts. Whatever it receives through the five senses, and is stored, that is the mind. And whatever the words that flow out, that is also mind. So when that consciousness is conditioned by the body and the mind, it is individualistic, a personality." Comments: this is the normal state of ordinary sentient beings, identified totally with their stories, mind, body, "I am this and that". "And I always tell people, you depersonify yourself by not identifying with the body-mind. When you do that, you are that manifest principle; you are no more a personality, you are only consciousness. When you are in that consciousness state, you are in a position to observe the mind flow, any thoughts occurring to you - you are apart from thought. You don't identify with that thought. Since you observe the body and its actions, you are not one with those; you are apart from that body. Thus, you are now in consciousness; this is the first stage. So when you are only consciousness, you are all manifest; this is to be realized. Then, provided you are, everything is, your world is, and your god is. You are the primary cause, the prerequisite for anything else to exist, whether it be your god or your world. You abide only in consciousness. In your attention, only consciousness should be there. That is the meditation." Comments: this is one of the four aspects of I AM: the impersonality aspect. It is seen here that everything is the manifestation of the Universal Source, the Consciousness, and no individual persons is involved in the doing/creating/manifesting/perceiving of life and phenomena: Impersonal Consciousness alone is that which manifests and perceives and animates all lives. A personal self as such is non-operational and non-existent. "Now the next step is - the question raised in the morning - are you in a position to observe consciousness? This is also the final step. When you are in a position to observe or witness consciousness - and, of course, the vital breath, body and its actions - then by virtue of that very observation, you are apart from the consciousness. So when you are in a position to observe consciousness, you are out of consciousness. Then you are what we call 'the awareness state,' the vijnana or jnana state. Is it firmly stabilized in you, or are you still wavering, vacillating?" Comments: this is the Realization of I AM. The realization of the True Essence of Being that transcends and is prior to all manifest. It is that Existence, that Self-Existing, Self-Shining Awareness, that stands prior to and witnesses manifest-consciousness. IT does not come and go, it is Pure Existence-Awareness that is Still, Unmoving, Abiding - the non-objective Principle of Awareness alone that witnesses the coming and going of consciousness, as well as dream, and deep sleep. For my case, impersonality is experienced only after the Realization of I AM - but why is Nisargadatta talking about impersonality first? I asked Thusness this question and he said the order does not matter. And yes, it makes sense - I remember in the past I had episodes of experiencing the 'Intensity of Luminosity' (one of the four aspects of I AM) even before Realization of I AM. Also, Thusness mentioned how Christians can experience the Impersonality aspect and have the experience of 'being lived' through prayer and submission to God alone (without going through the I AM realization). So there is no particular order, they are all important insights and complements each other. There is no 'higher' or 'lower' realizations, they are all necessary. The reason why Nisargadatta spoke of Impersonality as 'first step' is probably because that is how it unfolded for him, just as I would speak of the realization of I AM as 'first step' because this is how it unfolded for me. It does not have to apply for everyone. The important thing isn't about how it 'unfolds', since these are just some timeless facts that can be discovered/verified at any 'time' (actually, only discovered in timeless Now) with no particular necessary order. Stories of 'unfolding' are simply relative truths. -------- *(from an old post about the 4 aspects of I AM) Thusness told me that at present try not to talk too much about non-dual (to someone else in another forum) and he also talked to me about the deepening of the "I AM" in 4 aspects: 1) the aspect of impersonality, 2) the aspect of the degree of luminosity, 3) the aspect of dissolving the need to re-confirm and abide in I AMness and understanding why such a need is irrelevant, 4) the aspect of experiencing effortlessness. Impersonality will help dissolve the sense of self but it has the danger of making one attached to a metaphysical essence. It makes a practitioner feel "God". The degree of luminosity refers to feeling with entire being, feel wholely and directly without thoughts. Feeling 'realness' of whatever one encounters, the tree bark, the sand, etc. (see the next post) Dissolving the need to re-confirm is important as whatever is done is an attempt to distant itself from itself, if there is no way one can distant from the "I AM", the attempt to abide in it is itself an illusion. On the other hand, abiding in presence is a form of meditative practice, like chanting, and leads to absorption. It can result in the oceanic experience. But once one focuses on the 4 aspects mentioned above, one will have that experience too.

If I'm not wrong, Daniel focused on Vipassana until after first path. You can also try asking at Daniel's forum http://www.dharmaoverground.org

Here's neo advaita for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UuaOye9VyI

Hahaha.. When I look at my own posts especially like 5-6 years back, I also face-palm. Thusness too probably face-palm many times when I knew him many years ago. Anyway I just found a perfect solution to save the posts. There is a small link at the bottom of each thread to 'Download' the entire thread in TTB... I just realized this, don't know if it has been there all along or it was a new feature. It works great.