xabir2005

No, the afterthought is not the same as the sound. The afterthought is simply an afterthought, it is not the experience of the sound. The thought is another experience. The sound is awareness due to certain conditions, the thought is also awareness due to certain conditions. But the sound is not the thought. The recollection of the past is simply an arising experience due to conditions. By itself there is nothing wrong about it. However, it becomes delusional when one establish a subject and object duality based on recollection. For example, it becomes delusional when one thinks that one has an inherent and permanent self or existence that persists from the past till now till future, based on that recollection. That is subject and object duality because it presumes that there is a permanent subject experiencing those changes. So, it is not the recollection that is the problem, it is the delusion that arises due to karmic propensity in relation to recollection that is the problem. Experiencing dualistically is delusional. Thinking the thought 'I exist' is delusional, because even the thought 'I exist' is not a truly existing self but simply a thought that arise and vanish according to conditions, no permanent self can be found in or apart from that thought. (Of course everyone uses the words 'I' and 'you' in conventional language but it, but the difference between Buddha and sentient beings is that Buddha sees that it is just a convention but is not true in an ultimate truly existing sense) However if we see that the dualistic thought is just an arising thought that is non-dual, vivid and empty, then delusion immediately ends, or in other words they self-liberate and leave no traces. The key lies not in forcing out thinking, but in seeing that the nature of all experience, including recollection, thoughts, sounds, etc, they are simply arising on its own accord according to conditions without a separate self, thinker, perceiver, agent, self, apart from the moment to moment arising, and that those arising themselves are dependently originated and empty. Recollection of a past experience is fine and even a Buddha recollects, however dualistic thinking is not necessary and causes suffering. Projecting the sense of "I" that has "experienced that" is delusional. If we see the true nature of that thought and all other sensations, they all self-liberate. Again you don't get it. This is not a state of awareness, it is what is always already the case. Even if you think the thought "I exist" doesn't mean it truly exists, as that very thought is not self and is not experienced by a self. It is just delusion. It is just a thought arising, and a delusional one. Always already, there is no thinker apart from thought, no seer apart from scenery, no hearer apart from sounds. In seeing just forms, in hearing just sounds. This is not a stage to attain but an insight to be realised. From the beginning there never was a self to begin with, so how can a self merge with sound? A 'self' is merely fabricated and delusional, how can a non-existent delusional thing merge with the actuality of a sound? There is in reality just sounds from the beginning and not a hearer. The thought 'I hear' cannot hear. A conceptual hearer is just a thought and isn't a real hearer. The actuality of things is that there is just sounds, thoughts, smells, arising without a smeller/thinker/hearer. There's a vast difference between the contents of thought and the actuality of things. The thought "I hear" doesn't mean a separate self truly exists, it just means that a thought of self has arisen. It has no basis. No. Having a temporary meditation experience of nonduality (which is not that rare) is far different from having an insight into the nature of reality as non-dual. The prior is a temporary experience, the latter, is a permanent insight, known as 'enlightenment'. And you cannot lose enlightenment after you realised the nature of reality. You cannot lose non-dual experience once you realise non-duality is not an experience but the realisation of the nature of reality. Awareness cannot become delocalized, it never was localized in the first place. The sense of a 'me center' arising in an unenlightened sentient being is just another sensation and thought arising without a center. Basically the sense of a 'me' is without basis and simply arises due to ignorance of the nature of reality. But what you said is not what I mean. That is why I wrote in post #126: We can talk about this in two ways: All there is is awareness, in other words, everything you experience is awareness. Or - There is just sensations and thoughts and no other thing called awareness, in other words, since there is just sensations and thoughts, those sensations and thoughts are the only 'awareness' there is, there is no separate perceiver or awareness. Both are the same thing. There is a danger however, in reifying Case 1) into a Brahman, something ultimate, unchanging and independent. Though if it is not reified, that is fine. Case 2 is what is more commonly explained in classical Nikaya, original Buddhist texts. Even though it never talks about Awareness as the essence of all experiences, it is implied already that awareness is non-dual because there cannot be a subject/object split in anatta, there cannot be a split when all there is is sensations and aggregates. Reification would be imputing a particular set of sensation as 'Subject' or 'Awareness' while the other set as 'Objects', but in reality, all there is is self-aware sensations and thoughts, if all there is is self-aware manifestation, in other words only sensations and aggregates, and that sensations and aggregates auto-imply awareness, why talk about awareness at all? There is absolutely no reification here, only impermanent dependently originated sensations and thoughts whether they are gross (gross waking dream sensory experience) or subtle (such as dream, astral realms, or the subtler formless I AMness experience). As Greg Goode said, "once experience doesn't seem divided and once it doesn't seem like there is anything other than consciousness, then the notion of consciousness itself will gently and peacefully dissolve." P.S. As to Lucky noticing similarities between Advaita and Buddhism in terms of non-dual, I have to say that the non-dual experience in Advaita and Buddhism is exactly the same. The only difference lies in the view, whereby Advaita makes nondual awareness into Pure Subjectivity transcending and encompassing phenomena, but Buddhism sees only vivid and empty (dependently originated) manifestations and thus which leads to subtler realisation of the Anatta and Empty nature of luminosity in Buddhism. The difference thus lies not in non-dual but in Anatta and Emptiness. There is no hearer, only sounds, hearing is just sounds. No seer, only scenery, the seeing is the scenery. What you call 'awareness' is only just dependently originated phenomena, sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. Absolutely no reification here. Reification would be stating - there is an independent awareness perceiving things, or an unchanging substance, like a mirror, behind all changes. Buddhism's 'awareness has always been so' does not mean a Brahman or an ultimate subject or an ultimate perceiver, rather it means all along there never has been a perceiver, only sensations, thoughts, sounds, sights, just that.

Just slightly updated my previous post, got to go now.

No, what I mean is 'realise reality IN your direct ordinary present experience', not 'realise reality in a new, altered, state of awareness'. The emphasis on 'direct experience' is because we cannot realise reality through concepts, but only through investigation and observing our direct present sensate reality. Investigate not by observing from a distance, not by making analysis or study, but by completely feeling what is without division. For example, you stated that you cannot find the I as an object, but yet you clearly feel something is clearly present, and cognizing, which you call 'I'. It is just a sensation of Beingness, Presence, Consciousness. If your mode of inquiry is self inquiry, it will lead to an undoubtable experience and realisation of that I AMness. It is non-dual because the sense of I AMness is not divided into subject and object, it is not something you are separate from, observing it, and therefore it is taken that you are it, I am That, I AM. However if we investigate, with a slightly different mode, on how there is no separate perceiver of sounds and sights, just sounds, scenery, etc, we discover that we also cannot find sounds and sights as an object standing apart from a perceiver, but is simply present as awareness. At this point we may think that awareness (observer) and objects are one, but a further insight will be how there is just self-aware phenomena, no observer at all. No, you cannot become the sound and the sound cannot become you. The sense of 'you' is just more sensations, the sensation of sound is just more sensations, all arising and vanishing according to conditions. The sense of self arises as a result of ignorance, but is just more sensations, thoughts, phenomena. A sensation cannot become another sensation. They are manifestations under differing conditions. Firewood cannot turn into ashes. Winter cannot turn into spring. The sound arises due to dependent origination. The experience and sensation of 'me' arising is also awareness in another condition. The experience of formlessness of AMness is likewise awareness with different condition, though it is not just an experience but a 'realisation' or 'insight' into the relative nature of Mind (as opposed to the ultimate, empty nature of mind, as explained by Dalai Lama), i.e. in the meditative state without obscuration from grosser concepts and experience the mind is experienced and realised as space-like and at any time we cannot find a boundary to Mind, the Mind never stops being present and cognizant, etc, though further insights like non-dual, anatta, emptiness remains to be revealed. To state that something can become something is reification. Anyway there is something I feel is important: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...aggregates.html Rigpa and Aggregates (Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination) From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram): Dear Mark, Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant. I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context: First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful: Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world. In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations. Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present. Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality. As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom: "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging. As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent. The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny." I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge. Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

When I say things are not made by something, it means there is no origin, it does not come from somewhere and then later goes somewhere or transform into something else. Rather it is a new phenomenon but it is interdependently originated. The issue of time is also a complex and interesting topic, but it's late now and I have to go sleep, so if you are interested I can recommend a very well written article by David Loy on the deconstruction of time: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26578.htm When you understand what Dogen means by summer does not become autumn, autumn does not become winter, winter does not become spring, and firewood does not turn into ashes, life does not turn into death, the whole construct of time collapses.

Yes. And the sense or notion of 'someone' is simply another sensation, a thought that arises due to conditions. The will is arisen due to conditions including past (in the form of imprints) and present influence and his own analytical, psychological, emotional processes, etc. There is no 'me' to make choices. However choices are not 'made by conditions', as explained D.O. means no origin, no source, everything is a new manifesting phenomenon according to conditions but it does not mean an external thing, agent or condition 'made it so'. Notice when the Buddha taught dependent origination, he said "When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, neither is that. With the cessation of this, that ceases." He did not say, 'This will create that. This will destroy that. This is the source of that. That originates from this. This transforms into that. This thing comes from there, and will eventually go there.' All these are extreme views, views of coming from, going to, source and origin, agenthood, creator, etc, are extreme views. The sound of bell ringing did not come from and isn't made from the bell, the hand, the stick, the ears -- the bell can stay in the temple forever but if nobody actually hits it with a stick, no sound will arise. So what D.O. is talking about is not 'something making something', rather, it's saying that everything is actually a new phenomenon that arises when all the conditions come together, the whole universe manifesting as this one thought, one sound, one action, poetically described as 'The Universe scrubbing the stain off the toilet' (quoting Brad Warner). This is not just a theory but can be experienced, as Thusness said, ...on hearing someone hitting a bell, the stick, the bell, the vibration of the air, the ears all coming together for this sensation of sound to arise, we will have Maha experience. Also, it is as Zen Master Dogen said: Although its light is wide and great, the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide. The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in one dewdrop. Now coming back to the question of choice, yes, choice are made when all conditions come together. For example there may apparently be many choices, but finally, a choice is still made after much analysis. The whole analysis process, imprints (i.e. past experience, etc), and other influences, are the condition for a final descision or choice. However it is not the case that the choice or decision is 'made by' the imprints, just as it is not 'made by' karma, (imprints, karma, etc are just one of the many conditions which cannot 'make' things), rather, it is when all the conditions come together, a choice is made. It doesn't deny that individual action is involved, individual as in conventionally I am different from you, it just denies a separate and independent agent or actor or controller existing apart from the processes of life, which does include things like will, thinking, etc. Also, those conditions can be changed, for example the bad habit of smoking is a strong condition imprinted in our consciousness, but it CAN be removed. It would be a false and silly view to say 'I am fated to smoke'. Similarly, our afflictive mind can be liberated. And that is the point of practicing. Fate, determinism, implies that things are fixed cannot be changed and must follow a linear causal chain from past to present to future without ability to change. But in reality, conditions can change if we make proper effort, and therefore, the point is: know what you want and practice, Buddhism is practical, otherwise if it isn't practical and cannot liberate sentient beings from suffering, Buddha wouldn't have bothered. There is no free will in the sense of agent choosing things, but it is not the same as determinism too.

If you read my previous post, you will see that I do not deny that choices and will are very important part of our life. What I am denying is an independent, separately existing thinker or chooser or controller. No doer does not mean no action and no choices. Will, choices, they are arising thoughts and will become important conditions in our lives. Therefore, we always make choices, give rise to intentions. The power of vows and aspiration is recognised as very powerful in Buddhism. But this does not mean there is a thinker or doer. Secondly, I already explained how one's action is not forced by some other factors like past karma, fate (and there is no fate in Buddhism), or other things. Those are just a set of conditions, just like a bell is a condition but wouldn't ring by itself unless there are other conditions such as someone's hands hitting it with a stick, for example. Karma by itself cannot force a person to do bad things. Their actions and intentions are another matter. There is no point blaming anything practically speaking, but we should change the conditions - for example, to liberate the afflicted mind by practicing.

We can talk about this in two ways: All there is is awareness, in other words, everything you experience is awareness. Or - There is just sensations and thoughts and no other thing called awareness, in other words, since there is just sensations and thoughts, those sensations and thoughts are the only 'awareness' there is, there is no separate perceiver or awareness. Both are the same thing. There is a danger however, in reifying Case 1) into a Brahman, something ultimate, unchanging and independent. Though if it is not reified, that is fine. Case 2 is what is more commonly explained in classical Nikaya, original Buddhist texts. Even though it never talks about Awareness as the essence of all experiences, it is implied already that awareness is non-dual because there cannot be a subject/object split in anatta, there cannot be a split when all there is is sensations and aggregates. Reification would be imputing a particular set of sensation as 'Subject' or 'Awareness' while the other set as 'Objects', but in reality, all there is is self-aware sensations and thoughts, if all there is is self-aware manifestation, in other words only sensations and aggregates, and that sensations and aggregates auto-imply awareness, why talk about awareness at all? There is absolutely no reification here, only impermanent dependently originated sensations and thoughts whether they are gross (gross waking dream sensory experience) or subtle (such as dream, astral realms, or the subtler formless I AMness experience). As Greg Goode said, "once experience doesn't seem divided and once it doesn't seem like there is anything other than consciousness, then the notion of consciousness itself will gently and peacefully dissolve." P.S. As to Lucky noticing similarities between Advaita and Buddhism in terms of non-dual, I have to say that the non-dual experience in Advaita and Buddhism is exactly the same. The only difference lies in the view, whereby Advaita makes nondual awareness into Pure Subjectivity transcending and encompassing phenomena, but Buddhism sees only vivid and empty (dependently originated) manifestations and thus which leads to subtler realisation of the Anatta and Empty nature of luminosity in Buddhism. The difference thus lies not in non-dual but in Anatta and Emptiness. There is no hearer, only sounds, hearing is just sounds. No seer, only scenery, the seeing is the scenery. What you call 'awareness' is only just dependently originated phenomena, sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. Absolutely no reification here. Reification would be stating - there is an independent awareness perceiving things, or an unchanging substance, like a mirror, behind all changes. Buddhism's 'awareness has always been so' does not mean a Brahman or an ultimate subject or an ultimate perceiver, rather it means all along there never has been a perceiver, only sensations, thoughts, sounds, sights, just that.

A few more by Shayne - what creates is the same question as what hears. i dont believe we create ourselves............not in the first sense. we create our own reality if you may. money for example is a creation of ours we accept as fact. but what hears? me is a word. i is a word. if you get rid of words and use defiantions.....what hears? the sum of all our parts. paying attention to the breath something still hears sounds. what is it? we hear sounds regardless if we pay attention or not. we aware the world wether we like it or not. it is the sum of all our parts. the awareness. and this has nothing to do with the focus or the attention. it is that which sees. hears. feels and tastes all at once. .... Awareness is not attention. awareness awares reality ( the immediate nowness ) all at once. everything in it is included. i am new in each instant. i have no philosophy. i focus on nothing. not one thing. pure awareness. .... their is no doer. their is just doing. their is no thinker. their is just thought. their is no attention. it is just awareness.

From ZenGuide: Clangor: Quote: "we hear sounds regardless if we pay attention to them or not." ......... This is not emptiness, though it may happen automatically. Awareness does not exist without an object [of which to be aware of]. Once the object exists there is the [imagined] object. This is "aware of". In a sense, one could say 'awareness' and 'emptiness' are the same. Shayne: no.....you hear the sound of typing these words you wrote regardless if you want too or not. this is awareness and is something you cannot run too. run away from. improve or negect. it requiures no object. the mind ( the attention ) is what amplifies things. focus on your breathing. the truth lies there. ......... sounds arise. their is no listener. they arise as themselves. but what is this listener that people think they have? it is none other then then attention. ......... sitting still. listening to the sound of the world. what hears beyond the attention. why awareness hears. the senses. awareness is emptiness and attention is emptiness to a point. emptiness fills the body. awares the world regardless if we want to or not. we are here. .......... their is no great void. their is nothingness. no one thing ness. this emptiness you speak of springs from the self. when i was a boy of 13 i remember attempting to look for something. i found it. my attention. i looked in the mirror. i looked at my eyes. i looked at my eyebrows....my lips. then i just stopped. my " mind " unfocused and i was pure awareness. when i was a young adult i was without i till i met my ex. now that im 38 i am unpreoccupied with my attention. ive learnt my " lesson " when not thinking the attention dont exist. when not focusing on a particular sense object the attention dont exist. attention is insecureity is doubt. close your eyes.............the eyes naturally open by themselves when you are no longer focusing. what is was and always will be is this moment. bipolar is a conditioning of the mind. i dont believe in the id the ego or the super ego. i dont believe in the subconscious. i dont believe in time.

That which is aware of the thought 'it's not there', 'it exists as a potential', that is the fully present and undeniable presence-awareness. You can't avoid You even if you want to. It's late, that's all for now.

Not making intent is not necessarily another intent, just as not thinking about ice cream is not another thought of ice cream. It just means not thinking of ice cream. (note: I'm not saying force yourself to stop thinking of ice cream, which would be willful and contrived) Presence Awareness is always already present, some of us just didn't recognised it. But just because one is lost in one's imaginary identification and fails to notice awareness doesn't mean it's not there. It's nature is self-knowing presence. If we just take a look at the observer we discover that consciousness has always been there, present and cognizing the presence and absence of thoughts. The Presence is unfabricated, always present, but overlooked. It cannot be developed, but it can be recognised. It is good to 'habitualize it', but at the same time one shouldn't mistake it as a state to attempt to stabilize in, i.e. 'rest the mind in Awareness' when Awareness is already always at rest and always stable (whereas 'unstable' thoughts occurs through consciousness). Any kind of effort, and attempt to re-confirm and abide is extra and more dualistic thought, projecting a distance of itself from itself. What I wrote is above speaking from the perspective of the I AM/Eternal Witness.

Even if you do not make the intent to stop all thoughts, presence-awareness is effortlessly present. It requires no effort. Usually in meditation we have an intention to stop thinking, and due to the intention, all other thoughts are dropped, including the original intention. However if it goes the wrong way, like 'me' trying to force out all thoughts, that is just more thoughts. However if we make no attempt at manipulating and just relax in Presence without attempting to do anything or manipulate thoughts (whether to stop it, analyze it, control it, etc), and at the same time make no attempt to chase after thoughts, eventually thoughts stop on its own accord. Conditions are not pre determined by a previous condition. It interdependently originates with present conditions as well. Your intention to do something is not due to fate, but could be due to a reaction to your circumstances. Intention can manifest in any way and there is no fixed way it must go, but whatever arise, it does not arise independently apart from conditions but interdependently. No, arise and vanish on their own just means there is no person behind the thought, there is just the thought, arising and vanishing by itself. It does not mean it is determined by some other thing or some God or whatever. Nothing is determined. But they arise by itself without a separate controller. Thought makes descisions and thinks that there is a thinker that made it. A descision-thought could arise based on reflection on a previous thought or event and it appears as if there is a permanent agent behind and controlling the thoughts all along, but all there is is arising thoughts and never a thinker. Not sure if you get what I mean.

Pause all thoughts, all intentions, all effort. In the gap between two thoughts, two intentions, two efforts, is it a dead nothingness or is there something alive, present and cognizing? In this presence-awareness in the gap of two thoughts, is there a split between a knower and known, or just a sheer sense of existence and knowing you cannot separate from? Can you see that awareness is not dependent on intentions and thoughts, otherwise in that gap it would have been a dead nothingness? Yet looking at a visual form, a sound, a thought, is it made out of something other than non-dual awareness? Is there a truly existing division between knower and known or is everything just self-knowing presence?

Yes, but they are the same non-dual perceiving awareness. It is not the case that Awareness is real while objects are unreal. Rather, it is Awareness is the sensations and phenomena itself, but though appearing vividly is empty of inherent existence. When our mind and experienced are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. We think that the ability of a Subject to control Objects is freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. That everything is freely manifesting and dissolving (including intentions and actions) without a separate doer or subject is freedom, whereas the sense of a subject needing to manipulate and control things, or a subject that is seeking or avoiding an object, is what is called 'bondage'. But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes. Things do not happen by chance or randomly or determined, but due to conditions. So there is no control, but there is influence by intentions and imprints. They dependently originate. On the level of intentions and motivations, we walk to get to the supermarket, we practice to get enlightened. In practice, we just be fully present practicing, walking, sitting, etc, without seeking for meaning and purpose, and see how everything "arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality." including thoughts of 'me getting somewhere'.

Attention doesn't 'come from' somewhere. Attention is a mental factor, that can be cultivated, sustained in meditation. It is important for meditations like vipassana and for daily work. This attention dependently originates, and isn't located 'somewhere', it is clearly present in our experience but also empty of any inherency or location, just like any thought... a thought though experienced clearly isn't located anywhere inherently out there or inside, and change from moment to moment. When we look for the place it comes from, the place it abides, the place it goes to, we find nothing, just emptiness. Same for attention. It is a mental phenomena. Yet we can't deny that is a vivid presence (though empty). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicara Agree here. As for 'body', if you mean physical body, in a sense it is true because the sense of body having a shape or being a solid object is also just more reification, whereas in reality and direct experience there are just points of bodily sensations. As for intent, Please clarify more on this and which is which: Intent and effort are two different things. There is positive, an active intent, and also the negative, a process of letting go, letting phenomena be. Movement is a notion arising from relativity, having two points such as A and B while A moves to B. In direct experience however, there is no movement. There is change, but the change is non moving because the recollection of a previous experience is simply a presently arising thought, and does not mean that point A moved to point B. In direct experience, just this One Sound, One Thought. It's hard to describe this but if you experience non dual, you'll literally feel like you aren't moving anywhere even though change is constantly occuring. At the same time it is not the same as the perspective of an Eternal Witness. If you experience it you'll know. Related article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...irect-path.html Also, that I am a materialist is a gross misunderstanding since I do not have a view of universe as inherently existing objectively while I am part of this objective universe.