Unconditioned

Off-topic... but it looks like he's got a secret... the picture instantly made me smile and I'm not quite sure why.

I've read here, other forums, and in books about the Buddhist ... ideal? (probably not the right word) to end suffering. In another post about the cycle of life and death it made me think about what does it mean to suffer anyway? I used to experience a lot of depression and I still do but I'm not caught up in it any more. When I used to identify with depression I would suffer ("Why does MY life suck so much? Why can't *I* get all the girls? Why does everyone else have a better life than ME", etc.). So the identification, taking an event and making it literally part of my sense of identity, caused me to suffer. Now I try to just observe what is happening as it happens ("There is a sense of sadness here, I feel an anxious sensation in my stomach and there is a lack of energy"). So when something happens, some event that is being observed, the degree of how much of my 'being' is identified with it determines how much, if any, suffering occurs (whether in that moment or at some future time). By observing rather than identifying, I tend to be able to see the more subtle aspects of my identification with the 'things/events' and attribute that identification to the suffering. So even when something pleasant comes to an end that is just fine because that's what it does. When something unpleasant happens, that's just fine because that's what it does. Is this non-suffering or is it escapism? My intuition tells me that there is a fine line between observation and escape/passivity. What do others think about suffering / non-suffering? Identification? Passivity?

Yes.. I think you're onto something... seems to come back to awareness. To be awareness itself, seems to free the identification with the conditioning... seems to remove any separations at all... So that said, how do we shift from identification to 'absorption'? What causes the shift? Is it merely paying complete attention to everything at once (which is not as easy as it might sound, at least for me)?

You are aware that your experience is based on habit and conditioning - this is truth as you've said and is neutral. But I think I have the same question you do... and in addition: Can we be separate from our conditioning which is the basis for the desire? Can we recondition ourselves consciously through increased awareness? If we see superficial sex, or any habit that causes us pain, in a different light can that help us be free from it or are we exchanging one prison for another? Hmm.

Boy do we have you fooled! Just ideas... signs painted with different shades and symbols. Some of the words may resonate or they may be useless. And in my case, personally, I have an extremely hard time of saying what I mean... so there tends to be a lot of words. It's like trying to describe a flavor. Without going too off topic, is there a difference between the idea and reality? Doesn't the idea take place in reality? I mean this in the sense that the idea is a real thing... that we label "idea"... and labels are real things too... but to see them for what they are, as they exist in reality, is different than to mistake a label for something other than a label.

What is wrong with the desire for the experience? That is there, isn't it? We're human, it's in our nature to want to proliferate. I agree with Carson on the point extremes. If we create an idea of "No we shouldn't! It's bad!" or "We should indulge whenever we want to, who cares!" I think the outcomes of those ideas can be harmful to spiritual practice (whatever that may be for you). In regards to celibacy as a spiritual tool, I have not tried that so I can't comment on my experiences in that regard. Bottom line, anything can become an addiction (pull/greed) or a demon (push/fear). But I liken it to technology: it can serve any purpose we give it however the act itself is neither good nor bad. It is only good or bad in context of something else (spiritual practice, religion, ethics, etc.) Just my 2c.

Chris, very good point. This 'philosophy' could be interpreted quite a few ways. "Accept things as they are" means accepting all things, not excluding or running from anything nor trying to add/grasp (which is also a form of exclusion). I actually find it extremely difficult to communicate what that means without it coming off as being nihilistic or extremely passive. Another way to put it may be "experiencing what is, in it's totality, with no resistance". This doesn't mean sit in a cave and do nothing. We can still take action, but we're not ignoring aspects of what is going on. For example, someone insults me. I am aware of my face turning red, a fluttery feeling in my stomach, my mind starts to race... I am also aware that what they are saying is truth... lets say they call me fat, and I am lol. I'm also aware of their compulsion to dominate, etc. etc. In feeling all of that, and accepting that it is happening, I am not resisting what is happening right now. If I don't want to believe that I'm fat, or if I pretend I'm not angry, then I am resisting what is happening at the current moment and will suffer either at that moment or in the future. In this case I may insult them back, which can lead to guilt, a sense of superiority, etc. which generally don't make me feel too good in the end... why I'm not specifically sure. Or I may pretend I'm not angry "Oh you're right, but I do love my cheeseburgers!"... then in the future when I see that person there may be hidden dislike/hatred towards them... even for exposing the truth. I think we suffer when: we think what is happening shouldn't be happening. Just my 2c... but thanks Chris for the comments... very good point. Edit: minor changes to the example... still struggling with how to explain what I mean...

This definition captures what I've tried to say in a lot of posts but with way too many words. Very good stuff, thanks for sharing.

That was partly the point I was trying to make, so thank you I don't know much about transcendent states, I've had experiences but I tend not to label them out of concern for getting caught as one of them being "final".

Who are you though? "You" are not separate from thoughts but are "you" the sum of your past memory and future projections based on our limited senses/thoughts? What do you mean by the merging of intents? If I intend to do something but do not do it... and why only sentient beings? If a rock falls and kills a man who's intent was it? Are we so sure about that? I'm not getting rid of anything or add anything, just trying to see what is for what it is rather than attaching a label to it called "me".

The realization of impermanence... if we take that lens and apply it to our sense of self identification I think we can get a good view of suffering. Everything is constantly in flux, every event influences every other event. We suffer for a few reasons, and maybe they're all the same reason, but maybe we can talk it out a bit. In general... We suffer when what we expect to happen in the future plays out different than we expected. We suffer when we look at a pleasurable memory of the past and want to bring that to the present. We suffer when we recollect about a painful memory of the past and want it to go away. We suffer when we feel pain - physical or otherwise. What are the causes of those forms of suffering? IDENTIFICATION with the thoughts, of experiences, of physical sensations, etc. Our literal sense of "me" is defined by these thoughts. "I'm so pathetic because everyone thinks I'm dumb"... therefor I identify with what I think other people think. "I'm so wonderful because I was born with good looks"... therefor I identify with the looks. When our sense of identity is threatened we suffer. When what we think, which is our identity, does not play out as expected... when reality is different then our thoughts/expectations, litterally our sense of identity is attacked, it's no longer valid. We suffer because we create an identity. This identity is a mishmash of thoughts. The thoughts are not reality. When we see what we are is different from reality we suffer, there is a gap. If there is no gap, if we don't identify with the thoughts but are aware of them. There can be no suffering, everything is as it is.

This is where I have a hard time understanding the Buddhism approach (not a critique/judgement) and maybe Buddhism is more pragmatic than I am! The options to give in to an urge (and therefor suffer) versus the option to try to reduce appetite (and therefor try to change the situation) both seem like forms of suffering to me... unless the approach to reducing the suffering is through awareness, observation, etc. Otherwise, we'll be trying to address every symptom rather than the root cause. If I'm aware of what the cause of ALL desire is, if I really observe what is happening without trying to change a thing, then I can understand what is happening in general rather than in specific cases. But maybe to get there it could take a few focused areas? I'm not sure on that one...seems like it could be either a waste of time or it could be a useful stepping stone. And with the 8-fold path, I've struggled with it as a system of ethics, of right and wrong which has the potential to create division, conflict, and the results of those (e.g., a sense of 'rightness' or superiority compared to others who are living in conflict with the 8-fold path). Even if one tries to live by the ideals, there will always be self-judging against those ideals - I've done good, I've done bad, I've done neither - and that can be a trap which leads to further strengthening of the self... or maybe over time those ideals can loosen the grip of identification with sense objects/thoughts? Edit: I digressed quite a bit there... back on topic: What is suffering? I think on the gross level it's when there is a gap between expectations and what actually is. We want it this way but it's that way. The subtle suffering is what is much more difficult... can we trick ourselves into believing that everything/one is ok as it is? Hmm.

Is it possible to be free from the unconditioned consciousness? Or are we talking about freedom from the concept of the substance of universal Self, unconditioned consciousness, etc.?

Much less concrete than that is my assumption, more of a subtle shift in how you think about things. The physical sensations are still there but you have more awareness about them. I'm not really sure what it means to 'have your 3rd eye open' except for being more aware of what's really going on and less identified with conditioning.

I think this article misses the point of meditation This looks more like a description of ethics which, in my experience, is not the goal of meditation (in general, there are many types of meditation so it's hard to speak to each one). Meditation is practical - if it is practiced throughout the day. To me, meditation is not only sitting in that place in the <insert favorite> position. Throughout the day, meditation is not getting caught in the egoic mind, in the forms and emotions that rise and fall.. it is not identifying a sense of 'self' with the rising and falling situations/emotions/etc. Similar to a breath meditation where when we realize we've lost ourselves in something else, we can do the same throughout the day and just be aware of what is happening. This doesn't mean to be recluse, we still act, but we do so from a 'deeper' place. We don't just react mindlessly, we approach life from a slightly different view point. It's hard to explain but I feel that meditation is the path and the goal in this sense. If we can be aware and not reside in the rising and falling, just let it do what it does, then we are free from it while not being separate from it.

Hardly a conspiracy. It's the business of politics, plain and simple. Look at the "new" light bulbs we're using to save energy... Edison won that political battle. But what's the root of all that competitive political egotism?

Thank you - that's one of the most "easy to understand by someone who doesn't know the details" answer I've had to that question to date I see a trap of Atman/Brahman now... identification with some 'thing', even if that 'thing' is 'no-thing'. Still not choosing either side though Thank you

I've read quite a few of the back and forth posts between Buddhism and Vedanta but I can't help but get the impression that they're both describing the same thing and we're getting caught in the description not the 'thing' (I use that loosely since there is no 'thing' apart from everything). What is the difference between using a label for realization of no-self and the empty nature of all things (through awareness which provides the potentiality of realization) and using a label for the idea of atman-brahman to show no-self? Both point to essentially, as in the essence/root, everything-nothing which cannot be represented accurately through a label in the first place. After that pure essential realization I can't help but feel we're just arguing one point of view versus another. I call it everything-nothing, the Buddhist calls it emptiness due to D.O, and the Hindu calls it Brahman due to the no-self nature of the internal awareness, i.e. Atman. Isn't the discrepancy layered on after that? Edit: I also realize that my depth of spiritual insight could be getting in the way of understanding the true underlying differences here. I'm sure they are very subtle and I may not be aware of these subtleties yet. Which leaves the possibilities open rather than forming a static idea.

Please do not take offence to this but in order to be a Christian that implies a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God. That being the case, Taoism was around much earlier than Jesus. Edit: If you're referring to God as in the Bible then the timeline makes no difference. Depending on your definition you could equate Tao and God but would need to strip off quite a bit of history from either tradition to come to that conclusion. Edit 2: I have no idea where/how Taoism started

It sounds like there's some expectation with what is to happen which is causing the bordem when that expectation isn't met. If while sitting in meditation you're hoping for something, that has to be a thought, no? The expectation in your mind of "when is it going to happen? I don't feel anything?". It's a form of searching, an activity of the mind, which is hindering the effects of meditation. Also, if you're trying to force your thoughts to stop that will only create more thoughts. "Argh! Here's another though, oh wait now I'm thinking about thinking! How do I stop this?? AH!!". Thoughts slowing or stopping is a RESULT of meditation. Allow your thoughts to happen but observe them, be aware of thinking itself, not of the content of the thoughts. Or if you're practicing breath meditation then just observe yourself returning to the breath. If you practice doing that, then the thoughts will slow down on their own eventually. Let what ever happens happen - even if that is not having a mysterious feeling or zap of energy or whatever. Just my humble advice, I'm sure there are others on the board with much more experience and could do a better job explaining meditation.

Words are so tricky. You're right, the IDEA of no-self is another dogma as are all ideas if you want to take it to that extreme. I've thought about this one quite a bit, True Self vs. self or real "I" and illusory "I". When there is the first glimpse of formless awareness it is easy to say "Ah hah! This is my TRUE self!" and label the awareness as True Self. But if we look at that a bit closer it's just another form of division - Awareness-self vs. Egoic-self. If we look at both of these we have to ask: can these be separate? Can there be two selves? Awareness enables thoughts - even thoughts about awareness. The two cannot be separate. We divide up this and that to make sense of the perceptions we experience, that's what the function of thought is, to divide, to break things into smaller pieces so we can make sense of them and communicate using language. Now there comes a different perspective of who you once you become aware of all this. A realization that "maybe all these conditioned thoughts are no longer what 'I' identify with". And so begins disassociation with the ego. This is different than saying "there is no self". You are here, you are reading this right now, you are aware of the words and their meanings. All of that is really happening but for most of us it's simply a case of misidentification. Thinking we are our thoughts, memories, and experiences. We put our awareness there mostly unconsciously. But we can look deeper, 'underneath', into the nature of thought, awareness, and their association. Then we may realize that there is no separation, that duality is a mind-made trick. Just my 2c based on my limited experiences.

Great points - I was just trying to point out that delusion can happen with or without a teacher when we're on our spiritual path. Doubt and acceptance have the same traps and each carries it's benefits as well. One could make the argument of blind acceptance or the argument of stagnant/fearful doubt. In short, to each their own just watch out for the potential pitfalls.

Completely agree here, and that helps to understand the importance of lineage. I agree, both are there, they can't be excluded but they have to be seen for what they are. The basis of Merit feels more divisive. It's a metric to see what good vs. bad we've accumulated (very much over simplifying). It's a scale to measure ourselves but how do we define that scale? And when we measure ourselves it's very difficult to not have that build up our sense of self (at least for me). Those are simply genetic conditions. We all emerge as a function of the past both psychologically and physically. But we all share the ability to be conscious. So in the world of forms, merit and experience can provide guide posts but ultimately those too are limited, and that's ok, it's just what it is. The difference is being able to see that vs. putting complete trust/faith into both. Agreed here as well but again we need to be careful not to become parrots. There's a subtle difference in having a teacher so that you can go off and do the work on your own and having a teacher with hopes of them showing you the answers. For me, I've found that I start by not understanding intellectually, then understanding intellectually / logically, then understanding beyond thoughts/intellect (i.e. deep understanding vs. knowledge). However, some of my best teachers have been life, not necessarily another person. And to the contrary, I've learned a lot from concepts of others. Good discussion, I like when there can be a conversation that may have differing points but without the extra bs

How is comparing one's personal experiences to another's not a form of self delusion? How do you know the teacher or your peers are not deluding you? How do you know what you're experiencing isn't a self-fulfilled prophecy? E.g., "when you reach this stage you will feel ______" then you meditate and find something that sounds similar to the explanation then say "Ah! That's what they were talking about!".... but how do you know for sure? This is why personally I don't look to setup a fixed goal related to meditation aside from seeing what is happening as it is happening. Just my personal, conditioned/biased, preference

I don't believe in merit or labeling experiences, these are all too easily used competitively. We all have awareness, life, within us. From that perspective one form is not better than the other no matter what states it has achieved. Even the Buddha himself lived a human life and had the same life within us albeit he was much more sensitive to life and saw it for what it is.