Is there an objective world?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Buddhism - there are no Self, no Mind. Whatever experienced is Mind, but Mind is empty of any independent, inherent or permanent essence apart from those appearances. Only pure awareness AS those manifestations. Pure Awareness is not an unchanging Witness of phenomena, for Pure Awareness does not have any existence nor stand apart from the flow of phenomenality, yet at the same time there is no coming from or going to of phenomena (coming and going are notions arising due to reflecting on a past experience from the perspective of being an unchanging someone experiencing the coming and going) - there is just transient phenomena as awareness YET without movement, just this One Sound, One Thought, disjoint and complete in itself, without coming, or going, and without a Perceiver and Perceived distinction.

Yet, the "no Self, no Mind" chugs merrily along, defying this notion without contradiction.. You really must read this quote with Clarity, it is incomprehensible.. Buddhism is based on the stories of a guy infatuated with his own imagination.. explaining that the way to end suffering is to pretend you don't exist.. no existence, no suffering... the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Be well..

[Lucky7Strikes]

Greetings..

 

 

Yet, the "no Self, no Mind" chugs merrily along, defying this notion without contradiction.. You really must read this quote with Clarity, it is incomprehensible.. Buddhism is based on the stories of a guy infatuated with his own imagination.. explaining that the way to end suffering is to pretend you don't exist.. no existence, no suffering... the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Be well..

 

And where is this YOU? What is it? Is it an energetic form? Does it have boundaries? And if it has boundaries, where does YOU end and OTHER begin?

 

I don't quite get the no coming and going part. Surely there is still change isn't there? Isn't that a form of coming and going? Does there have to be an unchanging observer in order for there to be notions of coming and going (change)?

If you are at one with coming, as in you BECOME the motion of coming, no actual relative coming is seen or experienced. Same with going.

[thuscomeone]

If you are at one with coming, as in you BECOME the motion of coming, no actual relative coming is seen or experienced. Same with going.

I think I understand it now. It relates to what Dogen said about firewood and ash. There is continuity in the sense that this body never becomes a tree or a dog and has a linear span from birth to death. Yet each moment is complete and new, unique/disjoint on it's own because things are always changing. So there is no coming to this moment, in that, all moments that have come before this have NOT been this moment. Nothing that has come before is this moment right now. There is no going from this moment to another moment because each moment is unique unto itself. This moment does not turn into "that" moment because this moment and that moment are two completely different unique/disjoint manifestations.

Edited January 6, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think I understand it now. It relates to what Dogen said about firewood and ash. There is continuity in the sense that this body never becomes a tree or a dog and has a linear span from birth to death. Yet each moment is complete and new, unique/disjoint on it's own because things are always changing. So there is no coming, in that, all moments that have come before this have NOT been this moment. Nothing that has come before is this moment right now. There is no going from this moment to another moment because each moment is unique unto itself. This moment does not turn into "that" moment because this moment and that moment are two completely different unique/disjoint manifestations.

 

Where does this moment end and the next moment begin?

 

Then what is cause and effect?

[thuscomeone]

Where does this moment end and the next moment begin?

 

Then what is cause and effect?

I don't see that cause and effect is being denied. It's just a different way of looking at it. Yes the present may be ungraspable in a sense yet it is still really all there is. Typing on these keys, that is the present, the "now" moment.

I should add that dogen says that each moment fully contains past and future yet is independent of past and future.

Edited January 6, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't see that cause and effect is being denied. It's just a different way of looking at it. Yes the present may be ungraspable in a sense yet it is still really all there is. Typing on these keys, that is the present, the "now" moment.

 

Yes, presence is something that flows, it cannot be grasped. And to align one's awareness with it by realizing thus, it may trigger the sensation of "beingness" or "timelessness"...something like "everything has already been and always is in the present." But there is still the flow, still the change from another perspective. Relative presence is still seen from the perspective of "past" and "future"

 

But then who perceives this beingness out side of this..."oneness?" The luminosity? Who perceives the non-perceiving state?

Edited January 6, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

When all mental afflictions are pacified, there is no longer the perpetuation of karma. One is released from the idea of being trapped in the dualistic world of samsara, the world of actions that produces further causes and further actions, which is where notions of coming and going operate unceasingly, whether in terms of this one single lifetime, or of uncountable past and future lifetimes.

 

This is not a mystical experience whereby the self dissolves into nothing, or merge with another higher source. There is no self to begin and end with, and since there is no self at the beginning, there is no higher source to begin and end with. Seeing this, one is freed from the two views: that of self and other. When these 2 views are reunited, there is no longer birth and death, light and dark, high and low.

 

All opposing percepts are seen thru as empty of fundamental and inherent existence. This is the essence of having attained transcendent insight into the true nature of suchness -- that which is, is -- and that which is has no opposites. If it has, it can no longer be what is. If you begin to look for the opposite of what is, at that moment of looking, that is the very same moment "what is" transforms into the act of looking, and this in turn becomes a present 'suchness'. And this is how duality can be fully liberated - by having the insight into the way things are at any moment, without any lingering thoughts of where things come from, and to where they go.

 

There is no other Clarity other than this. True Clarity is the ability to see and remain in the present. Some believe Clarity means to know better, which means there is still the involvement of past knowledge and future outcomes. This is sometimes called Wisdom tainted with past and future, or simply put, conceptual wisdom. True clarity goes beyond these two extremes.

 

Easy to prescribe, hard to practice. The way is thru the in-stilling of total mindfulness. In total mindfulness of the present moment, there is no doer and no doing. When you start to notice the doer and the doing, you lose the mindfulness of absorption, and return to the dualistic coming and going states of being. But if you can stabilize mindfulness, you will notice this distraction immediately, and return to the original state beyond doer and doing, coming and going.

 

For example, when you are reading this: As you are reading, you are reading. You cannot find the "I am reading" when you are reading. It is not possible. But if you pause, and say, "Hey wait... there is a 'ME' who is reading this...", then for all intents and purposes, what you are doing is you have stopped reading and have effected a new action by starting to intellectualize into looking for where the "ME" is, so then the act of looking for the "ME" becomes your new present moment, and the reading is forgotten for a short time. The dissatisfaction or irritation(both a form of mild suffering) arises when you think you did not want to be distracted from your reading this, and projected the mind refocussing on the other act, that of looking for the "ME", as a distraction. If you are not averse to the preconditioned notion of what you think a distraction is, and are in complete mindful knowing that the mind is moving, there is little or no effort required then to guide the mind back to the task at hand, which in this instance, is reading this post. This is a form of effortless concentration that results from the practice of mindfulness.

 

On this relative level, the empty mind is a useless mind. It serves no purpose other than creating a state of blankness, or a kind of stupor. That is not the aim of Buddhist meditation, as some might think. There are many benefits of Buddhist meditation, and blanking the mind is definitely not one of them. The practice of being totally absorbed in mindfulness is not such a practice. Please do not confuse the two.

 

One of the main benefits of mindfulness practice is to create the awareness of presence, a full presence in whatever mundane activity you might find yourself performing. When you are reading, read. When you are looking at a rose, look. Look deeply. Its not that there is no rose, or no book - what it means is that you can begin to see the rose or read the book with a hundred and ten percent presence, which is none other than mindfulness. Most people find this very difficult in their daily life. With a bit of training, it is actually not that difficult. Once you have this in the bag, you will see how beneficial it will be, in whatever you do. Imagine doing Tai Chi, or Chi Gung, or walking in the woods in absolute mindfulness, or the ability to pay full attention to what another is saying. There is a lot of power in mindfulness.

 

All the best, and thank you for being patient with my rant. I'll return to the Haiku Chain now....

Edited January 7, 2010 by CowTao

[Lucky7Strikes]

When all mental afflictions are pacified, there is no longer the perpetuation of karma. One is released from the idea of being trapped in the dualistic world of samsara, the world of actions that produces further causes and further actions, which is where notions of coming and going operate unceasingly, whether in terms of this one single lifetime, or of uncountable past and future lifetimes.

 

This is not a mystical experience whereby the self dissolves into nothing, or merge with another higher source. There is no self to begin and end with, and since there is no self at the beginning, there is no higher source to begin and end with. Seeing this, one is freed from the two views: that of self and other. When these 2 views are reunited, there is no longer birth and death, light and dark, high and low. ...

 

I disagree. There is always a self and the other. That is the nature of awareness and the only possible reason existence has come about. Why? because "non-existence" is also empty. The state which you talk about, the state of no self, is simply a restructured identification from a previously held "self" to the "other." For example, my awareness may identify with being a body, and see itself in relation to everything that is not the body. And upon realizing that my awareness is not limited to my body, it can be freed into other modes of existence, such as followingly a parallel motion to every rising event, giving the illusion of "oneness" or whatever. But such experience are impermanent, as all experiences are, because one must reflect on its existence, as an "other" to know of experiencing it. You come back to a self, you inevitably return to a time frame.

 

If we go back to the example of reading. As your awareness can "become" the words that you read, the meanings are presented "to" the reader. Again, there is the reader emerged in the act of reading, but a counter part, the experience itself, the meaning and the sound of words, simultaneously arises.

 

This doesn't mean that there is a fixed entity such as a self (an energy body to speak of). The self can be anything, just as its "outer" experiences can be any manifestation. Simply put, a self cannot experience itself. Nor can a experience be had without a self. It needs a objective reflection.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Where does this moment end and the next moment begin?

 

Then what is cause and effect?

 

Great questions. These kinds of profound questions are better off as unanswered questions. I like contemplating these questions. However, if I have an answer, I no longer need to contemplate anything, because I already got my answer. To me that's not a desirable way of life.

 

Some things are better off left as questions. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't even ask those questions. Those questions are very important and I think we should constantly be asking them. However I don't think we should be in a great hurry to answer these.

Edited January 6, 2010 by goldisheavy

[C T]

I disagree. There is always a self and the other. That is the nature of awareness and the only possible reason existence has come about. Why? because "non-existence" is also empty. The state which you talk about, the state of no self, is simply a restructured identification from a previously held "self" to the "other." For example, my awareness may identify with being a body, and see itself in relation to everything that is not the body. And upon realizing that my awareness is not limited to my body, it can be freed into other modes of existence, such as "oneness." "Presence." But such experience are impermanent, as all experiences are, because one must reflect on its existence, as an "other" to know of experiencing it. You come back to a self, you inevitably return to a time frame.

 

This doesn't mean that there is a fixed entity such as a self (an energy body to speak of). The self can be anything, just as its experiences can be any manifestation.

Hey Lucky... hope you are in good form!

 

the very moment in which you are reading this, right now, can you simultaneously be aware of a self that is reading? Or does the awareness of a self that is reading made possible only when you remove your awareness from the act of reading this post? This is my understanding of absorption, the basis of arriving at non-dual awareness. That which is, is not an experience, if i am not mistaken. It only becomes 'an experience' after the perception is passed, and an action is initiated as a kind of back-trekking, followed by reflecting upon that action. Without this intellectual exercise, where is the experience and the one who is experiencing?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hey Lucky... hope you are in good form!

 

the very moment in which you are reading this, right now, can you simultaneously be aware of a self that is reading? Or does the awareness of a self that is reading made possible only when you remove your awareness from the act of reading this post? This is my understanding of absorption, the basis of arriving at non-dual awareness. That which is, is not an experience, if i am not mistaken. It only becomes 'an experience' after the perception is passed, and an action is initiated as a kind of back-trekking, followed by reflecting upon that action. Without this intellectual exercise, where is the experience and the one who is experiencing?

 

The very act of ANY existence posits a mirror like "self-awareness." Without perspective, which is absolutely empty, like (like, soooo not exactly the best metaphor I'm using here) clear space that lets form, a table for instance, take shape. To deny it is like saying, "the table exists without the space that it occupies." Likewise, the source of awareness is hollow. Sort of like how the eye can't see itself, but you can only see because you have an eye.

 

You become accustomed to a certain patterning of the self/awareness and think "this is the "I"" Usually this is based on an imaginary location, like the body, or parts of the body, like the brain, or even an energetic body which is without form and lets awareness more freely navigate. But the more structured it believes the "field" of awareness is, the more limited it becomes in context of freedom to move around. Like how some people have poor circulation and can't fully "feel" their feet (I used to be like that ). Or how other's have out of body experiences because the structured limit of "I" is much looser than others.

 

So in answer to your question, yes, I am aware of my self writing this, precisely because I am aware of experiencing it.

 

You made a very important point about absorption becoming an experience after that perception is passed. The experience can only exist when there is a reflective consciousness of it. It's how ANY existence is recognized or comes into being. So people can experience these states, but all return to a reflective "self."

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Birch]

The person is the strain I feel when I read your posts;-)

[Lucky7Strikes]

The person is the strain I feel when I read your posts;-)

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

We are Life, in all of its glorious relationships with itself.. whatever we 'attach' to, we attatch to Life.. One of my most respected mentors once said: "You think too much, life just 'is', figuring it out is a fools game.. 'living it well is the sage's way"..

 

Forget telling me 'what its or isn't'.. tell me how you 'Live' it..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Xabir, what is my Awareness dependent on?

 

What am I? Why do I feel I 'ness'?

 

If there is no "I," how can I attain enlightenment? What is the source of my intent?

We think that Awareness is something existing apart and independent from phenomena. This pure presence and awareness feels like what 'I' truly am, while all other objects feels like what is not me. There is a sense of witnessing all the objects, and the witness feels more 'me' and thus those objects are not 'me'. From this perspective it feels like the consciousness that knows stands behind all experience while all experiences comes and goes from this unchanging being and consciousness/watcher. That it why it is called the Eternal Witness. This is due to the subject and object duality, where presence feels 'me' but other objects feel like 'other'. This duality is due to a deeply rooted karmic propensity that divides our experience. However if we investigate the relationship between awareness and objects, we realise that objects in fact, have no objective existence and is in fact the same presence awareness that we feel 'me'. As such, what is originally felt as 'me', pure presence and the Eternal Witness no longer feels divided, and everything sensed, felt, touched, is all equally the expression of the same presence and awareness. Objects no longer feel 'out there' and consciousness 'in here'' -- consciousness does not feel distant at all with phenomena and feels completely inseparable. The I AM does not feel more ME than a passing sound, a passing sight. The sense of me-ness and not-me dissolves in unity and the vividness and realness of all phenomena.

 

When we realised this, the notion of Awareness as separate from objects no longer exist. It is no longer exclusive identification of consciousness as only pure formlessness. There is no more division of 'me' and 'not me'. However there can still be a reification of an All-Self, a substance, essence, Self that is at once one and undivided with all phenomena. All phenomena are non-dual expressions of Self.

 

In Anatta, we realise that Awareness there is empty of anything inherent, independent, permanent, is empty of Self and what Awareness is is really just the appearances which dependently originates. The sound hears, the scenery sees, the thought thinks. Everything is aware where they are as vivid presence awareness, but nowhere can an independent, permanent, ontological essence be found. Awareness is the transience itself, nothing about Ultimate Reality.

 

Who attains enlightenment?

 

Daniel Ingram:

 

"So who is it that awakens? It is all of this transience which awakens, though for a more mystical, thorough and seemingly ridiculous answer take a look at No-self vs. True Self in Part III."

Edited January 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

We think that Awareness is something existing apart and independent from phenomena. This pure presence and awareness feels like what 'I' truly am, while all other objects feels like what is not me. There is a sense of witnessing all the objects, and the witness feels more 'me' and thus those objects are not 'me'. From this perspective it feels like the consciousness that knows stands behind all experience while all experiences comes and goes from this unchanging being and consciousness/watcher. That it why it is called the Eternal Witness. This is due to the subject and object duality, where presence feels 'me' but other objects feel like 'other'. This duality is due to a deeply rooted karmic propensity that divides our experience. However if we investigate the relationship between awareness and objects, we realise that objects in fact, have no objective existence and is in fact the same presence awareness that we feel 'me'. As such, what is originally felt as 'me', pure presence and the Eternal Witness no longer feels divided, and everything sensed, felt, touched, is all equally the expression of the same presence and awareness. Objects no longer feel 'out there' and consciousness 'in here'' -- consciousness does not feel distant at all with phenomena and feels completely inseparable. The I AM does not feel more ME than a passing sound, a passing sight. The sense of me-ness and not-me dissolves in unity and the vividness and realness of all phenomena.

 

When we realised this, the notion of Awareness as separate from objects no longer exist. It is no longer exclusive identification of consciousness as only pure formlessness. There is no more division of 'me' and 'not me'. However there can still be a reification of an All-Self, a substance, essence, Self that is at once one and undivided with all phenomena. All phenomena are non-dual expressions of Self.

 

In Anatta, we realise that Awareness there is empty of anything inherent, independent, permanent, is empty of Self and what Awareness is is really just the appearances which dependently originates. The sound hears, the scenery sees, the thought thinks. Everything is aware where they are as vivid presence awareness, but nowhere can an independent, permanent, ontological essence be found. Awareness is the transience itself, nothing about Ultimate Reality.

 

Who attains enlightenment?

 

Daniel Ingram:

 

"So who is it that awakens? It is all of this transience which awakens, though for a more mystical, thorough and seemingly ridiculous answer take a look at No-self vs. True Self in Part III."

 

Have you experienced anything without witnessing it? It is a simple question. Don't get too caught up in doctrines and equations. Just see. Every experience is dual in nature. Even the experience of non-duality cannot be without a reflection of it from a later dual perspective of "Now" and "Then."

 

"All of transience awakens." No, that mean nothing awakens. Because there was never a self to begin with, awakening simply happens. No will to awaken. It is determinism, that is an extreme, not some "mystical" blah that dodges the blatant question.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Greetings..

 

We are Life, in all of its glorious relationships with itself.. whatever we 'attach' to, we attatch to Life.. One of my most respected mentors once said: "You think too much, life just 'is', figuring it out is a fools game.. 'living it well is the sage's way"..

 

Forget telling me 'what its or isn't'.. tell me how you 'Live' it..

 

Be well..

 

And what are you?

 

It's perfectly fine I guess to just live life as it is. But then how are you any different from those whose sole purpose is to chase pleasure, or whatever one "feels" like?

 

That's not why I started practice. I want to know the Unconditioned, I want to know what the hell all this is exactly about. .

[C T]

And what are you?

 

It's perfectly fine I guess to just live life as it is. But then how are you any different from those whose sole purpose is to chase pleasure, or whatever one "feels" like?

 

That's not why I started practice. I want to know the Unconditioned, I want to know what the hell all this is exactly about. .

That which is known can no longer be termed 'unconditioned'. Whatever is known is necessarily past.

As you have mentioned elsewhere, somewhere, there are no stages. There is, however, the state of 'knowing',

which is always in the present. Thats why i never agree with those who hide behind their experiences, which is nothing but a bunch of old memories. Imagine learning from someone who is forever stuck in the past?

Edited January 7, 2010 by CowTao

[Lucky7Strikes]

That which is known can no longer be termed 'unconditioned'. Whatever is known is necessarily past.

As you have mentioned elsewhere, somewhere, there are no stages. There is, however, the state of 'knowing',

which is always in the present. Thats why i never agree with those who hide behind their experiences, which is nothing but a bunch of old memories. Imagine learning from someone who is forever stuck in the past?

 

I meet your "all is past" and raise you "all is present." .

 

But yes I agree. Past experiences are only good as getting the practitioner to where he is now. All paths are different, but the "now," enlightenment, or whatever for everyone can be different. For example, I'm not trying to become an energy master, I just want to know who I am. I mean...

 

IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK? .

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

I meet your "all is past" and raise you "all is present." .

 

Reraise "no past, no future"!!

 

(I love full-tilt!!!)

[3bob]