Dangers of Meditation

[dwai]

Hi Dwai.

 

I know its a tangent, but I egged you on anyway. So thanks for playing along .

 

The main point of my post was to try to shift you from being the doer to being the watcher with regards to your own views. It seems to have had the opposite effect. Oh well.

 

Yes, I can imagine how infuriating that must be. It's infuriating to me and I am not even Indian, just a lover of Indian culture. I am also a lover of Christian spirituality, which I suspect that your conception of is something of a caricature, like how Americans might think yoga is all about stretching and tantra is about better sex, and Hinduism is probably something like the ancient Greek religion because they heard it was polytheistic. True, Christian spirituality is not as mature as yoga, after all it is much newer. But it is mature enough to make some major spiritual progress with. And I know better than to believe that all Hindus are beyond dogmatism and letting literal interpretation of scripture get in the way of development .

 

You clearly have a very strong Indian identity, which I think makes you a lot of fun to talk to. But along with that comes a strong "us vs. them" / "Superior Indians vs. Western barbarians" mentality. Indeed, how could you not despise Christianity and identiy it with Western consumerism and imperialism after what the British did in India, playing Christian the whole time? But something I have picked up from yoga is being identifying as the watcher rather then the doer, even as you are doing things (having thoughts and opinions and viewpoints being an example of a doing). I can't do it, so perhaps it is presumptuous of me to encourage anyone else to do it. It's because I like you. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother.

 

you have a point there. How would I go about being the Watcher instead of the doer? I would love to learn.

 

There is of course the difference between doing because it needs doing as opposed to knee-jerk reactionism (which I suspect is what you took my response to be). Not-doing is not not doing...

 

To put things in a little better perspective, I have no interest in Christianity, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's valid. I have all respect for Jesus Christ and his teachings...I think it could (have) evolve(ed) further if there was no insistence on literal adherence to the scripture (in other words, Blind Faith).

 

I AM un-apologetically Indian...being born and raised. I have also had the advantage of living in the West. There are many Western things I admire, however personal/internal spiritual practice is not one of them.

 

I don't for one consider Westerners barbarians (some perhaps, but then there are those among Indians as well). I find the Western model of Individualism a road block -- because Individualism is Egotism and is antithetical to Eastern spirituality, which calls for dissolving the ego (albeit I am far from attaining that goal)...

 

I like you too..haven't had a reason to feel otherwise.

 

Best,

 

Dwai

[dwai]

I think it's funny to read things about the "western" persona vs the "eastern" persona in practice when so much of path is fundamentally about discovering what exactly that persona is. I'm almost sure that one might be just as much of a hindrance to self-discovery via meditative practice as another.

 

 

I agree with what Kate said here.

Or as my Japonese friend stated the other day (whilst discussing British temperament in comparison to Japonese one):We just have hang ups in different places.

 

Would also like to add this link on some Orthodox Christian discpline.Including breathing techniques,some postures etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm

Dwaii,I recomend some books/teaching stories written by Fathers of the Desert(hermit tradition continuing to this day) as they are very beutiful and profound reveling depths of human understanding whilst wearing Christan clothes .

This stories together with "The way of the pilgrim "book opened up my many views and ideas.

 

Thanks...I will definitely look it up if I find the time and desire to do so.

[Birch]

"We just have hang ups in different places."

 

 

This and the stuff about brain surgery. Neat.

 

What's doing when one is meditating? I think that what's doing is a)the increasing (of awareness of) of neuroplasticity b)the intentional reworking of existing networks towards specific ends

 

Well, I guess for qi-gong anyway. What one is doing when "emptying" mind isn't really clear for me yet, I guess just creating an artificial "clean slate" because there must still be material under the radar so to speak (I know this because it gets activated the rest of the time).

 

I mentioned to someone else, it's like taking the insulation off the wiring.

 

Sparks may fly.

[dwai]

"We just have hang ups in different places."

 

 

This and the stuff about brain surgery. Neat.

 

What's doing when one is meditating? I think that what's doing is a)the increasing (of awareness of) of neuroplasticity b)the intentional reworking of existing networks towards specific ends

 

Well, I guess for qi-gong anyway. What one is doing when "emptying" mind isn't really clear for me yet, I guess just creating an artificial "clean slate" because there must still be material under the radar so to speak (I know this because it gets activated the rest of the time).

 

I mentioned to someone else, it's like taking the insulation off the wiring.

 

Sparks may fly.

 

Emptying the mind is basically allowing thoughts to cease for a period of time. It happens naturally when observing thoughts...they rise and fade away and are like a layer of debris floating on a stream. As soon as the debris is cleared, the stream is visible. So it is for Consciousness...once the gap between thoughts is expanded, Pure Consciousness remains. It is not an artificial "clean slate", it is the primordial clean slate (tabula rasa). But this slate doesn't need any writing on, it already contains everything in it's emptiness. I was reading "Understanding Reality" by Chang Po-Tuan; and it contains a section called "Outer Teachings", in which the state of emptiness is very nicely described --

 

When you have seen true emptiness, emptiness is not empty;

Complete illumination pervades everywhere.

Senses and objects, mind and phenomena -- there is no thing at all;

Only by subtle function can you know how to assimilate.

 

Taoist Classics Vol 2

Edited June 10, 2010 by dwai

[Pero]

http://www.hindustan...le1-554149.aspx

 

... What are your thoughts on patenting asanas?

[dwai]

... What are your thoughts on patenting asanas?

 

Very wrong. No one should be able to do so. Not even sequence of Asanas...patenting signifies intellectual property...how can Yoga be any one person's property? And if anyone must, it should be patented and licensed out in the open source model by the Indian Government, on behalf of all Indians (and indeed, all citizens of the World).

[Vajrahridaya]

Meditation without "right view" leads to lots of interesting things, but not liberation from Samsara.

[Pero]

Very wrong. No one should be able to do so. Not even sequence of Asanas...patenting signifies intellectual property...how can Yoga be any one person's property? And if anyone must, it should be patented and licensed out in the open source model by the Indian Government, on behalf of all Indians (and indeed, all citizens of the World).

 

Does this mean that now if I learn some patented asanas, and then I teach one to someone else who would find it beneficial, I could get sued by whomever is owning the patent?

 

Do you think that in a way, lineages are the ones that have the real patents on the asanas?

[dwai]

Does this mean that now if I learn some patented asanas, and then I teach one to someone else who would find it beneficial, I could get sued by whomever is owning the patent?

 

Do you think that in a way, lineages are the ones that have the real patents on the asanas?

 

Lineages? I don't recognize lineages for Asanas. I do recognize lineages for Yoga traditions (which is completely different from mere Asana Practice)...and maybe they should patent their techniques...but that takes away from the fluidity and freedom that Indic traditions offer their practitioners, to adjust and re-interpret within the given framework (but not appropriate).

[Pero]

Lineages? I don't recognize lineages for Asanas. I do recognize lineages for Yoga traditions (which is completely different from mere Asana Practice)...and maybe they should patent their techniques...but that takes away from the fluidity and freedom that Indic traditions offer their practitioners, to adjust and re-interpret within the given framework (but not appropriate).

 

Ah yes, sorry should've made that distinction, this is actually more like what I meant.

[Seth Ananda]

Meditation without "right view" leads to lots of interesting things, but not liberation from Samsara.

Right, Some young upstart rich kid would know... He would not have even heard of Liberation If not for those that went before him (Hindu's), and so he sets out, Finds an extreme sect, Does a mere 6 years of practice before giving up cause he nearly starved to death, then Claim's that he is the first One to really get It and that those before him were Just Deluded and lost In Samsara.

 

Such Ego could only come from Royalty...

 

So Basicly because he was not able to succeed where Many before him did, He Denies the existence of the Underlying Nature of Existence and comes up with the ridiculous concept of endless cycles of Interdependent nothing.

He even makes up Stories about Brahma (which is not a person...) visiting him and telling him to teach.

[Vajrahridaya]

Right, Some young upstart rich kid would know... He would not have even heard of Liberation If not for those that went before him (Hindu's), and so he sets out, Finds an extreme sect, Does a mere 6 years of practice before giving up cause he nearly starved to death, then Claim's that he is the first One to really get It and that those before him were Just Deluded and lost In Samsara.

 

Such Ego could only come from Royalty...

 

So Basicly because he was not able to succeed where Many before him did, He Denies the existence of the Underlying Nature of Existence and comes up with the ridiculous concept of endless cycles of Interdependent nothing.

He even makes up Stories about Brahma (which is not a person...) visiting him and telling him to teach.

 

If that's your take on it... so be it. I've experienced what you call the underlying reality. The Buddha did as well. He called it the Jhana of neither perception nor non-perception, or beyond being and non-being.

 

If you read the Buddhas teachings and don't have an intuitive experience of it... directly... and instead you cling to an ultimate Self? That is your self created destiny then. If you truly read your history, you can see that there are no clear realizers before the Shakya Muni in this era. He did say there were other Buddhas before him, some that are solitary realizers but don't teach. There was also a path of Buddhadharma before him, but it had died off, because of people like Shankara, not only the Muslims, who went around destroying Buddhist temples, a little known fact, because he thought it was blasphemy to have a spiritual path without God, manifest by a being who said the Vedas were not the ultimate teaching.

 

I can understand the attachment to an ultimate Self of all, it's a very deep one.

 

Brahma does in fact manifest as a living being or a god according to the Vedas. Brahma is in fact a person, a first born due to merit left over from the previous universe. Read your Hinduism if you don't believe me. You can in fact meet Brahma in deep meditation.

[Birch]

Hum. You know, I'm still out on a bunch of this "self" stuff.

 

What's your take on the following:

 

- I've got the mindflow/thoughtstream thing down

- I've got the emptiness thing down

- I've got the "running commentary of mind/body stream" thing down

- I've got the "huh, apart from the mind/body stream thing there seems to be another thing" down

 

So far, there seems to be some different stuff "going down".

 

But didn't whoever say "that's what you are"? or words to that effect?

[Vajrahridaya]

Hum. You know, I'm still out on a bunch of this "self" stuff.

 

What's your take on the following:

 

- I've got the mindflow/thoughtstream thing down

- I've got the emptiness thing down

- I've got the "running commentary of mind/body stream" thing down

- I've got the "huh, apart from the mind/body stream thing there seems to be another thing" down

 

So far, there seems to be some different stuff "going down".

 

But didn't whoever say "that's what you are"? or words to that effect?

 

There is nothing beyond mind/body, except the realization of emptiness which is not a thing, but just an understanding. Emptiness is a way of interpreting that leads to expansive states of mind and the recognition of endless luminosity due to the fact that mind is just light, clear light. What the Hindu's consider beyond the mind, is actually just another manifestation of mind according to Buddhism (awake ones teachings).

 

What you are is an ongoing stream of relativity. The Hindu's want to say there is something unchanging and static that is real beyond the "unreal" of the manifest... this is considered by them the Self of all. For Buddhists, this is just a prolonged state of focus. Mistaking this expanded state of mind that comes through intense focus or intense "surrender" to an infinite concept beyond concepts, as an unchanging essence, merely leads to future unknowing rebirth, as apposed to those that take rebirth consciously for the sake of others. This meditative or contemplative experience is known in Hinduism as "Atman" or Self and known in Taoism as the "Tao." It is very blissful and the tendency of the mind is to say, "this is my true self"! Or this is the true beyond the beyond nature of everything. It's a very, very deep tendency.

 

This attachment is what keeps one cycling endlessly, from bliss realms to dense realms like this to even denser realms than this and back up to bliss realms, over and over again as each new big bang manifests a similar experience as this universe. The Hindus just say liberation is, you attain God, and you are re-absorbed back into God at the end of the cosmic eon (during the pralaya or big crunch), but before that you get to play in a high heaven realm for a while in bliss with your chosen deity. The Buddhas go to other universes consciously to teach the Dharma and are not re-absorbed and also may manifest a merit realm for other beings who follow the Buddha dharma and focus on it to go to until they also attain Buddhahood.

 

I've been to many of these realms spoken of in the texts. My faith is not blind. There are many, many realms to be visited in meditation. Don't know if I should be saying this.. but why not? It's true.

 

So there you have it in a quick nutshell.

 

The dangers of meditation is basically that you can be fooled by your meditative experience without the "right view" that is a buffer to save one from mis-interpretation of spiritual experiences. On this Earth, it's only Buddhadharma that really goes into detail about what this, "right view" is. It's not merely conceptual, it's quite deep as it extends into the formless states of bliss, or nirguna samadhi's, and empties them of their power to bind, unlike in Hinduism where they call these states, "The Self". Or in Taoism as well where they call it, "The nameless"...

 

 

The above has been edited for clarity.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Seth Ananda]

If that's your take on it... so be it. I've experienced what you call the underlying reality. The Buddha did as well. He called it the Jhana of neither perception nor non-perception, or beyond being and non-being.

 

 

I can understand the attachment to an ultimate Self of all, it's a very deep one.

 

Brahma does in fact manifest as a living being or a god according to the Vedas. Brahma is in fact a person, a first born due to merit left over from the previous universe. Read your Hinduism if you don't believe me. You can in fact meet Brahma in deep meditation.

Sorry, Many of the schools saw Brahma as a persona but equally, many do not. In Kashmir Shavism for Instance Parama-Shiva is supreme Consciousness and that is it. Sometimes deliberatly flowery language is used to Imagine it as Shiva the blue dude, but In general Parama Shiva Is not a Person.

 

And I say It is impossible to Realise further than Consciousness, as Consciousness is prior to every conception and thought you have. There is no way out of this argument because to anything you say I will ask - How do you know? are you conscious of it?

 

If we can Find no boundary to Awareness, no Quality, No texture, and It contains every thought and sensory experience, and cant be divided... How is it then Not the ground of Being?

 

If the only certain thing in ourselves we can find is that we are Aware, and that Doesn't change, - (Point to an experience you have had that you were not aware of?) - And that is the same thing in common with everyone, then How Is It attachment to an Idea? It just is.

 

And the Ridiculous Logic of saying "if you realise your sense of Self to be Awareness It self, Its not really your awareness but some God Persona!" thats just stupid.

 

Stupid yes! When we become Intimate with our Self we just Know It is our Self, without words, as it is the core of our Being. It is what is aware in us. It is not some God Persona, or we would not be aware 'from' it. The God persona would be aware 'from' it, not us.

 

Maybe your Awareness of Life is Really 'Brahma the person' but that means there is no Vajra, Ohh wait a minute that's what you have been telling us all along...

[Seth Ananda]

There is nothing beyond mind/body, except the realization of emptiness which is not a thing, but just an understanding. Emptiness is a way of interpreting that leads to expansive states of mind and the recognition of endless luminosity due to the fact that mind is just light, clear light. What the Hindu's consider beyond the mind, is actually just another manifestation of mind according to Buddhism (awake ones teachings).

 

What you are is an ongoing stream of relativity. The Hindu's want to say there is something unchanging and static that is real beyond the "unreal" of the manifest... this is considered by them the Self of all. For Buddhists, this is just a prolonged state of focus. Mistaking this expanded state of mind that comes through intense focus or intense "surrender" to an infinite concept beyond concepts, as an unchanging essence, merely leads to future unknowing rebirth, as apposed to those that take rebirth consciously for the sake of others. This meditative or contemplative experience is known in Hinduism as "Atman" or Self and known in Taoism as the "Tao." It is very blissful and the tendency of the mind is to say, "this is my true self"! Or this is the true beyond the beyond nature of everything. It's a very, very deep tendency.

 

This attachment is what keeps one cycling endlessly, from bliss realms to dense realms like this to even denser realms than this and back up to bliss realms, over and over again as each new big bang manifests a similar experience as this universe. The Hindus just say liberation is, you attain God, and you are re-absorbed back into God at the end of the cosmic eon (during the pralaya or big crunch), but before that you get to play in a high heaven realm for a while in bliss with your chosen deity. The Buddhas go to other universes consciously to teach the Dharma and are not re-absorbed and also may manifest a merit realm for other beings who follow the Buddha dharma and focus on it to go to until they also attain Buddhahood.

 

I've been to many of these realms spoken of in the texts. My faith is not blind. There are many, many realms to be visited in meditation. Don't know if I should be saying this.. but why not? It's true.

 

So there you have it in a quick nutshell.

 

The dangers of meditation is basically that you can be fooled by your meditative experience without the "right view" that is a buffer to save one from mis-interpretation of spiritual experiences. On this Earth, it's only Buddhadharma that really goes into detail about what this, "right view" is. It's not merely conceptual, it's quite deep as it extends into the formless states of bliss, or nirguna samadhi's, and empties them of their power to bind, unlike in Hinduism where they call these states, "The Self". Or in Taoism as well where they call it, "The nameless"...

 

 

The above has been edited for clarity.

Everything you just said takes place within Awareness - The Self! - or you would have Zero way to describe it, experience it or have even the tiny most minuscule inkling of it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Everything you just said takes place within Awareness - The Self! - or you would have Zero way to describe it, experience it or have even the tiny most minuscule inkling of it.

 

An individual consciousness that emanates awareness to the degree that it is free from itself, dependent upon it's taking in influence from Buddhas. We all arise as cycles of individual conscious sentient beings based upon everyone else, so this is also empty of essential self. Ones consciousness breeds more and more awareness dependent upon it's level of liberation from selfhood and the individual consciousness arises dependent upon everyone else's unique and infinite mindstream based upon a particular congruence of the elements. The realization is simpler complexity of course. But, taking up awareness as an ultimate Self of all beings in a singular fashion is a mistake if true liberation from unconscious recycling is your goal. Of course if bliss for many eons is your goal, then you are in the right direction. The Buddha (awake) bliss is much clearer and deeper though.

 

I used to believe as you do with all the experiences to back it up, but there is a more profound interpretation of these experiences and thus there is a subtler kind of non-experience to be experienced beyond Nirguna Brahman or Shaivite version of Sahaja Samadhi which is based upon an attachment to a singular entity behind all entities. Vajra Samadhi is subtler, and without substance, so totally free and unbounded to another degree.

 

Don't take up the expansive state of consciousness based upon merit and focus/surrender as a substratum if you wish to understand what the Buddha meant by Nirvana.

[Vajrahridaya]

Basically, even what arises in my awareness is based upon other Buddhas and Samsarins, and they too to the next endlessly. Their experience of formless or form levels of consciousness and awareness of consciousness is unique until Buddhahood, then this is shared omnipresent/omniscience due to having the same realization of the nature of things. But, even then each individual expression of a liberated mind stream as a Buddha is unique due to unique conscious experiences and the free awareness' expression of this based upon this individual infinitude of experience since beginningless time being offered to endless others through Nirvana as endless time, anchored in the awareness of uncompounded beyond such dual notions. This is a non-substantial non-dual realization not based upon the experience of there being one consciousness.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Seth Ananda]

Basically, even what arises in my awareness is based upon other Buddhas and Samsarins, and they too to the next endlessly. Their experience of formless or form levels of consciousness and awareness of consciousness is unique until Buddhahood, then this is shared omnipresent/omniscience due to having the same realization of the nature of things. But, even then each individual expression of a liberated mind stream as a Buddha is unique due to unique conscious experiences and the free awareness' expression of this based upon this individual infinitude of experience since beginningless time being offered to endless others through Nirvana as endless time, anchored in the awareness of uncompounded beyond such dual notions. This is a non-substantial non-dual realization not based upon the experience of there being one consciousness.

Everything you say takes place within Awareness. Using complex mental Ideas to defend your Be[Lie]f system doesn't change that. You In no way approached or attempted to look at the questions I posed.

You also tryed to make Awareness quantifiable:

 

"Ones consciousness breeds more and more awareness dependent upon it's level of liberation from selfhood and the individual consciousness arises dependent upon everyone else's unique and infinite mindstream based upon a particular congruence of the elements..."

 

In Simple easy language, without your beliefs clouding your mind, can you show me how awareness is a separate quantifiable substance that can be Increased or diminished?

[Vajrahridaya]

Everything you say takes place within Awareness.

 

You didn't get what I said. Basically, awareness which is a product of consciousness, takes place within endless interdependent origination.

 

Using complex mental Ideas to defend your Be[Lie]f system doesn't change that.

 

Until you have a direct experience of inter-dependent origination beyond concepts, you will not understand. It must be contemplated upon. Including the formless states of samadhi and integration of these states through the wrong view of top down metaphysics. God being the top and everything else being the down.

 

 

 

You also tried to make awareness quantifiable.

 

Because you take up the state of concept-less awareness, one of the formless states as a source of everything, you miss the wisdom of the muni. Your awareness is a product of your consciousness, which arises dependent upon the DO chain of events within a very subtle span of experience like spanda, moment to moment. But, you take up awareness of this through a sense of focus or surrender as a Self and you miss the point of the teaching. Your awareness of DO must also be emptied through DO thereby one doesn't even grasp at the experience of Buddhahood as an abiding Self, this to is relative.

 

 

In Simple easy language, without your beliefs clouding your mind, can you show me how awareness is a separate quantifiable substance that can be Increased or diminished?

 

It's the mis-interpretation of your own experience that clouds your ability to read what I have written.

 

Awareness is increased through wisdom and decreased through lack of wisdom. Through prajna your awareness expands, or through samadhi as well, even without prajna, but then this is where Hindus get it wrong and take up the result of meditative focus or surrender to the bliss expansion experience as a Self. It does seem as so when as you come down from the formless states everything seems to coagulate as if from the light of your experience. But, this is just an experience of consciousness expanding awareness made possible through the fact of non-inherent existence of everything, thus consciousness can proliferate beyond the individual who is empty through a focus of awareness, because everything is really transparent, including consciousness.

 

You will need to contemplate this and not just brush it away with the top down theory you identify with, where you think that everything is a product of one awareness through a process of metaphysical densification and proliferation of multiples through the will of this one awareness to become many, for the sake of lila or play?

 

DO of the Buddhas intuition does transcend "that" interpretation.

[Seth Ananda]

Sorry Vajra, I do not know how to quote you bit by bit the way you did as I am a bit of a ludite, so I will have to do it in this broken up possibly harder to read way...

 

"You didn't get what I said. Basically, awareness which is a product of consciousness, takes place within endless interdependent origination."

 

 

How? If awareness is a product of consciousness, that makes Awareness a 'Thing' but as one look shows, awareness can not be experienced, as all it does is experience, and there is nothing at all to suggest that their is a difference between Awareness and Consciousness. You Can not have an experience you are not aware of.

 

 

 

"Until you have a direct experience of inter-dependent origination beyond concepts, you will not understand. It must be contemplated upon. Including the formless states of samadhi and integration of these states through the wrong view of top down metaphysics. God being the top and everything else being the down."

 

 

That's just spiritual one up-manship. You are basicly saying I have to believe you first, and I have Zero interest in belief.

Awareness is not a Jhana, awareness is what is aware of a Formless Jhana or samahdi experience.

As i Keep saying Awareness is not a thing.

 

 

 

"Because you take up the state of concept-less awareness, one of the formless states as a source of everything, you miss the wisdom of the muni. Your awareness is a product of your consciousness, which arises dependent upon the DO chain of events within a very subtle span of experience like spanda, moment to moment. But, you take up awareness of this through a sense of focus or surrender as a Self and you miss the point of the teaching. Your awareness of DO must also be emptied through DO thereby one doesn't even grasp at the experience of Buddhahood as an abiding Self, this to is relative."

 

 

Same same, awareness doesnt arise or recede, It's not a thing. If awareness did arise you would be able to tell me about having experiences of no awareness which is not possible.

Once again your fancy be[Lie]f system is clouding your actual experience of reality, where you are always Aware of the experience you are having.

 

 

"It's the mis-interpretation of your own experience that clouds your ability to read what I have written.

Awareness is increased through wisdom and decreased through lack of wisdom. Through prajna your awareness expands, or through samadhi as well, even without prajna, but then this is where Hindus get it wrong and take up the result of meditative focus or surrender to the bliss expansion experience as a Self. It does seem as so when as you come down from the formless states everything seems to coagulate as if from the light of your experience. But, this is just an experience of consciousness expanding awareness made possible through the fact of non-inherent existence of everything, thus consciousness can proliferate beyond the individual who is empty through a focus of awareness, because everything is really transparent, including consciousness."

You will need to contemplate this and not just brush it away with the top down theory you identify with, where you think that everything is a product of one awareness through a process of metaphysical densification and proliferation of multiples through the will of this one awareness to become many, for the sake of lila or play?"

 

 

You Seem to be existing in a paradigm where the world exists, and your awareness comes and goes from it. If we forget all our be[lie]f's and just observe this is not posible.

The one constant thing in any ones experience of the world, or the many Inner states available, is that we are aware of the experience we are having. That - if you really look, without believing anything - Is absolutely certain.

 

So much closer to reality, and true to the one certain thing about our experience is that - Awareness Exists, and the world and our body's come and go within it.

See its the other way round to the world existing and awareness coming and going... Awareness exists and all different experiences arise and recede within it.

 

Once more you cant have an experience you are not aware of...

 

 

 

"DO of the Buddhas intuition does transcend "that" interpretation."

 

Dependent Origination is secondary to awareness. You can't know any Theory - ever -at all without awareness.

 

Seth.

[C T]

 

"DO of the Buddhas intuition does transcend "that" interpretation."

 

Dependent Origination is secondary to awareness. You can't know any Theory - ever -at all without awareness.

 

Seth.

Hello Seth Ananda...

 

Apologies in advance for butting in to this interesting exchange - from what i understand and have gained minute insight into, the Buddhist concept of the union of 'wisdom and method' does not say which takes precedent over the other - its more exact-ish to see in the way that DO points to primordial wisdom, existing prior to and above consciousness, and Awareness is Method, which includes all the stages that eventually takes the realizer even beyond conceptual union. Until such time, conceptual practices are useful to an extent, and over time, the practitioner learns to drop old habits of fixation and contraction.

 

I could be wrong here, but thats the way i have come to understand it.

 

 

 

 

ps- just out of curiosity, is Seth Ananda your real name? I like it. If one takes the Seth away, we both have the same name! Mine's not adopted, btw...

Edited June 20, 2010 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry Vajra, I do not know how to quote you bit by bit the way you did as I am a bit of a ludite, so I will have to do it in this broken up possibly harder to read way...

 

"You didn't get what I said. Basically, awareness which is a product of consciousness, takes place within endless interdependent origination."

 

 

How? If awareness is a product of consciousness, that makes Awareness a 'Thing' but as one look shows, awareness can not be experienced, as all it does is experience, and there is nothing at all to suggest that their is a difference between Awareness and Consciousness. You Can not have an experience you are not aware of.

 

 

Yes, you can. Awareness is not a thing in the sense of elements, but it does arise due to a configuration of elements, it's very deep and complex how a human gives rise to consciousness, then has awareness to one degree or another. While on the other hand animals, bugs... etc. They all have consciousness but not awareness to the degree that a human being does. Rocks, don't have consciousness at all, but are still made of sound and are arisings of collections of thought co-ordinating the basic elements into coagulation as a rock over and over again through endless time and evolution. It's so deep and complex to have a direct experience of what dependent origination means, but it can all be understood in a single moment beyond concrete thought. According to Hinduism, a rock is made of consciousness in a dense form. But, Buddhism does not see this way. Hinduism takes the expansive consciousness that happens in meditative states where the individuals awareness permeates space through the fact of emptiness as a ground of all being. Buddha called this a mis-interpretation of the experience.

 

"Until you have a direct experience of inter-dependent origination beyond concepts, you will not understand. It must be contemplated upon. Including the formless states of samadhi and integration of these states through the wrong view of top down metaphysics. God being the top and everything else being the down."

 

 

That's just spiritual one up-manship. You are basicly saying I have to believe you first, and I have Zero interest in belief.

Awareness is not a Jhana, awareness is what is aware of a Formless Jhana or samahdi experience.

As i Keep saying Awareness is not a thing.

 

No, you don't have to believe, but you have to transcend your current interpretation of your experiences in spiritual pursuit thus far in order to understand what the Buddha was getting at and why he said the Vedas are not authoritative. Also why he said that interpreting a cosmic Self into the cycling of the cosmos is just a high level delusion. He did say these things and there is a reason why. In Buddhism, awareness is indeed a phenomena, but it is the phenomena that makes Buddhahood possible.

 

 

 

"Because you take up the state of concept-less awareness, one of the formless states as a source of everything, you miss the wisdom of the muni. Your awareness is a product of your consciousness, which arises dependent upon the DO chain of events within a very subtle span of experience like spanda, moment to moment. But, you take up awareness of this through a sense of focus or surrender as a Self and you miss the point of the teaching. Your awareness of DO must also be emptied through DO thereby one doesn't even grasp at the experience of Buddhahood as an abiding Self, this to is relative."

 

 

Same same, awareness doesnt arise or recede, It's not a thing. If awareness did arise you would be able to tell me about having experiences of no awareness which is not possible.

 

Yes it is. In unconscious states of sleep, I am not aware. Of course if I were enlightened these unconscious states of sleep would be filled with awareness as my dense karmas would have been wiped away through the practice of awareness. Also, in the state of infinite nothingness, I am not aware. It's only afterwards that I say... "Oh, there was nothing and no one aware", only in contrast to when I become aware.

 

Once again your fancy be[Lie]f system is clouding your actual experience of reality, where you are always Aware of the experience you are having.

 

Are you always aware of the experience you are living? How about that mosquito that bite's you on the back of the leg while you are sleeping. Are you only aware of that when you wake up?

 

Your belief system allows for many assumptions that do not make sense upon deeper investigation. Because you have consciousness, does not mean you are aware. Through the practice you do develop more awareness. It is a phenomena that arises dependent upon practice.

 

Buddhadharma is a paradigm shift from the philosophy you think explains everything so well.

 

"It's the mis-interpretation of your own experience that clouds your ability to read what I have written.

Awareness is increased through wisdom and decreased through lack of wisdom. Through prajna your awareness expands, or through samadhi as well, even without prajna, but then this is where Hindus get it wrong and take up the result of meditative focus or surrender to the bliss expansion experience as a Self. It does seem as so when as you come down from the formless states everything seems to coagulate as if from the light of your experience. But, this is just an experience of consciousness expanding awareness made possible through the fact of non-inherent existence of everything, thus consciousness can proliferate beyond the individual who is empty through a focus of awareness, because everything is really transparent, including consciousness."

You will need to contemplate this and not just brush it away with the top down theory you identify with, where you think that everything is a product of one awareness through a process of metaphysical densification and proliferation of multiples through the will of this one awareness to become many, for the sake of lila or play?"

 

 

You Seem to be existing in a paradigm where the world exists, and your awareness comes and goes from it. If we forget all our be[lie]f's and just observe this is not posible.

The one constant thing in any ones experience of the world, or the many Inner states available, is that we are aware of the experience we are having. That - if you really look, without believing anything - Is absolutely certain.

 

 

You think these are beliefs, but Buddhism is a deeply intuitive process of methods for the sake of unraveling ones true potential and the philosophy that expresses the findings.

 

In certain states of sleep we are not aware of the world and in certain states of meditative absorption we are not aware of the world at the same time that we are having these inner experiences. It is only through the fact of connecting moments and awareness of these that memory works. But awareness is NOT constant, even if consciousness is still available, but at times consciousness is repressed and stupor is experienced maybe in one state of sleep or meditation or another. Of course if you have constant awareness, even in deep sleep where you have illumination or your awareness goes to higher realms or you consort with various deities or whatever. That's fabulous. But, this doesn't mean that everything is made of one consciousness. All of it, including the elements and individual consciousness' arise and flows, cycles and evolves within the vastness of inter-dependent origination and is all empty of inherent existence.

 

I think you are clouded by your beliefs Seth. I can say the same thing about you that your be"lie"f's lie to you. You think subtracting everything from awareness leaves God, cosmic awareness. But how deeply aware of the cosmos are you, personally? Where is the proof that there is this God that wills everything to be and is the underlying principle behind everything outside of having experiences of expansive consciousness and deities whispering in your ears saying this is so? Yes, there are Gods that have vast awareness, some think that they created everything out of being the first born. I know, I remember being a God like this and having this vast awareness. But, the truth is, is that as vast as my awareness was, it was not the same level of awareness of a Buddha. I was un-aware of other universes and other dimensions outside of my own experience. But, others were not un-aware, and others were aware of me as I was aware of lots and lots of beings traversing through my domain like ants on a table. Many ants are not aware of your presence as you stand above them, watching them come and go, until you put your finger next to one of them. Awareness is a phenomena.

 

So much closer to reality, and true to the one certain thing about our experience is that - Awareness Exists, and the world and our body's come and go within it.

 

Our consciousness permeates our body but we are not always aware of all the nooks and crannies of it. Our consciousness is a conditioned and karmic arising. How conscious is a tree body? Of course our mind stream is subtler than our physical body and our body arises within the karmic stream of our individual mind.

 

Once more you cant have an experience you are not aware of...

 

You do all the time. Your body consciousness is having the experience of walking on thousands of micro-organisms, but are you aware of it all the time?

 

 

"DO of the Buddhas intuition does transcend "that" interpretation."

 

Dependent Origination is secondary to awareness. You can't know any Theory - ever -at all without awareness.

 

Seth.

 

Inter-dependent origination is not a theory. It's how the cosmos works. It's deeply subtle, more complex, profound and simple than you are aware of.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Seth Ananda...

 

Apologies in advance for butting in to this interesting exchange - from what i understand and have gained minute insight into, the Buddhist concept of the union of 'wisdom and method' does not say which takes precedent over the other - its more exact-ish to see in the way that DO points to primordial wisdom, existing prior to and above consciousness, and Awareness is Method, which includes all the stages that eventually takes the realizer even beyond conceptual union. Until such time, conceptual practices are useful to an extent, and over time, the practitioner learns to drop old habits of fixation and contraction.

 

I could be wrong here, but thats the way i have come to understand it.

 

 

No, you are not wrong, as awareness arises dependent upon the practices, you untie the deeply imbedded knots that reside in and as your consciousness, thereby uncompounding your awareness of both you and the cosmos.

 

As it's all equally empty, nothing really is above anything else, but in the process of time of course there is cause and effect and the effect becomes a cause for another effect within a vast and infinite net of inter-co-arisings. Your consciousness arises in and through the net of inter-dependency.

 

Reading Abhidharma would help Seth to understand what the Buddha is getting at and why Nagarjuna said that most paths lead to the edge of Samsara but Buddhadharma leads beyond Samsara, and not in the sense that there is a place beyond Samsara, but that Buddhadharma teaches how one can experience Samsara as Nirvana by turning the DO link of ignorance into wisdom.

[dwai]

And my apologies for butting in here...

 

Hello Seth Ananda...

 

Apologies in advance for butting in to this interesting exchange - from what i understand and have gained minute insight into, the Buddhist concept of the union of 'wisdom and method' does not say which takes precedent over the other - its more exact-ish to see in the way that DO points to primordial wisdom, existing prior to and above consciousness, and Awareness is Method, which includes all the stages that eventually takes the realizer even beyond conceptual union. Until such time, conceptual practices are useful to an extent, and over time, the practitioner learns to drop old habits of fixation and contraction.

 

I could be wrong here, but thats the way i have come to understand it.

 

The problem is with definitions. What do you mean by Consciousness? Can we try and define it? It's structure? It's mechanics? Depending on how one sees it, That Primordial Wisdom IS Consciousness. There are problems of semantics when Sanskrit is translated into other languages...where Atman is translated as Soul instead of One's True Self, implying Pure Objectless Consciousness. Manas is translated as Consciousness, where it should really be "Mind", which is a field of thoughts (objects) in Consciousness.

 

DO is a perfect explanation in a Dualistic model, where Subject and Object interact. What happens when Objects don't exist anymore?