Opening from the Heart and the Wrong Approach to Non-Duality

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is a pattern in spiritual teachings (I guess more in the Buddhist sense) on the concept of "non-attachment" "non-reification" or "emptiness" (when interpreted wrongly) to the point of paranoia, questioning of all experiences:

 

"oh, am I reifying this"? "am I attaching to this experience"?

 

This is in my point of view just as unproductive and self sabotaging as actually becoming attached to experiences and things. This is attachment to non-attachment, it is a fear of being wrong and not following the written words or a doctrine. When words govern experience, and not the other way around, all sorts of confusion sets in.

 

When it is taught that emptiness is the nature of things, the fault is trying to "see" emptiness, analyzing "this is dependently originated and therefore empty." This is a useful teaching, but must lead to direct experience of emptiness and not a view of emptiness. The empty nature of things reveals itself naturally. You feel "in" emptiness, as in you feel constant change, spontaneity, and ungraspable expression, not a constant reverting to the view of emptiness. The view arises as a concept or a reminder when the mind begins to grasp things, but this is effortless, like a person in reaching into the fire, quickly pulls his hand back knowing it is hot. The view must not trap itself.

 

Luminosity, awareness, pristiness spoken so often of, and sometimes as the "ground" of being, is not something that belongs to phenomena. It is not a characteristic of phenomena. It is one's very essence. The basic beingness. Don't think beingness is some thing, some entity, it is an attitude. It is realizing what you are. Everyone who says luminosity is empty is wrong, because luminosity is not an entity. It is not a thing. Don't say that I am reifying it, it cannot be reified or non reified, because it is not a "it." It is only reified when one analyzes it, labels it, makes it some "thing." Then it becomes a thing, and now you have made a thingness out of beingness, which is a feeling of "everythingness."

 

When luminosity beings to reveal itself, there is no way one could reify it. It is pure creative expression itself. You feel infinite potential. It displays its empty nature perfectly like sweetness of candy. It is pure openness.

 

Reification is what happens when one goes back and analyzes this experience as something to fabricate, make God out of, or avoid, or "empty out."

 

Lumnosity's nature is pure expression, and it is the reflection of the universe. There is no universe but infinite reflections upon reflection. You are the universe and I am the universe, but a perspective of the whole universe: interdepednent. You don't feel you, you feel infinite. So Luminosity is not dependently originated, because it does not originate. It is interdependent. As in it is reflective.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[devoid]

Hi Lucky7Strikes,

 

I think you have made a very important and universal observation: the method of meditation is a mean, but not a goal in itself.

 

This goes for meditation on emptiness as well as meditation with focus on something else (in order to shut everything else out) whether the breath, any of the senses or even nothingness for that matter.

 

Once one has done this intensely enough (and obviously, you have) it simply becomes a matter of connecting the heart and mind. I think many people (including many people who consider themselves teachers) fail to realize the importance of this point.

[Aetherous]

Nice, thanks.

[Vajrahridaya]

The experience of luminosity arises dependent upon insight. Your luminosity is a dependent arising as well, as it is self liberating upon recognition. Your very existence arises dependently, so does your enlightened experience of yourself arise dependently as well.

[Vajrahridaya]

In the Tantra of the Precious Garland of the Great Perfection, Adibuddha Samantabhadra states:

Clinging and attachment to the trio of body, speech and mind is the cause of samsara. Recognizing the trio of body, speech and mind to be insubstantial is the basis of nirvana.

 

[i.e. nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, dharmakaya]

 

(Adibuddha means a being that was born into this cosmos with merit from a previous cosmos to not be bound by these afflictions, thus no different from your potential, and as dependently originated as your own existence)

Edited February 3, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aetherous]

Interesting, Vajrahridaya.

Edited February 3, 2011 by center

[Vajrahridaya]

Interesting, Vajrahridaya.

 

That means recognizing impermanence as permanent (through nothing other than the impermanent mind of a sentient being) leads to the experience of luminosity, generally this experience is clung to as permanent in and of itself due to the mistake of self clinging within this experience through focus or contemplation, which leads to mistaken outcomes.

 

Of course... to say impermanence is permanent is merely a word expression when it's null in and of it's own unarisen nature, thus nothing to grasp and no one to grasp. (This is not to say nature exists in and of itself either)

 

One must transcend luminosity! As well as oneself transcending luminosity.

 

So, even Buddhahood cannot be considered an essential nature, conceptually nor non-conceptually.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Lucky7Strikes: Luminosity... ...is not something that belongs to phenomena.

 

 

Me: Yes of course... luminosity does not belong to phenomena as there is no phenomena with an inherent existence or characteristic just there is no 'redness' that belongs to 'red flower' as explained before. Luminosity does not 'belong' to something, it simply is, and what is, interdependently originates and is empty. What interdependently originates has no origin, and is a self-sprung expression like the experience of music is a complete and new phenomena of itself inseparable from all other conditions but without an external origin (like ear, speakers, air, etc). All appearances are spontaneously perfected from the beginning as the spontaneous presence (effortless/natural manifestation) of intrinsic awareness, self-luminous and empty.

 

 

 

Lucky7Strikes: The empty nature of things reveals itself naturally. You feel "in" emptiness, as in you feel constant change, spontaneity, and ungraspable expression, not a constant reverting to the view of emptiness.

 

Me: Well said. What the empty nature of things end is your constant effort and grasping for a 'something', including an 'awareness', 'source', 'here/now', etc. What remains is self-luminous, effortless, natural, sponteous expressions of interdependent origination.

 

 

Lucky7Strikes: It is one's very essence. The basic beingness.

 

Me: And yet, is there any phenomena right now that is not basically a self-luminous expression and appearance?

 

Does the sense of I AM, or the basic beingness, have a monopoly over other phenomena? Or is it just a non-conceptual thought which shares the same taste as every other phenomena?

 

 

 

Lucky7Strikes: When luminosity beings to reveal itself, there is no way one could reify it.

 

 

Me: Pure luminosity reveals itself before reification, concepts, duality, etc, but due to the 'dualistic/inherent construct', almost immediately after a transcendental glimpse, we immediately reify a background, a source, an inherent self, etc. This has been my experience at least, until further insights dissolve those subtle reification (and continues to be dissolving).

 

 

 

Lucky7Strikes: It is realizing what you are.

 

Me: This is the I AM insight, the Certainty of Being that I talked about. There is no order of precedence how the phases of insight unfolds for people. Some experience/realize it after non-dual, some before. Like Joan Tollifson puts it... rather than a linear stage progression, sometimes it is more like a spiral going back and forth, though that is also just a relative perspective of things. The spiralling continues until one sees with utter conviction that all phenomena shares the same taste, that everything in its primordial purity is Dharmakaya itself.

Edited February 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

p.s. I no longer have a concept or notion of awareness or what it should be. So what is Awareness? At best, a word. At worst, an inferred existence taken to be real. There is no awareness, no subject, no object, just...

 

The actuality...

 

Sound of keyboard typing... music... bird singing... smell of aroma... words appearing on the screen... sensations in my stomach... breathing...

Edited February 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

The experience of luminosity arises dependent upon insight. Your luminosity is a dependent arising as well, as it is self liberating upon recognition. Your very existence arises dependently, so does your enlightened experience of yourself arise dependently as well.

The recognition of one's self-nature, yes, I agree, rises dependently on the teachings of the dharma and past cultivation. The contents of experience also arise dependently.

 

But awareness does not arise dependently. If it arises, then it means it would cease, or that it has an origin, which is false. I can understand that it is interdependent, as in, there is matrix of reflective awareness beings, but to me that is still conceptual and moreover believe it is unproductive to continually (although it is good as a process) to attribute everything to something else, always saying to one self, "this, from that, that, from this." Rather the establishment of this and that must be transcended altogether.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

There is a pattern in spiritual teachings (I guess more in the Buddhist sense) on the concept of "non-attachment" "non-reification" or "emptiness" (when interpreted wrongly) to the point of paranoia, questioning of all experiences:

 

"oh, am I reifying this"? "am I attaching to this experience"?

 

This is in my point of view just as unproductive and self sabotaging as actually becoming attached to experiences and things. This is attachment to non-attachment, it is a fear of being wrong and not following the written words or a doctrine. When words govern experience, and not the other way around, all sorts of confusion sets in.

 

When it is taught that emptiness is the nature of things, the fault is trying to "see" emptiness, analyzing "this is dependently originated and therefore empty." This is a useful teaching, but must lead to direct experience of emptiness and not a view of emptiness. The empty nature of things reveals itself naturally. You feel "in" emptiness, as in you feel constant change, spontaneity, and ungraspable expression, not a constant reverting to the view of emptiness. The view arises as a concept or a reminder when the mind begins to grasp things, but this is effortless, like a person in reaching into the fire, quickly pulls his hand back knowing it is hot. The view must not trap itself.

 

Luminosity, awareness, pristiness spoken so often of, and sometimes as the "ground" of being, is not something that belongs to phenomena. It is not a characteristic of phenomena. It is one's very essence. The basic beingness. Don't think beingness is some thing, some entity, it is an attitude. It is realizing what you are. Everyone who says luminosity is empty is wrong, because luminosity is not an entity. It is not a thing. Don't say that I am reifying it, it cannot be reified or non reified, because it is not a "it." It is only reified when one analyzes it, labels it, makes it some "thing." Then it becomes a thing, and now you have made a thingness out of beingness, which is a feeling of "everythingness."

 

When luminosity beings to reveal itself, there is no way one could reify it. It is pure creative expression itself. You feel infinite potential. It displays its empty nature perfectly like sweetness of candy. It is pure openness.

 

Reification is what happens when one goes back and analyzes this experience as something to fabricate, make God out of, or avoid, or "empty out."

 

Lumnosity's nature is pure expression, and it is the reflection of the universe. There is no universe but infinite reflections upon reflection. You are the universe and I am the universe, but a perspective of the whole universe: interdepednent. You don't feel you, you feel infinite. So Luminosity is not dependently originated, because it does not originate. It is interdependent. As in it is reflective.

 

 

You're getting there, imho.

The proverbial boat has sailed from the river to the ocean now...the key is to not get caught in a reverse current and float back into the river.

 

 

[dwai]

The recognition of one's self-nature, yes, I agree, rises dependently on the teachings of the dharma and past cultivation. The contents of experience also arise dependently.

 

But awareness does not arise dependently. If it arises, then it means it would cease, or that it has an origin, which is false. I can understand that it is interdependent, as in, there is matrix of reflective awareness beings, but to me that is still conceptual and moreover believe it is unproductive to continually (although it is good as a process) to attribute everything to something else, always saying to one self, "this, from that, that, from this." Rather the establishment of this and that must be transcended altogether.

 

Nagaruna 101. Very nice and insightful...read the post titled "Nagarjuna and Samkara, Some reflective thoughts" and the link provided there in...this will take our "old debates" a long way further.

[Lucky7Strikes]

That means recognizing impermanence as permanent (through nothing other than the impermanent mind of a sentient being) leads to the experience of luminosity, generally this experience is clung to as permanent in and of itself due to the mistake of self clinging within this experience through focus or contemplation, which leads to mistaken outcomes.

I don't think that is the luminosity I am speaking of and experiencing. There is a bounded experience of luminosity, and a boundless, unrecognized, spontaneous luminosity that is the essence of all experience. It is the expression (it is not expressing, it is the expression). Yes, the clinging comes because one has approached practice with the intentions to attain a state of union with a Godhead or something like that.

 

One must transcend luminosity! As well as oneself transcending luminosity.

 

So, even Buddhahood cannot be considered an essential nature, conceptually nor non-conceptually.

Constant transcendence! Liberating all things that come into view! It becomes one's nature. .

[xabir2005]

The recognition of one's self-nature, yes, I agree, rises dependently on the teachings of the dharma and past cultivation. The contents of experience also arise dependently.

 

But awareness does not arise dependently. If it arises, then it means it would cease, or that it has an origin, which is false. I can understand that it is interdependent, as in, there is matrix of reflective awareness beings, but to me that is still conceptual and moreover believe it is unproductive to continually (although it is good as a process) to attribute everything to something else, always saying to one self, "this, from that, that, from this." Rather the establishment of this and that must be transcended altogether.

Herein lies the difference between Thusness Stage 4 (mirror bright) and 5 (no mirror)... what I am describing is that, in seeing just the seen ('seeing' is just the experience of sight without seer), in hearing just the heard ('hearing' is just the experience of sound without hearer), awareness is simply this process of experiencing without an agent. In my experience, Bahiya Sutta describes this well and contemplating Bahiya Sutta led me to to this insight.

 

You seem to be sinking back into One Mind... a non-dependent awareness that is nevertheless non-dual with dependent phenomena. A mirror that is one with its reflection.

 

I don't see awareness/container and contents of awareness and their inseparability which many neo-advaita teachers talk about these days... I see an ever-changing process that reveal itself on its own accord and is self-luminous... the process itself rolls and knows without a knower. Without a subject, there is no inseparability, no unicity, just... sound of phone ringing.

Edited February 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

A teacher named Kenneth Folk recently realized Anatta (he used to be in the substantialist non-dual phase, and prior that, the I AM phase). He has not written any articles about it (all his current articles only describe until the non dual phase), but said in forum posts that he was wrong, his teaching was incomplete, and he was glad to present his new understanding (in his new 7 stages of enlightenment model. not thusness 7 stages of enlightenment, but kenneth folk 7 stages of enlightenment.)

 

Here is what he said which I think is pretty good.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqYUNHrLFq0

 

Transcription (by augustleo - http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4447381/The+7th+Stage+of+Enlightenment ):

 

... You do this kind of "looping thing where mind tries to be subject and object at the same time or oscillates between them. And it says "No ... no "I" here.

 

So that's the test for the 7th stage. You can no longer find anything that you would recongnize as "I". So what you are left with is objects. There are simply these phenomena and these phenomena can be broken down into seeing, hearing, tasting, touching smelling and thinking - the 6 sense doors according to Buddhism.

 

Sof if you think about that, you are nothing other than a sense organ. I am nothing other than a sense organ. There's no agency here. There's no doer. There are just these 6 sensory inputs including thinking.

 

That is an extraordinary recognition. And the freedom that comes from that recognition is the happiness that is independent of conditions, AKA Enlightenment.

 

And notice it's in the seeing is only the "seen" ... that is exactly the experience - in the seeing is only the "seen" ... it's not the seeing ... it's not seeing as the seer, there is no seer. We don't have a subject receptor. There isn't anything in this mind that can pick up a subject.

Now what that means is that, although we can logically infer that there must be a subject, we can not experience that. The subject is always inferred. So even the practices that involve Awareness, practices that involve letting Awareness be aware of Awareness et cetera, those are practices - transitional modalities or transitional phases which eventually have to be let go of. Because we can not perceive Awareness, we can only infer Awareness.

 

So we could talk about this in terms of 1st and 2nd order phenomena. 1st order phenomena are the six sense doors: seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling and thinking. 2nd order phenomena would be things like "I know there's Awareness because there has to be." Fine, I don't disagree with the logic, but "you" don't know that. That is an inference.

 

So subject is always inferred. And as long as we don't feel obligated to take that step or make that leap into inference, we don't create self. [JG: ... there's the object but not the inferred subject] Yes. And as long as we stick with that we're golden. There is the object and the hearing is just the heard. That's it. And although we might like to make it more complicated, it doesn't have to be, and it turns out we're much better off when we don't complicate it. ...

Edited February 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

What interdependently originates has no origin, and is a self-sprung expression like the experience of music is a complete and new phenomena of itself inseparable from all other conditions but without an external origin (like ear, speakers, air, etc).

How do you know this? An experience cannot be seen in its interdepedency. This is only inferred through logic. Moreover, what is interdepedent, according to your sense, does have a origin in time. As in in your sense of the word, it does originate, it is born.

 

"new phenomena of itself inseparable from all other conditions but without an external origin (like ear, speakers, air, etc)" This sounds purely conceptual. Are you saying the phenomena and conditions all arise simultaneously? If it is simultaneous, then the next moment must also be simultaneous. We have two simultaneous moments now. Where do we draw the line between these two simultaneous moments? Are they all simultaneous?

 

Me: And yet, is there any phenomena right now that is not basically a self-luminous expression and appearance?

 

Does the sense of I AM, or the basic beingness, have a monopoly over other phenomena? Or is it just a non-conceptual thought which shares the same taste as every other phenomena?

To the first question: no.

 

Lucky7Strikes: It is realizing what you are.

 

Me: This is the I AM insight, the Certainty of Being that I talked about. There is no order of precedence how the phases of insight unfolds for people. Some experience/realize it after non-dual, some before. Like Joan Tollifson puts it... rather than a linear stage progression, sometimes it is more like a spiral going back and forth, though that is also just a relative perspective of things. The spiralling continues until one sees with utter conviction that all phenomena shares the same taste, that everything in its primordial purity is Dharmakaya itself.

No it is not the I AM insight. I AM insight is dual, it categorizes experience into Me vs. phenomena, purity vs. imputiry, etc. I am speaking of awareness. .

[Lucky7Strikes]

Herein lies the difference between Thusness Stage 4 (mirror bright) and 5 (no mirror)... what I am describing is that, in seeing just the seen ('seeing' is just the experience of sight without seer), in hearing just the heard ('hearing' is just the experience of sound without hearer), awareness is simply this process of experiencing without an agent. In my experience, Bahiya Sutta describes this well and contemplating Bahiya Sutta led me to to this insight.

The Bahiya Sutta is a teaching, a way of practice. I don't believe it is indication of the enlightened state. Seeing is ungraspable, one shouldn't experience in terms of seeing, eating, feeling. That is a way of understanding, but not the final state of liberation. One should understand the unfindeabilty of "seeing, eating, feeling" then there is seeing, eating and feeling in a dynamic play. But the difference is really beyond words.

 

You seem to be sinking back into One Mind... a non-dependent awareness that is nevertheless non-dual with dependent phenomena. A mirror that is one with its reflection.

No, I am saying that whether awareness is dependent or non-dependent in its very existence is unknowable. (but in regards to its contents, I do see the application of dependent origination) You cannot know it, and in my point of view, it is important that one accept th mystery of being and abide is the ever openness that result from it. There is a tendency for seeker to try to ascertain the exact way of things, and when that effort goes too far, we fall into logical structures that are arbitrary to the very experience of what is right now.

 

I don't see awareness/container and contents of awareness and their inseparability which many neo-advaita teachers talk about these days... I see an ever-changing process that reveal itself on its own accord and is self-luminous... the process itself rolls and knows without a knower. Without a subject, there is no inseparability, no unicity, just... sound of phone ringing.

No I don't agree with awareness being a containment, everything IS awareness, because ultimately that is the only thing we can ascertain about our very existence. It's not even being certain, it's about being stripped naked about all our attempts to construct a model of reality. Not even Truth or ANY structure bounds, there is no one to bound, the liberated one is nowhere and ungraspable, everything is experience as a dream!

 

I might be wrong, but when one is thinking "there is this process" or "there is me interdependent on something else" one inevitably takes the experience of this very moment and attributes it to another factor. It is a subtle duality of "part" to a "whole." Conceptually, I think this is good, but experientially, one even has to let go of this notion. One doen't feel process, one feels boundless expression. Creation for creation sakes, a fearless openness.

 

So yes, the close we can get to this in words is: "just...sound of phone ringing" then gone.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

So that's the test for the 7th stage. You can no longer find anything that you would recongnize as "I". So what you are left with is objects. There are simply these phenomena and these phenomena can be broken down into seeing, hearing, tasting, touching smelling and thinking - the 6 sense doors according to Buddhism.

 

Sof if you think about that, you are nothing other than a sense organ. I am nothing other than a sense organ. There's no agency here. There's no doer. There are just these 6 sensory inputs including thinking.

 

That is an extraordinary recognition. And the freedom that comes from that recognition is the happiness that is independent of conditions, AKA Enlightenment.

He needs to see the emptiness of the sense organs. That they are nothing but like dreams imagined by the mind. One's experience is far beyond the mere sense organs. That is just the state of being human.

 

Now what that means is that, although we can logically infer that there must be a subject, we can not experience that. The subject is always inferred. So even the practices that involve Awareness, practices that involve letting Awareness be aware of Awareness et cetera, those are practices - transitional modalities or transitional phases which eventually have to be let go of. Because we can not perceive Awareness, we can only infer Awareness.

I can't agree with this. "Infer" awareness? You ARE awareness. Cannot perceive awareness? Perception IS awareness. There is no need to infer or anything like that. Experience is directly!

 

Let go, let go, let go, become the let going. Then nothing bounds, not even reality, not world, no anyone, not yourself, no view, no truth, no Buddha, no demon, no book, no doctrine, no fear, no knowing or unknowing, Nothing! A free wanderer in existence, not knowing origin, cessation, now, or ever, in an eternal play, one with its very nature, freely roaming the winds, no future lives, no past lives, no depedence, no self, Self, interdepednece, enlightening anything that comes in its way!!

Edited February 3, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

The Bahiya Sutta is a teaching, a way of practice. I don't believe it is indication of the enlightened state. Seeing is ungraspable, one shouldn't experience in terms of seeing, eating, feeling. That is a way of understanding, but not the final state of liberation. One should understand the unfindeabilty of "seeing, eating, feeling" then there is seeing, eating and feeling in a dynamic play. But the difference is really beyond words.

 

 

No, I am saying that whether awareness is dependent or non-dependent in its very existence is unknowable. (but in regards to its contents, I do see the application of dependent origination) You cannot know it, and in my point of view, it is important that one accept th mystery of being and abide is the ever openness that result from it. There is a tendency for seeker to try to ascertain the exact way of things, and when that effort goes too far, we fall into logical structures that are arbitrary to the very experience of what is right now.

 

 

No I don't agree with awareness being a containment, everything IS awareness, because ultimately that is the only thing we can ascertain about our very existence. It's not even being certain, it's about being stripped naked about all our attempts to construct a model of reality. Not even Truth or ANY structure bounds, there is no one to bound, the liberated one is nowhere and ungraspable, everything is experience as a dream!

 

I might be wrong, but when one is thinking "there is this process" or "there is me interdependent on something else" one inevitably takes the experience of this very moment and attributes it to another factor. It is a subtle duality of "part" to a "whole." Conceptually, I think this is good, but experientially, one even has to let go of this notion. One doen't feel process, one feels boundless expression. Creation for creation sakes, a fearless openness.

 

So yes, the close we can get to this in words is: "just...sound of phone ringing" then gone.

 

Gee! You're beginning to sound more and more like someone else I know....

Hey waitaminnit! Me!!

[thuscomeone]

I haven't posted on this forum in almost a year. I've been away from Buddhism for a while. In this past week, I've had very rapid and deep insights into non-duality and anatta. First, I came to see no separate self. That is, the I simply IS the five skandhas. The watcher is the thought/skandhas. So, in a way, it is wrong to say that there is no watcher. The thought that creates the watcher IS the watcher. Nothing needs to be rejected. This experience is blissful. But it isn't the end. I was still dividing subject and object. I then remembered non duality of subject and object that I had realized before. So the I is the skandhas and the skandhas are...awareness. Then I was still subtlety dividing awareness from thought.

 

This is where things get strange. I would like xabir to respond to this as I believe this is the "no mind" stage in Zen. When I realized that awareness and thoughts are the same, the whole phenomenal world in all its multiplicity came back into view. The all subsuming awareness that was there before dissapeared into phenomenal multiplicity. This came to me when I was wondering how to fit dependent arising into my view. Dependent arising requires multiplicity.

 

The ten thousand things return to one.

 

What does the one return to?

 

The ten thousand things.

 

There are only these 5 dependently arisen, impermanent aggregates.

 

I have another question for xabir as well. What does the emptiness of emptiness refer to? Does dependent arising itself need to be completely rejected at some point? What does it truly mean to be free of views? This is what I'm very confused about right now.

Edited February 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[XieJia]

There's the emotion and the needs to state of me liking that of what Lucky7Strikes said about letting go. Don't forget to let go of the let go aswell, even the awareness itself. Not that I know anything too much about it, all things led to one but if the one is being observed then is it one?

 

@xabir2005

There's no test for the stages of enlightenment;

either one is there or one is not. There's no longer doubts or delusion.

 

Chuck all the books, texts and videos away! and get to practice. And all the questions, one will know oneself.

[Vajrahridaya]

No, I am saying that whether awareness is dependent or non-dependent in its very existence is unknowable.

 

Awareness is produced from consciousness and is dependent upon it's objects. The cycle of dependent origination is a continuum and is instantaneous. Just because you are conscious doesn't make you aware. Being aware of consciousness' emptiness as well as the emptiness of it's objects, uncompounds it experientially, expanding it infinitely.

 

Your consciousness arises due to an instantaneous kind of fermentation of the elements on a non-physical level and physical level too. This whole level thing is just a way of saying it, but there are no levels really, there just is on many dimensions all co-supporting each other equally and un-equally at the same time.

 

Go back to the suttas for a basic understanding of dependent origination.

 

You seem to make the mistake of making awareness ultimate in and of itself? Awareness is the ultimate factor in enlightenment, but is not the ultimate, as that becomes "selfish" and conducive to the "pride" of the gods, which is a very subtle pride and ignorance. To put it one way, the cosmos is a sideways flow, cycling without beginning or end, enlightenment is a downward or upward flow cutting through the cosmos, revealing it's emptiness through awareness, but awareness is not ultimate in and of itself, it's only the ultimate factor in enlightenment.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Does dependent arising itself need to be completely rejected at some point? What does it truly mean to be free of views? This is what I'm very confused about right now.

 

Dependent origination doesn't need to be accepted nor rejected, it's empty of inherent existence, but it is the all... and thus the all cannot be grasped and as you are a product of the all... you cannot be grasped by yourself either. This is freedom from proliferation, even as it continues.

[thuscomeone]

Dependent origination doesn't need to be accepted nor rejected, it's empty of inherent existence, but it is the all... and thus the all cannot be grasped and as you are a product of the all... you cannot be grasped by yourself either. This is freedom from proliferation, even as it continues.

Ah, I see. Dependent arising as a thought/realization is itself dependently arisen.

[xabir2005]

The Bahiya Sutta is a teaching, a way of practice. I don't believe it is indication of the enlightened state. Seeing is ungraspable, one shouldn't experience in terms of seeing, eating, feeling. That is a way of understanding, but not the final state of liberation. One should understand the unfindeabilty of "seeing, eating, feeling" then there is seeing, eating and feeling in a dynamic play. But the difference is really beyond words.

 

 

No, I am saying that whether awareness is dependent or non-dependent in its very existence is unknowable. (but in regards to its contents, I do see the application of dependent origination) You cannot know it, and in my point of view, it is important that one accept th mystery of being and abide is the ever openness that result from it. There is a tendency for seeker to try to ascertain the exact way of things, and when that effort goes too far, we fall into logical structures that are arbitrary to the very experience of what is right now.

 

 

No I don't agree with awareness being a containment, everything IS awareness, because ultimately that is the only thing we can ascertain about our very existence. It's not even being certain, it's about being stripped naked about all our attempts to construct a model of reality. Not even Truth or ANY structure bounds, there is no one to bound, the liberated one is nowhere and ungraspable, everything is experience as a dream!

 

I might be wrong, but when one is thinking "there is this process" or "there is me interdependent on something else" one inevitably takes the experience of this very moment and attributes it to another factor. It is a subtle duality of "part" to a "whole." Conceptually, I think this is good, but experientially, one even has to let go of this notion. One doen't feel process, one feels boundless expression. Creation for creation sakes, a fearless openness.

 

So yes, the close we can get to this in words is: "just...sound of phone ringing" then gone.

An unknowable non-dual awareness that is all there is... that is thusness stage 4. You won't be able to factor in D.O. because you don't see awareness as manifestation.

 

I don't see a single awareness (aka One Mind). I see various consciousness manifesting due to dependent origination, each manifestation radically different - eye consciousness radically different from nose consciousness, etc.

 

http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

 

....Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"

 

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

 

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

 

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

 

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

 

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."

 

When this was said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Sati had become silent, unable to reply back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned down, told him: "Foolish man, you will be known on account of this pernicious view; now I will question the bhikkhus on this."

 

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"

 

"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

 

"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.

 

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

 

"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."...

Edited February 4, 2011 by xabir2005