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

[xabir2005]

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.

Nice to see you around again What you said sounds like No Mind. Do you realize that in seeing, there is just the seen, in hearing just the heard, in thinking just thoughts, no agency (i.e. perceiver) is present? Don't worry about free from views now. Establish the right view (anatta and D.O./emptiness), when insight into emptiness arises, you will become free from all views. There is often this tendency to do away with views too early, preventing the subtler insight into emptiness. Edited February 4, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Nice to see you around again What you said sounds like No Mind. Do you realize that in seeing, there is just the seen, in hearing just the heard, in thinking just thoughts, no agency is present? Don't worry about free from views now. Establish the right view (anatta and D.O./emptiness), when insight into emptiness arises, you will become free from all views. There is often this tendency to do away with views too early, preventing the subtler insight into emptiness.

Nice to be back haha. Yeah, I see that there is no seer apart from seeing, thinker apart from thought, etc. There are only the dependently arisen, present yet ungraspable aggregates. And the aggregates are not existent, not non existent, etc. Yeah, I went through seeing dependent arising pretty thoroughly a few years back. Now I've penetrated non duality and anatta. I'm putting all the pieces together now haha. Looking at your blog, it seems you have come a ways in your insights as well...

 

Oh wait, you're talking about non-duality not anatta with "no seeing apart from the seen. Yeah, I went through that. That's the "one mind" stage. It's funny, while non-dual and anatta have subtle differences, they really both are the same in that they both eliminate the sense of a permanent, independent watcher separated from the transience.

Edited February 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

empty and free.

[Vajrahridaya]

Non-duality experience happens due to the emptiness of all things, but most paths mistake the expansion of awareness that happens through focus or letting go as proof that consciousness is the ultimate nature and supreme cause of all things.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Nice to be back haha. Yeah, I see that there is no seer apart from seeing, thinker apart from thought, etc. There are only the dependently arisen, present yet ungraspable aggregates. And the aggregates are not existent, not non existent, etc. Yeah, I went through seeing dependent arising pretty thoroughly a few years back. Now I've penetrated non duality and anatta. I'm putting all the pieces together now haha. Looking at your blog, it seems you have come a ways in your insights as well...

 

Oh wait, you're talking about non-duality not anatta with "no seeing apart from the seen. Yeah, I went through that. That's the "one mind" stage. It's funny, while non-dual and anatta have subtle differences, they really both are the same in that they both eliminate the sense of a permanent, independent watcher separated from the transience.

Great insight!

 

One Mind sees no duality... yet sees an inherent singular awareness. No Mind dissolves this 'singular awareness' into multiplicity... though it should be noted that the experience of no mind may not necessarily be the insight of anatta (for some in the stage 4 non-dual phase, no-mind remains a temporary stage or peak experience yet insight hasn't arisen), but no-mind is the natural state/experience of one who has realized anatta. But realizing 'no seer apart from seeing, thinker apart from thought' is the insight of anatta. There is no-agent, there is only the aggregates and these aggregates dependently originates.

 

You said well that 'Dependent arising requires multiplicity.'... holding onto One Mind will prevent full insight and appreciation into the workings of D.O.

Edited February 4, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Great insight!

 

One Mind sees no duality... yet sees an inherent singular awareness. No Mind dissolves this 'singular awareness' into multiplicity... though it should be noted that the experience of no mind may not necessarily be the insight of anatta (for some in the stage 4 non-dual phase, no-mind remains a temporary stage or peak experience yet insight hasn't arisen), but no-mind is the natural state/experience of one who has realized anatta. But realizing 'no seer apart from seeing, thinker apart from thought' is the insight of anatta.

 

You said well that 'Dependent arising requires multiplicity.'... holding onto One Mind will prevent full insight and appreciation into the workings of D.O.

Exactly. It really is beautiful how it all just comes back to this moment.

[xabir2005]

Thusness told me something before - even after the experience of no-mind one will still oscillate between subject/object division in a very subtle way; that is because of the ‘wrong view’. There is the experience of no-‘mind’ but because experience cannot sync with the ‘existing dualistic and inherent paradigm’. If deep within us we still entertain the existing ‘dualistic and inherent framework’, then this subtle lingering trace of division has to continue. Though it may sound obvious, a practitioner can still get stuck for quite some time despite the clear experience of no-mind.

 

To break-through we have to firmly establish the right view that the ‘nature’ of experiential reality is nothing ‘dualistic and inherent’. So first, firmly establish the view of anatta, after some time, the subtle lingering trace will dissolve because now the ‘view’ allows and caters for the experience of no-mind. Once a practitioner breaks through this hurdle, he has no worry for ‘right view’ though ultimately all are rafts. Not to drop away ‘right view’ too quick before we realized the quintessence of ‘the view’.

 

Many will jump into non-conceptuality and is afraid to adopt view... thinking that adopting 'view' is a problem. But non-conceptuality is equally a problem. This is what Thusness calls the 'disease of non-conceptuality'.

 

Also, be fearless to challenge any lingering trace... as he told me before, wait for a period of 90-180 days, the lingering trace might resurface after the grandeur is gone. But with firm establishment of view, the experience will return with stability.

Edited February 4, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly. It really is beautiful how it all just comes back to this moment.

 

Which also is empty of self nature, does not inherently exist and is ungraspable. Buddhism does offer a type of surrender, but not to an inherent nature, or inherent moment... it cuts a little deeper and asks to surrender a little more, but that is the difference between the edge of Samsara and Nirvana.

[thuscomeone]

Which also is empty of self nature, does not inherently exist and is ungraspable. Buddhism does offer a type of surrender, but not to an inherent nature, or inherent moment... it cuts a little deeper and asks to surrender a little more, but that is the difference between the edge of Samsara and Nirvana.

Oh I understand that. I'm just saying that you can't deny there is a moment present here. It is mere appearance but still undeniably present. One can deny too much and in not recognizing this moment, fall into nihilism. But we don't want to hold too tightly either. It's a fine line.

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh I understand that. I'm just saying that you can't deny there is a moment present here. It is mere appearance but still undeniably present. One can deny too much and in not recognizing this moment, fall into nihilism. But we don't want to hold too tightly either. It's a fine line.

 

I absolutely agree, without grasping too tightly to my agreement. LOL! Kidding.

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Yes I agree. Consciousness is awareness that is bound to a thing. Such as the eyes, the body. It is the false light. Awareness is not produced, it is obscured by its own confusion. If you tell me that awareness is dependently originated, I want to ask you "how do you know that?" How can anyone know that experientially and not conceptually?

 

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.

I'm not making any ultimate in and of itself statement. Experience is ungraspable. So is truth, reality, or any structure conjured up by the mind. Strip everything naked and you are left with a boundless luminous creativity/expressive feeling. All this talk of cosmos being like this, being like that, and I'll ask you "how do you know?" From books? From a guru? From a vision? Now you are bound to a memory, a experience, a structure. Throwing away a structure for another structure. There is no inherent way this universe "is." It is unknowable. Even the desire to escape samsara is meaningless. Or attain nirvana. Or to live beyond death or birth or cycle or not cycle through rebirth. You have to cut everything down to its bare spontaneity and openness.

 

Let go, let go, and in letting go, no mind, no thought, no me, no you, no universe, no reality, no structure, no fear, no non-fear, not even this or that, continual transcendence in this very moment.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

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?

There is no longer a concept of anything. Everything feels to be in a let go. The moment you think or label, "this is the way," "this is the workings of the cosmos," "this is letting go" you have yet put up another structure. I had an incredible awakening two weeks ago and everything about my body's energies was flowing in reverse. All this new knowledge of the cosmos started cramming into my brain. I couldn't sleep for 4-5 days and the bliss was incredible. I was breathing at an inhuman rate, and barely ate. But then my mind began to restructure this experience into concepts like "dependent origination" "yin/yang" "interdependence" and basically all the spiritual concepts that had been lodged into my brain. Basically, I couldn't let the raft go. I had all this indescribable compassionate energy flowing through my body, my heart was pulsing in my stomache, and passing out momentarily during meditation. I was so thankful, felt so blessed. But the desire to "know" the universe was still very strong. And when that structuring process began to resettle, my view returned to its duality, but now I'm beginning to really understand, not know and not see, but be the Way.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Well, I don't really "see" anything anymore. . Everything upon arising, liberates itself.

 

If you don't see a single awareness, then there is no experience of unity. I'm not saying there is a single awareness or a dual awareness. Then you are holding onto a substantial view of reality or material things. Or material experiences. I think this is due to clinging too strongly to

"no-self" teachings. Although these words sound contradictory, it is as close words can get to describe the experience: openness, ungraspablity, unity, spontaneity....the emptiness of mind, the openness of the heart, the pure creative expression of all.

 

I'm not saying I am enlightened or anything like that. I find that my current state of experiencing things feels right and feels liberating, and feels cannot be transcended any further because it is transcendence itself. Of course, I might be wrong, but I don't know what right or wrong anymore. I don't see anyone, me, awarness, or anything anymore. I hesitate to write "I AM", because it is distinct from experiencing the certainty of being. It's rather the uncertainty of being.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh I understand that. I'm just saying that you can't deny there is a moment present here. It is mere appearance but still undeniably present. One can deny too much and in not recognizing this moment, fall into nihilism. But we don't want to hold too tightly either. It's a fine line.

You are approaching things too conceptually. See the very habit of conceptualizing .

 

To nowhere, from nowhere, not here, not there, a fearless openness to what is.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

 

To nowhere, from nowhere, not here, not there, a fearless openness to what is.

EXcellent, L7! No fear, as there is, essentially, no 'one' to feel the fear. Fear is a conditioned response... where you are now, your understanding, has gone beyond there being a 'person' to suffer the effects of fear-generated egoic conditionings, hence the expansion and prolonged undistractedness of remaining in this way would certainly mean no accumulation of new karma. Finish the old ones thru purification practices, and then perhaps you may consider making Jalus a prospective and worthwhile culmination of your quest? Its apparent you have done the work, so why not enjoy the fruits?

 

sadhu! sadhu! sadhu!

[Lucky7Strikes]

EXcellent, L7! No fear, as there is, essentially, no 'one' to feel the fear. Fear is a conditioned response... where you are now, your understanding, has gone beyond there being a 'person' to suffer the effects of fear-generated egoic conditionings, hence the expansion and prolonged undistractedness of remaining in this way would certainly mean no accumulation of new karma. Finish the old ones thru purification practices, and then perhaps you may consider making Jalus a prospective and worthwhile culmination of your quest? Its apparent you have done the work, so why not enjoy the fruits?

 

sadhu! sadhu! sadhu!

Yup, I still have a lot to purify, but it feels as though someone's handed me an indestructable vajra or rather I've become it myself .

 

_/\_

Edited February 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes I agree. Consciousness is awareness that is bound to a thing. Such as the eyes, the body. It is the false light. Awareness is not produced, it is obscured by its own confusion. If you tell me that awareness is dependently originated, I want to ask you "how do you know that?" How can anyone know that experientially and not conceptually?

 

Through deepening awareness. Awareness is indeed a dependent arisen and is not self standing, or a fundamental basis of the cosmos. It took some waking up experiences to see this, as for a long time I made the same mistake of ultimating (excuse my liberties with language) awareness as a fundamental basis of all.

 

 

I'm not making any ultimate in and of itself statement.

 

But you are, by saying that awareness is not a dependent arisen. Awareness does not occur unless you are conscious first, a sentient being. Awareness does not occur to a rock.

 

 

Experience is ungraspable. So is truth, reality, or any structure conjured up by the mind. Strip everything naked and you are left with a boundless luminous creativity/expressive feeling.

 

Yes, but that's a result of potential, not inherent being... this too is relative.

 

All this talk of cosmos being like this, being like that, and I'll ask you "how do you know?" From books? From a guru? From a vision? Now you are bound to a memory, a experience, a structure. Throwing away a structure for another structure. There is no inherent way this universe "is." It is unknowable. Even the desire to escape samsara is meaningless. Or attain nirvana. Or to live beyond death or birth or cycle or not cycle through rebirth. You have to cut everything down to its bare spontaneity and openness.

 

Now you are making emotional excuses for ignorance... as you are basing this assumption on a feeling of spontaneous openness. Investigate further.

 

I know through direct insight, directed to through various experiences and readings, transmissions from gurus... yes.

 

Let go, let go, and in letting go, no mind, no thought, no me, no you, no universe, no reality, no structure, no fear, no non-fear, not even this or that, continual transcendence in this very moment.

 

I understand your point, and know directly what type of experiencing you are getting at, through direct knowing.

 

But, there is more... as there is a universe, there are sentient beings, there are structures, there are realms, and you (physically) will die... in that sense.

 

Buddha Awareness is a conditioned arisen that just references the condition of direct knowing of experiential as well as analytical emptiness in reference to the all.

 

It is empty of itself, while embracing itself simultaneously as there is non-difference.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, I don't really "see" anything anymore. . Everything upon arising, liberates itself.

 

If you don't see a single awareness, then there is no experience of unity.

 

Unity is not due to awareness itself, but rather awareness of it's emptiness. Don't mistake the experience as the cause, as this is also a conditioned arisen, but the condition is it's emptiness.

 

I truly respect your experience and can concur, experientially.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Through deepening awareness. Awareness is indeed a dependent arisen and is not self standing, or a fundamental basis of the cosmos. It took some waking up experiences to see this, as for a long time I made the same mistake of ultimating (excuse my liberties with language) awareness as a fundamental basis of all.

Yes, I see where one can easily make the mistake of attributing an all encompassing entity as an explanation of experiencing a feeling of "oneness." The knowledge of dependent origination undoes that knot, but that too must not be clung to for then experience tries to grasp to the relationship between the entities within that dependence, when there are no substantial relationship or cause to be found.

 

But you are, by saying that awareness is not a dependent arisen. Awareness does not occur unless you are conscious first, a sentient being. Awareness does not occur to a rock.

I am saying that there is no need to reject or affirm awareness. In fact there is no need to reject or affirm anything. How do you know that a rock is not conscious? How do you tell a dream from reality? How do you know the real from imagination? How do you know the past or the future? How do you know whether consciousness came first or awareness came second? Without relying on scriptures, can you explain to me how I can know these things first hand?

 

The problem here is in assumption and knowing which become bases for causation of this and that. But upon cessation of this, all thats cease accordingly.

 

Yes, but that's a result of potential, not inherent being... this too is relative.

 

Now you are making emotional excuses for ignorance... as you are basing this assumption on a feeling of spontaneous openness. Investigate further.

 

I know through direct insight, directed to through various experiences and readings, transmissions from gurus... yes.

And what is direct insight mean for you? How do you directly know something. Is it intuition? How can you tell if an intuition is true or false? Because a guru has told you?

 

Investigation is based on imposition of things and definitions. There is no need to investigate further than the act of investigating itself. It is not a feeling of ignorance, but the wisdom of knowing why things arise as they do and that all arisings, when clung to as real and substantial, lead to its own cycle of causality. Birth does not only happen with the body, but with every idea, emotion, feeling, entity, clung to as substantial and causal.

 

I understand your point, and know directly what type of experiencing you are getting at, through direct knowing.

 

But, there is more... as there is a universe, there are sentient beings, there are structures, there are realms, and you (physically) will die... in that sense.

 

Buddha Awareness is a conditioned arisen that just references the condition of direct knowing of experiential as well as analytical emptiness in reference to the all.

 

It is empty of itself, while embracing itself simultaneously as there is non-difference.

Is there a universe? The moment the mind says there is a universe, then it entraps itself into the universe. Are there sentient beings? Now there is a "me" and a "you." Is Buddha Awareness conditioned? Now there is the aspect of conditioning in experience. It might be that Buddha Awareness or just awareness itself is conditioned, that all events in our lives are conditioned by innumerable sentient beings interdependently reflecting one another. But by clinging to this structure, one is again conditioned into it. Awareness free of all things neither perceives nor not perceives these elements, they all appear like playful exchange of mirages.

 

Where does this constant referring to the emptiness of things leave a practitioner. He becomes entrapped in the view itself.

 

Also, I am not debating the reality of things, but the way of experiencing things. . And you may be right in all that you say, and I may need to investigate further, but I find further investigation actually detrimental to practice and feel it, I feel it literally like a cage, closing in on the natural openness of awareness. .

Edited February 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Unity is not due to awareness itself, but rather awareness of it's emptiness. Don't mistake the experience as the cause, as this is also a conditioned arisen, but the condition is it's emptiness.

 

I truly respect your experience and can concur, experientially.

For me the experience of unity arose with the insight that all experiences are within the scope of awareness. The insight of emptiness and ungraspability led to the spontaneity and openeness of awareness, as well as its self liberating nature.

 

Hey man, thanks for being patient with me I know I've been jumping back and forth .

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, I see where one can easily make the mistake of attributing an all encompassing entity as an explanation of experiencing a feeling of "oneness." The knowledge of dependent origination undoes that knot, but that too must not be clung to for then experience tries to grasp to the relationship between the entities within that dependence, when there are no substantial relationship or cause to be found.

 

 

I am saying that there is no need to reject or affirm awareness. In fact there is no need to reject or affirm anything. How do you know that a rock is not conscious? How do you tell a dream from reality? How do you know the real from imagination? How do you know the past or the future? How do you know whether consciousness came first or awareness came second? Without relying on scriptures, can you explain to me how I can know these things first hand?

 

The problem here is in assumption and knowing which become bases for causation of this and that. But upon cessation of this, all thats cease accordingly.

 

 

And what is direct insight mean for you? How do you directly know something. Is it intuition? How can you tell if an intuition is true or false? Because a guru has told you?

 

Investigation is based on imposition of things and definitions. There is no need to investigate further than the act of investigating itself. It is not a feeling of ignorance, but the wisdom of knowing why things arise as they do and that all arisings, when clung to as real and substantial, lead to its own cycle of causality. Birth does not only happen with the body, but with every idea, emotion, feeling, entity, clung to as substantial and causal.

 

 

Is there a universe? The moment the mind says there is a universe, then it entraps itself into the universe. Are there sentient beings? Now there is a "me" and a "you." Is Buddha Awareness conditioned? Now there is the aspect of conditioning in experience. It might be that Buddha Awareness or just awareness itself is conditioned, that all events in our lives are conditioned by innumerable sentient beings interdependently reflecting one another. But by clinging to this structure, one is again conditioned into it. Awareness free of all things neither perceives nor not perceives these elements, they all appear like playful exchange of mirages.

 

Where does this constant referring to the emptiness of things leave a practitioner. He becomes entrapped in the view itself.

 

Also, I am not debating the reality of things, but the way of experiencing things. . And you may be right in all that you say, and I may need to investigate further, but I find further investigation actually detrimental to practice and feel it, I feel it literally like a cage, closing in on the natural openness of awareness. .

 

Clinging and recognizing are two different things...

 

One is insight, the other is fear.

 

Maybe you should read the Prajnaparamita Sutra with commentary? Just a suggestion.

 

You're considering investigation merely on an intellectual basis, so this will be deemed caging. You might really be at a stage where you really do need a physical teacher to help you go deeper? Again, just a suggestion...

 

Take care, and keep on keepin' on!

 

P.S. And yes, a Guru can tell you something in a way where it's really just mirrored potential for recognition, not dualistic at all. Because sometimes in spirituality we get so swept up by really wonderful experiences or experiencing like what you are referencing... and stop there and not go deeper because we don't quite know how.

There is an amazing reason for truly enlightened lineage, it's very, very helpful.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

You are approaching things too conceptually. See the very habit of conceptualizing .

 

To nowhere, from nowhere, not here, not there, a fearless openness to what is.

And yet you yourself continue to conceptualize! You are too focused on non-conceptuality. It can't be avoided. It's how we function. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with conceptuality. It's attachment to it based on not recognizing it's emptiness. Then both concepts and non-conceptuality aren't a problem. The view of dependent arising is very subtle. It almost seems paradoxical. Things are present...but they aren't at the same time. Edited February 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

And yet you yourself continue to conceptualize! You are too focused on non-conceptuality. It can't be avoided. It's how we function. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with conceptuality. It's attachment to it based on not recognizing it's emptiness. Then both concepts and non-conceptuality aren't a problem. The view of dependent arising is very subtle. It almost seems paradoxical. Things are present...but they aren't at the same time.

You read my words from your perspective. So everything I write is interpreted within that paradigm of entities/conventionality.

 

I no longer see or experience in that manner. If you are to go about this intellectually, you should investigate into the habit of conceptuality and non-conceptuality, and what it is to "recognize" things and "not-recognize" things. I don't see much hint of actual experience in your words, perhaps surges of bliss here and there arising from the feeling of "ah! I got it!" and I don't mean that to be condescending, I've been that way for years too . I mean that so you will drop the paradigms and see directly reality as is.

 

Please don't make this personal.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Clinging and recognizing are two different things...

 

One is insight, the other is fear.

 

Maybe you should read the Prajnaparamita Sutra with commentary? Just a suggestion.

The prajnaparamita agrees exactly with what I've been saying. It is an expression of the unfindability and deconstructive state of being, ever free, ever liberated.

 

And what is "recognizing"? We use that word a lot here along with the word "insight." What exactly is that? Is it recognizing something that is there? Or is it recognizing something that is not there ?

 

You're considering investigation merely on an intellectual basis, so this will be deemed caging. You might really be at a stage where you really do need a physical teacher to help you go deeper? Again, just a suggestion...

 

Take care, and keep on keepin' on!

 

P.S. And yes, a Guru can tell you something in a way where it's really just mirrored potential for recognition, not dualistic at all. Because sometimes in spirituality we get so swept up by really wonderful experiences or experiencing like what you are referencing... and stop there and not go deeper because we don't quite know how.

There is an amazing reason for truly enlightened lineage, it's very, very helpful.

Investigation is an intellectual activity. How do you investigate without using the intellect? If you mean the natural revelation of things, that is not investigation but in my opinion a de-investigation, a clearing of the clouds so that reality as is shines through naturally.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[The Observer]

What I see here is not a disagreement on core concepts really. I just see an argument between one set of teachings vs another. I'm sure the view from the top of the mountain is just as lovely for those accomplished in Vajrayana as it is for those in Zen Buddhism.

Edited February 6, 2011 by The Observer