The Nature of Self

[adept]

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/05/are-insight-stages-strictly-linear.html

 

Are the insight stages strictly linear?

Posted by: An Eternal Now

I wrote this based on what Thusness/PasserBy have said regarding his Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ) - not to think of the 7 stages as strictly linear or having a hierarchy.

 

Some is able to understand the profound wisdom of emptiness from the start but have no direct experience of luminosity, then luminosity becomes a later phase. So does that mean the most pristine experience of "I AM" is now the last stage? On the other hand, some have experienced luminosity but does not understand how he got himself 'lost', as there is no insight to the karmic tendencies/propensities at all, therefore they cannot understand Dependent Origination adequately. But does that mean that one that experience emptiness is higher than one that experience luminosity?

 

Some people experience non-dual but did not go through the I AM, and then after non-dual the I AM becomes even more precious because it will bring out the luminosity aspect more. Also, when in non-dual, one can still be full of thoughts, therefore the focus then is to experience the thoroughness of being no-thoughts, fully luminous and present... then it is not about non-dual, not about the no object-subject split, it is about the degree of luminosity for these non-dualist. But for some monks that is trapped in luminosity and rest in samadhi, then the focus should be on refining non-dual insight and experience.

 

So just see the phases as different aspect of insights of our true nature, not necessarily as linear stages or a 'superiority' and 'inferiority' comparison. What one should understand is what is lacking in the form of realization. There is no hierarchy to it, only insights. Then one will be able to see all stages as flat, no higher.

Labels: Stages of Enlightenment |

 

 

There is also a method which by-passes all stages here.

[Otis]

In Buddhism things are broken down like this: There are the four stages of Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner and Arhat. After those stages there are the 10 Buhumis of Bodhisattvahood leading to Buddhahood; they are broken down like this:

Sure, the institution has levels, but that is not necessarily reflective of reality. That's what institutions do, they create methods and hierarchy, especially institutions that teach.

 

But at the heart of what the Buddha taught was emptiness, which is "I don't know". At the heart of his teaching is that all human concepts are merely approximations, that truth is not to be found in hierarchy, beliefs, or theologies. These things only hint at truth. They may be useful for those who buy into them, but they are not "what is real", and to use them as an argument against someone else's understanding is pure self-reference, a circular argument. More delusion.

[Mandrake]

But at the heart of what the Buddha taught was emptiness, which is "I don't know".

 

This is blatantly wrong. You are free to fool around with other people's words and teachings, and make up your own ideologies, but don't try to claim that your new creation is what Buddha taught, or buddhism for that matter.

 

 

Mandrake

[Otis]

This is blatantly wrong. You are free to fool around with other people's words and teachings, and make up your own ideologies, but don't try to claim that your new creation is what Buddha taught, or buddhism for that matter.

 

 

Mandrake

Don't just tell me that it's wrong. Tell me why it's wrong.

[Mandrake]

Don't just tell me that it's wrong. Tell me why it's wrong.

 

 

This statement of yours:

 

'But at the heart of what the Buddha taught was emptiness, which is "I don't know"'

 

Provide the quotes and sourcematerial.

 

 

Mandrake

[adept]

But at the heart of what the Buddha taught was emptiness

 

I would say that the heart of the Buddha's teaching isn't emptiness but Dependent Origination (Here we go again, where's Vaj ? )

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

'You' are the sum-total of your experiences, including the socio-religious conditioning.. in the instant of creation, the continuous unfolding of 'Now', you are either separated from the 'now' by engaging the 'you', or.. you become the relationship with your environment, allowing the relationship to redefine 'you', a continuous process.. punctuated by intervals of reality.

 

Be well..

[Lucky7Strikes]

I would say that the heart of the Buddha's teaching isn't emptiness but Dependent Origination (Here we go again, where's Vaj ? )

Same thing?

[Otis]

I would say that the heart of the Buddha's teaching isn't emptiness but Dependent Origination (Here we go again, where's Vaj ? )

I didn't mean to exclude "dependent origination", but I do think that it is also pointing at "don't know".

 

What is the cause of this effect? Don't know, because the cause has a cause has a cause.

 

Both emptiness and D.O. are forms of epistemological humility, accepting what I cannot know.

[Otis]

This statement of yours:

 

'But at the heart of what the Buddha taught was emptiness, which is "I don't know"'

 

Provide the quotes and sourcematerial.

 

 

Mandrake

I know that you are disagreeing with my statement, but you haven't said what about it you disagree with.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

"Seeing things as they are is" a way of being, not necessarily SEEING things as they are.

 

Also, as Xabir noted, I AM experience, the opening of the heart is unmistakeable. It is a direct realization that leads to feeling of timelessness, spacelessness, bliss consciousness. It's not a delusion because...your whole system basically shifts from neuroticism to a centered being.

 

If terms like anatta and emptiness are only understood intellectually without intrinsic experience of life as blissful creation, it can lead to nihilistic tendencies, a egoic excuse. Same with the I AM fixation..it leads to attachment to a state of awareness. One has to see the unity of both, like seeing that space and form are one: form is emptiness and emptiness is form.

The experience of I AM is not delusion, but the conceptual conclusion of what I AM means, that is delusion.

 

It's like the felt experience of God; nothing wrong with it, until I start thinking that I now know God's mind and nature, just because I had an experience that felt like God.

 

I am not encouraging nihilism or for that matter, any other beliefs about reality. I am only encouraging epistemological humility, the acceptance of how little we can be certain about actual reality.

[Marblehead]

The experience of I AM is not delusion, ...

 

Nice.

[C T]

Same thing?

The 'Three Principle Aspects of the Path" by Lama Tsongkhapa -

 

"Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;

Voidness is free of assertions.

As long as these two assertions are seen as separate,

one has not yet realized the intent of the Buddha.

 

When these two realizations are simultaneous and concurrent,

from a mere sight of infallible dependent origination

comes certain knowledge that completely destroys all modes of mental grasping.

At that time, analysis of the profound View is complete.

 

Appearances clear away the extreme of existence;

Voidness clears away the extreme of non-existence.

When one understands the arising of cause and effect from the viewpoint of voidness,

one escapes being captivated by either extreme view."

 

 

 

Emptiness, from the standpoint of Buddhist Tantrayana, does not allude to the position of "I dont know".

 

This notion of Emptiness serves to incite the contemplator to investigate if the self truly exists independently, from its own side, meaning that the self manifested without cause, or is the self dependent on many factors and sub-factors to spark and sustain its existence. Therefore, upon realization, the contemplator can acknowledge with faith that indeed the self is empty of inherent selfhood, but instead is made up of 'things' which in themselves are not 'self' - things here meaning all the variants and elements coming together, that bring about 'self', and thru time, dissipate, only to reform as some other 'self'.

 

Therefore, it can be said that self indeed does exist and not exist simultaneously, but this self is always empty of "I"ness, "My"ness, and "Mine"ness. There is an appearance of self, yet the self that appears is also manifesting the void as it appears. One can either view this appearance/voidness in its entirety, which requires no engagement of intellect, or intellectualize the appearance and dissipation of self as two distinct phases, which then necessitates a sense of recollection of an image of self, then no-self, the reformation of this self, and so on.... but such mental evaluations can only always take place in the past tense, which, as in all things that have passed, cannot be reality as is, but merely a fragment of a reality that was.

 

To aid further investigation, it would be very helpful not to dismiss Lama Tsongkhapa's words (above) lightly.

 

"The conception of ego is an extreme mind. It clings very concretely to the idea that somewhere within this bubble of the combination body there exists a self-existent 'I'. This is the misconception that we must release." - Lama Thubten Yeshe

Edited May 6, 2011 by CowTao

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I visit this forum infrequently, now.. it has been months since i last visited, and.. while Life evolves and changes, the same people are having the same discussions on this forum.. there are a few people whose opinions here i feel are authentic and worthy of attentiveness, but only a few.. as a forum based on Tao, there is little evidence of its understanding, so.. i would ask, what is it about the simple living of one's Life (Tao), that inspires such attachment to matters of fantasy, and second-hand descriptions of other people's fantasies? don't tell 'me' your answers, have a sincere discussion with yourself.. i have no illusions that my post will make a difference, but i can speak with unconditional sincerity..

 

Be well..

[Encephalon]

"The conception of ego is an extreme mind. It clings very concretely to the idea that somewhere within this bubble of the combination body there exists a self-existent 'I'. This is the misconception that we must release." - Lama Thubten Yeshe

 

Yep.

 

I'd be curious to know how a thread about the nature of the Self (with a capital S, no less!) posted in a forum ostensibly devoted to Asian Studies can go on for Nine Pages without a single mention of Buddhism's Three Marks of Existence -

 

Anicca - the fact that all phenomema are in a permanent state of flux or impermanence;

 

Dukkha - the reality of suffering, the inherently imperfect or unsatisfactory nature of the phenomenal world;

 

Anatta - the impermanence and illusory nature of a separate isolated self: no-self.

 

I realize the OP has a less than charitable regard for Buddhist psychology, as well as a less than accurate grasp of its components, but these Three Marks characterize the essential difference between Western and Eastern theories of self. They may not be axiomatic but they are consistent with what modern psychology teaches us and what we know from our own postmodern realization, a point the Buddha nailed 2,500 years before we got around to it.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The forum is not "devoted to Asian Studies".. as it states, it is "discussions on the way", 'way' being the literal translation of 'Tao'.. it is interesting, as i visit again, that Buddhists are still insistent that their perspectives should be the topic of discussion.. but, in fairness, it is their 'nature'..

 

Unfortunately, it's always about something other than the 'way' things 'are', it's about how we 'want' them to be.. and, so it is, endless debates about wants, precious little about 'is'..

 

Be well..

[Encephalon]

Greetings..

 

The forum is not "devoted to Asian Studies".. as it states, it is "discussions on the way", 'way' being the literal translation of 'Tao'.. it is interesting, as i visit again, that Buddhists are still insistent that their perspectives should be the topic of discussion.. but, in fairness, it is their 'nature'..

 

Unfortunately, it's always about something other than the 'way' things 'are', it's about how we 'want' them to be.. and, so it is, endless debates about wants, precious little about 'is'..

 

Be well..

 

I will graciously recalibrate. Please note that "Buddhists" do not speak with a monolithic voice. I am of the agnostic/humanist stripe, and i only brought up Buddhism insofar as this particular insight into the nature of the self was pertinent, indeed necessary, to a fruitful discussion. I am generally incensed by the Buddhist Bombastic Bludgeoning that goes on in here, especially the stuff that originates from "beyond the realm of the five senses"!

[Otis]

Emptiness, from the standpoint of Buddhist Tantrayana, does not allude to the position of "I dont know".

 

This notion of Emptiness serves to incite the contemplator to investigate if the self truly exists independently, from its own side, meaning that the self manifested without cause, or is the self dependent on many factors and sub-factors to spark and sustain its existence. Therefore, upon realization, the contemplator can acknowledge with faith that indeed the self is empty of inherent selfhood, but instead is made up of 'things' which in themselves are not 'self' - things here meaning all the variants and elements coming together, that bring about 'self', and thru time, dissipate, only to reform as some other 'self'.

 

Therefore, it can be said that self indeed does exist and not exist simultaneously, but this self is always empty of "I"ness, "My"ness, and "Mine"ness. There is an appearance of self, yet the self that appears is also manifesting the void as it appears. One can either view this appearance/voidness in its entirety, which requires no engagement of intellect, or intellectualize the appearance and dissipation of self as two distinct phases, which then necessitates a sense of recollection of an image of self, then no-self, the reformation of this self, and so on.... but such mental evaluations can only always take place in the past tense, which, as in all things that have passed, cannot be reality as is, but merely a fragment of a reality that was.

 

To aid further investigation, it would be very helpful not to dismiss Lama Tsongkhapa's words (above) lightly.

 

"The conception of ego is an extreme mind. It clings very concretely to the idea that somewhere within this bubble of the combination body there exists a self-existent 'I'. This is the misconception that we must release." - Lama Thubten Yeshe

I agree with everything in the quote about the self, the way that it does exist, but not in the way that it appears phenomenologically.

 

So what is this self, this "I"? The self is a constellation of habits. Some of those habits we call beliefs. Some of those beliefs we call knowledge.

 

Every habit is a subconscious neural statement of certainty. It is a heuristic, a rule of thumb, a built-in direction, which substitutes a conditioned reaction for authentic response. Habits build up our simulacra of the world, they interpret our sounds, they create separation, they give meaning. They make the beliefs and other habits, themselves, important - often more so than the world itself.

 

To surrender self is to surrender knowing, in all forms. Since habit is self, forgetting self is forgetting the right way to do things, the right way to understand things. The "right way" is a lie that is offered with benevolence from our parents and from society (and even our spiritual teachers), with their hopes of giving us training wheels along the way. But it is a lie, nonetheless. The only way to find freedom, is to stop being "right".

 

In other words, I must surrender into "I don't know".

Edited May 6, 2011 by Otis

[TzuJanLi]

So what is this self, this "I"? The self is a constellation of habits. Some of those habits we call beliefs. Some of those beliefs we call knowledge.

 

To surrender self is to surrender knowing, in all forms. Since habit is self, forgetting self is forgetting the right way to do things, the right way to understand things. The "right way" is a lie that is offered with benevolence from our parents and from society (and even our spiritual teachers), with their hopes of giving us training wheels along the way. But it is a lie, nonetheless. The only way to find freedom, is to stop being "right".

 

In other words, I must surrender into "I don't know".

To be brief and direct.. no, it is unacceptable to lecture conscious individuals on your version of 'isness', while holding your superiority with a practiced leisure.. the only thing you "must" do, is Live.. and all you can do with that is over-intellectualize your self-image.. so, "stop being right", just stop.. there is post after post of 'rightness', of 'i know and you don't'..

 

Be well..

[Lucky7Strikes]

To be brief and direct.. no, it is unacceptable to lecture conscious individuals on your version of 'isness', while holding your superiority with a practiced leisure.. the only thing you "must" do, is Live.. and all you can do with that is over-intellectualize your self-image.. so, "stop being right", just stop.. there is post after post of 'rightness', of 'i know and you don't'..

 

Be well..

How funny, this is just another one of those "I know, and you don't" post. Telling people to stop...

Edited May 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I agree with everything in the quote about the self, the way that it does exist, but not in the way that it appears phenomenologically.

 

So what is this self, this "I"? The self is a constellation of habits. Some of those habits we call beliefs. Some of those beliefs we call knowledge.

 

Every habit is a subconscious neural statement of certainty. It is a heuristic, a rule of thumb, a built-in direction, which substitutes a conditioned reaction for authentic response. Habits build up our simulacra of the world, they interpret our sounds, they create separation, they give meaning. They make the beliefs and other habits, themselves, important - often more so than the world itself.

 

To surrender self is to surrender knowing, in all forms. Since habit is self, forgetting self is forgetting the right way to do things, the right way to understand things. The "right way" is a lie that is offered with benevolence from our parents and from society (and even our spiritual teachers), with their hopes of giving us training wheels along the way. But it is a lie, nonetheless. The only way to find freedom, is to stop being "right".

 

In other words, I must surrender into "I don't know".

I think you and CowTao actually agree. I agree with the notion of dying into uncertainty. Spontaneous arising is experienced, and yes, it is like "I don't know" fearless openness to whatever that is. I think CowTao is speaking more on having a right view, like: you should know, that you don't know. Haha! Language is tricky.

[Aaron]

Hello Otis,

 

I think it gets tricky when we examine things with absolute certainty. It's when we refuse to give other ideas credence that we have ceased to learn and begun to surround ourselves with the bedrock of ignorance.

 

Keeping an open mind. Having tolerance for others. Understanding that what you see isn't necessarily what I see. If one can do these things, then I believe they're on their way to deeper insight.

 

Aaron

[Otis]

I think you and CowTao actually agree. I agree with the notion of dying into uncertainty. Spontaneous arising is experienced, and yes, it is like "I don't know" fearless openness to whatever that is. I think CowTao is speaking more on having a right view, like: you should know, that you don't know. Haha! Language is tricky.

I think so, too.

[Otis]

Hello Otis,

 

I think it gets tricky when we examine things with absolute certainty. It's when we refuse to give other ideas credence that we have ceased to learn and begun to surround ourselves with the bedrock of ignorance.

 

Keeping an open mind. Having tolerance for others. Understanding that what you see isn't necessarily what I see. If one can do these things, then I believe they're on their way to deeper insight.

 

Aaron

Agreed.

 

Even beyond "others", too, losing certainty allows me have more possibility with my own exploration. My creativity is most available, when I get out of my own way. If I insist, even to myself, that there is a "right way", then I lock out the influence of my creativity and imagination, which are there to suggest alternate possibilities.

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

From what I have read in the past, Krishnamurti is for the head and Osho is for the heart!

 

Thanks for the quotes!

I was talking about jk cos subjectivity quoted from him, and I was pointing out that jk is not about the I AM insight but more about nondual.

 

As for jk and osho, both sounded like they are describing nondual as a state. The clear insight into anatta isn't really clear. Also I thought osho was at least in substantialist nondual phase but recent readings gave me the impression that he is still at the I AM stage with glimpses of nondual experience but lack realization.

 

In fact I can hardly find teachers who describes the realization and experience of anatta well... There are, but rare. So I am no longer very interested to read spiritual books.

 

Reading books are good until you come to a point where you realize you are entering rare territories and you have to navigate yourself (unless you are as fortunate as I am to know of someone who has been through all these, who can still give you good advices)... And at that point direct experience becomes more important. But not to stop reading too early which is the common tendency... I.e stopped reading after I AM realization before realizing non dual, or stopped reading books after non dual before realizing anatta, etc.

Edited May 6, 2011 by xabir2005