'No self' my experience so far...

[Informer]

Thanking youing!

And why a fried egg? Yes this stuff fries your brain :-)

What I didn't know was (from the wikipedia link)

 

"Descartes originally claimed that consciousness requires an immaterial soul, which interacts with the body via the pineal gland of the brain"

 

Now how did he get to that point and then veer off? I suspect because of the/a church who said 'leave off of all that stuff because it's our playground and the king said so, upon pain of death' or something. And didn't Darwin have to tippy-toe around that too?

 

 

Sounds like you know more than me in this regards, please do tell.!

 

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

[Birch]

Sounds like you know more than me in this regards, please do tell.!

 

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

 

I don't think I do really. What I do think I know is that people who figure some things out or figure new things out (or maybe even pick up old things again out of interest) seem to be routinely rousted and prevented from sharing what they found out if/when such things run contrary to the prevailing social/political power setup. And it can happen in very small groups too. I'm not just talking about nations.

 

I think it's a shame really because then we can't figure out ways to tell whether the "new" thing is BS or not because we can't even "go there". One of the upshots of this is bad 'alt' healthcare and charlatanism in fields like qi-gong and conscousness-training/raising.

 

A really good way of getting someone to back off is to offer them a pain of death dessert. Lots of other ways too. Ridicule works for some. As does flaming them on the interweb if their perspective is a bit troubling or runs against the herd.

[Birch]

 

Well... I've experienced shock, giddiness, sadness, anger, disappointment... all of it, all dependent upon the layer or depth it was that I was seeing through. The deeper one goes, the more liberating and blissful this realization becomes.

 

It kind of made me want to throw up. But that could have been the fish.

[Informer]

I see.

 

More often than not people do take the path of least resistance even if it is wrong, it doesn't feel wrong because everyone else is going that way as well.

 

Very insightful.

 

I think it is the great ones that stand up against the tide, regardless of how they will be judged, they fallow thier heart, therefore develope an immunity to what others say/think about them. Like beyond the judgmental aspects that society would like you to think matters.

[Informer]

Like an Egyptian Pharoh that tells you what god you will worship. See how the masses fall in line, even if just last week it was someone else.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

This is just it. Xabir and I have shared many insights. He is at the point now where he's starting to see that concepts and views are the problem.

 

But he doesn't yet realize that he still clings to views. Now, people ask how you can be free from views. Isn't that just another view? No, there is something beyond views which isn't another view. What is it? Just the fact of your experience. Just the skandhas pre-conceptualization. Just pure activity.

 

That's timeless. Oh, and guess what. "D.O." has NOTHING to do with it. As soon as you call it "d.o." or "no self", you distort it.

If i'm reading your post appropriately, i experience the space beyond 'views', and the way i understand the experience is to reference it as 'isness'.. as in there 'is' that space, as in there 'is'........ and, just let another experiencer have their own experience of it, without 'me' influencing their experience with unnecessary 'words'.. your post suggests that you understand this perspective, or.. more appropriately, i understand your post in that manner.. crap! now i tripping over my own 'words', i hope you understand my meaning..

 

Be well..

[thuscomeone]

Greetings..

 

If i'm reading your post appropriately, i experience the space beyond 'views', and the way i understand the experience is to reference it as 'isness'.. as in there 'is' that space, as in there 'is'........ and, just let another experiencer have their own experience of it, without 'me' influencing their experience with unnecessary 'words'.. your post suggests that you understand this perspective, or.. more appropriately, i understand your post in that manner.. crap! now i tripping over my own 'words', i hope you understand my meaning..

 

Be well..

Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from. It is very, very hard to express. The best I can do is say that it is the bare fact, or "isness" as you say. The bare fact of the one's experience. Thinking, seeing, hearing, walking. All these acts occur prior to conceptualization and cannot be put into words. Any concept distorts the act. The fact of "what is" does not require conceptualization. One simply needs to put one's attention on it.

 

Actually, I would say that while it is beyond views, it also includes the acts of "view-ing" or "conceptualiz-ing." Just the pure happening of these acts.

[Vajrahridaya]

Right. But where does this clinging business come from in the first place? Because if I (sic) can get rid of it as easy as pie in this lifetime then I wonder if it ain't just an unnatural 'thing' ('thing' being not an actual bounded 'thing' but you get the drift) in the first place. And if it ain't natural, where does it come from? I kind of have some ideas but I want to find out what other peopling thinking

 

It comes from the lack of intuitive recognition of the inter-dependency of all phenomena. We can have an intellectual understanding, but the subtle clinging to various personal "selves" are harder to see through, especially the deep tendency to cling to a "spiritual" self which most theistic mysticisms do, though of course this is a better clinging, it's still considered a hinderance to full blown liberation.

[Vajrahridaya]

It kind of made me want to throw up. But that could have been the fish.

 

I had a realization once while chanting that made me cry out of this immense sense of deep release in late 95' at Shree Muktananda Ashram in upstate NY. It was so deep, this sense of just throwing up through deep sobbing and tears of a depth of love I'd never experienced through the body as of yet up to that point in my life. This recognition of personal depth and self compassion for all the things I'd done in life contrary to this immense love. It was one of those immense life changing experiences. Basically it was immense!

 

Afterwards I went to the bathroom and shat out from the depth of my being what smelt like burnt plastic. LOL! Serious. I know gross... but you went there.

[Aaron]

Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from. It is very, very hard to express. The best I can do is say that it is the bare fact, or "isness" as you say. The bare fact of the one's experience. Thinking, seeing, hearing, walking. All these acts occur prior to conceptualization and cannot be put into words. Any concept distorts the act. The fact of "what is" does not require conceptualization. One simply needs to put one's attention on it.

 

Actually, I would say that while it is beyond views, it also includes the acts of "view-ing" or "conceptualiz-ing." Just the pure happening of these acts.

 

 

Hello Thuscomeone,

 

What you're describing, in my opinion, is a distortion as well. I tried to explain it elsewhere, but it's hard to explain. When one has achieved "no-self", heartmind, buddha nature, whatever you want to call it, they've achieved nothing, for there is nothing to achieve, rather they have reached a place of stillness where nothing resides, it is not even empty, for there is nothing to be empty, rather it is just stillness, no thought, no desire, nothing but what is(n't). There is a great light that shines though, it seems to be constant, not flickering, it is more like a white piece of paper, only not white, so it is not a place of darkness, that would be misleading too. Though I think when people conjure up their thoughts of this state that does come to mind. Of course I might be experiencing something completely different from you, so forgive me if I'm mistaken.

 

Aaron

[thuscomeone]

Hello Thuscomeone,

 

What you're describing, in my opinion, is a distortion as well. I tried to explain it elsewhere, but it's hard to explain. When one has achieved "no-self", heartmind, buddha nature, whatever you want to call it, they've achieved nothing, for there is nothing to achieve, rather they have reached a place of stillness where nothing resides, it is not even empty, for there is nothing to be empty, rather it is just stillness, no thought, no desire, nothing but what is(n't). There is a great light that shines though, it seems to be constant, not flickering, it is more like a white piece of paper, only not white, so it is not a place of darkness, that would be misleading too. Though I think when people conjure up their thoughts of this state that does come to mind. Of course I might be experiencing something completely different from you, so forgive me if I'm mistaken.

 

Aaron

Yeah, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

 

As to what I'm talking about, I wouldn't say that it is a distortion in and of itself. But when you conceptualize it, yes, it does become a distortion. And anytime you speak of it, you therefore must distort it. When I say "the five skandhas", I mean those as merely pointing to something. To the pure fact of experience which cannot be described. But to me, it isn't a distortion at all. It's the clearest possible thing there is.

 

In your case, you're calling it a "light." That too is a distortion. This is the problem, we all want to call it something. And in that naming, there is division and then, time, becoming, suffering...

 

The Satipatthana Sutta provides the clearest example of what I'm talking about.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hello Thuscomeone,

 

What you're describing, in my opinion, is a distortion as well. I tried to explain it elsewhere, but it's hard to explain. When one has achieved "no-self", heartmind, buddha nature, whatever you want to call it, they've achieved nothing, for there is nothing to achieve, rather they have reached a place of stillness where nothing resides, it is not even empty, for there is nothing to be empty, rather it is just stillness, no thought, no desire, nothing but what is(n't). There is a great light that shines though, it seems to be constant, not flickering, it is more like a white piece of paper, only not white, so it is not a place of darkness, that would be misleading too. Though I think when people conjure up their thoughts of this state that does come to mind. Of course I might be experiencing something completely different from you, so forgive me if I'm mistaken.

 

Aaron

There is only 'That which is', whatever 'That' is.. Stillness simply allows clarity to reveal 'That which is'.. "be still, and know"..

 

Be well..

[Otis]

Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from. It is very, very hard to express. The best I can do is say that it is the bare fact, or "isness" as you say. The bare fact of the one's experience. Thinking, seeing, hearing, walking. All these acts occur prior to conceptualization and cannot be put into words. Any concept distorts the act. The fact of "what is" does not require conceptualization. One simply needs to put one's attention on it.

 

Actually, I would say that while it is beyond views, it also includes the acts of "view-ing" or "conceptualiz-ing." Just the pure happening of these acts.

Excellent!

[Otis]

As to what I'm talking about, I wouldn't say that it is a distortion in and of itself. But when you conceptualize it, yes, it does become a distortion. And anytime you speak of it, you therefore must distort it. When I say "the five skandhas", I mean those as merely pointing to something. To the pure fact of experience which cannot be described. But to me, it isn't a distortion at all. It's the clearest possible thing there is.

 

In your case, you're calling it a "light." That too is a distortion. This is the problem, we all want to call it something. And in that naming, there is division and then, time, becoming, suffering...

[xabir2005]

I agree that "liberation requires a quantum shift of perception". But it also requires action. Both yin and yang.

 

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise of "no self", although I think it's foolish to take it (or any spiritual teaching) literally.

 

I think it is simplistic and not very helpful, to preach "no self" without including within that teaching, what it means to have "no self". Because life still needs to be lived, and habits still need to be dissolved.

 

The regulars on RT all preach this "truth", but they do not show signs of dissolving the habits of self. Their posts are full of assumption, projection, defensiveness, belief that they can see "the true nature of reality". All of this is the delusion of self, just without the name.

 

Looking inward, I can see that this "mind", this sense of "I'm making these thoughts, etc. happen" are false.

 

However, I still have to take responsibility for my thoughts, my emotions, and my actions. I still have to live my life. I still go to jail if I commit a crime. I still need to floss my teeth. I still need to change my baby's diapers. None of this changes, just because I no longer believe in the "self". Somehow, even without that self, wtf?, I'm still here! Life goes on.

 

So, that has to be dealt with. Once "I" am revealed as "not existing", then how come I still exist? And what happens to this life, to this body, to the relationships and responsibilities that were there?

 

These are all the subtleties that IMO have to be dealt with, if one is to teach "no self".

 

Like in the "how to start a cult" video that was recently posted here, the cult usually starts with some important truth (or in this case, half-truth), which gets the followers to question their previous way of thinking. But the cult really shows its colors, after that "truth" is given. Is there room for subtlety in understanding? Is there tolerance of parallel metaphors, which don't say precisely "no self", but include that understanding? Is there guidance through the ramifications of what "no self" leads to? No, in RT's case, there is only an attempt to recruit the converted, and get them to join the gang. And the gang doesn't even understand the "truth" it preaches, because their arguments are shallow and specious. That's not liberation; that's closer to brainwashing.

 

I think the Buddha recognized all this, when he taught the middle way. No literal interpretations! Neither "self" nor "non-self". That's why he was not a cult leader. But there is no middle way in RT; it's all "our way or the highway".

no self means no self, there is no such thing as half no self. There never is a self in any way, in any kind, even if you believe there is - just like there never is a santa claus any where even if you believe there is.

 

There are many various insights that complements the insight into no self (this much even ciaran admits) - but at the same time the insight of no self cannot be compromised, as it is simply a basic fact about reality.

 

And once you realize no self you can never believe in the existence of self again, you can never unsee it.

 

Realizing no self may not dissolve all negative, afflictive habits immediately but as the realization sinks in deeply, they will certainly be dissolved. Habits are simply the habitual momentum of consciousness... Just like a wheel, you may stop spinning it (reinforcing the spinning via delusions) but the wheel still need some time to stop.

[xabir2005]

This is just it. Xabir and I have shared many insights. He is at the point now where he's starting to see that concepts and views are the problem.

 

But he doesn't yet realize that he still clings to views. Now, people ask how you can be free from views. Isn't that just another view? No, there is something beyond views which isn't another view. What is it? Just the fact of your experience. Just the skandhas pre-conceptualization. Just pure activity.

 

That's timeless. Oh, and guess what. "D.O." has NOTHING to do with it. As soon as you call it "d.o." or "no self", you distort it.

I don't cling to views. If you think I do, substantiate your claims.

 

By the way I don't think conceptualization in and of itself is a problem. Conceptualizations and thoughts are just as fine as seeing and hearing. They are also a beautiful part of experience and one we cannot do without unless we are living alone in a mountain which even then I suspect we will still need some conceptualization proccesses to survive.

 

The only problem is the view "is" or "is not" I.e. The view of inherency with regards to selfhood and objects, which can only be dissolved via the realization of the twofold emptiness. The view of inherency results in clinging - for example if we think "wind" that's not a problem if we understand it to be mere empty conventions for the ungraspable activities of blowing, unless we cling to a notion of inherent windness behind blowing then it becomes a problem, source of clinging and suffering. The concept, thought, convention, label in itself is not the problem but the reification of conventions into independent existence is a problem as it causes grasping and a distorted vision of reality (I.e. Dualistically and inherently). After realization, we do not cling to concepts and thoughts, but it is not the same as not being able to think or being in aversion to thoughts. In fact after realization, concepts lose their appeal and one prefers to rest in direct experience. This is a good thing and is a natural progression in experience. But one must not mistake non conceptualization with true realization. True realization of anatta and agentlessness and shunyata/d.o. Liberates... Not the practice of non conceptualization which is in and of itself simply a shamatha practice (though also important).

 

Many people stress on non conceptuality as a form of practice (be it teachers like eckhart tolle or even usual or even clinical mindfulness therapy) but because twofold emptiness insight has not arisen, they still cling to their notion of self or objects as inherent. And they don't need to verbalize their clinging - just as lucky said, the view runs deep and the clinging occurs on a pre verbalization level. They may cling to an awareness even without engaging in labels or conceptualization, due to a subtle belief in an inherent awareness, for example. Telling these people to cease conceptualizing isn't going to help, as they already had ample non conceptual experiences of reality and yet are unable to overcome their inherent view. Therefore it is not non conceptuality in and of itself that liberates... It is realization that liberates you from extreme views... And in fact all views, hence called the viewless view.

[Sunya]

Many people stress on non conceptuality as a form of practice (be it teachers like eckhart tolle or even usual or even clinical mindfulness therapy) but because twofold emptiness insight has not arisen, they still cling to their notion of self or objects as inherent. And they don't need to verbalize their clinging - just as lucky said, the view runs deep and the clinging occurs on a pre verbalization level. They may cling to an awareness even without engaging in labels or conceptualization, due to a subtle belief in an inherent awareness, for example. Telling these people to cease conceptualizing isn't going to help, as they already had ample non conceptual experiences of reality and yet are unable to overcome their inherent view. Therefore it is not non conceptuality in and of itself that liberates... It is realization that liberates you from extreme views... And in fact all views, hence called the viewless view.

 

Yes it seems that the biggest fallacy made by most spiritual seekers is that they assume ignorance is purely at the conceptual level, when in reality the seeds of ignorance lie much deeper in a pre-conceptual or pre-verbal level of mind. Therefore, the goal of true realization cannot happen by getting rid of all concepts and ignoring them, hoping that realization exists beyond concepts, but rather only through integrating concepts properly. Since the tendency to cling to something inherent runs deeper than concepts, the right view (no-self and emptiness) is necessary to overcome this tendency or else one will have a non-conceptual experience that is still not pure and true. Concepts and views are not the problem. Wrong concepts and views are the problem (including the view that concepts are the problem).

[tragblack]

Act on the fact

[Otis]

no self means no self, there is no such thing as half no self. There never is a self in any way, in any kind, even if you believe there is - just like there never is a santa claus any where even if you believe there is.

 

There are many various insights that complements the insight into no self (this much even ciaran admits) - but at the same time the insight of no self cannot be compromised, as it is simply a basic fact about reality.

 

And once you realize no self you can never believe in the existence of self again, you can never unsee it.

 

Realizing no self may not dissolve all negative, afflictive habits immediately but as the realization sinks in deeply, they will certainly be dissolved. Habits are simply the habitual momentum of consciousness... Just like a wheel, you may stop spinning it (reinforcing the spinning via delusions) but the wheel still need some time to stop.

"No self" is only a pointer. It's two words. The question is: what does it point at?

 

Does it mean: there is no body? Or there is no personality? Or there is no cognitive function? Or there is no organism, which is doing the thinking and the hearing?

 

None of the above even seem remotely plausible. I've never heard or seen any good arguments to support the above statements, whereas their opposites seem utterly obviously so.

 

Or, does it mean: there is no homunculus in me, pulling levers, and making my body do what it wants? Does it mean: the mind that I observe is only a feedback loop, a funhouse mirror, reflecting various processes of my brain? Or perhaps: there is no separate soul, that is distinct from the body? Or: the "I" is merely a function (e.g. a conduit for awareness) among many other functions, but mistakes itself as the greater part of the being? Or: part of the process of living includes sensing, which includes sensing the interior landscape of cognition, which gives rise to the illusion of "mind"? Or: many, many neurons give rise to an emergence, which senses itself as a "self"? Or: the "self" that is experienced is nothing but a cluster of habits, including the habits of consciousness and perception? Or: living life as life, rather than as a separate individual, is a path toward freedom?

 

All these interpretations of "no self" make total sense to me. They all fit very well with "my" experience of "my" "self". But they do require not being dogmatic about "no self", and they require taking the time to be nuanced in one's observations.

 

What "basic fact" are you pointing at, when you say "no self", and why do you believe it to be true?

[Otis]

The only problem is the view "is" or "is not"

Well, why doesn't this negate your certainty over "there is no self"?

[thuscomeone]

It's funny, because what I'm talking about is the natural result of full realization of what "emptiness is form" is pointing to. But d.o., anatta, etc. are not facts about the nature of reality as you claim them to be. They are just pointers. When I came to this realization, I saw that I could abandon all other views. Because only this is true. And that truth doesn't depend on d.o., anatta. The truth is just non-conceptual, timeless suchness. But remember, these are only words. They don't capture it.

 

You need to see that it is concepts themselves (when clung to) that create the self. Not just one particular concept.

 

There are no facts about the nature of reality, except for the fact of that which is before concepts.

 

Oh, you are wrong. Concepts themselves, or rather entanglement in concepts, is the entire problem. "what is" is beyond time in that it is always now. It's been called the eternal now. Concepts create time and past, present and future. From this, there arises the false idea of becoming, getting something. And then suffering.

 

"Now that I have experienced that tada is itself great perfection, I can at last repay your countless benefactions, and I am overjoyed." - Yaeko Iwasaki

 

(Footnote by Philip Kapleau): Literally "only," "just," "nothing but." Thus if one is eating, one must be absorbed in just eating. If the mind entertains any ideas or concepts during eating, it is not in tada. Every moment of life lived as tada is the eternal Now.

 

-- From Yaeko Iwasaki's Enlightenment letters to Harada-roshi and his Comments, The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau

 

"So, we are saying, to eliminate this conflict, psychologically, it's very important to understand whether the observer is different from the observed. If he is not, then the observer is the observed, and therefore conflict ends. I'll explain, go into this a little more. I hope you are working with the speaker, that you're not merely listening to a series of words, ideas, conclusions, but rather using the speaker, the words, as a mirror in which you are seeing actually yourself. So that you are aware of yourself, because we're talking about human being, which is you. That human being is the story of the totality of mankind. And when you investigate that, when you look at it, you see the conflict has always existed between man and woman, between... in himself. So part of this meditation is to eliminate totally all conflict, inwardly, and therefore outwardly. And to eliminate this conflict, one has to understand this basic principle, which is, the observer is not different from the observed, psychologically. Are we meeting each other? Yes? Do you see the fact, not the acceptance of what I'm saying?

 

Look, when there is anger, there is no 'I', but a second later the thought creates the 'I' and says, 'I have been angry', and there is the idea that I should not be angry. So there is 'me' who have been angry, and I should not be angry, so the division brings conflict. I hope you understand this. Please. I hope you understand this because we are going to something which demands that you pay complete attention to this, which is the essence of meditation, and to eliminate totally, completely every form of conflict, otherwise there is no peace in the world. You may have peace in heaven, but actually to live in this world with complete inward peace, therefore every action is born out of that peace. So it's very important to understand that the observer is the observed. When that takes place - please listen - that is, one is jealous - of which you all know - one is jealous; is jealousy different from the observer? You understand my question? Or the observer is the observed, therefore he is jealous. There is not 'I am jealous', but there is only jealousy. Right?

 

Then what takes place? You understand? Before, there was division between me and jealousy, and then I tried to conquer it, I tried to suppress it, rationalise it, put away from, but now when I see the 'me' is jealous - right? - then what takes place? Before, I tried to conquer it, suppress it, understand it, rationalise it, or say, 'Yes, why shouldn't I be jealous?' And therefore in all that process there is conflict. Whereas, we are saying, when there is no division between the observer and the observed, and therefore only the thing that is, which is jealousy, then what takes place? Does jealousy go on? Or is there a total ending of jealousy? You understand my problem, my question? I wonder.

 

When jealousy occurs, when there is no observer, you let it blossom and then end. You understand the question? Like a flower that blooms, withers and dies away. But as long as you're fighting it, as long as you're resisting it or rationalising it, you're giving life to it. So we are saying that the observer is the observed, and when there is this jealousy, let it... when the observer is the observed then jealousy blossoms, grows, and naturally dies. And therefore there is no conflict in it. I wonder if you see this. Right, sir? Please, madame."

-J. Krishnamurti

 

http://www.jkrishnam...32&w=meditation

 

What K is talking about here is the exact same practice advocated by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta

[thuscomeone]

Well, why doesn't this negate your certainty over "there is no self"?

Right? This is a perfect example.

[thuscomeone]

Yes it seems that the biggest fallacy made by most spiritual seekers is that they assume ignorance is purely at the conceptual level, when in reality the seeds of ignorance lie much deeper in a pre-conceptual or pre-verbal level of mind. Therefore, the goal of true realization cannot happen by getting rid of all concepts and ignoring them, hoping that realization exists beyond concepts, but rather only through integrating concepts properly. Since the tendency to cling to something inherent runs deeper than concepts, the right view (no-self and emptiness) is necessary to overcome this tendency or else one will have a non-conceptual experience that is still not pure and true. Concepts and views are not the problem. Wrong concepts and views are the problem (including the view that concepts are the problem).

I think the biggest problem of spiritual seekers is that they seek too much. And because of that, they are always running away from what is right in front of their faces.

[Otis]

It's funny, because what I'm talking about is the natural result of full realization of what "emptiness is form" is pointing to. But d.o., anatta, etc. are not facts about the nature of reality as you claim them to be. They are just pointers. When I came to this realization, I saw that I could abandon all other views. Because only this is true. And that truth doesn't depend on d.o., anatta. The truth is just non-conceptual, timeless suchness. But remember, these are only words. They don't capture it.

 

You need to see that it is concepts themselves (when clung to) that create the self. Not just one particular concept.

 

There are no facts about the nature of reality, except for the fact of that which is before concepts.

Excellent!

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes it seems that the biggest fallacy made by most spiritual seekers is that they assume ignorance is purely at the conceptual level, when in reality the seeds of ignorance lie much deeper in a pre-conceptual or pre-verbal level of mind. Therefore, the goal of true realization cannot happen by getting rid of all concepts and ignoring them, hoping that realization exists beyond concepts, but rather only through integrating concepts properly. Since the tendency to cling to something inherent runs deeper than concepts, the right view (no-self and emptiness) is necessary to overcome this tendency or else one will have a non-conceptual experience that is still not pure and true. Concepts and views are not the problem. Wrong concepts and views are the problem (including the view that concepts are the problem).

 

Yes, clinging happens on formless bliss levels too. Otherwise we'd be enlightened in deep dreamless sleep, but we are not, unless we've done the work and gone deep into the formless states of mind and untied the non-conceptual knot's as well. This is done through a subtle awareness that intuitively applies the realizations of dependent origination/emptiness to the more subtle levels of untying, it's not done on a thought level, but more on a will level.