Primary and Secondary Enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

 

This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

 

- Rob Burbea, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/07/realizing-nature-of-mind.html

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

The thing too is that the body is not the self, and the personality is not the self, so it's difficult for people to understand "how can you be here but not." But the thing is, that that self that would be receiving the state is not the self as well/either . So when this is realized, what self is there to be in the condition or to obtain any state ? Look at that self? Is it there? Is it really?? Who is looking? Who is asking?

 

 

Informer,

just wanted to check if this made any sense to you?

[xabir2005]

[Informer]

Informer,

just wanted to check if this made any sense to you?

 

I would have to think about it, I'll get back to you on it later, I've been putting off homework far too long. hehe!

[xabir2005]

Personally, I can tell you what -I- think the answer might be but this is only my perspective however incomplete or improper

 

Clinging to an idea of no-self, maybe, if it is just the idea and not merging with the true reality of the self. Merging with the true reality of it, no.. there's no clinging when merged with the true reality..

Anatta and shunyata is simply a truth that is always already the case, that is being realized. No literal merging is required: since there is no 'self' to merge or an existent objective 'truth' to merge with. Subject and object are both empty. Instead, you simply realize that no-self and emptiness is always already the case.

to the 2nd question: if someone wanted to say that the self is in a state of non-existence then that might be semantically acceptable.

You do not go from existence into non-existence. As the Buddha would say, there is no 'self' entity that could be pinned down in or apart from the five aggregation to begin with, i.e. an existent cannot be pinned down as a truth to begin with, less for 'it' to go into non-existence.

 

Always already: in seeing only the seen, in hearing only the heard, no seer, hearer, perceiver, agent.

 

Anatta is thus a dharma seal, to be realized, and not a stage of experience.

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

1)

Anatta and shunyata is simply a truth that is always already the case, that is being realized. No literal merging is required: since there is no 'self' to merge or an existent objective 'truth' to merge with. Subject and object are both empty. Instead, you simply realize that no-self and emptiness is always already the case.

You do not go from existence into non-existence. As the Buddha would say, there is no 'self' entity that could be pinned down in or apart from the five aggregation to begin with, i.e. an existent cannot be pinned down as a truth to begin with, less for 'it' to go into non-existence.

 

2)

Always already: in seeing only the seen, in hearing only the heard, no seer, hearer, perceiver, agent.

 

Anatta is thus a dharma seal, to be realized, and not a stage of experience.

 

1

You're saying exactly the same thing. Realizing it, merging with it.. does it have to be painted with the same gobbledyguk everytime? Is there no room for poetic implications?

 

2

When a bug is dead, is it in a state of non-existence? pretty much, if you can avoid getting so caught up in sematics that you end up missing the point.

 

"if someone wanted to say that the self is in a state of non-existence then that might be semantically acceptable."

[Sunya]

When a bug is dead, is it in a state of non-existence? pretty much, if you can avoid getting so caught up in sematics that you end up missing the point.

 

"if someone wanted to say that the self is in a state of non-existence then that might be semantically acceptable."

 

The way I understand it is that 'bug' is an idea, a mental concept. We reify (or make real) the concept of bug to be self-existing, independent, and real. In actuality, there is no bug because 'bug' is an idea that only exists in the mind. In actuality, what is actually there is beyond self (an independent bug) and oneness (bug as part of everything). In other words, the reality of bugness is beyond all mental concepts and labeling.

 

If you're still with me, then looking back on what you said "when a bug is dead, is it in a state of non-existence?" There never was a real bug existing in the first place, nor is there a real bug which can be in a state of non-existence after the form of bug is gone. So the concepts of existence and non-existence depend upon the assumption that there is a real independent thing called bug which has existence and then lacks existence. Neither is true though. Even when the form of bug is there, that bug lacks self or an essential nature so no categories (ie. existence, nonexistence) can be applied to it.

[XieJia]

oh, looks like you guys are having fun.

 

some more question Xabir...

 

What is the Middle way? How would you explain it?

 

What is the Right View? How would you explain it?

 

The Realisation of the two emptiness of self, does the realisation occur successively or instantaneously?

Is the two emptiness of self the same or not the same?

Is the state of Anatta in the two different or the same?

If it is not so, why is such?

 

What and where is Nirvana in the way that you perceive it?

What is the Samasra?

 

What is that stages of thusness that you mentioned are talking about?

Are they the same as the stage of enlightenment?

If not so then how many stages are there?

 

I want just short answers, no need to go into too much details.

 

@Sunya

Thank you . I found it is easier to understand what you said.

Edited September 16, 2011 by XieJia

[Harmonious Emptiness]

We reify (or make real) the concept of bug to be self-existing, independent, and real. In actuality, there is no bug because 'bug' is an idea that only exists in the mind.

 

I understand this, but was really just trying to avoid that "but it never existed" answer.

 

Is something that never existed in a state of non existence? I think it's perfectly fair to say yes even though it never existed.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[xabir2005]

oh, looks like you guys are having fun.

 

some more question Xabir...

 

What is the Middle way? How would you explain it?

Middle way is the viewless view free from extremes of being and non-being, eternalism and nihilism, etc etc.

What is the Right View? How would you explain it?

The view of anatta and dependent origination/emptiness constitutes the right view, when realized one becomes free from all views.

The Realisation of the two emptiness of self, does the realisation occur successively or instantaneously?

Successively.

Is the two emptiness of self the same or not the same? Is the state of Anatta in the two different or the same? If it is not so, why is such?

One is emptiness of self pertaining to an atman, one is emptiness of self pertaining to all mental and physical phenomena. So it is the same, but applied to different things.

What and where is Nirvana in the way that you perceive it? What is the Samasra?

Perception not reified is nirvana.

 

That saṁsāra is nirvāṇa is a major tenet of Mahāyāna philosophy. "Nothing of saṁsāra is different from nirvāṇa, nothing of nirvāṇa is different from saṁsāra. That which is the limit of nirvāṇa is also the limit of saṁsāra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So Nāgārjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvāṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Saṁsāra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvāṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Mādhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirvāṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogācāra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth. - David Loy

What is that stages of thusness that you mentioned are talking about?

This: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

Are they the same as the stage of enlightenment?

If not so then how many stages are there?

Which stages of enlightenment? There are the 4 paths to arhant, 10 bhumis to buddhahood, 4 yogas of naropa, 5 ranks of tozan, 10 oxherding pictures, etc etc.

 

I'll tell you though: Thusness Stage 5 can roughly equate with Sotapanna, and Thusness Stage 6 with 1st Bhumi, imo. But the insight of Stage 5 of Anatta is the same in regards with Sotapanna to Arhant, and the insight of Stage 6 Shunyata is the same between 1st bhumi to Buddhahood. It is just that different levels of afflictions (for sotapannas, etc, and bodhisattvas) and obscurations of knowledge (for bodhisattvas) are removed.

[XieJia]

@Xabir

 

I come to know what I wanted to know.

Doubts cleared!

 

Thank you...

[Informer]

 

 

The thing too is that the body is not the self, and the personality is not the self, so it's difficult for people to understand "how can you be here but not."

 

Yes, I can see that, I think the cartesian theatre model as another example in this regards.

 

But the thing is, that that self that would be receiving the state is not the self as well/either . So when this is realized, what self is there to be in the condition or to obtain any state ? Look at that self? Is it there? Is it really?? Who is looking? Who is asking?

 

Yeah, sorta like looking through a lens all your life then it is removed. The trick is that it is not the self, but I see it as a sort of lens than can be utilized. Not destroyed, then there are other lenses to look at the same things with. Looking at the same thing with a different lens each time can lead to conclusions that may differ slightly to greatly, but could still sound the same.

 

Non of them are wrong or right, because it is what it is, a small part of everything. How you are interpreting what I say, depends on which lens or any lenses are being used.

 

Could awareness itself be a lens? It doesn't seem very likely to me.

[Informer]

How could you relate to another if there is only one mode and it is no where close to how another is looking?

 

I have suspected that Xabir is pointing towards the radiant void, something I don't care to be one with.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Yes, I can see that, I think the cartesian theatre model as another example in this regards.

 

 

Yeah, sorta like looking through a lens all your life then it is removed. The trick is that it is not the self, but I see it as a sort of lens than can be utilized. Not destroyed, then there are other lenses to look at the same things with. Looking at the same thing with a different lens each time can lead to conclusions that may differ slightly to greatly, but could still sound the same.

 

Non of them are wrong or right, because it is what it is, a small part of everything. How you are interpreting what I say, depends on which lens or any lenses are being used.

 

Could awareness itself be a lens? It doesn't seem very likely to me.

 

It is like a lens in a way, because we experience because of these forms, which allow to see similar like a lens allows the picture to appear. But the picture is just a bunch of dots on a page. This is still just very metaphorical to explain it, but that's sort of how it works.

 

More exactly, the attributes of everything don't have their own existence without the things they are a part of; thus, they all lack their own absolute existence.. though at the same time, they still show up in the picture.

 

If you want to understand it well you'd be better off learning it from a real teacher at least in a book if not in person.. however, again, does this make any sense to you?

 

 

 

Could awareness be a lens? This is a big question, imo. If you want a semantically correct answer to it, it probably won't make much sense either as it will contradict itself with "there's no awareness in emptiness, everything is just as it is" or something like that, but I don't see those answers helping you much to understand them. I suppose that's why it's said that direct experience is needed, but it is possible to perceive emptiness through logic, and then once you have perceived it you can figure out how to clean the window and you can keep cleaning it and cleaning it until it actually disappears and there is nothing separating you or distinguishing you from the other side.

 

Now, when there's no separation, are you aware of what you're not separate from? Maybe not actively at least. Are you passively aware of it? To confuse things even more, that's kind of like me saying to.. Don King.. Don, I want you to be Don... How can he be Don when he already is Don? It doesn't really make sense.. I think the same goes for being aware of emptiness when there is no longer the separation.

 

Now, when that separation is not entirely washed away, but the direct (rather than conceptual) experience has happened: Could the awareness be a lens? I'll say yes, but only because the window is still there..

 

 

k. that was some verbal gymnastics so let me know if this clarifies any of it..

 

Cheers

 

H.E.

[Informer]

however, again, does this make any sense to you?

 

I'll let you decide, Yes, no, Yes and no, Neither yes and no.

 

So what have you determined?

[C T]

I understand this, but was really just trying to avoid that "but it never existed" answer.

 

Is something that never existed in a state of non existence? I think it's perfectly fair to say yes even though it never existed.

 

Strange, but i have never actually considered that any thing never existed. Can the mind know that which does not exist? How?

 

I tend to look from the position that things are always coming into/going out of existence, and therefore, there is actually no such state called 'non-existence' nor can i find anything which never existed from the beginning. If something never existed, by what means does it come into existence? Its unfathomable, in my mind at least.

 

Say at this moment i am looking at my palm, then i rotate my wrist ~ now i am looking at the back of the hand ~ can i say that the palm has ceased to exist? In order for me not to be caught by the thought of, 'now i see the palm... and now i don't, because i have rotated the wrist to reveal the other side of the hand', maybe all i need to do is to drop the notions of palm, back of the hand, wrist, rotate, top, bottom, back and front, to allow the subsiding of formative constructs of the conditioned mind, and just try to remain without discriminating between forearm, hand, wrist, palm, etc.

 

The Void, within the context of everyday usage, could simply be a reminder to oneself to move beyond conventional conceptual usage of the senses. In other words, to remain empty of labels and assumptions can also be called to be void of these unskillful mental dispositions. We can strip away the mystical connotations sometimes, and use our common sense to work with the teachings. Not everything has to fall into a systematic structure of sorts, because in so allowing, we automatically create the possible causes for fixations to arise.

 

I think there is quite a bit of misconception surrounding this idea of Buddhists and how they so negatively view things, and people make the mistaken assumption that Buddhists are crazy people who try to negate enjoyment of life by doing away with all sensual enjoyments (as evidenced from the biased taoist story of the 3 sages around the vinegar pot?), but they are mistaken... Actually the blissful enjoyments become so much more heightened when the senses remain in full employment, yet the mind remains disengaged from trying to interpret what is being sensated at each moment. If we can achieve this, then i think sneaking closer to Reality would not seem such a distant possibility.

Edited September 17, 2011 by CowTao

[XieJia]

1 + 1 = 2?

2 - 2 = 0?

0 = 0 ?

...?

..?

.?

?

 

@Informer

^^

 

@Cowtao

^^

 

@H.E.

^^

 

@Xabir

^^

 

Bringing another perspective from another language...

 

A monk asked Baso, "Why do you teach that Mind is Buddha?"

Baso replied, "To stop a baby's crying."

The monk asked, "What is it like when the baby stops crying?"

Baso answered, "No Mind, no Buddha."

 

-Mumonkan

[Harmonious Emptiness]

We can strip away the mystical connotations sometimes, and use our common sense to work with the teachings. Not everything has to fall into a systematic structure of sorts, because in so allowing, we automatically create the possible causes for fixations to arise.

 

 

Yes, this was my point about the bug thing.. what does it matter if we say it's in a state of non-existence vs. saying that it doesn't exist. It's the same meaning. To cling to a particular verbiage of how to express it only puts a lock on the mind and perception, and the desire to do this all the time is really a big mistake.

 

It reminds me of a story about a monk was "almost there" and talked to a teacher about everything he knew explaining it all perfectly and then asked "so what else do I need to know? can you bring me to the other shore?" The teacher said "no, I can't, but the riverboat monk is the one who can."

 

So the monk was brought to a monk in a boat on the river. The monk accepted him into the boat. The monk began to explain everything he understood with flawlessness. Then suddenly, the riverboat monk flipped the boat over. The monk was then enlightened.

[Lucky7Strikes]

In Dzogchen, since you mentioned Rainbow Body, the realization of the two emptiness* is achieved at Third Vision at which point you become an awakened 1st Bhumi bodhisattva. From Third Vision to Fourth Vision you traverse 1~7 bhumi, and then 8~16 bhumis in the fourth, after which you achieve rainbow body and become a fully enlightened Buddha.

 

This is not exactly 'celestial enlightenment' since it is nothing 'celestial' (celestial realms are still part of samsara), rainbow body happens when the elements of the body revert into wisdom light.

 

*two emptiness: there are two levels of realizing emptiness, one is the emptiness of self, one is the emptiness of phenomena

Source on the stages of visions?

[Lucky7Strikes]

The way I understand it is that 'bug' is an idea, a mental concept. We reify (or make real) the concept of bug to be self-existing, independent, and real. In actuality, there is no bug because 'bug' is an idea that only exists in the mind. In actuality, what is actually there is beyond self (an independent bug) and oneness (bug as part of everything). In other words, the reality of bugness is beyond all mental concepts and labeling.

 

If you're still with me, then looking back on what you said "when a bug is dead, is it in a state of non-existence?" There never was a real bug existing in the first place, nor is there a real bug which can be in a state of non-existence after the form of bug is gone. So the concepts of existence and non-existence depend upon the assumption that there is a real independent thing called bug which has existence and then lacks existence. Neither is true though. Even when the form of bug is there, that bug lacks self or an essential nature so no categories (ie. existence, nonexistence) can be applied to it.

I like this: everything as an idea, in a field of imagination. I just read a comic book on it. Seems like it's the basis of most occult practices.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir, how important is the heart center to your practice and at what point does it come into play. How is the Heart center described and what are its "roles" so to speak?

 

Does your practice include the subtle energy body and at what point does this start being practiced?

 

Thanks!

The awakening of the heart center is compassion/love. This is the basis for the Bodhisattva. Bodhisattva isn't just realizing emptiness of phenomena, but the vow. The vow to liberate all beings is not conceptual but experiential. The heart energy is conjured through the vow and contemplating the suffering of others.

[xabir2005]

Source on the stages of visions?

Jamgon Kongtrul says:

 

By progressing in the experiences of that meditation, one attains the four visions. First in the (first) vision of direct realization of the ultimate nature, one achieves the experiences of realization equivalent to that of the path of accumulation...............

 

..........Then in the (second)vision of the increase of experiences which is similar to the path of application..............

 

.............Then in the (third) vision of perfection of the intrinsic awareness, in the first, middle and final stages, One realize the paths of seeing and meditation (Until the seventh Bhumi).......

 

Then in the (fourth and last) vision of cessation into the ultimate nature, Because in the Three Pure Stages (8th to 10th Bhumis), the host of conceptual defilements are manifestly exhausted and the gross bodies are exhausted and the delusory perceptions are exahusted, this vision is called the dissolution. This vision is the great luminous intrinsic wisdom.......

 

 

 

I distinctly remember Namdrol (that is where I found that info from in the first place) said that the fourth vision corresponds 8 to 16 bhumis (under the 16 bhumis scheme).

 

But too lazy to find the thread for you. lol

Edited September 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Jamgon Kongtrul says:

 

By progressing in the experiences of that meditation, one attains the four visions. First in the (first) vision of direct realization of the ultimate nature, one achieves the experiences of realization equivalent to that of the path of accumulation...............

 

..........Then in the (second)vision of the increase of experiences which is similar to the path of application..............

 

.............Then in the (third) vision of perfection of the intrinsic awareness, in the first, middle and final stages, One realize the paths of seeing and meditation (Until the seventh Bhumi).......

 

Then in the (fourth and last) vision of cessation into the ultimate nature, Because in the Three Pure Stages (8th to 10th Bhumis), the host of conceptual defilements are manifestly exhausted and the gross bodies are exhausted and the delusory perceptions are exahusted, this vision is called the dissolution. This vision is the great luminous intrinsic wisdom.......

 

I distinctly remember Namdrol (that is where I found that info from in the first place) said that the fourth vision corresponds 8 to 16 bhumis (under the 16 bhumis scheme).

 

But too lazy to find the thread for you. lol

Hmm, found these instead.

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_visions

 

and:

 

http://kuntuzangpo.com/index.php/en/dzogchen/65-the-four-toegel-visions

Edited September 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

Hey L7... deep thanks for that Kuntuzangpo link. _/\_

 

Very direct.