Superimposition of views on reality

[Songtsan]

Affirmation that reality and self are all one and the same:

 

Examples -

 

"All is mind"

"Reject nothing"

Hong Sau mantra ("I am that." "I am it." "I am he." "I am God.") http://samadhi-insights.com/hongsau.htm

 

This view 'recognizes that everything we experience is 'us' and that 'we' are everything we experience.' It takes that which one is aware of and labels it is as 'self.' This includes everything external to the ultimately spotless mirror of awareness itself - including names/forms, faces/egos, minds, self/others, and anything else that can be perceived. This is the path of constantly reminding oneself that the ego is composed of an aggregate of the 10,000 things which include all that can be observed and experienced. Identifying the created self with all that is in existence negates the habitual dualistic self-reifying psychological mind which subcategorizes its identity as an object within a system of the whole. This can lead to transcendence of the small ego as one loses sense of separateness.

 

Negation of all that is reality/negation of the self:

 

Examples -

 

"No self." Anatta.

"Reject everything."

"Neti neti." ("Not this." "Not that.") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

All aggregates are illusions. Self is composed of aggregates so self is an illusion. The only reality is that of awareness and the spotless mirror of this awareness- everything else is form/emptiness patterns endlessly mutating. Dis-identifying with all form/illusion we slowly peel away the false ego - ending up with no labeling whatsoever. This should eventually end in empty-mind.

 

Direct perception of reality without any mind fabrications whatsoever:

 

Examples -

 

"Direct seeing"

"Non-fabrication."

"No-mind.:

 

This is the direct route - which does not depend on mind fabrications such as the above two techniques whatsoever. Perception of reality occurs directly without the superimposition of views over reality. This is the most accurate method to see true reality whereas the other methods are intermediate stepping stones which can lead to this silence. Essential practice is to observe without commenting, holding self/other ideations, creating ideas of internal/external, or separating 'oneself' from reality in any way.

 

 

On superimposition and its effects:

 

Read this first: http://books.google.com/books?id=a1ExDf09xSIC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=superimposition+buddhism&source=bl&ots=F6BJ9upTq-&sig=eiYoMxMNOExwhARMVRrnMZqgvBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zrPmUrSgCNO02wW5iIGwDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=superimposition%20buddhism&f=false

 

then this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=a1ExDf09xSIC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=superimposition+buddhism&source=bl&ots=F6BJ9upTq-&sig=eiYoMxMNOExwhARMVRrnMZqgvBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zrPmUrSgCNO02wW5iIGwDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=superimposition%20buddhism&f=false

 

Superimposition is a false projection of the mind onto reality containing definitions, labels, judgments, mind fabrications, implied meanings etc. etc. All mind fabrications, thought constructs, ideations, etc. are superimpositions.

 

Understanding that (for the purposes of this post) all activities of the 'not-spotless' or 'dirty mind' are superimpositions helps us to understand how internal/external Maya works. The illusionary nature of Maya is two-fold. So called 'external' objects are illusions as they have no permanent nature and are constantly flowing without true demarcations. So called internal objects (i.e. 'mind-stuff') are also doing the same thing but they are also projected outwards towards 'external' reality and superimposed over the objects 'out there.' We therefore have a double-illusion. Illusions which have been placed on top of illusions. This is the act of superimposition.

 

It is as if a screen of demarcations has been placed over a field of objects. Things then have their original nature (which is un-originated and endless/beginingless and forever changing)- and these things have had superimpositions (that are essentially labels or views) placed upon them by the mind which attempts to trap 'things' into ordered systems whereby reality can be 'understood' by the 'common mind.'

This mind is quite limited and asleep compared to the transcendent 'mind of enlightenment,' which is direct seeing, direct awareness, fully open wisdom-eye, silent-mind, etc. without perturbations or fluctuations besides that direct reflection of reality.

 

The three systems of achieving this state are some of the more common ones employed by practitioners. All three work well if approached with disciplined intent and true grit.

 

One can even interchangeably use all three in order to 'stretch' the lower mind in its ability to comprehend the conceptual reality of "all is mind," "there is no self," and "true seeing."

 

The highest route is of course to enter no-mind. The ending of mind-fabrications infers union with reality - AKA 'absorption,' 'samadhi,' 'enlightenment,' etc.

 

Which methods do you find yourself using most often or what other methods do you use besides these?

 

Holding intent on a regular basis is one of the main requirements to practice. The intent can be as simple as remembering to 'See no differences, see no internal no external - everything is part of one reality,' etc. or vice versa or as simple as 'Just see,' with the intent to negate all mind fabrications and approach a 'direct view that is viewless.'

 

I have been using the All is Mind method myself for quite sometime but I am switching over to the direct method.

 

What I am really aiming at is some kind of juxtaposition of the three methods that is the most efficient when compared to any particular one by itself. I have some ideas but would like to see what people think. So far I am guessing that one over the other is useful depending on situation, speediness of thinking, attitudinal shifts, and so on. Also depending on what 'one' is trying to observe - for example: if one is trying to observe so-called external reality, i.e. everything as external then the 'All is Mind' may be the ticket if one is having trouble ending fabrications.

 

If one is trying to 'turn the light around,' bring attentional focus inwards towards attention itself etc. it may be useful to use the negation method to selectively slice away 'inputs' that are 'everything but awareness.' This may help serve to see awareness as the 'only thing that matters,' or that is 'worth focusing on.'

 

The third one is useful when one is in a very relaxed state with relatively little stuckedness in fabrication-mentality. Assume that one has achieved a good ground state and that one has gone beyond the use of thought-constructs to remind oneself to get rid of thought-constructs. This is the goal in any event - so the other methods should be taking you there. If one cannot properly let go of the mind to 'get here,' then one might temporarily make use of other methods.

 

Any other methods or insight someone may contribute please do as I am trying to refine a 24/7 meditation method that uses 'levels and levels.'

Edited January 27, 2014 by Songtsan

[Simple_Jack]

Affirmation that reality and self are all one and the same:

 

Examples -

 

"All is mind"

Hong Sau mantra ("I am that." "I am it." "I am he." "I am God.") http://samadhi-insights.com/hongsau.htm

 

This view 'recognizes that everything we experience is 'us' and that 'we' are everything we experience.' It takes that which one is aware of and labels is as self. This includes everything external to the ultimately spotless mirror of awareness itself - including names/forms, faces/egos, minds, self/others, and anything else that can be perceived. This is the path of constantly reminding oneself that the ego is composed of an aggregate of the 10,000 things which include all that can be observed. Identifying the created self with all that is in existence negates the habitual dualistic self-reifying psychological mind which subcategorizes its identity within a system of the whole. This can lead to transcendence of the small ego as one loses sense of separateness.

 

Negation of all that is reality/negation of the self:

 

Examples -

 

"No self."

"Neti neti." ("Not this." "Not that.") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

All aggregates are illusions. Self is composed of aggregates so self is an illusion. The only reality is that of awareness and the spotless mirror of this awareness everything else is form/emptiness patterns endlessly mutating. Dis-identifying with all form/illusion we slowly peel away the false ego - ending up with no labeling whatsoever. This should eventually end in empty-mind.

 

Direct perception of reality without any mind fabrications whatsoever:

 

Examples -

 

"Direct seeing"

"Non-fabrication."

"No-mind.:

 

This is the direct route - which does not depend on mind fabrications such as the above two techniques whatsoever. Perception of reality occurs directly without the superimposition of views over reality. This is the most accurate method to see true reality whereas the other methods are intermediate stepping stones which can lead to this silence.

 

This is a form of substantialism. I suggest reading the classic Indian texts on Madhyamaka in order to get a better understanding of basic Buddhist principles.

[Songtsan]

This is a form of substantialism. I suggest reading the classic Indian texts on Madhyamaka in order to get a better understanding of basic Buddhist principles.

 

I am a fan of Naagaarjuna, but I will check it out upon your request. However - I am trying to avoid learning too much more philosophy as I am more concerned with ending fabrications - and more concepts are just going to keep me running in circles. I can always pick up more ideas later if I fail in my pursuits to end the fluctuations.

[Songtsan]

This is a form of substantialism. I suggest reading the classic Indian texts on Madhyamaka in order to get a better understanding of basic Buddhist principles.

 

so far it seems that Madhyamaka is different than substantialism. I am reading that "Utilizing the Buddha's theory of "dependent arising"(pratitya-samutpada), Nagarjuna demonstrated the futility of [...] metaphysical speculations. His method of dealing with such metaphysics is referred to as "middle way" (madhyama pratipad). It is the middle way that avoided the substantialism of the Sarvastivadins as well as the nominalism of theSautrantikas.^[4]"

 

^{As far as my views assuming a lack of substance or essence - this is not what I was saying - I was saying that form is not substance but I was basically indicating without directly saying that Awareness or the spotless mind was the essence so I agree with substantialist views as far as the 'atman' - if you like to call it that - having an beginingless/endless/unoriginated essence. I am by no means a nihilist, I assure you. The above methods are NOT belief systems - they are attempts to get beyond belief systems and directly perceive essence using the spotless mirror of enlightenment.}

 

^{As far as things being insubstantial - it is nama rupa I refer to.}

[yabyum24]

I am more concerned with ending fabrications - and more concepts are just going to keep me running in circles.

Well said. Views are tough to dispose of though, as they seem to point to facets of truth. There's always the suspicion (or hope) that if we acquire more of them, sooner or later we'll hit the mother load. The fear that if we don't, we'll miss the party.

 

That said, the only thing I've ever found that really counts is what has been found in meditation. Insomuch as it has affected my life for the better, helped me drop (to some extent) the stress of self etc.

 

I would also say that anatta means not-self, rather than no-self. The first is a direct astonishing discovery, the second an intellectually fabricated ontological view.

[thelerner]

The vispasana version of this I sometimes do before meditatation:

I'm not my body I'm that which inhabits it.

I'm not my thoughts, they pass through like clouds in the sky.

I'm no my emotions. I let them settle like ripples in a pond.

I'm not my past. That is old memories & patterns

I am not my future. That is just projections of hope and fears.

I am not my name, or possessions. I am not my family.

I am breath and awareness.

Edited January 27, 2014 by thelerner

[Seeker of Wisdom]

If you are awareness, do you cease to exist in deep sleep?

 

If you aren't awareness, how are you different from a rock?

 

If you are both awareness and other thing/s, that makes you an aggregation. So is self in the parts, or the parts in self - what is the relationship between a thing and its parts?

 

If you are not awareness or something else, how, then, do you have experiences?

 

It's very easy to assume that something must be a substantial self, because we assume the existence of such a thing so deeply. Don't mistake experience for belief.

[Simple_Jack]

I am a fan of Naagaarjuna, but I will check it out upon your request. However - I am trying to avoid learning too much more philosophy as I am more concerned with ending fabrications - and more concepts are just going to keep me running in circles. I can always pick up more ideas later if I fail in my pursuits to end the fluctuations.

 

In regards to the undifferentiated 'awareness' you mentioned in the OP:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=nagarjuna;examination+of+the+prior+entity&source=bl&ots=JS4UaRlWdR&sig=iUnb-jKJajwF7rw0NQRWwCshAkc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9NzmUovBLpSssATh0ICYAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=examination%20of%20the%20prior%20entity&f=false

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=kfsyfoO1IlYC&q=examination+of+the+prior+entity#v=snippet&q=examination%20of%20the%20prior%20entity&f=false

 

It's not even required that you learn Madhyamaka, but you should learn proper Buddhist meditation, such as the four frames of reference/satiphatthana/vipassana. Or you could just study the meditation manuals of Sutra Mahamudra, which is essentially a systemization of the prajnaparamita teachings into a graduated path of meditation i.e. shamatha-vipashyana. Its freely available because it doesn't require empowerment to practice this system: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/.

 

I would also say that anatta means not-self, rather than no-self. The first is a direct astonishing discovery, the second an intellectually fabricated ontological view.

 

Referring to anatta as 'not-self' or as 'no-self', is not as important as understanding, that you are just a bundle of 5 aggregates i.e. impermanent processes. I'm sure you're familiar with the principles of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas.

 

The light, vispasana version of this I sometimes do is before I meditate I'll affirm:

I'm not my body I'm that which inhabits it.

I'm not my thoughts, they pass through like clouds in the sky.

I'm no my emotions. I let them settle like ripples in a pond.

I'm not my past. That is old memories & patterns

I am not my future. That is just projections of hope and fears.

I am not my name, or possessions. I am not my family.

I am breath and awareness.

 

The bold is a beginner mistake due to inefficient understanding and a lack of proper training in vipassana. This is a result of inappropriate attention/mindfulness, by Buddhist standards of meditation, which is contrasted with appropriate attention/mindfulness. You should refer to the four frames of reference of satipatthana and the 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta.

[Simple_Jack]

@ Songtsan

 

Its best not to rely on wikipedia for your information.

[thelerner]

If you are awareness, do you cease to exist in deep sleep? If you aren't awareness, how are you different from a rock?

If you are both awareness and other thing/s, that makes you an aggregation. So is self in the parts, or the parts in self - what is the relationship between a thing and its parts?

 

If you are not awareness or something else, how, then, do you have experiences?

 

It's very easy to assume that something must be a substantial self, because we assume the existence of such a thing so deeply. Don't mistake experience for belief.

fine, fine, I'm only breath

or better yet, how would you end the monologue?

 

 

I find that monologue before meditation helps focus me away from 1000 things to 2. Its not so much a philosophical statement as a focusing tool. Also a valuable 'stop thinking so much' tool.

Edited January 28, 2014 by thelerner

[Songtsan]

@ Songtsan

 

Its best not to rely on wikipedia for your information.

 

I don't - just for quick reference...

[Songtsan]

fine, fine, I'm only breath

or better yet, how would you end the monologue?

 

 

I find that monologue before meditation helps focus me away from 1000 things to 2. Its not so much a philosophical statement as a focusing tool. Also a valuable 'stop thinking so much' tool.

 

I am thinking that I will use the first two methods in the case of extreme passion and unbalanced views. For example I will make use of All is Mind when I find myself in extreme states of negative attachment - simply to remind myself to not be so negatively attached - to be open to those things I would rather not be open to. The refutation of all names/forms as not-self I will use when I find myself excessively positively attached or egomania influenced..

 

Otherwise the third method will be my modus operandi - which is essentially satipatthana although I will focus more on the source of awareness vs. its objects.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Songtsan

[doc benway]

Nice post Songstan - I hope you don't mind a few comments from a beginner.

 

Affirmation that reality and self are all one and the same:

 

Examples -

 

"All is mind"

"Reject nothing"

Hong Sau mantra ("I am that." "I am it." "I am he." "I am God.") http://samadhi-insights.com/hongsau.htm

 

This view 'recognizes that everything we experience is 'us' and that 'we' are everything we experience.' It takes that which one is aware of and labels it is as 'self.' This includes everything external to the ultimately spotless mirror of awareness itself - including names/forms, faces/egos, minds, self/others, and anything else that can be perceived. This is the path of constantly reminding oneself that the ego is composed of an aggregate of the 10,000 things which include all that can be observed and experienced. Identifying the created self with all that is in existence negates the habitual dualistic self-reifying psychological mind which subcategorizes its identity as an object within a system of the whole. This can lead to transcendence of the small ego as one loses sense of separateness.

 

From my perspective, this is a view and not a method. This is also not necessarily an affirmation. While there is no distinction between self and other, there is no affirmation of the existence (or non-existence) of self and other, necessarily. Different approaches interpret this in different ways and love to argue with one another.

 

 

Negation of all that is reality/negation of the self:

 

Examples -

 

"No self." Anatta.

"Reject everything."

"Neti neti." ("Not this." "Not that.") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

All aggregates are illusions. Self is composed of aggregates so self is an illusion. The only reality is that of awareness and the spotless mirror of this awareness- everything else is form/emptiness patterns endlessly mutating. Dis-identifying with all form/illusion we slowly peel away the false ego - ending up with no labeling whatsoever. This should eventually end in empty-mind.

 

Similarly, this is a view and not a method. Neti neti and anatta are NOT negation. They do not imply non-existence. They imply non-separation, non-clinging, and non-arising. They illustrate the display of ornaments in emptiness as the union of space and awareness. Even in empty mind there is awareness and there is no negation or affirmation of the its existence. Again, different traditions come at it from different angles and fight like not-cats and not-dogs. All are attempting to use words to express the non-conceptual view that grows out of proper practice and conduct. And sometimes it's just bullshit predicated on thought and not experience.

 

 

Direct perception of reality without any mind fabrications whatsoever:

 

Examples -

 

"Direct seeing"

"Non-fabrication."

"No-mind.:

 

This is the direct route - which does not depend on mind fabrications such as the above two techniques whatsoever. Perception of reality occurs directly without the superimposition of views over reality. This is the most accurate method to see true reality whereas the other methods are intermediate stepping stones which can lead to this silence. Essential practice is to observe without commenting, holding self/other ideations, creating ideas of internal/external, or separating 'oneself' from reality in any way.

 

This is a method and not a view. Proper application of this method will reveal that the two views above are simply different ways of attempting to illustrate the same truth. Once experienced directly, there is knowing. I think the word knowing is more illustrative of the experience that knowledge. Knowing is alive, ongoing, and boundless. Knowledge is finite and dead, it implies limitation and boundary. With knowing, the view is clear but needs to be deepened and stabilized through further practice and conduct.

 

 

 

On superimposition and its effects:

 

Read this first: http://books.google.com/books?id=a1ExDf09xSIC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=superimposition+buddhism&source=bl&ots=F6BJ9upTq-&sig=eiYoMxMNOExwhARMVRrnMZqgvBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zrPmUrSgCNO02wW5iIGwDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=superimposition%20buddhism&f=false

 

then this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=a1ExDf09xSIC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=superimposition+buddhism&source=bl&ots=F6BJ9upTq-&sig=eiYoMxMNOExwhARMVRrnMZqgvBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zrPmUrSgCNO02wW5iIGwDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=superimposition%20buddhism&f=false

 

Superimposition is a false projection of the mind onto reality containing definitions, labels, judgments, mind fabrications, implied meanings etc. etc. All mind fabrications, thought constructs, ideations, etc. are superimpositions.

 

Understanding that (for the purposes of this post) all activities of the 'not-spotless' or 'dirty mind' are superimpositions helps us to understand how internal/external Maya works. The illusionary nature of Maya is two-fold. So called 'external' objects are illusions as they have no permanent nature and are constantly flowing without true demarcations. So called internal objects (i.e. 'mind-stuff') are also doing the same thing but they are also projected outwards towards 'external' reality and superimposed over the objects 'out there.' We therefore have a double-illusion. Illusions which have been placed on top of illusions. This is the act of superimposition.

 

It is as if a screen of demarcations has been placed over a field of objects. Things then have their original nature (which is un-originated and endless/beginingless and forever changing)- and these things have had superimpositions (that are essentially labels or views) placed upon them by the mind which attempts to trap 'things' into ordered systems whereby reality can be 'understood' by the 'common mind.'

This mind is quite limited and asleep compared to the transcendent 'mind of enlightenment,' which is direct seeing, direct awareness, fully open wisdom-eye, silent-mind, etc. without perturbations or fluctuations besides that direct reflection of reality.

 

This is neither view nor method but more a description of conceptual labeling, IMO.

 

 

The three systems of achieving this state are some of the more common ones employed by practitioners. All three work well if approached with disciplined intent and true grit.

 

One can even interchangeably use all three in order to 'stretch' the lower mind in its ability to comprehend the conceptual reality of "all is mind," "there is no self," and "true seeing."

 

The highest route is of course to enter no-mind. The ending of mind-fabrications infers union with reality - AKA 'absorption,' 'samadhi,' 'enlightenment,' etc.

 

Which methods do you find yourself using most often or what other methods do you use besides these?

 

Holding intent on a regular basis is one of the main requirements to practice. The intent can be as simple as remembering to 'See no differences, see no internal no external - everything is part of one reality,' etc. or vice versa or as simple as 'Just see,' with the intent to negate all mind fabrications and approach a 'direct view that is viewless.'

 

I have been using the All is Mind method myself for quite sometime but I am switching over to the direct method.

 

What I am really aiming at is some kind of juxtaposition of the three methods that is the most efficient when compared to any particular one by itself. I have some ideas but would like to see what people think. So far I am guessing that one over the other is useful depending on situation, speediness of thinking, attitudinal shifts, and so on. Also depending on what 'one' is trying to observe - for example: if one is trying to observe so-called external reality, i.e. everything as external then the 'All is Mind' may be the ticket if one is having trouble ending fabrications.

 

If one is trying to 'turn the light around,' bring attentional focus inwards towards attention itself etc. it may be useful to use the negation method to selectively slice away 'inputs' that are 'everything but awareness.' This may help serve to see awareness as the 'only thing that matters,' or that is 'worth focusing on.'

 

The third one is useful when one is in a very relaxed state with relatively little stuckedness in fabrication-mentality. Assume that one has achieved a good ground state and that one has gone beyond the use of thought-constructs to remind oneself to get rid of thought-constructs. This is the goal in any event - so the other methods should be taking you there. If one cannot properly let go of the mind to 'get here,' then one might temporarily make use of other methods.

 

Any other methods or insight someone may contribute please do as I am trying to refine a 24/7 meditation method that uses 'levels and levels.'

 

Thanks for sharing these ideas and take everything I write with a heaping tablespoon of salt!

 

I would agree that "Direct perception of reality without any mind fabrications whatsoever" is a good way to practice. That said, the fabrications will always be there. However much they diminish with time and skill, they never go away completely. The key is to recognize them as fabrications, allow them to manifest, and allow them to liberate and remain undisturbed, resting in the union (or non-separation) of emptiness, light, and bliss. With practice, this will occur naturally and instantaneously. That's a long way off for me.... or maybe it's right NOW! E Ma Ho!

 

Along with that practice it is equally important to clarify the view and the fruition (or conduct), best done with the help of a credible guide (a beloved and trusted guru). I don't look at it as if there are different views.There is a view and it must be clarified over time. It is not accepting this view or that view, words and concepts, but rather rooted in experience and transcending words and concepts. Words and concepts are helpful as pointers and road maps but the view grows with direct experience through meditation and proper conduct. This is known as combining base (view), path (meditation), and fruition (conduct) - all three together make up the approach. All three are equally important and all three are dependently originating. I'm beginning to see that you can't have one without the others...

[3bob]

_{Songtsan, I hope you find what you are looking for. I haven't read every word in every post but it sounds like most of it is from teachings of Buddhism, although "Neti, Neti" is not.}

_{"Neti, Neti" to me means not this thing, not that thing - thus not a thing yet that is the deepest reality beyond all things which is very well pointed to in the Upanishads. (note: all things are connected to Shakti and Shakti is connected to Brahman) Om}

[Songtsan]

Nice post Songstan - I hope you don't mind a few comments from a beginner.

 

No one is not a beginner - Zen mind beginner's mind!

 

From my perspective, this is a view and not a method. This is also not necessarily an affirmation. While there is no distinction between self and other, there is no affirmation of the existence (or non-existence) of self and other, necessarily. Different approaches interpret this in different ways and love to argue with one another.

 

It is both a view and a method. A method since it sets up an intent to either embrace all reality as oneself or deny it. The intent is the wordless thing - the words are the superimposition of a view. Using the words as a tool then forgetting them while retaining the essence, does a trick or two.

 

Similarly, this is a view and not a method. Neti neti and anatta are NOT negation. They do not imply non-existence. They imply non-separation, non-clinging, and non-arising. They illustrate the display of ornaments in emptiness as the union of space and awareness. Even in empty mind there is awareness and there is no negation or affirmation of the its existence. Again, different traditions come at it from different angles and fight like not-cats and not-dogs. All are attempting to use words to express the non-conceptual view that grows out of proper practice and conduct. And sometimes it's just bullshit predicated on thought and not experience.

 

See above and also - I never meant it to imply non-existence. What it means to me is that "This is not my self, that is not my self," etc. - it is used to detach oneself from that which one is attached to. Again it is a method as well as a view. Actually all views are also arguably methods as they have effects on consciousness. A method is a procedure to accomplish a result - doesn't matter if its conscious or unconscious IMO.

 

This is a method and not a view. Proper application of this method will reveal that the two views above are simply different ways of attempting to illustrate the same truth. Once experienced directly, there is knowing. I think the word knowing is more illustrative of the experience that knowledge. Knowing is alive, ongoing, and boundless. Knowledge is finite and dead, it implies limitation and boundary. With knowing, the view is clear but needs to be deepened and stabilized through further practice and conduct.

 

However, the pathway there is a method. When direct seeing is reached I agree that it is no longer a view - but until then before it is directly realized my ideas of what it is are views and thus, even though I am thinking of it as a method, I hold a view of what it is at the same time as I apply it so it is stuck as a view as well...for now.

 

This is neither view nor method but more a description of conceptual labeling, IMO.

 

views = descriptions = labeling = concepts...

 

View is defined as:

a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.

"strong political views"

synonyms: opinion, point of view, viewpoint, belief, judgment, thinking, notion, idea,conviction, persuasion, attitude, feeling, sentiment, concept,hypothesis, theory;

 

Thanks for sharing these ideas and take everything I write with a heaping tablespoon of salt!

 

I would agree that "Direct perception of reality without any mind fabrications whatsoever" is a good way to practice. That said, the fabrications will always be there. However much they diminish with time and skill, they never go away completely. The key is to recognize them as fabrications, allow them to manifest, and allow them to liberate and remain undisturbed, resting in the union (or non-separation) of emptiness, light, and bliss. With practice, this will occur naturally and instantaneously. That's a long way off for me.... or maybe it's right NOW! E Ma Ho!

 

It is possible to achieve states though which are free of fabrications, according to many paths - this is what absorption, samadhi, enlightenment, etc. states are all about - mind being wholly focused on one thing without dualities - forgetting the self, direct perception, etc. A direct perception isn't a fabrication...'fabrication' refers to something 'made up' vs. something that actually exists unoriginated (although fabrications are technically unoriginated too - as they are due to action/reaction chains). I am just stating Buddhist beliefs according to the systems of jhanas however - never been there myself

 

Along with that practice it is equally important to clarify the view and the fruition (or conduct), best done with the help of a credible guide (a beloved and trusted guru). I don't look at it as if there are different views.There is a view and it must be clarified over time. It is not accepting this view or that view, words and concepts, but rather rooted in experience and transcending words and concepts. Words and concepts are helpful as pointers and road maps but the view grows with direct experience through meditation and proper conduct. This is known as combining base (view), path (meditation), and fruition (conduct) - all three together make up the approach. All three are equally important and all three are dependently originating. I'm beginning to see that you can't have one without the others...

 

hmmm...I will contemplate this.

 

Interesting discussion...please continue!

[Songtsan]

_{Songtsan, I hope you find what you are looking for. I haven't read every word in every post but it sounds like most of it is from teachings of Buddhism, although "Neti, Neti" is not.}

_{"Neti, Neti" to me means not this thing, not that thing - thus not a thing yet that is the deepest reality beyond all things which is very well pointed to in the Upanishads. (note: all things are connected to Shakti and Shakti is connected to Brahman) Om}

 

 

Good point about neti neti - it is, when searching for the self, a statement that 'these things' are not the self...so keep looking! I see it as a good tool to remind one to be unattached to the false trappings of 'assumed self'

[Songtsan]

Basically the first two views/tools I would use only when in the extremes as I mentioned...a good illustration would be a line, with negative attachment on one side, positive attachment on another, and equanimity in the middle....as long as I was in the 'mostly equanimous zone' I would aim for direct perception without views (including the views I hold about direct perception). On the ends of the line I would remind myself of those views, set up my intent to hold that view and turn it into a perception.

 

It is no wonder they call perception attainments 'states'

A state is basically synonymous with the word 'stance' which is basically synonymous with the word 'view' - it is the place you are at or coming from or watching from. Since the perception attainments are considered fabricated states, as one directly pursues them, I would posit that one is fabricating a viewpoint...

 

what think y'all?

[Simple_Jack]

Nice post Songstan - I hope you don't mind a few comments from a beginner.

 

 

From my perspective, this is a view and not a method. This is also not necessarily an affirmation. While there is no distinction between self and other, there is no affirmation of the existence (or non-existence) of self and other, necessarily. Different approaches interpret this in different ways and love to argue with one another.

 

 

 

Similarly, this is a view and not a method. Neti neti and anatta are NOT negation. They do not imply non-existence. They imply non-separation, non-clinging, and non-arising. They illustrate the display of ornaments in emptiness as the union of space and awareness. Even in empty mind there is awareness and there is no negation or affirmation of the its existence. Again, different traditions come at it from different angles and fight like not-cats and not-dogs. All are attempting to use words to express the non-conceptual view that grows out of proper practice and conduct. And sometimes it's just bullshit predicated on thought and not experience.

 

 

 

This is a method and not a view. Proper application of this method will reveal that the two views above are simply different ways of attempting to illustrate the same truth. Once experienced directly, there is knowing. I think the word knowing is more illustrative of the experience that knowledge. Knowing is alive, ongoing, and boundless. Knowledge is finite and dead, it implies limitation and boundary. With knowing, the view is clear but needs to be deepened and stabilized through further practice and conduct.

 

 

 

 

This is neither view nor method but more a description of conceptual labeling, IMO.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing these ideas and take everything I write with a heaping tablespoon of salt!

 

I would agree that "Direct perception of reality without any mind fabrications whatsoever" is a good way to practice. That said, the fabrications will always be there. However much they diminish with time and skill, they never go away completely. The key is to recognize them as fabrications, allow them to manifest, and allow them to liberate and remain undisturbed, resting in the union (or non-separation) of emptiness, light, and bliss. With practice, this will occur naturally and instantaneously. That's a long way off for me.... or maybe it's right NOW! E Ma Ho!

 

Along with that practice it is equally important to clarify the view and the fruition (or conduct), best done with the help of a credible guide (a beloved and trusted guru). I don't look at it as if there are different views.There is a view and it must be clarified over time. It is not accepting this view or that view, words and concepts, but rather rooted in experience and transcending words and concepts. Words and concepts are helpful as pointers and road maps but the view grows with direct experience through meditation and proper conduct. This is known as combining base (view), path (meditation), and fruition (conduct) - all three together make up the approach. All three are equally important and all three are dependently originating. I'm beginning to see that you can't have one without the others...

 

 

Perennialism is not applicable when dealing with two conflicting modes of meditation. As much as you want to overlook the differences, as merely 'different means of pointing to the same thing', the actual principles of meditative application in these two systems, are predicated on different views which informs the outcome of practice. For [sutrayana] Buddhist meditation, this starts and ends with, the 4 noble truths and 8 fold noble path i.e. right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right attention, right concentration; which is none other than dependent origination.

 

I know this is not looked at favorably on this forum, but it is detrimental to a clear understanding and appreciation of both systems, when attempting to freely mix conflicting principles into a confused hodge-podge, for the sake of not upsetting perennialist sensibilities. Both systems should be engaged from within the context of their respective POV. I know that, you will look at this as mere conceptual baggage, but latent tendencies lie unnoticed, dormant, subtle, they are operative even in deep nonconceptual states of meditation; these latent tendencies inform both experiential and intellectual views of sensate experience, and can inevitably lead to appropriation of views on a subconscious level, even in the absence of gross conceptual thoughts.

[RongzomFan]

I am a fan of Naagaarjuna

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

Edited January 28, 2014 by RongzomFan

[3bob]

Basically the first two views/tools I would use only when in the extremes as I mentioned...a good illustration would be a line, with negative attachment on one side, positive attachment on another, and equanimity in the middle....as long as I was in the 'mostly equanimous zone' I would aim for direct perception without views (including the views I hold about direct perception). On the ends of the line I would remind myself of those views, set up my intent to hold that view and turn it into a perception.

 

It is no wonder they call perception attainments 'states'

A state is basically synonymous with the word 'stance' which is basically synonymous with the word 'view' - it is the place you are at or coming from or watching from. Since the perception attainments are considered fabricated states, as one directly pursues them, I would posit that one is fabricating a viewpoint...

 

what think y'all?

 

An aspect: I think there is nothing wrong with vehicles, in fact vehicles are needed to inter-act in all realms... problem is when one is enthralled with or only identified with a this or that vehicle. Anyway some shreds of ego/personality/vehicle are needed and used as tools to interact with various realms as a teacher or student in the public, less so if more private.

Edited January 28, 2014 by 3bob

[Songtsan]

 

Perennialism is not applicable when dealing with two conflicting modes of meditation. As much as you want to overlook the differences, as merely 'different means of pointing to the same thing', the actual principles of meditative application in these two systems, are predicated on different views which informs the outcome of practice. For [sutrayana] Buddhist meditation, this starts and ends with, the 4 noble truths and 8 fold noble path i.e. right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right attention, right concentration; which is none other than dependent origination.

 

I know this is not looked at favorably on this forum, but it is detrimental to a clear understanding and appreciation of both systems, when attempting to freely mix conflicting principles into a confused hodge-podge, for the sake of not upsetting perennialist sensibilities. Both systems should be engaged from within the context of their respective POV. I know that, you will look at this as mere conceptual baggage, but latent tendencies lie unnoticed, dormant, subtle, they are operative even in deep nonconceptual states of meditation; these latent tendencies inform both experiential and intellectual views of sensate experience, and can inevitably lead to appropriation of views on a subconscious level, even in the absence of gross conceptual thoughts.

 

I can however, simply relate neti, neti to a statement of the ultimate purity of the pristine awareness, free from illusions...This seems in line with the various systems that I am hybridizing. 'All is Mind' of course is the same. That is itself not a statement about awareness itself, just mind. Everything seems to line up as far as I can tell.

[RongzomFan]

This seems in line with the various systems that I am hybridizing.

 

 

???????????????????

[Songtsan]

An aspect: I think there is nothing wrong with vehicles, in fact vehicles are needed to inter-act in all realms... problem is when one is enthralled with or only identified with a this or that vehicle. Anyway some shreds of ego/personality/vehicle are needed and used as tools to interact with various realms as a teacher or student in the public, less so if more private.

 

Yeah - one is supposed to remain unattached to the vehicles, as well as enlightenment itself.

 

Another thing I am really working on is holding intent solid without words or surface cogitations, sort of on the partially subconscious level, which will require a self-reifying habit to be set up - expressing complex intentions without internally verbalizing them - Gestalt style. Direct conception of intent without verbalization would likely still be considered a type of superimposition, especially since intent has a goal behind it, but it seems closer to directly 'being' instead of 'thinking that one is being,' because one states that something is so. To me, sublingual vocalizations seem to draw energy away from what is important. There is really no need to state anything, we already know what we are going to say!

[RongzomFan]

Half Camel / Half llama

 

 

 

[Songtsan]

This seems in line with the various systems that I am hybridizing.

 

 

???????????????????

 

Taoism (various schools), Theraveda Buddhism, Mahamudra, Zen and other Mahayana, Sufism, Spiritism, Shamanism, Tantra (various facets of Indian and Tibetan Vajrayana), Western Science (i.e. empiricism), Western Psychologies (transpersonal, gestalt, jungian, health, cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, and others), Advaita Vedanta, Yoga (Patanjali's, 8-limbs, etc.), and more and more...

 

I am not, and have no intentions of becoming a traditionalist anything. I am not in a hurry! I am having fun.

 

I am in my heart a Universalist.