The Superiority of Tantra to Sutra

[Simple_Jack]

~~~~~~~~~ Mod Warning ~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Simple Jack this is a warning for a personal insult. Any further insults and you will most probably face a suspension, further action may be taken when the other mods see the reports.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

My response from this thread:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/?p=526907

 

I didn't accuse yabyum24 (or gatito for that matter) of being a non-practitioner of buddhadharma because he held views that were contrary to views of my own: I said it because the aggregate of consciousness is generally regarded as dependently originated in all the variety of Buddhist sects and tenet systems. This has a real world bearing on Buddhist practice since It forms the foundation of buddhardharma....

[gatito]

It could be partly due to that influence, but I know he mentioned that he came across a manuscript of Śri Atmananda's which stated something to the effect of 'In the end not even awareness remains'. So in the end there is a collapse of the awareness that the entire path is predicated upon, and Greg has stated that this matched his own experience.

 

The depth of his knowledge regarding that system is impressive, even the absolute natures that other teachers of Vedanta posit, he is able to put those in context. It seems the majority of Vedanta teachings are instances where the instructions really don't go as far as they could, but instead get stuck in certain subtle areas which are mistaken as the end of the path. Greg does a great job with that teaching.

 

Just to correct a few inaccuracies: -

 

Sri Atmananda (Krishna Menon) was a teacher whose teachings flow from the fountain of nondual wisdom known as Advaita Vedanta. He lived in Kerala, South India from 1883 to 1959. This was in the same modern era shared by Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) and Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897-1981). Like Ramana and Nisargadatta, Atmananda inspired Easterners and Westerners. And like Ramana and Nisargadatta, Atmananda even has a giant book of insightful dialogues rich enough to be contemplated for years, which has the ability to help establish one as nondual awareness.

Sri Atmananda is much less well known than Ramana or Nisargadatta. As I write this paragraph, there isn't a Wikipedia entry on Atmananda, and there are relatively few published books either by him or about him. Yet, speaking for myself, I resonated more quickly and solidly with Atmananda's teachings than with Ramana's or Nisargadatta's. Atmananda uses concepts very well suited to a modern Westerner accustomed to logical or scientific discourse - concepts that seem simple and intuitive, and yet when examined, totally dissolve under scrutiny. This feeling of having the rug pulled out from under one is part of the experiential teaching that has direct and tangible effects as one proceeds with it.

Atmananda has had well known students, some of whom became teachers in their own right. Examples include John Levy, Jean Klein, Wolter Keers, and Paul Brunton. My own association with the teaching comes through the Jean Klein branch via Francis Lucille. Francis gave me a copy of ATMA DARSHAN one day, and I read it with the attention and respect I felt went along with such a gift. This short book resolved in a wondrous flash a subtle question I had been contemplating for several years about the difference between subject and object. Here in ATMA DARSHAN were several sections devoted to the exact issue I had been pursuing, issues I had never seen touched upon in the hundreds of other books on Advaita or Western philosophy I had read.

 

Greg Goode

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/teachings-of-atmananda-and-direct-path.html

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/teachings-of-atmananda-and-direct-path.html

 

Incidentally, as far as I'm aware, although Jean Klein apparently met Sri Krishna Menon, he wasn't actually one of his students, nor did Greg invent "The Direct Path".

 

Atma Darshan is a tiny book physically - just big in terms of content

[yabyum24]

Interesting book. I've just located a free pdf.

 

Right on page 7 he says:

Often we hear people discussing spiritual truth from the objective standpoint, and resting content with theoretical or mental knowledge. This is the result of pursuing dry or fruitless lines of thinking. An aspirant has nothing to gain from mere appreciatory or depreciatory discussion of the truths set forth in philosophical works.

 

Very well said.

[gatito]

I think that I've been a bit unclear about the books, as I misread Greg's reference to "a giant book of insightful dialogues rich enough to be contemplated for years, which has the ability to help establish one as nondual awareness."

 

That's actually Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda taken by Nitya Tripta.

 

There's no copyright asserted on that book and it's freely available from several places on the web.

 

Here's the link to one of my favourite place, the site of Ananda Wood who gives away several other goodies including his own work Some teachings from Shri Atmananda (Krishna Menon) as reported by a Sadhaka Disciple.

 

https://sites.google.com/site/advaitaenquiry/

://sites.google.com/site/advaitaenquiry/

 

You'll find two versions, the second being arranged by subject - which is useful for those with serious interest.

 

Also useful for anyone with serious interest: - you can also buy a hardcopy version in 3 volumes from amazon, which will probably work out cheaper than printing it off yourself: -

Edited June 6, 2015 by gatito

[Simple_Jack]

Interesting book. I've just located a free pdf.

 

Right on page 7 he says:

 

Very well said.

 

It's just a part of Indian (and later Tibetan) dialectics. Shankara himself refuted Samkhya, Mimamsa, and Buddhism. Certain figures in East Asia did the same thing.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[asunthatneversets]

When it comes to Buddhist dialectics and inquiries Greg does keep the 'Direct Path' view and rhetoric separate, even to the point of telling someone interested in the Buddhist view to avoid the Direct Path:

Q: I am trying to realize no self and am trying to deconstruct things like trying to see everything as the six senses, taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else. anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it. dont know what I am doing wrong. but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice. please help me out.

 

p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it, but not sure if I am doing it correctly. dont know what I am missing. would love to get some guidance.

 

p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice but also recommended that I ask my question here as there are more members here and a lot of people who have already realized anatta.

 

Greg Goode wrote:

Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

[gatito]

When it comes to Buddhist dialectics and inquiries Greg does keep the 'Direct Path' view and rhetoric separate, even to the point of telling someone interested in the Buddhist view to avoid the Direct Path:

 

 

Q: I am trying to realize no self and am trying to deconstruct things like trying to see everything as the six senses, taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else. anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it. dont know what I am doing wrong. but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice. please help me out.

 

p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it, but not sure if I am doing it correctly. dont know what I am missing. would love to get some guidance.

 

p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice but also recommended that I ask my question here as there are more members here and a lot of people who have already realized anatta.

 

Greg Goode wrote:

Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

 

Oops

 

Now there's something else that needs to be corrected:-

 

The Direct Path is about anatta very directly and if that's not clear then there's a big problem.

 

I was concerned about that when I corresponded with Greg about nirvikalpa samadhi, especially as Sri Krishna Menon specifically refers to that in his teachings.

 

I became even more concerned about it when I read page 171 of The Direct Path - a User Guide, which is simply incorrect.

 

It is however correct to say that you certainly should not mix and match from the two teachings (Emptiness and Direct Path Advaita). Even within the Direct Path teachings there are different methods (prakriyas) and Sri Atmananda stated specifically that no attempt should be made to reconcile them, although it is possible so to do.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Oops

 

Now there's something else that needs to be corrected:-

 

The Direct Path is about anatta very directly and if that's not clear then there's a big problem.

 

I was concerned about that when I corresponded with Greg about nirvikalpa samadhi, especially as Sri Krishna Menon specifically refers to that in his teachings.

 

I became even more concerned about it when I read page 171 of The Direct Path - a User Guide, which is simply incorrect.

 

It is however correct to say that you certainly should not mix and match from the two teachings (Emptiness and Direct Path Advaita). Even within the Direct Path teachings there are different methods (prakriyas) and Sri Atmananda stated specifically that no attempt should be made to reconcile them, although it is possible so to do.

Nirvikalpa samādhi is an absorption state. Quite different than emptiness. Even Atmananda states that nirvikalpa samādhi is a temporary state, and even goes as far as to say it is something made up.

 

Either way though, emptiness is the non-arising of phenomena and not an absorption state.

[gatito]

Nirvikalpa samādhi is an absorption state. Quite different than emptiness. Even Atmananda states that nirvikalpa samādhi is a temporary state, and even goes as far as to say it is something made up.

 

Either way though, emptiness is the non-arising of phenomena and not an absorption state.

 

You've already made it clear that you're not familiar with the teachings personally: -

 

I wouldn't be able to say, I'm not familiar with the teachings personally.

 

Nor are you familiar with nirvikalpha samadhi from first hand knowledge

 

On the other hand, I am familiar with both nirvikalpha samadhi and the Direct Path - so perhaps you'd better follow Greg's advice stick to learning about Emptiness from him?

[asunthatneversets]

 

You've already made it clear that you're not familiar with the teachings personally: -

 

 

Nor are you familiar with nirvikalpha samadhi from first hand knowledge

 

On the other hand, I am familiar with both nirvikalpha samadhi and the Direct Path - so perhaps you'd better follow Greg's advice stick to learning about Emptiness from him?

I don't practice Vedanta but I'm familiar with its view.

 

Nirvikalpa samādhi has nothing to do with anatta. It's actually quite the opposite, instead of penetrating the unreality of the subjective reference point (like anatta does), nirvikalpa samādhi solidifies and fortifies it into an over-arching universal Self.

[Simple_Jack]

When it comes to Buddhist dialectics and inquiries Greg does keep the 'Direct Path' view and rhetoric separate, even to the point of telling someone interested in the Buddhist view to avoid the Direct Path:

 

 

Q: I am trying to realize no self and am trying to deconstruct things like trying to see everything as the six senses, taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else. anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it. dont know what I am doing wrong. but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice. please help me out.

 

p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it, but not sure if I am doing it correctly. dont know what I am missing. would love to get some guidance.

 

p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice but also recommended that I ask my question here as there are more members here and a lot of people who have already realized anatta.

 

Greg Goode wrote:

Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

 

 

Yeah, it doesn't take long to figure out that the confusion surrounding Buddhism is due in part to the influence of Vedanta in the West, as well as a major factor that it's the 'natural mode' for people to misapprehend a substantial self-standing entity i.e. Consciousness/Awareness, as absolute.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

It is however correct to say that you certainly should not mix and match from the two teachings (Emptiness and Direct Path Advaita).

 

Right you are, because in Buddhism, the aggregate of consciousness is dependently originated, hence not reified as it is in Advaita Vedanta i.e. Sat-Cit-Ananda.

[gatito]

I don't practice Vedanta but I'm familiar with its view.

 

Nirvikalpa samādhi has nothing to do with anatta. It's actually quite the opposite, instead of penetrating the unreality of the subjective reference point (like anatta does), nirvikalpa samādhi solidifies and fortifies it into an over-arching universal Self.

 

No you're not familiar with it or you weren't when you posted this: -

 

I wouldn't be able to say, I'm not familiar with the teachings personally.

 

That's a fact!

 

And you're not speaking about nirvikalpha samadhi first-hand, that's really obvious - for you it's just a concept: -

 

So, I'm not going to waste my time with you - speak to Greg and ask him if he now knows about nirvikalpa samadhi from direct first-hand experience.

 

He didn't when I corresponded with him or later when he wrote the Direct Path - a User Guide. That's also a fact!

[asunthatneversets]

 

No you're not familiar with it or you weren't when you posted this: -

 

 

That's a fact!

 

And you're not speaking about nirvikalpha samadhi first-hand, that's really obvious - for you it's just a concept: -

 

So, I'm not going to waste my time with you - speak to Greg and ask him if he now knows about nirvikalpa samadhi from direct first-hand experience.

 

He didn't when I corresponded with him or later when he wrote the Direct Path - a User Guide. That's also a fact!

Yes that was in response to a specific question regarding Greg's praxis in his book, which I'm not familiar with.

 

It's okay if you don't want to waste your time with me Gatito, no worries. Even though I disagree with you, you're welcome to your opinion.

[asunthatneversets]

Here is Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche discussing absorption states such as nirvikalpa samadhi, which Buddhism considers to be akin to the formless god realms:

 

 

"Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual plea­sures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concen­tration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely men­tal pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limit­less space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is com­pletely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.

 

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the bound­ary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain."

[gatito]

Yes that was in response to a specific question regarding Greg's praxis in his book, which I'm not familiar with.

 

It's okay if you don't want to waste your time with me Gatito, no worries. Even though I disagree with you, you're welcome to your opinion.

 

Thanks

 

Say "Hi" to Greg from me next time you see him and draw his attention to what I've said.

 

 

Here is Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche discussing absorption states such as nirvikalpa samadhi, which Buddhism considers to be akin to the formless god realms:

 

 

"Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual plea­sures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concen­tration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely men­tal pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limit­less space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is com­pletely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.

 

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the bound­ary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain."

 

Yep - that's Buddhism today.

 

If you don't know about it from first-hand experience and you can't actually teach it yourself, get on some forum and post some Buddhist authority figure's opinions and hope that sticks - lol

 

Incidentally, there's no such thing as an "ego", so he's wrong too.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Thanks

 

Say "Hi" to Greg from me next time you see him and draw his attention to what I've said.

 

 

 

Yep - that's Buddhism today.

 

If you don't know about it from first-hand experience and you can't actually teach it yourself, get on some forum and post some Buddhist authority figure's opinions and hope that sticks - lol

 

Incidentally, there's no such thing as an "ego", so he's wrong too.

The apparent 'ego' arises from ignorance, and is ignorance itself, it is simply grasping and identification. So while the 'ego' (not a word I personally use) doesn't exist inherently, it apparently arises and will undoubtably dominate one's experience as long as delusion is present.

[Jeff]

Here is Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche discussing absorption states such as nirvikalpa samadhi, which Buddhism considers to be akin to the formless god realms:

 

 

"Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual plea­sures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concen­tration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely men­tal pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limit­less space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is com­pletely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.

 

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the bound­ary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain."

 

That is an excellent description of how a god (in consciousness/mind) is formed. But, nirvikalpa samadhi is better described as the void (the way I used it in the other thread). It is the state of mind/consciousness with zero arising or activity. There is nothing to percieve in nirvikalpa samadhi. This state can be experienced with the realization of the first half of the heart sutra (Form = Void). The experience is helpful with the realization of the emptiness of self, but it is not yet primordial.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

There is nothing to percieve in nirvikalpa samadhi.

 

<snip>

 

 

Incorrect

[gatito]

The apparent 'ego' arises from ignorance, and is ignorance itself, it is simply grasping and identification. So while the 'ego' (not a word I personally use) doesn't exist inherently, it apparently arises and will undoubtably dominate one's experience as long as delusion is present.

 

Really?

 

That's an interesting story

[Simple_Jack]

Yep - that's Buddhism today.

 

If you don't know about it from first-hand experience and you can't actually teach it yourself, get on some forum and post some Buddhist authority figure's opinions and hope that sticks - lol

 

Or they could discuss their experiences like they do here:

 

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/3711477?_19_threadView=tree

 

An Eternal Now wrote:

 

Hi Seraphis M.,

 

What you have experienced is Thusness Stage 1 (see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ). It is the experience and realization of I AM.

 

Many people (myself included, Thusness included) having realized the I AM would think that the final state/Nirvana is the state of effortless and permanent abidance in the Self, in other words moving from Savikalpa to Nirvikalpa samadhi.

 

However as we progress in the path, we realize that effortlessness comes not with abiding (that would still be effortful and has to do with your degree of mastery in concentration/abiding in what is deemed as the purest state of Presence) with the deepening of insights into non-dual, anatta, and shunyata. At that point, Presence-Awareness is felt everywhere, as everything, without center, circumference, point of reference, without any attempt needed to abide because it is seen that there is no 'purest state of Presence' to abide in/as. I AM is not more I AM (not more special or ultimate) than a sound! A scent! A sight! Transience reveals itself as non-dual (without subject-object, observer-observed dichotomy) presence-awareness. This is the beginning of non-dual insight and effortlessness - complete effortlessness comes with the maturation of this non-dual insight into anatta and shunyata.

 

So it is important to progress to further insights from I AM, is to first focus on the four aspects of I AM, then non-dual, ...etc. Even if you attain mastery of samadhi and achieve Nirvikalpa Samadhi (permanent abidance as Self), still, further insights that allows full effortlessness is not revealed, unless further investigations are undertaken.

 

Incidentally, there's no such thing as an "ego", so he's wrong too.

 

I agree that terms from Western psychology are an inadequate means to delineate Dharmic concepts.

[asunthatneversets]

That is an excellent description of how a god (in consciousness/mind) is formed. But, nirvikalpa samadhi is better described as the void (the way I used it in the other thread). It is the state of mind/consciousness with zero arising or activity. There is nothing to percieve in nirvikalpa samadhi. This state can be experienced with the realization of the first half of the heart sutra (Form = Void). The experience is helpful with the realization of the emptiness of self, but it is not yet primordial.

You're meaning a void where nothing is arising and the senses have receded into the substratum? Like in deep sleep?

 

That isn't what the heart sūtra is describing. The exposition in the heart sūtra would also be considered 'primordial' as it is a definitive view according to the buddhadharma.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Really?

 

That's an interesting story

Yes that is the view of the buddhadharma.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

I agree that terms from Western psychology are an inadequate means to delineate Dharmic concepts.

 

 

Yes that is the view of the buddhadharma.

 

Mmmm

 

Seems to be some disagreement between you about that

 

Perhaps we can resume the discussion when you're all singing from the same song sheet?

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

 

Mmmm

 

Seems to be some disagreement between you about that

 

Perhaps we can resume the discussion when you're all singing from the same song sheet?

That is the view, from the pāramitāyāna to Vajrayāna to Dzogchen.

 

We are deluded about the nature of appearance, and so afflictive habits of grasping give rise to further afflictive patterning, and samsara becomes a twisted web of deceit.

 

When this ignorance is overturned, then liberation occurs.

 

Same model for every teaching in the buddhadharma, no matter how drawn out or sudden the path may be.

 

The sanātanadharma and other tīrthika traditions may have an entirely different approach, as their result is not the same. So if this schematic doesn't accord with Vedanta and traditions of the like it should not be surprising.