Very unpopular opinions

[old3bob]

21 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

 

“‘What do you think about this, monks? Is material shape permanent or impermanent?’

‘Impermanent, revered sir.’

‘But is what is impermanent painful or is it pleasant?’

‘Painful, revered sir.’

‘And is it right to regard that which is impermanent, suffering, liable to change as “This is mine, this am I, this is my self”?’

‘No, revered sir (similarly for feeling, perception, the habitual tendencies, and consciousness).’”
 

(MN III 19-20, Vol III p 69)

 

 

Whatever ... is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, [a person], thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling ... perception... the habitual tendencies... whatever is consciousness, past, future or present... [that person], thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. [For one] knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.

 

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol III p 68)

 

 

Hey Mark,

so how does this differ from "not having a view", or an "I don't know"?

 

getting hung up on rote negation or rote affirmation seems to be the problem to me.  also there is no law against the appreciation for life with the historic Buddha saying something about many things of the Earth as being medicines....and with him honoring the Earth Soul/Goddess for her witness.

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

so how does this differ from "not having a view", or an "I don't know"?

 

getting hung up on rote negation or rote affirmation seems to be the problem to me.  also there is no law against the appreciation for life with the historic Buddha saying something about many things of the Earth as being medicines....and with him honoring the Earth Soul/Goddess for her witness.
 

 

 

Ya mean like:

 

... thinking ‘there is the body’, [one’s] mindfulness is established precisely to the extent necessary just for knowledge, just for remembrance, [and one] fares along independently of and not grasping anything in the world (repeated with regard to feelings, mind, and state of mind).

 

(MN I 57, Vol I p 73)

 

One hand to the ground, and one to the heavens.

 

"I don't know" was Bodhidharma's famous reply to the emperor's question, "Who are you?"

 

What I've been asking myself all these years is, did Gautama describe real aspects of human nature with regard to concentration (and with regard to the nature of suffering)?  
 

A monk asked Jōshū in all earnestness, “What is the meaning of the patriarch’s coming from the West?” Jōshū said, “The olive tree in Apech's garden.”

 

("olive tree" for original "oak"; "Apech" for original "the"; translator unknown; "The Gateless Gate" by Ekai, case 37)

 

 

Then there's this:

 

[The bad person] reflects thus: ‘I am an acquirer of the attainment of the first meditation, but these [others] are not acquirers of the attainment of the first meditation.’ [Such a person] then exalts [him or her self] for that attainment of the first meditation and disparages others… But a good (person] reflects thus: ‘Lack of desire even for the attainment of the first meditation has been spoken of by [Gautama]; for whatever (one) imagines it to be, it is otherwise” [Similarly for the second, third, and fourth initial meditative states, and for the attainments of the first four further meditative states].

 

And again … a good [person], by passing quite beyond the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, enters on and abides in the stopping of perception and feeling; and when [such a person] has seen by means of wisdom [their] cankers are caused to be destroyed. And… this [person] does not imagine [him or her self] to be aught or anywhere or in anything.

 

(MN III 42-45, Vol III p 92-94)

 

An open mind is a good thing.

 

[snowymountains]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I agree with you, honestly. When people start talking about awakening-s, for example, it is pause for concern. While the understanding deepens (or ripens) there is a definite and unmistakeable before and after, and once there is an after the deepening doesn't stop unless possibly something has stopped the process which I find hard to believe. My experience is that it is a roller coaster - you aren't jumping off. Having said all of the above, I have found that there is some clarity to be had from some of the more recently realized, including both traditional teachers AND those who have come to it by unconventional circumstances, Buddhist or not.

 

 

Now you are getting into kensho vs satori where there is not a universal consensus amongst Zen lineages. Some lineages use kensho as in spiritual realisation not as in awakening, hence someone may have many kenshos. Though historically I believe the two terms were closer one another and some lineages today still use them synonymously.

 

 

Sudden vs gradual is another point of no consensus.

 

Agreed re teachers.

 

Edited May 30 by snowymountains

[Apech]

The two truths doctrine is a fudge to cover inconsistency in Buddhist thinking.

[stirling]

29 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Now you are getting into kensho vs satori where there is not a universal consensus amongst Zen lineages. Some lineages use kensho as in spiritual realisation not as in awakening, hence someone may have many kenshos. Though historically I believe the two terms were closer one another and some lineages today still use them synonymously.

 

I don't like to use those terms for that reason. My feeling is that Kensho is non-abiding, and Satori is abiding, but it isn't important to frame the discussion that way. Arguments about differences in terminology aren't really helpful or enjoyable.  

 

This is what I have gathered from my personal experience and those of various teachers I have discussed this topic with.

 

"Awakening", or the first experiential glimpse of emptiness, only happens once. There is nothing else to awaken to - the understanding supercedes any other conceptual "knowledge" or insight. After that seeing, emptiness is an available perspective when one drops the process of contriving their experience. In terms of maps, this would be the "sotapanna" or "stream-enterer" in the standard fetter model of early Buddhism.

 

After some time (the traditional standard is about 10 years) that available perspective deepens, dualities continue to drop and "self" winds down. Emptiness becomes a permanent perspective. This would correspond to the "arhat" designation in the fetter model.

 

There may be spiritual experiences before, during or after this process, but they aren't new insights, and they don't definitely happen to everyone, or in any particular order. 

 

29 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Sudden vs gradual is another point of no consensus.

 

It is a definition problem. The progress from sotapanna to arhat is gradual, but not because the essential insight has changed or been improved upon... only deepened as the realization of there being no self and other progresses.

 

If you are looking for clarity, asking if there is more than one real non-dual insight in a "gradual" path would be the salient question. 

 

29 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Agreed re teachers.

 

 Not sure why people get attached to paths, teachers, or traditions. It is NICE that there seem to be endless varieties of experience!

[stirling]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

The two truths doctrine is a fudge to cover inconsistency in Buddhist thinking.

 

Nah... it is a RELATIVE teaching... a scaffolding for educational purposes only. A "wall of the mind" that has no reality.

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Nah... it is a RELATIVE teaching... a scaffolding for educational purposes only. A "wall of the mind" that has no reality.

Not really.

[snowymountains]

27 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

I don't like to use those terms for that reason. My feeling is that Kensho is non-abiding, and Satori is abiding, but it isn't important to frame the discussion that way. Arguments about differences in terminology aren't really helpful or enjoyable.  

 

 

Per nomenclature ( nomenclature where kensho is not satori that is), kensho needs to be embodied.

So yes, the effects of a kensho can wear off.

 

Imo this is all BS, each person is different, experience progress in their spiritual paths differently and then documented their paths as a universal truth, hence the differences between lineages.

 

27 minutes ago, stirling said:

It is a definition problem. The progress from sotapanna to arhat is gradual, but not because the essential insight has changed or been improved upon... only deepened as the realization of there being no self and other progresses.

 

It's also how people count it, eg if they count practice time too. The Buddha is said to have become enlightened the first night he sat under the bodhi tree. Well, how long did he practice for before that.. doesn't look so sudden.

Theravadans agree on sudden being possible under the Zen definition of sudden btw, they just count the total time and thus use a different definition of sudden, so they speak of gradual enlightenment.

 

Btw Gestalt therapy, not fully related to Buddhism, considers both gradual and instantaneous realisations to be possible.

 

27 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

If you are looking for clarity, asking if there is more than one real non-dual insight in a "gradual" path would be the salient question.

 

what I am curious about is whether in more advanced non dual insights there is sort of unification between eg people and inorganic matter ( e.g. rocks ), I refer to felt unification here as a spiritual experience, not a logical understanding that we're all made of the same elements from the same supernovas etc etc.

Not eg a sensation of unity just between all people, going beyond that.

 

27 minutes ago, stirling said:

There may be spiritual experiences before, during or after this process, but they aren't new insights, and they don't definitely happen to everyone, or in any particular order. 

 

Maybe there aren't more insights, that I don't know, I'm not an Arahat, but there will always be room for living according to the gained insights.

 

27 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

 

Ya mean like:

 

... thinking ‘there is the body’, [one’s] mindfulness is established precisely to the extent necessary just for knowledge, just for remembrance, [and one] fares along independently of and not grasping anything in the world (repeated with regard to feelings, mind, and state of mind).

 

(MN I 57, Vol I p 73)

 

One hand to the ground, and one to the heavens.

 

"I don't know" was Bodhidharma's famous reply to the emperor's question, "Who are you?"

 

What I've been asking myself all these years is, did Gautama describe real aspects of human nature with regard to concentration (and with regard to the nature of suffering)?  
 

A monk asked Jōshū in all earnestness, “What is the meaning of the patriarch’s coming from the West?” Jōshū said, “The olive tree in Apech's garden.”

 

("olive tree" for original "oak"; "Apech" for original "the"; translator unknown; "The Gateless Gate" by Ekai, case 37)

 

Then there's this:

 

[The bad person] reflects thus: ‘I am an acquirer of the attainment of the first meditation, but these [others] are not acquirers of the attainment of the first meditation.’ [Such a person] then exalts [him or her self] for that attainment of the first meditation and disparages others… But a good (person] reflects thus: ‘Lack of desire even for the attainment of the first meditation has been spoken of by [Gautama]; for whatever (one) imagines it to be, it is otherwise” [Similarly for the second, third, and fourth initial meditative states, and for the attainments of the first four further meditative states].

 

And again … a good [person], by passing quite beyond the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, enters on and abides in the stopping of perception and feeling; and when [such a person] has seen by means of wisdom [their] cankers are caused to be destroyed. And… this [person] does not imagine [him or her self] to be aught or anywhere or in anything.

 

(MN III 42-45, Vol III p 92-94)

An open mind is a good thing.

 

 

um, does that mean you also "don't know", even though often quoting conclusive sounding quote's?  Btw traditional Buddhist wording from a thousand+ years ago is sometimes not all that clear too many of us. Although I'd say that some Zen teachings like some parts of Taoism are clearer to me. 

Edited May 30 by old3bob

[stirling]

31 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Imo this is all BS, each person is different, experience progress in their spiritual paths differently and then documented their paths as a universal truth, hence the differences between lineages.

 

I agree about spiritual paths - different shifts, different events, no real "system" to it. Non-dual insight is not a "spiritual' event though, it is a gnosis or experiential knowledge. I have had many spiritual and paranormal experiences, but none of them gave me any permanent, shift in my understanding of how the "universe" is.

 

Non-dual shifts are a different thing entirely, and have none of the drama or spiritual trappings of spiritual experiences. 

 

31 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

It's also how people count it, eg if they count practice time too. The Buddha is said to have become enlightened the first night he sat under the bodhi tree. Well, how long did he practice for before that.. doesn't look so sudden.

Theravadans agree on sudden being possible under the Zen definition of sudden btw, they just count the total time and thus use a different definition of sudden, so they speak of gradual enlightenment.

 

This is acting with the assumption that it is the PRACTICE that somehow causes enlightenment. This isn't the case, from the perspective of enlightenment. 

 

Quote

 “Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone.” - Shuryu Suzuki Roshi

 

I'm not sure what you mean by counting the total time. I have not encountered that.

 

31 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

what I am curious about is whether in more advanced non dual insights there is sort of unification between eg people and inorganic matter ( e.g. rocks ), I refer to felt unification here as a spiritual experience, not a logical understanding that we're all made of the same elements from the same supernovas etc etc.

 

Moment to moment there is just a seemless wholeness. As seen: light and color, unlabeled and undifferentiated. Not a feeling or conceptual ideation, just pure experiencing, here, now. 

 

Quote

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." - Buddha, Bahiya Sutta

 

 

31 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Not eg a sensation of unity just between all people, going beyond that.

 

Right... that isn't a thing, ultimately.

 

31 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Maybe there aren't more insights, that I don't know, I'm not an Arahat, but there will always be room for living according to the gained insights.

 

More insights? From my perspective that would be impossible... but who knows?

 

[old3bob]

Spiritual should mean and or include Spirit, and when it bites you in the ass you know it,  thus there is no  dilly-dallying around about it with speculative  ponderings or driving nails into it.

Edited May 30 by old3bob

[snowymountains]

20 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

I agree about spiritual paths - different shifts, different events, no real "system" to it. Non-dual insight is not a "spiritual' event though, it is a gnosis or experiential knowledge. I have had many spiritual and paranormal experiences, but none of them gave me any permanent, shift in my understanding of how the "universe" is.

 

Non-dual shifts are a different thing entirely, and have none of the drama or spiritual trappings of spiritual experiences. 

 

We use different definitions here, for me what you call non dual insights are what I would call real spiritual experiences.

 

To me the rest are interesting messages, true or false, but nonetheless interesting, from various layers of our unconscious. Even synchronicities, to me at least, are less spiritual/less interesting than insights.

 

20 minutes ago, stirling said:

Moment to moment there is just a seemless wholeness. As seen: light and color, unlabeled and undifferentiated. Not a feeling or conceptual ideation, just pure experiencing, here, now. 

 

I don't agree with this as an outcome of insight meditation, after all one focuses on what is most dominant not to the most dominant and the second most dominant and certainly not everything.

Wholeness can only be realised outside Insight, unless by wholeness you refer to Nibbana, which I cannot comment on as I have not experienced it.

 

20 minutes ago, stirling said:

Right... that isn't a thing, ultimately.

 

Do you mean unity across everything ( living beings and inorganic)?

 

If instead you mean unity between people. I think that is a thing, I don't have an exact way to put it in writing, perhaps a way of expressing it, what remains eg after the process of death strips away our personality elements, that part which remains is shared between humans.

Edited May 30 by snowymountains

[thelerner]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:26 AM, Apech said:

I think that fruit loops may be the most unreal food in existence.

Disagree.  Real lasts.  With time and inspection, the unreal disappears.

Thus Fruit Loops along with twinkies are beacons of permanence.  

 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

We use different definitions here, for me what you call non dual insights are what I would call real spiritual experiences.

 

A spiritual experience is an event that happens in time and space to a person. Is that something you would agree with? If so, how would a non-dual insight be described as different?

 

My experience is that a non-dual insight is a moment where the experience of being a "self" in a body that lives in time and space is temporarily suspended, and it is seen that your experience of the world never really had those features - that they have always only been mental constructs. Afterward, those constructs can be seen through at any time. Eventually is impossible to believe those mental constructs and they no longer have any reality. Despite all of that, the world goes on more or less just the same, though things get stranger in the most lovely way. 

 

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

To me the rest are interesting messages, true or false, but nonetheless interesting, from various layers of our unconscious. Even synchronicities, to me at least, are less spiritual/less interesting than insights.

 

The question I would ask myself is: Can you see them come from a layer of consciousness, or is that a conceptual way for your to explain them? 

 

In my opinion synchronicities happen because space, time, and separateness of self and other of all kinds are delusions. Of course seemingly separate (but not) things and events want to be happening together all of the time.

 

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

I don't agree with this as an outcome of insight meditation, after all one focuses on what is most dominant not to the most dominant and the second most dominant and certainly not everything.

 

Not insight meditation, but actual insight into Rigpa/Buddha Nature/No-Self/Emptiness/Nirvana. This is view from non-dual realization.

 

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Wholeness can only be realised outside Insight, unless by wholeness you refer to Nibbana, which I cannot comment on as I have not experienced it.

 

The true, important insight IS into Rigpa/Buddha Nature/No-Self/Emptiness/Nirvana. It is non-dual understanding. 

 

Quote

In the Theravāda tradition, vipassanā is a practice that seeks "insight into the true nature of reality", which is defined as anicca ("impermanence"), dukkha ("suffering, unsatisfactoriness"), and anattā ("non-self"): the three marks of existence.[6][7] In the Mahayana traditions vipassanā is defined as insight into śūnyatā ("emptiness") and Buddha-nature.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatha-vipassana#

 

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Do you mean unity across everything ( living beings and inorganic)?

 

No. A sort of unity of all phenomena could be argued for, but it would include everything that might constitute the fabric of reality.

 

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

If instead you mean unity between people. I think that is a thing, I don't have an exact way to put it in writing, perhaps a way of expressing it, what remains eg after the process of death strips away our personality elements, that part which remains is shared between humans.

 

I mean that, in my experience, the unity of people ("we are all one") is not a thing.

[stirling]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

Not really.

 

... it is, though. 

[forestofclarity]

8 hours ago, stirling said:

At the same time, it is good to reinforce that intellectual understanding of Nagarjuna is not seeing the actual Prajna of enlightened mind to a student, in my opinion. The internet is full of people arguing the dharma and getting nowhere. For me, that is a difficult thing to watch. 

 

One reason you see a lot of this is that it is generally forbidden in Vajrayana circles to openly discuss experiential teachings--- (assuming these are even being taught--- I've heard this is not common). Part of this is due to the lack of context, skills, etc. Additionally, the mind has a tendency to create and/or cling to various objects, gross or subtle. 

 

There is no such restriction on discussing non-Vajrayana teachings, such as Madhyamaka. In my experience, it is usually Vajrayana students getting into lengthy online emptiness polemics and quote battles, which is ironic given emptiness teachings. But I think at the end of the day, folks are working through their karma.  

[snowymountains]

6 hours ago, stirling said:

 

A spiritual experience is an event that happens in time and space to a person. Is that something you would agree with? If so, how would a non-dual insight be described as different?

Not necessarily, depends what you mean, a spiritual experience can happen while dreaming or daydreaming ( what people used to call visions ). The experience itself may transcend space time.

It depends on what you mean, while experiences and in specific non dual realisations may transcend space time, of course everything still happens in spacetime, but the focus is on an experience whose message transcends it.

 

For me the non dual realisations are the most important spiritual experiences.

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

My experience is that a non-dual insight is a moment where the experience of being a "self" in a body that lives in time and space is temporarily suspended, and it is seen that your experience of the world never really had those features - that they have always only been mental constructs.

 

My experience is that there's a transcendental part in us that is common.

In parallel there's still a self though and everything that various personality structure theories study. We use mental/intellectual constructs to describe these as part of a body of knowledge of course but they exist in that these concepts have explanatory power. They can also be experienced directly ( one example for direct experiencing is eg ego state therapies )

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

Not insight meditation, but actual insight into Rigpa/Buddha Nature/No-Self/Emptiness/Nirvana. This is view from non-dual realization.

 

 

The true, important insight IS into Rigpa/Buddha Nature/No-Self/Emptiness/Nirvana. It is non-dual understanding. 

For actual insight ( not insight meditation) agreed.

 

For me the "best" way to describe it is seeing the unborn, seeing what's deeper than all the personality layers that were acquired later and various theories of personality structure do a very good job at shining light on.

This doesn't mean the rest of the stuff is not there, because it is, but it means there's a layer, a ground state of sorts.

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatha-vipassana#

 

We've discussed it elsewhere if I recall, I don't see Samatha-Vipassana as a practice that's sufficient to uncover a lot of things in us. It is very helpful though and a good starting point but I believe it needs to be complemented. So in a sense insight meditation is not sufficient for insight.

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I mean that, in my experience, the unity of people ("we are all one") is not a thing.

 

We aren't all one because each of us is many things and unique but among those many things there's a component which transcends each of us, that's what I refer to.

 

For synchronicities I don't comment because honestly I don't know how they occur, what you say is plausible, maybe it's something else, I just don't know.

[Apech]

7 hours ago, stirling said:

 

... it is, though. 

…not.

[forestofclarity]

On 5/30/2024 at 7:56 AM, SirPalomides said:

I do find more satisfying than the usual Madhyamaka explanations,

 

I'd be curious if you wished to expand on this. I find Chinese presentations compelling, but often obscured by jargon and a lack of oral instruction. I've been checking out this book and like what I'm seeing so far. 

 

Interesting point that inverts from Advaita when talking about the perceiver: 

 

"In fact, all experience requires change; nothing constant would be experienced at all, since to experience any content requires contrast, and no self is conceiveable apart from experience." (p.33 in my Everand edition)

 

This is the mirror image of Advaita teachings, which state that one cannot know change unless contrasted against an unchanging background. 

 

 

 

[Forestgreen]

19 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

what I am curious about is whether in more advanced non dual insights there is sort of unification between eg people and inorganic matter ( e.g. rocks ), I refer to felt unification here as a spiritual experience, not a logical understanding that we're all made of the same elements 

I would not go so far as to say it is a more advanced non dual insight, but yes, in traditional Chan as well as in the Theravada tradition, that experiental insight is part of the path. 

 

It is part of the alchemical process,  so it fits very well in this thread.😀

Edited May 31 by Forestgreen
Added stuff.

[Mark Foote]

21 hours ago, Apech said:

The two truths doctrine is a fudge to cover inconsistency in Buddhist thinking.
 

 

 

Very popular, especially amongst Buddhists.  Good call, Apech!

[Mark Foote]

20 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

um, does that mean you also "don't know", even though often quoting conclusive sounding quote's?  Btw traditional Buddhist wording from a thousand+ years ago is sometimes not all that clear too many of us. Although I'd say that some Zen teachings like some parts of Taoism are clearer to me. 
 

 

 

I get in trouble when I think I know something, apart from the moment.

 

 

[Mark Foote]

22 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Quote

Sudden vs gradual is another point of no consensus.

 

It is a definition problem. The progress from sotapanna to arhat is gradual, but not because the essential insight has changed or been improved upon... only deepened as the realization of there being no self and other progresses.

 

If you are looking for clarity, asking if there is more than one real non-dual insight in a "gradual" path would be the salient question. 

 

 

 

…I have seen that the ceasing of the activities is gradual. When one has attained the first trance, speech has ceased. When one has attained the second trance, thought initial and sustained has ceased. When one has attained the third trance, zest has ceased. When one has attained the fourth trance, inbreathing and outbreathing have ceased… Both perception and feeling have ceased when one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling. 

 

(Pali Text Society SN IV 217, vol IV p 146)

 

 

Gautama could apparently sit down and run through all the concentrations, all of these cessations, forwards and backwards.

 

He said:

 

…I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.  (Pali Text Society AN III 415, Vol III p 294)

 

 

And what are the activities?  These are the three activities:–those of deed, speech and mind.  These are activities.  

 

(Pali Text Society SN II 3, vol II p 4)

 

 

And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.  

 

(Pali Text Society SN IV 145, Vol IV p 85)

 

 

As in the first passage I quoted, the ceasing of the activities, of "determinate thought" in action, is gradual, as the induction of the states of concentration is gradual.

 

The "cessation of inbreathing and outbreathing", that would be the cessation of "determinate thought" in inbreathing and outbreathing--the cessation of habit and volition in the activity of the body in inbreathing and outbreathing by which one contacts a certain freedom.  I would say that freedom is the free location of consciousness in the body, born of necessity.

 

There's nothing gradual about the "cessation of inbreathing and outbreathing". 

 

Most of what passes for enlightenment out there is the attainment of the "cessation of inbreathing and outbreathing" accompanied by the fifth limb of concentration, the "survey-sign" overview after that cessation.  The deepening is the gradual adoption of a mindfulness that allows the experience of the "cessation of inbreathing and outbreathing" as a part of every day living.  

 

By Gautama's account, the "cessation of ("determinate thought" in) feeling and perceiving" is also sudden.  Gautama's enlightenment, his insight into the nature of suffering, accompanied that cessation.

 

That's the view I have, from the first four Nikayas of the Pali Cannon and my own practice.  

 

 

Edited May 31 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

There is no gradual path which is not sudden. There is no sudden path which is not gradual.  There is no path.  Everything is the path unless it isn’t.

[stirling]

18 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

... it is usually Vajrayana students getting into lengthy online emptiness polemics and quote battles, which is ironic given emptiness teachings. But I think at the end of the day, folks are working through their karma.  

 

Yes.... and arguing the conceptual aspects, which isn't really helpful, IMHO. All of that grasping and clinging to ego is GREAT fuel for insight!