Non-dual/Immediate

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Ian And — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:59:24 GMT

Mic Hoe:

Ian And:

It is sometimes unfortunate that the Mahayana introduced phrases like "self nature" and "emptiness" into the Buddhist lexicon as it can sometimes tend to confuse and confound the mind of the literal reader. Rather than referring to it as "empty of self nature," had we just said "empty of self" that might have been an improvement on the actual intended meaning of the insight.

Semantics and differing perception about the meaning of the words + imprecise communications = confusion about said communication. In attempting to use phrases that you had introduced into the conversation, I inadvertently allowed them to be misinterpreted.

I don't generally use phrases like "self nature" and "emptiness" in discourse, and generally only respond to them when they are being used from a Mahayana foundation. I much prefer starting from the base Pali words and seeking a precise English definition from there. In that spirit, then, what we are discussing is the term used by the Buddha: anatta. The "an" before the "atta" signifies negation, as with such prefixes as "un-" or "not-" and even "without" which significantly points to "not having," as in "not having self." I much prefer to express the term anatta as "without self" rather than "not-self" or the other phrase "no-self," although I've come to see that there are many people who, in Theravada discourse, use the former as it has come to be accepted by so many diverse circles, and so I've sometimes used it, too, when the reader I'm conversing with uses it.

I think the term which best fits the implication you made above highlighted in red is the term "no-self," since it implies the non-existence of either a metaphysical or ontological entity which may be persistent and eternal in some way. Whereas the term "not-self" simply implies the lack of identification of a "self" with any specific phenomenon (as in "this or that is not-self"). (You must understand that endeavoring to communicate these ideas in writing can be a very difficult and slippery undertaking as readers can vary in how they interpret what is being said from how the author intended them to be interpreted.)

The term "not-self" comes more from the discourses where the Buddha is stating that "This-or-that is not-self" (or as I like to say, "without self"), meaning that no eternal soul-entity can be found in phenomena such as form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness. Such statements are meant to have the listener begin to examine his own experience of form, feeling, perception etcetera to verify directly that no essential entity can be found in such phenomena. This realization, when it takes place and is absorbed in the psyche, then, releases identification with those phenomena such that the person does not identify a "self" with form, feeling, perception etc.

Therefore, when I used the phrase "empty of self" in response to your comments, I used it within the context that I have been discussing above, as "without self." If it was taken in any other manner or connotation, then it was a mistake.

Mic Hoe:

Ian And:

Ask yourself sometime whether or not form is permanent or impermanent. Whether or not feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness are permanent or impermanent [...] If all form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness) is impermanent, suffering, and not self, what does that tell you about their existential essence?

It tells me nothing about their existential essence, but it tells me something about how my categories of thought apply to my experience. But if I wasn't thinking (existentially) in terms of 'things', 'objects' and 'form', but in terms of processes, then the questions would become redundant and/or inappropriate.

Do you think there might be something similar between 'process' and 'dependent co-arising'...?

With regard to the highlighted sections above: precisely. With regard to the middle sentence above, this is exactly what the Buddha was pointing at. That our experience is an experience involved with "consciousness processes" (my description, not the Buddha's) rather than with a substantial (and possibly eternal) reality.

Mic Hoe:

Ian And:

The reason that the "notion of self ... is being reflected upon or is still operative in some way" is because of ignorance. Ignorance in not being able to see this process (the process of dependent co-arising) occur as it is happening.

And similarly (as the way I've addressed this notion of emptiness) would it not be ignorant to continue to see 'impermanence' once the process of dependent co-arising was apparent? (For, what then of 'form' and whither 'impermanence'?)

I think the way you've worded this question is not the way you meant it to be taken. It is never ignorant to see the impermanence in phenomena that are impermanent. The realization that all phenomena arise dependent upon conditions is just seeing with more precision just how this process (dependent co-arising or paticca-samuppada) arises and passes away in each moment.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Mic Hoe — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:35:33 GMT

Ian And:

But similarly, is there not a huge difference between pointing out that things are 'empty of self' and saying that they are 'not-self'. The latter at worst not only doing nothing to counter the notion of self but also allowing the 'thing' to retain identity (whether self or not).

(I've met so many Buddhists who see thoughts as something to get some 'distance' from, as they are not-self, etc. I've asked some of them 'why not try going in the other direction?' but whilst intrigued, it didn't seem something they could take seriously.)

Ian And:

A perfect example of this is the thread you started about Bernadette Roberts. I was going to respond to that, but then decided not to. I downloaded the What Is Self PDF and only had to read as far as the Forward to learn what her take was on all this. It was made clear that she came from a Catholic background and that she viewed the Buddha's teaching in light of that Catholic background rather than in the terms that the Buddha meant them to be viewed.

I must point out that the Bernadette Roberts thread was entirely about the apparent convergence of her thinking with that of Actualism. The Buddha's poem referenced as a valuable insight into what she was trying to find (thinking like her own). The correctness of her interpretation of Buddhism is wholly beside the point. I'm still surprised it's had so little interest...

Ian And:

So, perhaps now you have a slightly better understanding of why I use a person's understanding of dependent co-arising and their ability to articulate that understanding to others as a guide as to whether or not they understand what the Buddha taught. When I see that fundamental principle of Dhamma missing or go by unmentioned in a person's discourse, I can only conclude that the person has no understanding of it.

Yes. I really appreciate your posts Ian. I like your style, and I get a lot out of them, thank you.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Ian And — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:57:35 GMT

Mic Hoe:

If I understand the Buddhist dialogue, his premise is that self is not something dependently co-arising, and argues that nothing is like this.

If you are referring to the video that was linked to of Shinzen's, I don't come away from that with any kind of notion that he is speaking about or even referring to dependent co-arising at all. It's as though the idea is foreign to him, or that he doesn't understand it fully enough to be able to articulate about it. Everything he is saying, though, sounds fine as far as it goes. It's just that if you understand the words he's using and how he's using them, it leaves the impression that there is something more behind the "emptiness" and "self nature" (meaning god, or source, or whatever) that is at stake when in reality the Buddha never, ever mentioned such ideas or conclusions.

Mic Hoe:

Ian And:

...as the mind attempts to find a "self" of which it is "empty" of "self nature."

(okay, I promise I won't mention it again, once last time...)
And this is attempted/supported/made possible as long as there is the belief in the existence of the 'transcendent' and the 'ordinary', and necessarily, consequently, in their difference. I agree it would be better to dispense with the terminology, but whilst they don't point to anything real as referents, they do 'point out' something real about the activity of the mind employing the terminology, and perhaps their convergence could be the end of them? But yeah, why start with them? (This is why I called them 'all or nothing', for what could be a stage of understanding within this paradigm?)

It is unfortunate that we are, by the rules of grammar, forced, so to speak, to reference things in language as though they actually exist and are permanent constituents of reality when in truth they are mere fabrications of the mind being used so that so that we can more easily and clearly communicate with one another in conventional speech. In this sense, language very much does play a role in the misunderstanding of what we are attempting to describe.

Yet, with regard to your first sentence, perhaps yes, belief in the dichotomy of the "transcendent" and the "ordinary" might play a role in the mind's clinging to these two concepts. But more importantly to the point is the mind's inability to make out the actual process of dependent co-arising taking place. And this is a matter of mere ignorance (the inability to see one's experience clearly enough to see the truth in it), and not belief.

Mic Hoe:

Ian And:

There is no such thing in existence; only in conceptions.

This is what bothers me when people describe their experience as 'empty'. As 'empty' is shorthand for 'empty of self nature', one's experience could not have the quality of emptiness unless you were noticing the absence of the very thing that's agreed not to exist. In other words, the notion of self nature is being reflected upon or is still operative in some way. And yet, "consciousness has no attribute".

It is sometimes unfortunate that the Mahayana introduced phrases like "self nature" and "emptiness" into the Buddhist lexicon as it can sometimes tend to confuse and confound the mind of the literal reader. Rather than referring to it as "empty of self nature," had we just said "empty of self" that might have been an improvement on the actual intended meaning of the insight. I maintain that one is better off not using such terminology for this very reason: it makes for confusion and ambiguity. And furthermore, it is always much better to examine the content and context of the originator of the system of thought (the Buddha in this case) rather than those who came after him and changed his words! I'm not saying that we shouldn't bother to make an attempt to update our way of expression in order to communicate these ideas to contemporary audiences; only that we should first refer to the original way it was initially expressed so that there is no confusion about what was said, and then from there we can make our attempt to explain it in our modern idiom.

Ask yourself sometime whether or not form is permanent or impermanent. Whether or not feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness are permanent or impermanent. Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness? Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'? Think about these questions and really try to answer them to yourself from your experience of whatever insight you have into the matter. There was a reason why I mentioned that sutta extract for you to ponder on. It was to get you to begin thinking about and examining your own experience. If all form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness) is impermanent, suffering, and not self, what does that tell you about their existential essence? It should be quite easy to agree that anything that is impermanent and in flux, by definition, is not substantial. Insubstantial means there is no substance, lasting or otherwise.

The Buddha defined his insight of dependent co-arising with this standard statement: "When there is this, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this is absent, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases." This points to a principle which suggests the arising of phenomena in dependence on conditions. As Bhk. Bodhi wrote in his book: "This gives the principle in the abstract, stripped of any reference to a content. But the Buddha is not interested in abstract formulas devoid of content: for him content is all-important. His teaching is concerned with a problem — the problem of suffering (dukkha) — and with the task of bringing suffering to an end. Dependent arising is introduced because it is relevant to these concerns, indeed not merely relevant but indispensable. It defines the framework needed to understand the problem and also indicates the approach that must be taken if that problem is to be resolved." If you are truly serious about learning to see this process in earnest, then I would recommend finding, reading, and contemplating Bhikkhu Bodhi's book The Great Discourse on Causation, The Mahanidana Sutta and Its Commentaries.

Now, that's fine for a conceptual analysis of dependent co-arising, but it does very little for the practical, everyday mind which is attempting to see these concepts reflected in its everyday experience. This is why these concepts are called matters for insight and reflection. They require a much sharper discernment of the movements of the mind than are normally available to people who never meditate and are in general not very mindful of the underlying mechanisms of the mind.

The reason that the "notion of self ... is being reflected upon or is still operative in some way" is because of ignorance. Ignorance in not being able to see this process (the process of dependent co-arising) occur as it is happening. The process of creating a "self" within the mind in order to create a dichotomy of "self" and "other" to be able to refer to in communication. These dichotomies are just conventional social fabrications, which Gotama acknowledged and recognized have some value in normal social dialog, yet which get invested in the language itself, making it doubly as difficult for the untrained, unrealized mind to see and negotiate through.

A perfect example of this is the thread you started about Bernadette Roberts. I was going to respond to that, but then decided not to. I downloaded the What Is Self PDF and only had to read as far as the Forward to learn what her take was on all this. It was made clear that she came from a Catholic background and that she viewed the Buddha's teaching in light of that Catholic background rather than in the terms that the Buddha meant them to be viewed. It also made clear that she was speaking out of "her own tradition," which I took to mean her own understanding of what was true according to how she views phenomena and not those views of the Buddha. So, there was really nothing to comment on, since it was admitted up front that she was not coming from a Buddhist perspective. She even went so far as to reinterpret a verse out of the Dhammapada according to her own perspective, and Jeff Shore, who wrote the forward, readily admitted as much by stating: "This is incompatible with the Pali text," in reference to her reinterpretation of the ridge pole verse (page 13).

Both Mr. Shore and Ms. Roberts have not the slightest idea about what the Buddha was teaching because they live in an eternalist/annihilationist worldview where things and people have substantial beingness. Gotama taught the Middle Path between these two extreme ideas of eternalism and annihilationism. And this Middle Way is explained by his principles on dependent co-arising. Many times in the discourses Gotama is heard repeating the refrain: "He who sees dependent arising sees the Dhamma, he who sees the Dhamma sees dependent arising." (MN 28)

So, perhaps now you have a slightly better understanding of why I use a person's understanding of dependent co-arising and their ability to articulate that understanding to others as a guide as to whether or not they understand what the Buddha taught. When I see that fundamental principle of Dhamma missing or go by unmentioned in a person's discourse, I can only conclude that the person has no understanding of it.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Mic Hoe — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:54 GMT

If I understand the Buddhist dialogue, his premise is that self is not something dependently co-arising, and argues that nothing is like this.

Ian And:

...as the mind attempts to find a "self" of which it is "empty" of "self nature."

Ian And:

The differences in meaning is so subtle here that it goes over most people's heads the first time they are exposed to it.

It's difficult to even think about this stuff, and a change of approach can lead to opposite sounding conclusions, which is why I don't want to argue any points, but to see if we can communicate something around the issues, and perhaps clarify ourselves. We don't seem to be doing too badly.

Ian And:

There is no such thing in existence; only in conceptions.

Ian And:

People remain caught in its vicious cycle while fruitlessly endeavoring to figure out what it is they are doing wrong.

yeah. Thanks for the post.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Ian And — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:13:27 GMT

Mic Hoe:

Now that you point it out, yes. Upon reflection I find it very easy to hear what I want to hear in his teachings ;) But whilst he is certainly talking in terms of the 'what' of things, what he is pointing to cannot be resolved within the same paradigm, except in fantasy.

And this is my whole point, Mic. It seems to be a "metaphysical mystery" type thingy that he's playing around with here, and from any standpoint that supports the Buddhadhamma, this is pure and simple "wrong view." At the very worst, it is ambiguous, which can be dangerous to untrained minds used to seeing things in terms of substantial entities. To even be playing in this neighborhood is anathema to the Buddha. If you read the discourses, he shut down many an enquirer when they wanted to corner him about metaphysics. (Read the Vacchagotta suttas in the Majjhima Nikaya -- MN 72 and 73.) When it comes to attempting to explain these subtle points in the teaching, there's no need to reinvent the Wheel. Gotama did a fine job of inventing it all by himself. It's up to us to figure out the innovation he gained insight into (paticca samuppada or dependent co-arising) by following the path he laid out and observing our own experience of it in verification.

Mic Hoe:

I'd be surprised if he didn't know this with his zen background. But any teacher knows they have to use the language of the student to communicate.

Well, you see, I'm not so certain that he does know the difference. If he does, he certainly doesn't talk like he does. Nor does he write like he does. I've been taken in by this kind of "reasoning" myself, which is why I'm so sensitive to its being preached. Until one truly has insight into dependent co-arising and how it works, such talk will always be enticing. When you know dependent co-arising thoroughly, you see through the smoke and mirrors of the mysterious and the metaphysical explanations of phenomena.

And with all due respect, I have to disagree somewhat with your second sentence. While a teacher may "need to use the language of the student" at times in order to communicate, if he truly understands what the Buddha taught, he generally won't use the same definitions that the student assumes of those terms, especially if they do not apply to what he is teaching. And the perfect example of this is Gotama himself. Gotama redefined the terms he borrowed from Brahminism in order to present his own insightful innovation. A perfect example of this is the word kamma (karma). Rather than to define kamma in terms of spiritual retribution (as it is commonly misunderstood to be), the Buddha defined it in terms of the psychological process which he saw taking place: "It is volition, monks, that I declare to be kamma. Having willed, one performs an action by body, speech, or mind."

Mic Hoe:

However, now that you've brought it up, I'm filtering all my memories of teachings via this process/whatage split, and it's much more common than I'd ever realized. Just imagine if teachers refused to do the 'what' thing, and spoke only of process. I imagine it would bring the students' real condition (and our mistaken 'problems') into sharper focus immediately, and a lot of current misunderstandings wouldn't be possible. At the same time a process approach can still provide people with waypoints to help them find their way, and it's the 'whatage' teachings that really have no choice but to become all or nothing teachings if they are to remain effective. Or am I getting carried away?

My exact point. Now you're starting to see how insidious this kind of reification of an object can be when it is misunderstood in light of the teachings of early Buddhism. People remain caught in its vicious cycle while fruitlessly endeavoring to figure out what it is they are doing wrong. It all comes back to "wrong view." Follow the path (Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Contemplation/Concentration) as you are learning to discern and see the truth and you won't go wrong.

Mic Hoe:

Ian And:

Gombrich states correctly that: "Consciousness is, for the Buddha, a process which illuminates objects. So when there is nothing to illuminate, there is no illumination: 'consciousness has no attribute' (anidassanam)." That last statement, "consciousness has no attribute" really nails the point.

No. The same thing is not being stated. That is, if I am understanding correctly what you are saying here. It seems to me that first sentence is attempting to conflate what the Buddha taught (not self and emptiness) with what Shinzen is saying about the terms "source" and "transcendence" juxtaposed against "ordinary" and "daily life" as these terms are commonly understood to be defined by untrained minds. I think one walks a fine line when one tries to get too cute here using other terminology in order to communicate. It provides a space for ambiguity to creep in.

Now we are seeing Shinzen using terms in which the Buddha never spoke, putting words in his mouth. I'm speaking of the juxtaposition of the concepts proposed in the phrases "the transcendent and the ordinary" and "source and the daily life." People like Shinzen use those terms (perhaps because he has an incomplete understanding of them in relation to what the Gotama of early Buddhism taught), but Gotama did not. Gotama spoke in terms of "not self."

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.' But because form is not-self, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'

"Feeling is not-self. . . . Perception is not-self. . . . Volitional formations are not-self. . . . Consciousness is not-self. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is not-self, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.'

"What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" — "Suffering, venerable sir." — "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" — "No, venerable sir."

"Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form (feeling, perception, volitional formation, consciousness) whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.

Gotama never brought up concepts in terms like "source" or "the transcendent." There is no source but the mind; nothing transcendent other than the mind (although he is not recorded as ever having spoken using such terminology). He spoke only about the processes of the mind and how to recognize them in action in order that people would begin to see that these processes themselves were the cause, the source, if you will, of the problems they created for themselves. I don't discern that Shinzen is talking at all using this outlook.

Mic Hoe:

Curiously though, 'no self nature' and 'emptiness' also (albeit negatively, but nevertheless) belong to the category you are objecting to, or highlighting at least.

Only if you read them in that way. The category I am objecting to is the reification of "Self," and the misunderstanding that such phrases as "no self nature" and "emptiness" can become attached to as the mind attempts to find a "self" of which it is "empty" of "self nature." There is no such thing in existence; only in conceptions. The differences in meaning is so subtle here that it goes over most people's heads the first time they are exposed to it.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Mic Hoe — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:15:18 GMT

Ian And:

Statements like "there's not a separation between Source and the daily life that's born from Source" and "So there's not a fundamental cleft from a practical point of view between the transcendent and the ordinary" invite the reader to infer or imply the "what" of life rather than the "how" of processes. Can others truly not see this, too?

Now that you point it out, yes. Upon reflection I find it very easy to hear what I want to hear in his teachings ;) But whilst he is certainly talking in terms of the 'what' of things, what he is pointing to cannot be resolved within the same paradigm, except in fantasy. I'd be surprised if he didn't know this with his zen background. But any teacher knows they have to use the language of the student to communicate.

However, now that you've brought it up, I'm filtering all my memories of teachings via this process/whatage split, and it's much more common than I'd ever realized. Just imagine if teachers refused to do the 'what' thing, and spoke only of process. I imagine it would bring the students' real condition (and our mistaken 'problems') into sharper focus immediately, and a lot of current misunderstandings wouldn't be possible. At the same time a process approach can still provide people with waypoints to help them find their way, and it's the 'whatage' teachings that really have no choice but to become all or nothing teachings if they are to remain effective. Or am I getting carried away?

Thanks for the interesting angles, it's much appreciated.

Ian And:

And this point is why, is it not, that there can be 'no self nature', or 'emptiness' at all? And where we finally see no difference between 'the transcendent and the ordinary', or 'between source and the daily life that's born from source'? So then, the same thing is being said, no?

Curiously though, 'no self nature' and 'emptiness' also (albeit negatively, but nevertheless) belong to the category you are objecting to, or highlighting at least.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Eran G — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:56:48 GMT

Thank you for your reply, Ian. I think I understand the nature of your criticism better now.

Ian And:

The best way I know how to communicate this is to quote Richard Gombrich, in his book How Buddhism Began, The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, who explains it this way: "The Buddha's interest in how not what, his emphasis on process rather than objects, could be said to be summarized in his teaching of the paticca-samuppada, conditioned origination." Earlier on in this essay, Gombrich states correctly that: "Consciousness is, for the Buddha, a process which illuminates objects. So when there is nothing to illuminate, there is no illumination: 'consciousness has no attribute' (anidassanam)." That last statement, "consciousness has no attribute" really nails the point.

And I suppose that what I'm saying here is that I'm not seeing anything like this understanding coming out of the mouth of Shinzen Young and being communicated to his listeners. Maybe this is what he means to say, but the words he uses certainly don't make that very clear or unambiguous.

One of the reasons I enjoy your postings here and on other forums as well is that you tend to include this practical information on the How of practice and the unfolding of experience. I agree that this kind of information, coming from an experienced mind is invaluable.

From this viewpoint, I can see why the Shinzen Young discourses we have been discussing can seem limited in their usefulness. He seems to point to a certain experience but it is hard to tell how authentic that description is and the discourses themselves are quite theoretical and lacking in advice for practice. However, Shinzen Young is known for his analytic and even algorithmic approach to the practice and to describing experiences which may come up during practice. This, I think, is a big factor in his appeal to many yogis today but requires some investment in getting to know his basic lingo. Here are a few examples, I'd love to hear what you think about those articles:

* Working with Images
* Meditating on the thought process (both of these were brought to my attention on a previous thread here, discussing thoughts and were quite helpful to me in illuminating the experience)
* Four facets of Body Sensations

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Ian And — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:07:48 GMT

Eran G:

Well, I certainly can't disagree with you here, Eran. It's for sure that Shinzen has his own unique way of explaining things. A lot of that may depend upon the level of his audience, though. Yet, this is where one can easily get into trouble. By playing to the audience's level of understanding in attempting to communicate something that is very subtle, you run the risk of becoming ambiguous. And this is where I have a difference of opinion about modes of communication.

Eran G:

First it's important to remember that while Shinzen teaches Mindfulness (which here in the west is usually based on Theravada) his main training was actually in Zen. While looking for info about the 10 Ox Herding Pictures, I learned that one of them (number 9) is sometimes called Returning to the Source (note: the linked page is not by shinzen young and used just as an example).

Yes. It is that Zen training that is peaking through in his presentation. The trouble I'm having is verfiying any understanding he has of one of Gotama's primary insights, that of paticca-samuppada or dependent co-arising, and seeing any of that being expressed in Shinzen's discourse.

Eran G:

It's interesting that in a video about the 10 ox herding pictures, Shinzen says of the last 3 that they represent the substance, form and purpose of enlightenment. The Source, being number 9 corresponds to the appearance of Enlightenment and this is what he has to say about it: "what's the form of Enlightenment? the mountains and the cherry blossoms the ordinary appearances of the world, every single thing, is the appearance of Enlightenment." (from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PQonSiGkVE around 8:15).

Here is a bit of what Shinzen has to say about his term "Source" from the video that you linked to: "Then, this is non-dual in the sense that there's not a separation between Source and the daily life that's born from Source. . . . So there's not a fundamental cleft from a practical point of view between the transcendent and the ordinary. That's the real non-duality as I would have it. Creator and creation, that duality has been seen through. . . . In terms of the Zen ox herding pictures, that is somebody that is firmly mounted on the ox. Okay. Can never be bucked off the ox no matter what life throws at them. So, you're riding this powerful ox called consciousness or emptiness or source or god or nature, and you can't be bucked off by whatever wells up from the inside or hits you from the outside. You're still fundamentally never separate from nothing. I would use the term non-dual awareness for that."

Statements like "there's not a separation between Source and the daily life that's born from Source" and "So there's not a fundamental cleft from a practical point of view between the transcendent and the ordinary" invite the reader to infer or imply the "what" of life rather than the "how" of processes. Can others truly not see this, too?

Yet, giving him a bit of a benefit of the doubt, I can certainly understand what he means by the highlighted section in the above quotation. This is the internal and external circumstance of a person who is awakened. In explaining that sense of awakening, he is certainly within the bounds of early Buddhist thought, whether or not he uses their same terminology. It just seems to me that the thrust of his discourse, when heard by untrained and unenlightened minds, carries with it an ambiguity in communication which emphasizes more of the "what" than of the "how" about the method one uses to get to this point.

The best way I know how to communicate this is to quote Richard Gombrich, in his book How Buddhism Began, The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, who explains it this way: "The Buddha's interest in how not what, his emphasis on process rather than objects, could be said to be summarized in his teaching of the paticca-samuppada, conditioned origination." Earlier on in this essay, Gombrich states correctly that: "Consciousness is, for the Buddha, a process which illuminates objects. So when there is nothing to illuminate, there is no illumination: 'consciousness has no attribute' (anidassanam)." That last statement, "consciousness has no attribute" really nails the point.

And I suppose that what I'm saying here is that I'm not seeing anything like this understanding coming out of the mouth of Shinzen Young and being communicated to his listeners. Maybe this is what he means to say, but the words he uses certainly don't make that very clear or unambiguous.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Eran G — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:16:26 GMT

I'm certainly in no position to explain Shinzen Young. He seems to have created a practice that while based on tradition and experience is unique to himself. I'm still struggling to understand some of his terms but in this case I just came across something that may be relevant.

First it's important to remember that while Shinzen teaches Mindfulness (which here in the west is usually based on Theravada) his main training was actually in Zen. While looking for info about the 10 Ox Herding Pictures, I learned that one of them (number 9) is sometimes called Returning to the Source (note: the linked page is not by shinzen young and used just as an example).

It's interesting that in a video about the 10 ox herding pictures, Shinzen says of the last 3 that they represent the substance, form and purpose of enlightenment. The Source, being number 9 corresponds to the appearance of Enlightenment and this is what he has to say about it: "what's the form of Enlightenment? the mountains and the cherry blossoms the ordinary appearances of the world, every single thing, is the appearance of Enlightenment." (from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PQonSiGkVE around 8:15).

Eran.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion?

Ian And — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:43:44 GMT

Eran G:

I believe this is the video Mic was referring to: Non-Dual Awareness ~ Shinzen Young

Thank you, Eran.

I found a little more material here and here in case others might be interested in reading more about his views. This was written, I think, sometime between 2003 and 2006, from what I can gather, so no telling whether it is still the way he views these matters today. Despite sounding somewhat mainstream Buddhist in many of his descriptions, he does make some glaring errors in a few of his presumptions (inferences), enough to indicate that he is not fully "baked" or "steeped" so to speak. Others can come to their own conclusions; but I've seen enough to be satisfied that I wouldn't recommend anyone take his material very seriously, much less that they waste their time reading his articles.

For anyone who doubts me, consider the following description of the topic of one of his interviews: "How to contact one's spiritual source by experiencing the moment completely." One's "spiritual source"? What is that all about and what does it have to so with what the Buddha taught? This guy has taken one too many comparative religion courses and apparently believes what he has learned.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

Eran G — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:39:48 GMT

I believe this is the video Mic was referring to: Non-Dual Awareness ~ Shinzen Young

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

Ian And — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:25:24 GMT

Mic Hoe:

Shinzen Young gets analytic on the non-dual(s), and describes his 'more ambitious' non-duality:

Non-Dual Awareness ~ Shinzen Young

Hi Mic,

Do you have a direct link to this Shinzen material? Because this link is not working. I get a "The message could not be found" error.

Written material would be acceptable also. Even more so because of my slow Internet connection. I would be interested to see Shinzen's take on this.

Thanks,
Ian

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

Mic Hoe — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:08:37 GMT

Shinzen Young gets analytic on the non-dual(s), and describes his 'more ambitious' non-duality:

Non-Dual Awareness ~ Shinzen Young

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

Mic Hoe — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:00:18 GMT

Perhaps I have misunderstood the terminology, but I thought Kensho was the realization of the simultaneity of the unitive and the diverse. (A dual vision, so to speak...and a resolution of opposites; the point from which all our apparent spiritual paradox's spring.)

The non-duality is precisely that simultaneity.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

tarin greco — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:58:24 GMT

Anon Anon:

tarin greco:

which last possibility leads me to ask: is it so that, in the absence of the feeling of being (absence of the sense of i completely), there is likewise the absence of any affective experience (the experience of moods/passions/feelings) ... and is it obvious, upon reflection, why this is the case? (that is, is it obvious that the feeling of being is part and parcel of the movement of feelings?)

yes, this is entirely different from merely seeing that the sense of 'i' enjoying something is illusory and that the entire experience is really nondual, not-self.

Anon Anon:

Without "I", there seems to be a kind of all-pervading equanimity that isn't a mood (equanimity without the feeling of equanimity). It's very pure, quiet, innocent, and for lack of a better word, "good". I don't know what it's compatible with or not compatible with; it needs more real-world testing. (I'll get back to you about it.)

have you done any more real-world testing of this 'equanimity without the feeling of equanimity'?

Anon Anon:

Reflection doesn't make things much clearer to me, because there's something radically different about experience without "I" that makes that kind of experience hard to review, reflect on, or understand (for me) once "I" returns. It's as if I have to make mental notes at the time, and review the notes later. Perhaps this is why I said in my original post that I don't have much interest in re-attaining that state. When attaining it, it seems like it's important. Once it's gone, it seems much less so.

when in that state, why does it seem important? what does it look like from that perspective.. and what do other states seem like, in comparison?

Anon Anon:

The best reflection I can do at the moment is with regard to an issue that Bruno seems to have concerning how someone can choose to do things, be motivated to act, etc. without phenomenal emotions or desires. Sidestepping the issue of whether "rigpa = PCE", playing around with it has made clear to me that a lot of our behavior doesn't occur for the reasons we think it does. We don't act *because* we have the phenomenon of desire with something as its object. The phenomenon of desire ("I" desiring something) isn't necessarily part of the causal chain. Rather, we just act, and depending on what state of mind we're in, perhaps the phenomenon of desiring something precedes our act, and perhaps it doesn't. In some ways, the phenomenon is more like an epiphenomenon; a little illustrative flourish, non-causal with respect to many kinds of behavior, dispensable. This becomes clear after the observation that behavior can proceed pretty much as before, with or without it.

and yet, feeling fearful, or aggressive, can make people do thing they would most certainly not do otherwise.. can you conceive of an unfearful/unaggressive mob lynching, for example?

it is incorrect to simply label desire an epiphenomenon.. when desire causes action, there are (often tragic) consequences in the actual world.

Anon Anon:

tarin greco:

comparatively, what does trading the i-phenomenon (whether hard or soft) for what you are calling 'rigpa' lead to?

Again, I'll address this later when I can be clear about it.

are you clear about it yet?

tarin

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

tarin greco — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 06:41:26 GMT

Anon Anon:

tarin greco:

here's a question for you: when things are vibrating in perfect synchrony, what/where is it that you are perceiving things vibrating in relation to?

On one hand, the answer is "in relation to themselves at a prior point in time". It's the same as if one asked "when you see a person moving, what do you perceive them moving in relation to?" One may see them moving in relation to their environment over time (comparable to dissynchrony), and in the case that one sees them moving against a completely blank background (comparable to synchrony), one uses the coordinates of the field (left / right / up / down / forward / back) to compare their states over time and describe their motion.

On the other hand, there is also the sense that it is attention that's moving, not necessarily the object. When one prepares for jhana, at the beginning there is the sense that attention keeps "sliding off" the object and that one needs applied and sustained thought to continually re-attach it to the object. (More accurately, perhaps "applied and sustained thought" just is the sense of sliding off / reapplication.) Once applied and sustained thought end, there is the impression that the object is not observed to vibrate in the same way as before---one seems more in sync with things (cross-modal synchrony). Which suggests that the phenomenon of "I" is wrapped up with cognition / attention in some way.

Not sure what you had in mind with this question.

what i had in mind with this question was to introduce the notion that what you are calling synchrony is merely another, more refined, version of what you have rejected - and quite rightly - as a dissatisfying dissynchrony... as even when things are vibrating in perfect synchrony, there is still a something (a what or a where) which they are vibrating in or against.

on one hand, that things do move in time (rather than time being what moves) does cause perceptions of movement (in the same manner that one would perceive a person moving). yet, this itself is not either the sense of synchrony or dissynchrony we have been discussing - this is merely actual movement (the perception of which, on its own, i find to have a crystal-clear stillness to it).

and on the other hand, the notion that attention is moving is correct, and demonstrated clearly in the fact that what one experiences (what occurs in the field of one's experience) is constantly changing. even if one were to look at an unmoving desk, or computer keyboard, there is always subtle change occurring.. the light does not look the same from one moment to another - eye saccades ensure this.. no vibrating experience, whether synchronised or dissynchronised, is required. hence, the vibration which is attributed to movements of attention are not actually caused by them - what movements of attention cause is, rather, the perception of a world which is entirely new, refreshing, and happening right now.

so, the sense that attention keeps 'sliding off' the object (and how it vibrates in particular ways depending on how, or how much, it 'slides') is neither due to things moving (in relation to themselves at a prior point) in time, nor to the movement of attention. rather, it is the swirl of passions that causes this entire phenomenon.. it is the feeling of being, at its very core, which manifests as a 'perfect synchrony'... and which is what sometimes goes 'out of synch' (however much or little).

tarin

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Dan K — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:05:17 GMT

Anon Anon:

Sorry that it took a while to write this; I've been trying to work out some things and not been inclined to say much on that account.

No problem.

Anon Anon:

What happens if you just aimlessly look at sensations for, say, 30 minutes?

When my mind starts to wander aimlessly, I tend to drift into certain types of thoughts that suddenly blink out. Usually I'm not able to remember what the content of the thought was, but they tend to be complex, content-rich thoughts.

Anon Anon:

.
I have always had a hard time understanding what people meant when they talked about "energy" (as sensual impressions?). Something about the way I conceptualize my experience seems to prevent "energy" from being a label I would apply to anything but the most outrageous A&P stuff. But my best guess is that, again, I didn't notice any change in this regard.

By "energy" I meant flows of sensation of any kind that seem to be out in the world or in the body, but that don't seem to be part of the material world. For example, I can visualize a beam of light shooting out of my hand.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:03:15 GMT

Sorry that it took a while to write this; I've been trying to work out some things and not been inclined to say much on that account.

Dan K:

Anon Anon:

Can you describe what you mean when the mind "sweeps"? Is it a kinaesthetic phenomenon? I can't say that I know what this corresponds to in my own descriptive language...

The mind tends to rotate towards pleasant sensations, as if it is diving in from one side. It might appear as the mind lunging toward, engulfing or consuming sensations.

OK, this makes sense to me. I have some things to say about it, but for a few reasons I'd like to hold off on that for a bit...

Dan K:

I'm not sure what is and isn't a fruition. Is every flicker a fruition? Are the bigger ones every once in a while fruitions? Is it a fruition when I sense a blink followed by a burst of energy? I didn't learn about the whole fruition thing until quite recently. Otherwise, by looking at sensations I can get into various modes of concentration, depending on which phase of the flickering I focus on, so that is useful.

The experience (?) I'm trying to point at is a complex of entrance-cessation of phenomena-exit. The entrance presents in various ways which I find hard to describe and in my opinion these ways are best learned by making one's own catalogue of them.

When the visual field flickers sychronously, then if I understand you correctly, the off-moments aren't fruitions, because there is still phenomena of some kind apart from the temporarily-faded visual field.

What happens if you just aimlessly look at sensations for, say, 30 minutes?

Dan K:

Anon Anon:

I don't know if this corresponds in any way with where you are currently, but if so, I hope it helps!

I have very poor awareness of the nanas. I never practiced noting and I practiced very limited formal vipassana so my cycles are not categorized well. I don't notice the stages of the review cycles either, except for the fruitions. It doesn't matter where I am on the Theravada path in any case. I had a burning desire to be enlightened, but that is gone now.

Back to the synchronization: since the event, are you able to notice any "energy patterns"? For example, rotating rings, halos, "wings" (see: 7th chakra), energy coming out of your head and circling around, giant eyes, glowing orbs, or any other types of vivid imagery or sensual impressions?

My mind has always been inclined to visualize all kinds of abstract, striking imagery, but I didn't notice any change afterwards.

I have always had a hard time understanding what people meant when they talked about "energy" (as sensual impressions?). Something about the way I conceptualize my experience seems to prevent "energy" from being a label I would apply to anything but the most outrageous A&P stuff. But my best guess is that, again, I didn't notice any change in this regard.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Dan K — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:28:46 GMT

Anon Anon:

Can you describe what you mean when the mind "sweeps"? Is it a kinaesthetic phenomenon? I can't say that I know what this corresponds to in my own descriptive language...

The mind tends to rotate towards pleasant sensations, as if it is diving in from one side. It might appear as the mind lunging toward, engulfing or consuming sensations.

Anon Anon:

Dan K:

The "problem" isn't that I can't find vibrations, it's that I'm stuck in 4th vipassana jhana so there's nowhere to go with the vibrations, nor does there seem to be any gain from looking at them. There is still plenty of stuff for me to work with, but I would classify them more as waves than vibrations. For example, the process of objectification is seen to be wavelike and makes a good object of inquiry.

OK, got it. Can you explain what you mean by there not being any gain by looking at them? Can you get a fruition (for example) by looking at them?

Anon Anon:

I don't know if this corresponds in any way with where you are currently, but if so, I hope it helps!

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 03:19:38 GMT

Well, here's the results of this thread so far:

Experienced a permanent synchronization of vibrations?

Me: yes.
Dan K: yes.
Bruno: no.
Julius: no?
Tarin: yes (as a consequence of AF).

It seems like there's something to this synchronization stuff, though the big picture is still murky. Anyone else care to chime in? How about Daniel?

Dan K:

Anon Anon:

A sensation will occur. The mind will tend to sweep in an engulfing way around the sensation along one axis of rotation. A tiny bit later, the mind sweeps around it the other way along the same axis of rotation. The two motions tend to cancel each other out. I think this sort of thing is happening non-spatially as well, but I'm not able to discern the mechanics.

Can you describe what you mean when the mind "sweeps"? Is it a kinaesthetic phenomenon? I can't say that I know what this corresponds to in my own descriptive language...

Dan K:

Anon Anon:

I can do this. Is there a point to this other than stilling the mind?

When I do it, it leads me through a review cycle, as any other object for vipassana would (but see below about my post-synchronization state and nanas).

Dan K:

OK, got it. Can you explain what you mean by there not being any gain by looking at them? Can you get a fruition (for example) by looking at them?

Dan K:

Anon Anon:

Are you familiar with some other state that you call "rigpa"?

What is it like when "I" fades away? Does it stay that way indefinitely?

There is another state which I associate with "rigpa". It is the perfect understanding that this is all there is and there is nothing else to it. It is a perfectly non-profound (at the time) and non associative state. I don't have much experience with this state and I do not know if there is any relationship between this and what happens when subjectivity starts to fade. It's not something I have worked on for whatever reason. I'll experiment a little and get back to you.

Looking forward to it.

Dan K:

Anon Anon:

How would you assess yourself in terms of the 4-path model? Pre- or post-SE? Pre- or post-SE when you had your synchronization event?

Post SE when I had the event. I interpreted the synchronization event as a path moment. My working hypothesis is 4th path, based on the fact that I'm stuck in 4th vipassana jhana, but it's too early to say.

In case you find it helpful, I'll share my experience with this phenomenon ("stuck in 4th vipassana jhana") insofar as I've experienced something like it. (Perhaps this should be split off into another thread?)

Pre-SE, nanas were experienced as big, obvious shifts in my state of consciousness, with a variety of typical attentional, perceptual, and affective characteristics. Nanas were to be feared, or at least respected, because they could make my life really unpleasant in the right (wrong) circumstances.

Immediately post-SE, nanas (during review) were pretty much like they were pre-SE, but with the attentional width of the 4th jhana superimposed on them somewhat. Also, there was a kind of equanimity garnered from pure insight superimposed as well (like, "oh, I don't exist in the way that I thought I did, so there's less to worry about"). But overall, they presented pretty much as before. One of the most distinctive features of their presentation, dissynchronies that varied based on which nana it was, continued to manifest, and made diagnosing "which nana is this?" somewhat easy.

After synchronization, all nanas except for A&P typically present as a kind of shadow of themselves: not big shifts in states of consciousness, but comparatively small tweaks of a state that is 4th jhana-like and somewhat permanent. The state is characterized by a lot of equanimity, extremely wide attention, a diffused sense of "I", and no within-modality dissynchronies.

Because synchronization occurred soon after SE, at the time I thought to myself "nanas appear to be tempered by SE", and learned to identify them in new ways without thinking much of it. But apparently this isn't the standard experience.

Despite the fact that all nanas now have 4th jhana-like characteristics, the progress of insight continues as before. The amount of insight I had immediately after synchronization seems very limited to me now in retrospect. (Currently I'd put myself down as lost in 3rd path somewhere, using the MCTB definition of it---and I definitely attained this path long *after* synchronization) In fact, I wouldn't say that synchronization bestowed me with any insight at all, at least not any insight of the direct, non-reflective kind that paths bestow, unless you count the phenomenon of "I" becoming more diffuse as related to insight. Its notable effects for me have been primarily related to equanimity and psychological wellbeing. (This might be different if I had attained it pre-SE, assuming that's possible.)

Here is how I identify the nanas right now:

Mind and body: stronger sense of being "I", sudden grasp of which phenomena are unclear and need to be analyzed for insight.

Cause and effect: indistinct.

Three characteristics: indistinct, maybe boredom.

A&P: vibrations vary synchronously as one inhales or exhales; later (not in review), all the typical A&P craziness.

Dissolution: easier to see the passing of phenomena, vibration rate of visual field upon cursory observation is faster than usual (5-6hz?) through all the dukkha nanas.

Fear: a bit of stomach tension.

Misery: indistinct, sometimes vague tension.

Disgust: indistinct, sometimes vague tension.

Desire for deliverance: indistinct; less tension if it were previously present.

Re-observation: sometimes indistinct, sometimes irregular sensations of buzzing in the body; rarely the typical re-observation unpleasantness.

Equanimity: boredom at first; then attentional width expands a tiny bit; then formless stuff and strong equanimity; then fruition.

The things to note about all of these is, first, that about half of the nanas have become indistinct for me, including most of the Dark Night (but none of the positive nanas), and second, the only way I know that I'm clearly in Equanimity is by keeping track of which nanas came immediately before, or by waiting until I get deeper into it and formless stuff begins to arise. This is because all the mentioned characteristics of all the nanas are superimposed on a state that's like the 4th jhana, but without the formless phenomena, and without the extreme equanimity that the 4th jhana can present with when approached with strong concentration.

Later paths made no difference to synchronization / dissynchronization, but only to direct insight and whatever psychological consequences follow from having insight.

I don't know if this corresponds in any way with where you are currently, but if so, I hope it helps!

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Dan K — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:04:44 GMT

Anon Anon:

Post-SE, I have had the sense of my default state being like the 4th vipasanna jhana in terms of attentional width and equanimity, except my experience of that state pre-SE was with dissynchrony, and my experience of things now is without.

Is there any ongoing difference in your experience of "I"? What is it like in everyday life?

When I am by myself, the label "I" does not usually occur unless I think about. There is still subjectivity and the impression things being willed to happen, although it appears automatic when I attend to it. When I am with others, there is usually a pretty strong notion of "I", and it feels as real as anything unless I really try to dissolve it. I think these two are different I's, one transcendental and one personal, although I'm not sure about this.

Anon Anon:

I have some experience with meaningful spontaneous experiences that occur during dreams, but for me they are clearly A&P events, and they tend to involve cognitive processes that are really, really bizarre and not easily describable. And I tend to wake up sometime during them.

When this event occured for you, were you dreaming or in some other state of sleep? (I think that the phenomenon of "I" does not arise in other stages of sleep, so possibly this is the same kind of thing as rigpa-while-awake that got me to my synchronization event.) Was there something recent (at the time) that could have predisposed you to it, such as a new path?

It was an "other" state of sleep. I don't know how to categorize it. It's a state of awareness with very little or no mindfulness. Occasionally something interesting happens and mindfulness is brought to bear on what's going on. When I remember, it is clear that awareness was present but being attended to very passively. Otherwise I don't remember anything. This has only happened a handful of times and I have no ability to willfully replicate it so there's not much to say. It does tend to happen more when I am mentally fatigued or if I have been investigating rigorously.

Anon Anon:

Dan K:

I can see what you mean by physical vibrations being in sync. I can't do vipassana on physical sensations because I don't have the frequency differential to focus on. The frequency differentials are still there, it's just that they go *poof* like sand in the wind as soon as I attend to them. I had assumed that my career in vipassana was over, but you state that you have been moving through the paths so now I'm requestioning. Would you care to comment on what has been your object of vipassana since the synchronization?

I can do this. Is there a point to this other than stilling the mind?

Anon Anon:

The latter two are particularly good if you're having some sort of trouble finding vibrations. For me, they arise and pass too quickly to see them hang around and vibrate over time. But because they arise and pass so quickly, observing them seems just as good as observing quick vibrations of static objects. On the other hand, at least for quasi-verbal cognitions, you may not have an ongoing stream of them (I do), or they may end as you start to observe them (mine don't). In that case, you could try generating some just for the purpose of observing them...

Anon Anon:

Dan K:

There is still the sensation of "I" (or, more generally, subjectivity), but it floats around and sort of associates with this or that depending on context. When I put attention to it, it becomes formless and is quite obviously nowhere, and shortly fades away, but not to what I understand as "rigpa".

About whether it's "rigpa", all I have to go on is a description of how I get there. It's hard to judge off-the-bat whether people are talking about the same thing or different things, since the common descriptions of what happens once you get there tend to be quite thin.

Are you familiar with some other state that you call "rigpa"?

What is it like when "I" fades away? Does it stay that way indefinitely?

Anon Anon:

How would you assess yourself in terms of the 4-path model? Pre- or post-SE? Pre- or post-SE when you had your synchronization event?

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:35 GMT

Dan K:

Well, I'd like to ask you if you can be more specific in describing what the "counter-movement" is. I think we have different ways of describing our phenomenal worlds, so there's a bit of gap-bridging to be done first.

Post-SE, I have had the sense of my default state being like the 4th vipasanna jhana in terms of attentional width and equanimity, except my experience of that state pre-SE was with dissynchrony, and my experience of things now is without.

Is there any ongoing difference in your experience of "I"? What is it like in everyday life?

I have some experience with meaningful spontaneous experiences that occur during dreams, but for me they are clearly A&P events, and they tend to involve cognitive processes that are really, really bizarre and not easily describable. And I tend to wake up sometime during them.

When this event occured for you, were you dreaming or in some other state of sleep? (I think that the phenomenon of "I" does not arise in other stages of sleep, so possibly this is the same kind of thing as rigpa-while-awake that got me to my synchronization event.) Was there something recent (at the time) that could have predisposed you to it, such as a new path?

Dan K:

Instead of attending to the differentials between vibrations within some modality, can you attend to the absolute vibration of that modality? I mean, eg if your entire visual field vibrates in sync with itself, the absolute frequency of the field seems like a good candidate.

Post-2nd path, I found that the best vipassana objects for me were (in no special order)

-whatever is happening now, broken into moments as small as possible,
-the phenomenon of "I" ("who is experiencing this?"),
-mood (hard to observe clearly, doesn't consistently break up into vibrations, but seems helpful anyway)
-the tiny, momentary mental stuff that's involved in attention, noting, intention, and so on,
-tiny, momentary quasi-verbal cognitions (e.g. "noting properly", "this is working", "how much longer?")

EDIT: In case I didn't make this clear, the vibration of the entire visual field, or of the visual stuff that arises with eyes closed, made fine vipassana objects immediately after the synchronization. The trouble you mention is something I did not experience. I just mentioned what the better alternatives have been since then.

The latter two are particularly good if you're having some sort of trouble finding vibrations. For me, they arise and pass too quickly to see them hang around and vibrate over time. But because they arise and pass so quickly, observing them seems just as good as observing quick vibrations of static objects. On the other hand, at least for quasi-verbal cognitions, you may not have an ongoing stream of them (I do), or they may end as you start to observe them (mine don't). In that case, you could try generating some just for the purpose of observing them...

Dan K:

It is seen to come and go, and it can be seen as inseparably associated with objectification and intention/action/movement/feeling. I'm not sure whether the Theravada insight map is particularly applicable to me on account of my style of investigation being different and my experiences hardly matching up, but hopefully this is enough information to place me somewhere along the map for the purposes of this discussion.

How would you assess yourself in terms of the 4-path model? Pre- or post-SE? Pre- or post-SE when you had your synchronization event?

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:43:38 GMT

tarin greco:

It might depend on exactly what you mean by "affective experience". Without the feeling of subjectivity, phenomena continue to have pleasant / unplesant / neutral vedana...but without "I" entangled around them, the experience is quite different. For example, It is as if, when listening to enjoyable music, the music itself is enjoyable or interesting, ie those are properties of the music rather than properties of one's reaction to the music, how one likes it, how one feels about it, etc. (This is fundamentally different from seeing that when one enjoys something, the sense of "I" enjoying it is illusory and that the entire experience is really nondual, not-self.)

Without "I", there seems to be a kind of all-pervading equanimity that isn't a mood (equanimity without the feeling of equanimity). It's very pure, quiet, innocent, and for lack of a better word, "good". I don't know what it's compatible with or not compatible with; it needs more real-world testing. (I'll get back to you about it.)

Reflection doesn't make things much clearer to me, because there's something radically different about experience without "I" that makes that kind of experience hard to review, reflect on, or understand (for me) once "I" returns. It's as if I have to make mental notes at the time, and review the notes later. Perhaps this is why I said in my original post that I don't have much interest in re-attaining that state. When attaining it, it seems like it's important. Once it's gone, it seems much less so.

The best reflection I can do at the moment is with regard to an issue that Bruno seems to have concerning how someone can choose to do things, be motivated to act, etc. without phenomenal emotions or desires. Sidestepping the issue of whether "rigpa = PCE", playing around with it has made clear to me that a lot of our behavior doesn't occur for the reasons we think it does. We don't act *because* we have the phenomenon of desire with something as its object. The phenomenon of desire ("I" desiring something) isn't necessarily part of the causal chain. Rather, we just act, and depending on what state of mind we're in, perhaps the phenomenon of desiring something precedes our act, and perhaps it doesn't. In some ways, the phenomenon is more like an epiphenomenon; a little illustrative flourish, non-causal with respect to many kinds of behavior, dispensable. This becomes clear after the observation that behavior can proceed pretty much as before, with or without it.

This seems related to the fundamental insight of nonduality. Behavior just happens, phenomena just arise, undirected by a self, directed only by the unmanifest, inferred causal order of the world. The belief that one needs the phenomenal trappings of self in order to behave in a "normal" way seems like an unquestioned assumption that's been held over from one's pre-awakening theories about one's own psychology.

tarin greco:

comparatively, what does trading the i-phenomenon (whether hard or soft) for what you are calling 'rigpa' lead to?

Again, I'll address this later when I can be clear about it.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:35:11 GMT

tarin greco:

here's a question for you: when things are vibrating in perfect synchrony, what/where is it that you are perceiving things vibrating in relation to?

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Dan K — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 07:40:19 GMT

Hi Anon,

I have experienced a "synchronization event". The context is unclear because it happened during sleep. I noticed a many-fold symmetry forming around my center of attention. The symmetry was of dark and light oscillating back and forth. There was the sensation of a powerful exertion followed by perfect synchronization and breaking through the middle, finding myself in a luminously clear and blissful, but otherwise boundless and featureless place. Locked into this perspective, I was able to observe the arising and passing away of the "I"/other duality.

I woke up after some dreaming. Something was different (and still is a month later). The idea of wanting something intently is impossible. There is a kind of counterbalance in place now where mental movements are automatically coupled with a counter-movement a split second later, making sensations less sticky. It basically feels like being in 4th vipassana jhana all the time. This counterbalance must be related to the synchronization, so I wonder if you have experience with something like that.

I can see what you mean by physical vibrations being in sync. I can't do vipassana on physical sensations because I don't have the frequency differential to focus on. The frequency differentials are still there, it's just that they go *poof* like sand in the wind as soon as I attend to them. I had assumed that my career in vipassana was over, but you state that you have been moving through the paths so now I'm requestioning. Would you care to comment on what has been your object of vipassana since the synchronization?

There is still the sensation of "I" (or, more generally, subjectivity), but it floats around and sort of associates with this or that depending on context. When I put attention to it, it becomes formless and is quite obviously nowhere, and shortly fades away, but not to what I understand as "rigpa". It is seen to come and go, and it can be seen as inseparably associated with objectification and intention/action/movement/feeling. I'm not sure whether the Theravada insight map is particularly applicable to me on account of my style of investigation being different and my experiences hardly matching up, but hopefully this is enough information to place me somewhere along the map for the purposes of this discussion.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

tarin greco — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:36:35 GMT

Anon Anon:

tarin greco:

can you be more precise about what the imprint that attaining rigpa makes on the psyche is which is different from the 'ongoing experience of "having let go" and nonattachment' you characterise as being brought about by path-attainment?

I'll have to think about it some more in order to say something precise.

It's hard to say much about this without the proviso that what I'm saying is a bit tentative, because the time between the attainment of those two things for me wasn't very long. My best and most concrete impression of what the difference was, post-"impression", was that the thought "I" is somehow subdued or tends to manifest in a more diffuse and softer way than before. People on this forum who have attained paths seem always to talk about seeing whatever phenomena they previously call "I" as fundamentally not-self, even though "I" continues to arise and pass as before. The "impression" that I'm talking about seemed to have the effect that the default state for me is that the phenomena called "I" has given way to something more diffuse which arises and passes instead, which (by virtue of path attainment) is seen to be fundamentally not-self. The effect is reversible, in that I can call up the old, hard "I" of the Witness state if I want to, but my mind inclines to generating the soft, diffuse "I" instead when left to do its own thing.

theory 1: this is a difference between the insights of earlier paths and later paths. earlier paths replace 'i' with 'not-i' (the hard 'i' of the witness state becomes the soft, diffuse 'i' which is seen to just arise and pass on its own), later paths take i/not-i and replace it with no-i-at-all (which you're calling rigpa)

theory 2: there are indeed (no fewer than) two tracks of spiritual awakening.

theory 3: you're talking about a pce when you refer to rigpa.

which last possibility leads me to ask: is it so that, in the absence of the feeling of being (absence of the sense of i completely), there is likewise the absence of any affective experience (the experience of moods/passions/feelings) ... and is it obvious, upon reflection, why this is the case? (that is, is it obvious that the feeling of being is part and parcel of the movement of feelings?)

Anon Anon:

Trading hard "I" for soft "I" seems to lead to a better mood, more psychological stability, and things along those lines.

comparatively, what does trading the i-phenomenon (whether hard or soft) for what you are calling 'rigpa' lead to?

tarin

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

tarin greco — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:39:04 GMT

Anon Anon:

Let's do a quick comparison of experiences and perhaps it will shed some light on things.

1. During your FIRST post-stream entry PCE, what effect did this have on the disharmonies you noticed?

2. During your first SUSTAINED post-stream entry PCE, what effect did this have on the disharmonies you noticed?

during that pce itself (my first post-stream entry pce was the same one as my first sustained post-stream entry pce), there were no disharmonies. and prior to that pce, i cannot say, as i was not paying attention to that sort of thing (i was just stepping out the door for an unplanned early-morning walk). however, prior to subsequent pce's, i did notice that whatever dyssynchronies were there would first align, then vanish entirely (and reveal the crystal clear experience of what it is, exactly, to be a sensate and reflective human being, alive here and now).

Anon Anon:

And just out of curiosity,

3. Do you still experience vibrations in your current state? Without undue effort to observe them, what frequency are they?

no, i don't. there is a vibrancy in the sheer sensuousness of what i experience, but it is incredibly still here. things no longer vibrate in 'time'.

here's a question for you: when things are vibrating in perfect synchrony, what/where is it that you are perceiving things vibrating in relation to?

tarin

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:57:02 GMT

Tarin, still around?

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:47:32 GMT

Anon Anon:

tarin greco:

I'll have to think about it some more in order to say something precise.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Mon, 31 May 2010 03:31:06 GMT

tarin greco:

Anon Anon:

Also, thanks for sharing your experiences regarding disharmonies. Did you ever get rid of them, and if so, what led up to it?

you're welcome, yes, and getting actual freedom meant freedom from (things) feeling out of synchrony (as what appears to be synching and un-synching is a feeling-fed/feeling-felt illusion).

Actually, I want to come back to this point, to make sure that we understand each other.

I played around with rigpa today and here are my observations. My best analysis of what happens is as follows. (Keep in mind that the state is nearly unanalyzable for me until it's stable.)

1. Experiencing "I" in everyday life, it is as if "I" and the visual field are out of sync with each other, and attention jumps back and forth between the two constantly in order to notice both. This kind of cross-modal dissynchrony gives rise to the impression that one is out-of-sync with the world, but it is extremely subtle compared to any similar impression in my pre-stream entry experience, and also extremely subtle compared to how I felt post-stream entry, before I got my sensations to synchronize. (The experience of getting them to synchronize was getting them to synchronize WITHIN sensory modalities. At the time I didn't pay attention to cross-modal stuff. See below.)

2. Rigpa begins with "I" disappearing, but it is as if attention continues to jump between the visual field and where "I" used to be, repeatedly coming up empty. Feeling out-of-sync continues. Little intentions or attempts at analysis cause "I" to reappear immediately.

3. When the impression of stability is reached, attention no longer looks around for "I", and what remains is the impression of a direct, unmediated experience of the sensate world. Some kinds of experiences of the cognitive world are attenuated, but verbal thoughts / visualizing / etc. are possible on command. Synchrony within modalities is no different than ever.

So. Is this what you were talking about above?

If so, this was NOT what I was originally talking about. The disharmonies and varying frequencies I was referring to were within modalities (in particular, within vision). However, what you've brought up seems highly relevant nonetheless. Here's my clarified account:

1. Pre-stream entry, everything was dissynchronized, both within modalities and between the senses and "I".

2. Immediately post-stream entry, within modalities the dissynchrony and disharmony continued, but as far as I can recall I think the dissynchrony between the senses and "I" was better somehow.

3. After attaining synchrony through dwelling in rigpa, everything was synchronized within modalities, and attention didn't look for "I".

4. Nowadays, without making any special efforts, there is within-modality synchrony, but still dissynchrony between the senses and "I", since "I" still arises whever I don't go out of my way to suppress it. I think that the amount of this dissynchrony has somehow decreased by attaining further paths after stream entry, but I can't say I paid close enough attention to this.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Mon, 31 May 2010 02:58:34 GMT

tarin greco:

Anon Anon:

Also, thanks for sharing your experiences regarding disharmonies. Did you ever get rid of them, and if so, what led up to it?

you're welcome, yes, and getting actual freedom meant freedom from (things) feeling out of synchrony (as what appears to be synching and un-synching is a feeling-fed/feeling-felt illusion).

So, I don't know much about AF. I'm trying to figure out whether what I call rigpa is a PCE or not. Some things make me think so, other things make me think not. The jargon that you AF people tend to use also makes things murkier for me.

Let's do a quick comparison of experiences and perhaps it will shed some light on things.

1. During your FIRST post-stream entry PCE, what effect did this have on the disharmonies you noticed?

2. During your first SUSTAINED post-stream entry PCE, what effect did this have on the disharmonies you noticed?

And just out of curiosity,

3. Do you still experience vibrations in your current state? Without undue effort to observe them, what frequency are they?

Here are my answers for what I'm calling rigpa:

1. After stream entry I would fall into rigpa for a fraction of a second anytime my mind wasn't occupied and I wasn't doing anything effortful. The most common time would be if I were observing my breath---in the gap between the exhalation and the next inhalation, rigpa would occur. Entering the state would synchronize all visual vibrations, beginning from around the center and radiating outwards, and as this wave of synchronized vibrations encountered the dissynchronized ones further out, there would be a wave of interference at the outward-moving border. This was rather disconcerting.

2. I already answered this for my experience of rigpa in my original post.

3. Beginning at my default level of concentration, at A&P review, observing between one exhalation and the next inhalation, my entire visual field vibrates at about 3hz. It is as close to completely synchronous as I can discern through off-the-cuff observation.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Julius P0pp — Sun, 30 May 2010 19:53:28 GMT

Bruno Loff:

I'm also having a problem with this kind of hazy, panoramic attention I currently have available (post stream-entry). Did this sort of thing sort itself out?

I know the problem, but differing from you guys this state was less and less available and rarer and 3 weeks or so after SE stopped to happen, I did not yet figure out how to trigger it, even when it was new and fresh I couldn't sit with it for two hours as you did, Anon.

About the vibrations, I enjoy them in my visual field for 9 months or so now, but I only had parts (colours) whose vibes were obvious and other patches where it wasn't. That these vibrations are more obvious in the area where my attention is focused has remained since. Frequency right now is 2.5-3 Hz. But I can't find non-synchrony. On the other hand I do not note.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Sun, 30 May 2010 17:23:21 GMT

tarin greco:

Anon Anon:

tarin greco:

meta-fruition - this sounds like it was a new path-moment.

It seemed to me like a path moment for a different track of awakening. It didn't at all resemble the attaining of a path that one gets through vipassana. No moment of cessation, for instance.

not everyone notices a cessation, nor notices a cessation every time, which opens the question about whether or not there is always a cessation-moment (but i'll sidestep that and leave it for scholars to deal with).

Other differences include that it unfolded over >5 seconds rather than instantaneously, and that there was a shift in the contents of experience with respect to the arising of "I" and the flickering rates of phenomena, and not a shift that concerned any sort of fundamental insight, i.e. the transparency of whatever phenomena that arise (which has always been obvious to me after paths).

tarin greco:

Anon Anon:

Also, thanks for sharing your experiences regarding disharmonies. Did you ever get rid of them, and if so, what led up to it?

you're welcome, yes, and getting actual freedom meant freedom from (things) feeling out of synchrony (as what appears to be synching and un-synching is a feeling-fed/feeling-felt illusion).

Hmm.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

tarin greco — Sun, 30 May 2010 16:20:31 GMT

Anon Anon:

tarin greco:

meta-fruition - this sounds like it was a new path-moment.

It seemed to me like a path moment for a different track of awakening. It didn't at all resemble the attaining of a path that one gets through vipassana. No moment of cessation, for instance.

Anon Anon:

Also, thanks for sharing your experiences regarding disharmonies. Did you ever get rid of them, and if so, what led up to it?

you're welcome, yes, and getting actual freedom meant freedom from (things) feeling out of synchrony (as what appears to be synching and un-synching is a feeling-fed/feeling-felt illusion).

tarin

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Sun, 30 May 2010 15:56:08 GMT

tarin greco:

meta-fruition - this sounds like it was a new path-moment.

It seemed to me like a path moment for a different track of awakening. It didn't at all resemble the attaining of a path that one gets through vipassana. No moment of cessation, for instance.

tarin greco:

I'll have to think about it some more in order to say something precise. But for now, I remember wondering after stream entry whether all this nonduality stuff was just an acquired taste, or just of benefit for people who had some kind of interest in buddhism, consciousness, mysticism, introspection, or whatever. After the imprint moment, I had no doubt that where I was at was somewhere that everyone would benefit from, because of the clear appreciation of how "I" is oppressive, and the visceral sense of relief that comes by first letting go of it and then subduing it in some kind of semi-permanent way.

tarin greco:

just out of curiosity, does the following statement mean anything to you?:

what you appear to be looking through is part of what you're looking at.

]

Sure. "I" presents as if it were a perspective that sensations take, as if sensations were being funnelled towards or through it. But this "funnelling towards" perspective is illusory when taken to be something more than phenomenology; "I" is just one more thing that presents itself to awareness, one more thing being looked at. In other words, when the thought "I" arises, what arises is an experience that presents as this kind of funnelling of sensations.

Somehow it is as if "I" takes a lot of cognitive processing power to maintain. When it goes away in rigpa, the senses present with extra clarity, and without the "funnelling towards" phenomenology superimposed on them they present as pure Suchness, neither subject nor object.

Also, thanks for sharing your experiences regarding disharmonies. Did you ever get rid of them, and if so, what led up to it?

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

tarin greco — Sun, 30 May 2010 15:41:42 GMT

Bruno Loff:

"What you appear to be looking through is part of what you're looking at" makes tons of sense to me. And whatever it is, it feels painful, and it feels like it's in the middle of the brain, with some connection to the middle of the forehead and the top of the head. Does that make sense to anyone else?

painful? are you sure? look closer... maybe it's more like.... paneful, like a pane of see-through glass? with some dirty smudges on it.. wait, bring it into focus... oh, those little specks.. is that all it ever was..?

;)

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Bruno Loff — Sun, 30 May 2010 15:18:46 GMT

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

tarin greco — Sun, 30 May 2010 14:38:32 GMT

Anon Anon:

Immediately after stream-entry, the major effect on frequency was that the width of my attention tended to be about as large as it was in Equanimity, no matter which review nana I was currently inhabiting, but the particular frequencies that I would see would be whichever were typical of the nana being reviewed.

First question: Has this been everyone's experience upon attaining stream-entry?

yes, and so i thought, 'what's the point of cycling through the nanas/going through the paths' if everything just looks like this.

the paths continued to happen anyway.

Anon Anon:

Here is the definition of rigpa that I am going to use, or rather, here is the state I mean to refer to by the word. One starts by looking around for the sense of being the perceiver of the six senses, or by asking "Who am I?" and waiting for it to present itself. Focusing on it, one reaches a state where it seems as if they are the subjectivity, the "I", that watches the entirety of awareness. Holding onto "I", it can either eventually diffuse into a state where it seems that one is some kind of subjectivity whose nature is more open than "I", or it can eventually disappear entirely. When it disappears entirely, what remains is a centerless kind of awareness, in which the five non-mental senses work as before, and in which certain aspects of cognition (such as the ability to analyze or closely observe or clearly recognize phenomena as one would when doing vipassana, as well as certain aspects of will / intention) are strongly inhibited, and in which there is no phemonenal arising of anything resembling a perceiver. This last state is what I mean by rigpa, and also what I think Kenneth means.

Anyhow, after discovering this state, I spent a lot of time trying to remain in it to figure out what it was, as at first all I could do was pop in and pop right back out. Once I got used to dwelling in it without popping out, I spent an hour or two in it without budging, and suddenly, something remarkable happened--in the course of about a minute, all of the visual patches that varied in frequency and produced disharmonies came to vibrate at the same frequency, and so my entire visual field was in virtually perfect synchrony. This was accompanied by immense feelings of bliss, relief, gratitude, and other things I can't express, which lasted for many hours in an intense form and for many days in a more subtle form, even when not dwelling in rigpa.

meta-fruition - this sounds like it was a new path-moment.

Anon Anon:

So, here's my theory, based solely on my own experience and the bits I've read about other people's experiences. One way that practitioners can make spiritual progress is to attain one or more paths, which leads to a kind of non-dual awakening whose manifestation is the clear understanding that phenomena, including the thought "I", are not-self. This awakening is an ongoing experience, in that it isn't a fleeting state of consciousness, but is a permanent way of seeing. It has various symptoms, such as access to fruitions, cycling through nanas, easier access to jhanas, changes in attention, ability to make effective resolutions concerning re-attaining particular states, an ongoing experience of "having let go" and non-attachment, and so on. Another way that practitioners can make spiritual progress is to attain rigpa, and dwell in it without moving until it makes some kind of imprint on the psyche.

Anon Anon:

I would love to hear about other people's experiences of vibration frequencies, synchrony and disharmony between frequencies, how those have been affected by being in different nanas, how those have been affected by path attainments, how those have been afftected by rigpa, or whatever else. There's lots of argument about rigpa, what it means, what it doesn't mean, and all that, but the fact remains that it can be attained by dedicated practitioners, and that, rather than just offering some kind of momentary benefit, there may be a good developmental reason to attain it. Thus, it's worth finding out whether my experiences (the post-stream entry disharmonies, their resolution by sustained dwelling in rigpa) are idiosyncratic or not.

post-stream entry, i found the disharmonies more prominent because i could rest and let them emerge from the woodwork without all too much bother (this 'i' was just an illusion, after all), and so the more complex, and subtle, (dis)harmonics came into view (which view was, being better-balanced in general, no longer such a trade-off between depth of clarity and width of focus as it had been earlier).

just out of curiosity, does the following statement mean anything to you?:

what you appear to be looking through is part of what you're looking at.

tarin

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Sat, 29 May 2010 02:27:35 GMT

Bruno Loff:

maybe I could give this rigpa a try...

Yeah, why not? The neat thing about it is that you don't have to have any particular opinion about what it means or doesn't mean, and attaining it won't necessarily give you any particular opinion either. So you can sidestep the whole debate, and just check it out.

The state that comes before it, aka the Witness, dwelling as "I", no-dog, or whatever you want to call it, was in my opinion without value for anything except attaining rigpa, because it's no fun being a giant formless ego. Or at least that's what I thought until I got what I understood to be third path after dwelling as "I" (not allowing it to lead to rigpa) with a ton of concentration, and doing vipassana in that state. This was a Big Deal, because getting third path was something I had been struggling with ineffectually for a long while before that. So, learning the preliminary state that comes before rigpa can be useful for other stuff, whether or not it gets you to rigpa quickly.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Sat, 29 May 2010 01:59:29 GMT

About visual phenomena, I wonder if you would try to answer these questions for me: once you're focused enough to see visual phenomena vibrating with some clarity, looking straight ahead, at what frequency is whatever object that's at the center of the field vibrating? Without moving your eyes, looking at the left or rightmost edge of your visual field, at what frequency is whatever object that's there vibrating? If the frequencies are different, at what point between the center and the edge does one frequency give way to the other? If you can find such a point, what is it like?

A little bit after stream-entry, I noticed that I would experience a pleasant web of tingling sensations on any part of my body that I paid attention to. If I pay attention to the whole thing, then the whole thing tingles, but the spine / back area tingles most. The only time I've had anything feel like it was shooting anywhere was during A&P (sometimes a slow progression up my spinal column, sometimes an instantaneous blast), and I don't seem get this just by focusing on my spine. Actually, I assumed that the reason I felt this tingling was because the default state after stream entry is A&P review. (The thing that characterized my A&Ps more than anything was "physical manifestation of kundalini", meaning shaking, blasts of energy, orgasm sensations, the sensation of the body being torn apart or exploding, constant hand tremor, etc. So a little bit of tingling seemed like what I'd expect a low-key version of those things to be, as I'd expect to see in A&P review.) I'm not sure if this is referring to the same thing as your experience, though.

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Bruno Loff — Fri, 28 May 2010 08:20:40 GMT

Well visually I notice that as time progresses vision becomes more beautiful; this has been happening since A&P though. Colours are more intense, there is more detail and sharper contrasts. The last few weeks I've started noticing other visual stuff: I don't know if I would call it dissynchronization, it is a bit like if the field of vision was a lake, otherwise very clear except for some surface movement. Little subtle streaks move around, sometimes little blips of light show up, etc... maybe I could give this rigpa a try...

I also seem to have some sort of dual-track awakening. Just shortly after stream entry I worked on releasing a knot of tension in the base of the spine, and this has triggered kundalini to awaken, manifesting as a constant buzz at the base of the spine, which will sometimes shoot up into the brain, and then either to the third eye or crown, where it goes back down again through the front of the torso. Do you get that: if you focus on the base of the spine do you feel a constant buzz?

Bruno

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:38:27 GMT

In a way. The inhibition I'm talking about is just that dwelling in rigpa isn't compatible with certain kinds of cognitive acts. Trying to analyze the experience would have the typical result of ending rigpa--so analysis works just fine, unless I wanted to actually stay in rigpa. Same for will and volition--trying to get up and do something works fine, but ends rigpa.

My experience then was after the visual synchrony, I was able to get enough stability in rigpa that I could do basic everyday stuff (walking around, reading, talking) without bouncing out of it, but jhana / vipassana, requiring a different order of effort, were still incompatible.

My experience now is that, if i dwell in rigpa for long enough, eventually it becomes obvious in some way that the experience is stable, and I can do basic everyday stuff while remaining in it. However, after the synchronization event, my interest in re-attaining rigpa is quite low. There doesn't seem to be much left that it has to offer--I seemed to get most of the good stuff from the synchronization event, and since synchronization is my ongoing experience, there isn't much need to re-attain rigpa. I do enter it once in a while when I have time to kill (e.g. waiting for a bus), and sometimes spontaneously without intention (sitting passively, in cases where I would previously have had wandering thoughts or daydreams). So I typically don't dwell in it long enough to make it stable nowadays.

Whatever problems of "hazy, panoramic attention" I had post-stream entry (mostly, finding all the sensory input disconcerting because it was too salient but still "jumpy" or unclear) while going about daily life were completely resolved by the synchronization event.

I should say, just to make myself completely clear, that the synchronization effect isn't any particular state, and is compatible with everything, including jhana and vipassana. Rigpa, or the absense of the arising of any kind of phenomenal perceiver, is different, not compatible with certain kinds of cognition, in that those kinds of cognition tend to cause a phenomenal perceiver to re-arise, which by definition isn't rigpa anymore.

What I would really like to know is whether, post-stream entry, most people experience the frequencies of phenomena in e.g. the visual field as basically synchronous, or with parts that are obviously disharmonized. I've never heard of anyone having a synchronization event besides me, but it could be because it happens immediately after stream-entry for most people and there are too many other interesting things that happen at that point for people to think it matters or is worth describing. Bruno, what has your experience been?

RE: dual-track awakening: a theory

Bruno Loff — Thu, 27 May 2010 15:40:01 GMT

Very nice account. I have a question:

and in which certain aspects of cognition (such as the ability to analyze or closely observe or clearly recognize phenomena as one would when doing vipassana, as well as certain aspects of will / intention)

Did the "visual synchronization event" ended these inhibitions in cognition? I'm also having a problem with this kind of hazy, panoramic attention I currently have available (post stream-entry). Did this sort of thing sort itself out?

dual-track awakening: a theory

Anon Anon — Thu, 27 May 2010 05:24:31 GMT

I encountered Daniel's work, Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, quite some time ago, but have not been inclined to post much to this (very good, very valuable!) forum until now. I notice there's been a lot of talk in the past about the traditionally Buddhist 4-Path model of awakening vs. various models that emphasize an immediate, possibly temporary, grasping of insight into nonduality. I'd like to share my experience with both approaches, because I have never seen any discussion of an experience that matches mine, so it might be quite informative.

When I began intense vipassana, I could already see that many sensations were constantly vibrating or flickering, and as I climbed through the nanas, one of the major changes was in how they vibrated or flickered. The most prominent kind of change was in apparent frequency (i.e. they would be faster or slower, or or [in A&P] fluctuate in sync with the breath-cycle). However, not all phenomena flickered at the same frequency. Especially in the visual field, it was easy to see "patches" that would flicker at different rates, and these different rates, in combination with the movement of my attention, would produce strange kinds of interference effects ("disharmonies") along the borders of patches that had clearly different frequencies. Even all the way up in Equanimity, the width of my attention would encompass virtually all of the six senses, and, while the major variations in frequency would largely subside, there were always patches towards the edges that vibrated at different frequencies and demonstrated obvious interference effects.

Immediately after stream-entry, the major effect on frequency was that the width of my attention tended to be about as large as it was in Equanimity, no matter which review nana I was currently inhabiting, but the particular frequencies that I would see would be whichever were typical of the nana being reviewed.

First question: Has this been everyone's experience upon attaining stream-entry?

I found stream-entry to be simultaneously relieving as well as psychologically difficult to integrate. My mind felt excessively powerful afterwards, and I was having some trouble integrating the permanent, effortless Equanimity-like attentional width into everyday life. For example, eating was strange because instead of just being a matter of putting the fork to my mouth and tasting the food, the experience included , e.g., all of the intentions involved in using utensils, chewing, swallowing, etc, in a way that was extremely salient compared to what I was used to. The review cycles also moved pretty quickly, and reviewing Reobservation without much prior warning many times a day was disconcerting. These two things gave me a lot of problems, until I discovered a few days later what Kenneth Folk calls rigpa.

Here is the definition of rigpa that I am going to use, or rather, here is the state I mean to refer to by the word. One starts by looking around for the sense of being the perceiver of the six senses, or by asking "Who am I?" and waiting for it to present itself. Focusing on it, one reaches a state where it seems as if they are the subjectivity, the "I", that watches the entirety of awareness. Holding onto "I", it can either eventually diffuse into a state where it seems that one is some kind of subjectivity whose nature is more open than "I", or it can eventually disappear entirely. When it disappears entirely, what remains is a centerless kind of awareness, in which the five non-mental senses work as before, and in which certain aspects of cognition (such as the ability to analyze or closely observe or clearly recognize phenomena as one would when doing vipassana, as well as certain aspects of will / intention) are strongly inhibited, and in which there is no phemonenal arising of anything resembling a perceiver. This last state is what I mean by rigpa, and also what I think Kenneth means.

Anyhow, after discovering this state, I spent a lot of time trying to remain in it to figure out what it was, as at first all I could do was pop in and pop right back out. Once I got used to dwelling in it without popping out, I spent an hour or two in it without budging, and suddenly, something remarkable happened--in the course of about a minute, all of the visual patches that varied in frequency and produced disharmonies came to vibrate at the same frequency, and so my entire visual field was in virtually perfect synchrony. This was accompanied by immense feelings of bliss, relief, gratitude, and other things I can't express, which lasted for many hours in an intense form and for many days in a more subtle form, even when not dwelling in rigpa.

The interesting thing about this experience was that, firstly, it ended the psychological difficulties that came from trying to integrate the attentional width of Equanimity with everyday life, and secondly, the synchrony between the frequencies of phenomena, and so the lack of disharmonies, remained a constant for me for days afterwards...and weeks afterwards...and months afterwards...and here I am. And as long as harmony has prevailed in my sensate experience, the peace and surrender of rigpa has also prevailed.

Later paths did not make any difference to my experience concerning this synchrony among phenomena, though some of the wilder A&Ps would introduce some temporary and very subtle disharmonies, which went away after entering Dissolution.

So, here's my theory, based solely on my own experience and the bits I've read about other people's experiences. One way that practitioners can make spiritual progress is to attain one or more paths, which leads to a kind of non-dual awakening whose manifestation is the clear understanding that phenomena, including the thought "I", are not-self. This awakening is an ongoing experience, in that it isn't a fleeting state of consciousness, but is a permanent way of seeing. It has various symptoms, such as access to fruitions, cycling through nanas, easier access to jhanas, changes in attention, ability to make effective resolutions concerning re-attaining particular states, an ongoing experience of "having let go" and non-attachment, and so on. Another way that practitioners can make spiritual progress is to attain rigpa, and dwell in it without moving until it makes some kind of imprint on the psyche. Attaining rigpa is a fleeting thing, but the imprint is an ongoing, permanent experience, whose symptoms are peace, synchrony of phenomena, psychological stability, and understanding why people are tempted to talk about Awareness as if it were some kind of transcendental thing-that's-not-a-thing (despite whatever skepticism may be warranted). These two tracks of development are apparently separate, but related in some way...paths make the thought "I" transparent, rigpa takes the thought "I" away for a few moments, and in a way, those are similar outcomes.

I would love to hear about other people's experiences of vibration frequencies, synchrony and disharmony between frequencies, how those have been affected by being in different nanas, how those have been affected by path attainments, how those have been afftected by rigpa, or whatever else. There's lots of argument about rigpa, what it means, what it doesn't mean, and all that, but the fact remains that it can be attained by dedicated practitioners, and that, rather than just offering some kind of momentary benefit, there may be a good developmental reason to attain it. Thus, it's worth finding out whether my experiences (the post-stream entry disharmonies, their resolution by sustained dwelling in rigpa) are idiosyncratic or not.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

Jackson Wilshire — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:14:43 GMT

ixtlan, I'll have to refer to Zen master Eihei Dogen's Genjo Koan in reply:

As all things are buddha-dharma, there is delusion and realization, practice, and birth and death, and there are buddhas and sentient beings.

As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death.

The buddha way is, basically, leaping clear of the many and the one; thus there are birth and death, delusion and realization, sentient beings and buddhas.

Yet in attachment blossoms fall, and in aversion weeds spread.

The first stanza is about diversity. The second, unity. But neither Shakyamuni Buddha nor Dogen emphasized remaining in some non-dual, unitive, transcendent state that disregards diversity; nor did he advocate exclusive identification as a separate self in the world of diversity. This is clear in the third stanza, which asserts that the way of liberation (the "Buddha way") is not found in either diversity or unity alone, but in "leaping clear of the many and the one."

It's not a question of either/or, but rather attaining that which is not caught by either perspective. So whether the world of appearances are merely illusory, or if birth, death, re-birth, heaven, or hell exist is beside the point in terms of liberation.

You will never fully understand this unless you practice.

~Jackson

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

ixtlan eleutheria — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:53:23 GMT

Those who touch non-dual world often say, "At first this non-dual reality, and then the dual".

Waht is the relation of these two ?

They say both are real, and attached, packed together. They are apt to find a pair like this couple throughout the discours.

For example, identity and difference, eternity and vicissitude, equality and discrimination, equanimity and bustle, transcendence and immanence, light and darkness, death and life.

So it is not surprising that one regards the non-dual reality as in the side of death, the dual as life.

There is a zen slogan, that it is the most important thing for Buddha's desciple to see clearly "life and death".

I asked some people, what is really wating after our death. Is there life after death ? Is there something called karma ?

All of non-dualist reply telling a resemblant story. Thay say when one experiences this non-dual reality, those kind of question vanishes,

Are you satisfied? When the question vanishes, does the life after death also vanish ?

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

Jackson Wilshire — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:21:43 GMT

Daniel M. Ingram:

If you say this is illusion, you could just as easily say that duality is an illusion, or that perception is an illusion, but given that we live this flesh and blood "illusion", and this way of perceiving reality is so vastly superior to the other, I say: go ahead and get it, and if you don't like it, I am sorry, but you will be the only one who I have ever heard of who had that reaction.

Daniel's above quote points to something I would say is critical for a correct understanding of duality/non-duality.

In assuming that one perspective - let's say the subject/object duality perspective - is a true perspective while non-duality or Unity is a merely an illusion of the mind, I feel that one makes a grave error. For, this position implies that things are either dual or non-dual, as if either of these perspectives are the one and only True perspective.

But as they say in Zen - "no fixed position." It's important to see that all perspectives are transient. I wouldn't say that this is all there is to say about realization, but it's an important aspect of it.

We should get stuck in the world of particulars (Jap: ji) nor the world of Unity (ri). We make our way into seeing what is called ri ji muge - from the world of Unity to the world of particulars, there is "no block." And eventually, even that subtle distinction may dissolve, resulting in ji ji muge - from thing to thing, no block.

So, as you can see, it's not only about taking on a new transcendent viewpoint. I think it may be more about gaining insight about reality in such a way as to release any "blocks" we may have from one perspective to another. This is one way of defining "freedom" or "liberation."

Thoughts?

Jackson

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

ixtlan eleutheria — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:56:13 GMT

>As one who has integrated the sense field through years of long, hard work and careful training and application, I can tell you that it is the greatest thing I ever did, and I can't imagine doing anything more fundamentally important than that.

I am hearing the same thing almost every night, in a forum at yahoo Japan community.

In a Japanese zen discussion forum at yahoo, for more than three or four years,
I have been talking to a person who has experienced so-called Non-Duality,
and got "ninka"(I don't know how to say in English, sort of letters given by guru)
in Rinzaish? Soto temple "Tosho-ji" in Tokyo.

He is nearly 60 years old and an businessman, going to zazen almost every weekend.
I have much fun and looking forward to hear his story, that is very copious,instructive.

After all, however, what he says he solved seems to be just a problem
which is inside of mind, not in the physical level. So I want to call those matters
"psychological" according to Krishnamurti's locution. He also evaluates K and Bohm.

But sometimes I hear from him a little different context. Of course I say so because
I don't know anything, probably. For example "I" ,that is,"He" is born in his body,
beginning at the left foot, passing by the left thigh, and the left abdomen, reaching the heart.
He want to know if this has something to do what people speak about chakra phenomenon,
but he know nothng esoteric school's story.

I think that those things corresponding to chakra or aura or anything like these might be
not merely illusion ,so a realistic world. But it is too individualistic. Those experiences
belong to only himself.
Nevertheless, he is talking to other people so passionately everynight.
He says everybody can be enlightend, must be enlightend.

I don't want to be enlightend. I want to know just if there is another world,
after life world. Because I want to escape rebirth. To live on earth is too hard.

By the way I have bought your book two months ago, only 50 pages read.
Your Eniglsh is difficult for my ability. Maybe it will take a year.
Thank you very much for this post. It is beyond my expectation.

RE: Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

Daniel M. Ingram — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:36:24 GMT

Alright, that's one way to look at it.

However, as one who does actually perceive reality this way whenever sensations arise, I can say you are missing a few points, at the very least, and they are of relevance.

One can speculate all one wants to at this point about the exact physiological or neurological basis for this experience: I am not sure we are quite there yet with the science, but I suspect it will likely not be that much further down the road that someone will come to some at least basic structural understanding of what has changed.

Everything we perceive, every sensation, thought, intention, conception, and all the rest is clearly due, at a purely physical, biochemical level, to the wiring of the brain, or largely due to it. I don't think mysticism gets us around that, though it can't be proven one way or the other that there is not something else going on, but regardless of those mechanistic explanations, the thing has value.

As one who has integrated the sense field through years of long, hard work and careful training and application, I can tell you that it is the greatest thing I ever did, and I can't imagine doing anything more fundamentally important than that.

It answered and laid to rest large numbers of questions and areas of confusion, such that now I perceive directly what most philosophers, modern physicists, the blindly faithful and the like merely speculate about.

It solved the Dark Night problem that I got into when I first crossed the A&P: this is a gigantic benefit to me, one that I am extremely grateful for.

It opened doors of perception, avenues of experience, and other options that were closed but somehow at some deep level seemed should be available.

I hesitate to go here, but the fact is that it greatly increased my mental, emotional and perceptual clarity in radical and profound ways: those who are familiar with my critique of the models that go there: those specific critiques still hold.

Slice it any way you like, this beats the pants off the way I perceived things before, and everyone who has ever attained to it that I have had the honor to know personally will tell you their own version of the same thing.

If you say this is illusion, you could just as easily say that duality is an illusion, or that perception is an illusion, but given that we live this flesh and blood "illusion", and this way of perceiving reality is so vastly superior to the other, I say: go ahead and get it, and if you don't like it, I am sorry, but you will be the only one who I have ever heard of who had that reaction.

Just curious, why did you post that post here, where so many who have done this or done parts of it hang out and help others to do the same? What did you think would happen? What were you looking for?

Is non-dual experience an illusion ?

ixtlan eleutheria — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:28:56 GMT

In Japan,there are some people who claim that they are just the same as what they see.
For example trash can, a stone in the garden, a sack on the table.
This is not thought but real perception, they say.

In Japanese, these experience are called typically "ken-sho" which means to see oneself.
Ken means to see, and sho(long o) means essence or character or -hood.
And it is said that ken-sho experience can occur many times in one's life.

I sometimes doubt whether these experiences are really "enlightenment".
Because these experience are strongly similar to the case of Jill Bolte Taylor
who underwent CVA, stroke of head.
She says everything she saw was just herself, that is, there is nothing to distinguish
herself from her environment. And she felt so happy, peaceful, no never-mind.

Ken-sho can be a kind of material phenomenon, and its cause can exist at purely
physical level. Non-dual experience can be only an illusion caused by brain's hard wiring .

surrender/liberate-type of mindfulness meditation

Teck Cheong Han — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:07:52 GMT

i first post this in the non specific/broad/generic categories,but here seems more appropriate :

..................................................................

.im now beginning to seriously practice a tibetan-style liberation meditation,in which "surrender to god's will(any phenomena which arises)" forms the backbone.

now im serious in trying to attain liberation from self(insight into no-self) from this style/technique.

im maintaining the highest level of awareness/mindfulness,and whatever phenomena(thoughts,bodily sensations,emotions etc..)comes,to let them "just be" like a drop of water on the surface of mirror.the main obstacle now is to adapt the awareness into activities involved movement,and conditioned patterns of reaction(recollecting of memories,arising of anger etc..)how to "liberate" in such situations?

i was hoping real insight is going to arise with this practice,and through reading certain practitioners writings,the desire and possibility for attainment has become high.(esp dharma dan's site - trying to e-mail him for advice but there;s no contact there)

any commends/advices?

..........................

Hi -
This seems to be your first post, so, welcome -

In order to comment, I'd find it helpful to know a bit more about your background - is this the first time you've used this form of meditation? Have you practiced other forms of meditation or is this your first attempt? In a simple way, what is your situation - do you work? How much time are you spending in this meditation - from what you said it sounds like a lot. Where did you learn about this meditation form? I've followed a Tibetan tradition for many years and I think I recognize what you're doing, but I'm not sure.

Susan[/quote]

................................................................................

hey susan,

im really an amateur in meditation,and this is my first attempt in serious practice.

right now being free frm work committment(at least 2-3 weeks) and others(no kids etc..),ive full time for practice now.wanna take full advantage of this opportunity .more importantly,i want to build a solid base which can be taken into the busyness of working life later on.

im not really learning frm any teachers,and my (intellectual)understanding comes from reading.

my point of view is this(but i really see any views as simply pointers,am not a hardcore believer in any paradigm - concrete stages,etc... ):

the 'self' is the cause of suffering.this 'self',in my mind,can be put simply as a 'knot',a 'contraction' which is 'inside/within'.
and i can sense this 'contraction' within me,this sense of beingness,of 'i am'.

and i now try to force insight/knowingness/wisdom into the truth that there is really no self (for it has been said that the self ,ultimately when being seen as it is,is just an illusion) .i believe /trust on theravada buddhism's emphasis on the arising of insight/wisdom ; and many experiences of oneness/unity etc.. in my opinion,is not true awakening.true knowledge into the reality that there is really not an entity 'in here' is needed for awakening to occur,and not just experiences,no matter how blissful and high.

but i dont find much reasonance in the vipassana(theravadin's) technique.the path of 'letting go' , 'surrender' , seems more pleasant and less straining(is this true?)

and as long one maintain high enough intensity of awareness/mindfulness(and this may not seem so pleasant and relax as i expected) ,couple with intense desire to know the truth, "grace will descend (as to when,this cannot be predicted)"

was hoping more experienced meditators can share their knowledge.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Klaus Lundahl Engelholt — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:28:42 GMT

Amr El-Nowehy:

Now, the struggle is: how we can identity with that True Self/Nothingness experientially.

For me, Douglas Harding's “headless experiments” (use the not-so-intuitive menu at the right hand side) have been an absolute eye-opener in that it has shown me (1) that contrary to my belief my real Self pure emptiness, (2) that it has always been that way, and (3) that I have experiential access to this knowledge wherever I am and whatever I do (well, to be honest, I haven't been able to access it during formal meditation or in my sleep).

However simple and childish these experiments may seem, they are certainly very efficient. To realize who you really are is a matter of seconds or minutes, not hours, days or weeks — let alone years.

Now that I can always find myself (not that i always do, mind you!), I am also painfully aware that I have known this all the time, that there is nothing new to discover.

For many years … at least 20 (since my first A&P, I guess) … I have become more and more of a loner, I have shied away from people. This is because whenever I looked inside I found nothing but The Black Hole, The Abyss, I was nowhere to be found. And I found it so exceedingly painful that seemingly everyone except me was something and I was nothing, so I used to stay away from other people until I had a someone to show them, and in the latter years it has taken an increasing amount of energy to produce this someone. This is past now. Less than a couple of weeks ago the headless experiments showed me that, yes, I am nothing, a black hole, a bottomless pit, and endless void. But because of this I am also boundless capacity for the whole world. And what I'm doing now is to accept the Void rather than projecting a false somebody, it is making it so much easier for me to accept the company of other people (now, if I only had some headless friends…), although I still feel a bit like the mother in Pleasantville when she had gone technicolor and told her still balck and white son (freely paraphrased): »How can I go out now? What will other people say?«

'Nuff said. If you wish to see yourself as you are, if you wish to experience — first hand, in real time — that you are nothing, and if you wish to be able to see this at any time, well, then I can highly recommend doing some of the headless experiments over at Richard Lang's site. Have fun, and don't let the utter simplicity put you off.

Cheers,
Klaus

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:17:00 GMT

Author: Ryguy913

I'd be happy hear of other practices anyone has found involving images, or any comments on this practice (possible openings, pitfalls, angles, confusion, etc.).

Also, I'm not very familiar with the direct path on the path (which for me has involved mostly Theravada samatha/vipassana meditation), but very familiar with it without knowing, if that makes sense. In that light, if this post is better situated elsewhere, someone please let me know.

Thanks!

Ryan

p.s. Thanks, Beth, for starting this thread!

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:16:00 GMT

Author: Ryguy913

Hi, Everyone

As I read this thread, in particular, I was motivated to share the visual objects I've sometimes used in my practice. Though it may not be for everyone, I love Kandinsky and I also love to pair busy with quiet and see what how 'stories/sensations' shift with each representation.

http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/courses/gc/kandinsky.comp-7.jpg

http://tea.armadaproject.org/Images/amati/amati_WHiteout_at_survival_school.JPG.jpg

I find this practice particularly useful as a way to begin working with emotions, becoming familiar with destructive emotions in a friendly setting, and learning not only to sit with them but also to see them in their relation to constructive emotions. Maybe this wouldn't work for someone who is not as interested in art as I am, but maybe that doesn't matter so much. I'd be interested to hear some feedback on that (and in general).

In particular, I find that after looking at the busy image, I search for busyness in the quiet image; and after getting over the 'problem' of there being nothing to prolong this busy search, I find myself settling into a relaxation with the quiet, at which point busyness emerges, and the process cycles. Also, after settling into relaxation with the quiet image, I can similarly settle into relaxation with the quiet previously hidden in the busy image.

In particular, this involves awareness of bodily sensations, thoughts, awareness of shifts in breath between the two images, and how breath, body and thought interact together and with these images.

cont.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:47:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hi Amr,

Thanks for the welcome back. Yes, I listened to Adyashanti tapes on my retreat. The tapes were recordings of satsangs (truth meetings) from earlier Adyashanti retreats. On his retreats there is usually a satsang in the morning and one in the evening. I think that they last for about 2 hours each. Usually he alternates between beginning with a dharma talk and beginning with inviting people to talk with him about what is happening for them (in front of the whole group). There are also meditation periods and "break" period throughout the day. I would say that satsangs (live or on tape) would be categorized as enquiry rather than as meditation.

Here is a link to Adyashanti's meditation instruction.
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=writings_inner&writingid=12

On my retreat, I mostly practiced on my own. I would sit until I felt like getting up, walk until I felt like sitting or lying down, etc. . . Some days I would listen to an hour of recorded material, some days none. I'm interested in going with the natural flow of things, so that's what I do on retreat lately.

Metta,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Amr El-Nowehy — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:54:00 GMT

HI Beth,

Welcome back. You mentioned in your email to me that you listened to some tapes while in the retreat. Is listening to such talks is part of the direct path meditation? Do you listen to them between sessions or during sessions?

Amr

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:50:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hi Friends,

I'm back from retreat, but only until Sunday. Then, Kenneth and I begin a 14-day retreat until 8/31. I'm feeling kind of quiet right now and also busy getting my life in order so that I can go away again! A few people have asked about my recent experience, so I thought I'd post this:

This past period of time spent in silence was simple, sweet, and rich. The intention that kept arising was to simply be with experience, just as it is--not to favor a quiet mind over a busy mind, not to favor peace over agitation, not even to expansiveness over fear. I'm seeing and growing to love more and more the peace that comes with just being natural, not dividing from experience. I'm becoming more hip to the stories/sensation that my mind/body generates to convince me that there is a problem I must fix. I getting more and more convinced that what the heart wants is only found through resting in what's already here.

Wishing you all peace,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:22:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

Hi Amr,

Thanks for the links.
I particulary like this "You experience these things so graphically that you suddenly awake to the utter futility of craving, grasping and resistance." this describes the optimum relaxed state I was referring to.
By the descriptions in the links you have provided I agree it seems mindfulness is the how to get relax into this.

When in this place, shift the attention or bring to the foreground that which is constant. This is what I understood when Beth asked me "Can you find anything that isn't coming and going?" in a previous post.
It seems there are other ways about this; as Beth has addressed in a post to you above, but at the moment I find it most natural launching from "mindfulness" described in the links.

You said - "But I guess that I have to wait until I get a taste of both enlightments then I'll verify myself." If we listen to many, it seems they are not different, but like you I do not know the teritory well enough to judge myself.

Gary

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Amr El-Nowehy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:43:00 GMT

And I'm not sure even if the result/fruits are different:

"... under the penetrating gaze of mindfulness, the feeling of self, an 'I' or 'being' anything, loses its solidity and dissolves. There comes a point in insight meditation where the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and selflessness - come rushing home with concept-searing force. You vividly experience the impermanence of life, the suffering nature of human existence, and the truth of no self. You experience these things so graphically that you suddenly awake to the utter futility of craving, grasping and resistance. In the clarity and purity of this profound moment, our consciousness is transformed. The entity of self evaporates..."

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_english_18.php

But I guess that I have to wait until I get a taste of both enlightments then I'll verify myself.

Amr

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Amr El-Nowehy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:42:00 GMT

My vipassana practice was confined to body sensations. However, the description I found in Mindfulness in Plain English by Bhante Gunaratana is pretty much what you describe. Here are some extracts followed by a link:

"...mindfulness has no fixed object of focus. It observes change. Thus it has an unlimited number of objects of attention. It just looks at whatever is passing through the mind and it does not categorize..."

"...In a state of pure mindfulness your attention just flows along with whatever changes are taking place in the mind. 'Shift, shift, shift. Now this, now this, and now this...'"

"...Mindfulness cannot be cultivated by struggle. It grows by realizing, by letting go, by just settling down in the moment and letting yourself get comfortable with whatever you are experiencing..."

"...Mindfulness is inclusive. It stands back from the focus of attention and watches with a broad focus, quick to notice any change that occurs..."

"...This does not mean that mindfulness happens all by itself. Far from it. Energy is required. Effort is required. But this effort is different from force. Mindfulness is cultivated by a gentle effort, by effortless effort..."

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_english_16.php

...continue

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hi Everyone,

This is Beth posting as Beth again. I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm going to be on retreat for the next 2 weeks. I've enjoyed my first week on the DhO very much and I look forward to continuing to explore the dharma together after my retreat.

Warm regards,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:36:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

(Daniel replying to Gary)

Alright, tell me about that knowing, and why you use the word "dissecting" and also what the difference between that knowing and "dissecting" is, and if you see a problem with there being a difference, as a difference would appear to be something other than non-dual and direct, no? If the direct path is based on what is, how can there be a conflict? If "dissecting" arises, that is perfectly what it is, and if "knowing" arises, that is what is also, so help me out here. Is the direct path too direct to encompass some things?

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:30:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Welcome, Beth, at long last.

If a vipassinist came to you and said, "I am not sure what the difference is here. The insight teachers tell me to notice all sensations as they are, explain that no-self and True Self are just concepts that really don't describe the truth of things, that the truth of things is always present in all sensations and always has been, that I am to see sensations as they are in a way that includes the experience of concepts rather than being filtered through the content of concepts, and what when doing insight practice one is not trying to change anything (as that would be training in morality) except the inability to be clear about the way experience actually is, and so one is investigating and relaxing into reality, balancing wisdom and faith, balancing energy and concentration, in a way that sounds like what you are talking about. They tell me to investigate and accept all sensations that seem to make up both what appears to be me and what appears to be not me, what appears to be the 'I' as well as everything else, as well as all thoughts and emotions, body and mind. What at the level of actually practicing is the difference, and how do you know that way is better?"

Or, if an arahat came to you and said, "When I got arahatship, which occurred by investigating and accepting reality, that was what I was looking for all along. Now the best of all the paths looks the same to me, and my baseline is like the best of what the non-dual traditions describe. How are you so sure you shouldn't just get arahatship? Reality is simply with itself, naturally, effortlessly, obviously, perfectly, truly and completely, in a way that is the perfect resolution of all the perceptual conflicts that seemingly existed as compelling illusions before this non-dual and timeless understanding of how it all always was. Where can be found a fault with this? I find none," how would you reply?

Daniel

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:28:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hi everyone

A few of you have asked me about Daniel's original post that I was responding to on page 2 of this thread.

Daniel decided to take down his posts on this thread because he questioned whether they were in the spirit of the thread and of the direct path venue. He also questioned whether it was useful for both of us to converse using what seems like two different languages.

He's given me permission to do what I like with his posts, and since at least a few of you are interested in looking at them, I'm reposting them. The first one is Daniel writing to me. The second one is Daniel replying to Gary.

Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:00:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

" What I'm trying to do is to find the "right" direction then delve deeper into it. Please let me know if you think this is not a helpful approach to start with."-Amr

Hi Amr,

I don’t believe that there is one “right track,” but the one that you are on is very good!

When you look for your self, you see only awareness staring at itself. That’s the only “I” you can find.

You wrote, “I can't say that I identify with that blankness. It's as if my mind freezes and goes blank. All your questions become irrelevant, there is no thinking. I don't think it's very different from the space that exists between thoughts or sensations.”

So awareness can turn itself around and look at itself, even become absorbed into itself. The mind stops, and the experience is restful. What you describe here (as you probably already know) is what Kenneth calls “absorbing into the witness” and what Ramana Maharshi called “abiding as the ‘I am.’” Kenneth told me that you are drawn to continuing to look at/absorb into the witness as a practice. This sounds great to me. Although there is a realization more fundamental than absorbing into the witness, what you describe here is a very deep and powerful practice and can eventually give way to the most fundamental thing. You don’t have to do any other practice.

The sense of self to whom everything seems to be happening IS the witness. Through all of the experiences of your life—when you were small, when you were sick, when you were healthy, when you played outside with your friends, when you had your first crush, when you graduated from high school, when you’ve felt heartache, when you’ve felt joy, when you learned about enlightenment, now, as you read this message—the only constant has been the sense that experience is happening to me. That me is the witness.There is no other me to be found.

Warm regards,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:33:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

Thanks Beth

"Whatever it seem like is being added to what is coming and going, isn't that too just coming and going?"
Yes, everything is coming and going (although I am not experiencing this as before ) including what's being added and I see what has happening when answering the question. The simplicity comes into focus. Thanks for this!

"Can you find anything that isn't coming and going?"
To use my own words, existence or the knowing moment to moment does not come and go.

Regards
Gary

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:47:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Dear Gary,

You wrote, "Everything was coming and going that's all, nothing added. At the time when I was recollecting I said to myself 'I can not believe I've missed this simplicity', but I miss it now."

I know that your experience now does not seem like the indescribable experience you had a few weeks ago. But are you sure that everything isn't just coming and going right now? Whatever it seem like is being added to what is coming and going, isn't that too just coming and going? Can you find anything that isn't coming and going?

Looking forward to hearing back from you,

Warmly,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

triple think — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:47:00 GMT

Oh, oh, oh, oh, hey! I found it, that old thread, it was a pretty cool chat.

Small Boat, Great Mountain ~ Amaro Bhikkhu, Theravada and Dzogchen
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=34089&st=140

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:30:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

Outside of meditation I was hit from no where ( I do not know the causes or conditions ) with an indescribable insight for say 5 minutes that faded over about an hour. The fading was in reflection of the experience. Everything was coming and going that's all, nothing added. At the time when I was recollecting I said to myself "I can not believe I've missed this simplicity", but I miss it now. Now I have a sense of when I move towards this simplicity. The overall experience caused a permanent shift that I would summarise by saying, knowing is not of the mind. Now I think I am looking at how to integrate this.

Hope this helps.
[edit] I realise the word integrate is not clear. I mean, how to move forward in the best way, because it appears a little off the maps. Also in the experience, the transcience of everything was predominant.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:40:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Also, I’m not viewing being undivided as something that I have to build up or work towards. It’s already here. When I have the experience of forgetting this, I can see through that experience and stop pretending to divide. I’m seeing through the idea that the experience of forgetting is a problem. This seems to help me to relax and be with whatever is arising just as it is.

Gary, will you say more about how this is going for you lately. I’d like to hear more about that.

Warm regards,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:38:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

"I have talk a about the method I use to remember my true nature and unless I apply this I "forget". How does this differ from the method(s) you use and is not forgetting a matter of sustained attention?" -Gary

Hi Gary,

I'm very glad to be talking about this with you about this and I feel like the conversation belongs very much in this thread.

For me, being undivided is not a matter of sustained attention. I have tried that in the past, but it too easily became a project that I needed to keep up and to do well. Plus, when I'm deliberately placing my attention on anything, even if that thing is awareness itself, I don’t feel undivided, not all the way.

Now, I just let things happen as they do. I (small self) do nothing. A fearful thought will arise like, "Wait! I forgot what I'm supposed to be doing. What should I do?" (This is the experience of forgetting what is the case.)

I have two phrases that I have been using to meet this forgetting experience:
"Do anything" and “There’s nothing I can do to mess this up.” Both phrases point to the same insight—that there is nothing that this body-mind could do that could change or jeopardize what is already the case. The body-mind can think, it can plan, it can be tired, it can write on the computer, if can be afraid, confused, it can feel loving and happy, it feel deep peace, it can feel cranky, it can experience some strange sensation in the body and consider seeing the doctor, it can wonder whether it will have time to keep writing on the DhO when school starts, etc.

Both of these phrases seem to unlock my conditioned tendency to clamp down on my experience out of fear that it is not the right experience to be having (particularly in regard to spirituality). I know that each experience is equally IT. THIS is always IT. Whatever this looks like, it’s IT, just as it is.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:18:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

Hi Beth,
I have talk a about the method I use to remember my true nature and unless I apply this I "forget". How does this differ from the method(s) you use and is not forgetting a matter of sustained attention?
Thanks
Gary

I could (should) have started another thread, maybe your reply could be in another thread.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

tarin greco — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:45:00 GMT

kenneth,

i disagree and say that my proposal fits into the thread, being that it is inherently a non-dual inquiry itself, and would not have fleshed it out as such to include comparisons if beth had not 1- confused it with what was proposed in daniel's post and 2- only superficially understood my question regarding agenda (and the agency that accomplishes it). however, i understand that the idea of what 'staying focused' is is one that is subject to a wide range of interpretations, and since this venue is an area you created (and will probably be keeping an eye on more than myself), i do not want to contest yours. once i receive the attachment i will start a new thread.

tarin

edit: oh oops, i see it now

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Kenneth Folk — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:27:00 GMT

Hi Tarin,

I've copied your post to a Word document, along with Chris's reply and I'll email it to you as an attachment so that you can re-post it in the Discussion Forum. I took the rather extreme step of deleting the posts in an effort to preserve the integrity of the Direct Path Venue. As it says on the Direct Path Venue into page,

"As is the case in all of the 'venues,' the moderation here will be slightly stricter than on the DhO in general, in order to maintain the focus on direct path teachings. Unrelated posts will be moved to the Discussion Forum. This forum isn't a place for academic discussion or to debate which approach is better. Rather, it's a place to jump in and engage in this direct exploration, which mainly involves pointing to and surrendering to what is always already the case."

While the discussion you have begun is a legitimate one, the idea of the venues is to stay focused on sharing the teachings themselves, rather than meta-discussions about the merits of various teachings.

Metta,

Kenneth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Chris Marti — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:26:00 GMT

Thanks, Jackson. I'll download that one.

- Chris

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Jackson Wilshire — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:23:00 GMT

Hi Chris,

I've been finding Christopher Titmuss' teachings very accessible as well, in regards to realizing non-dual awareness. My favorite talk of his is called 'The Light That Reveals'. Here's the link to the MP3 download (from DharmaSeed.org)...

http://bit.ly/VBkLZ

I think it's great to hear an insight/vipassana teacher speak of realization in this way.

~Jackson

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Chris Marti — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:58:00 GMT

Hello, Beth.

I agree that having different agendas may just invalidate the comparison of the different methods we use to get where we're going. Yet my experience is that a practitioner can integrate different methods pretty successfully. While doing vipassana, investigating everything, I had a number of insights. That's the point of it. But in all my investigating there was no room for just letting go. It turns out there's great value in just letting go. Very simple, very clean, liberating. I still do vipassana but I also take time to "just let go." Both have value. There's no conflict between them in my practice - I think they're quite complimentary.

By the way, my realization of the real value of just letting go came not long after listening to a Christopher Titmuss podcast in which he extolls the virtue of "holding the world loosely" while doing choiceless awareness meditation (his terms, not mine), and that in doing that we can uncover truth.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:36:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

I have been thinking about how just observing works. Our attention is on the things of the mind, and while there the background is not noticed. It is like a portrait photo the focus is on the subject and not the vast background. To just observe shifts the focus to the background. You cannot think the focus off the subject because the mind is the subject, but you can bring the attention to the thinking with observation and shift the focus to the attention itself. Progress (if you like) is to keep the focus on the background that is always present, or easily move there. Beth does not have an agenda of peace and joy because this is the subject (of mind), she remembers her true self that which is attending. Most difficulty seem to arise where the subject is mistaken for the bakground. I seem to have form a rule that if I am using my mind it is the subject.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:12:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

A few more thoughts. . .

If what I wrote in the last post doesn't make sense to you (not just Tarin but anyone), maybe this will help.

From the perspective of my small self experience, my agenda is and has always been peace of mind. It seems that the desire for peace of mind is at of root of of my striving, whether that striving to be liked, to be successful, to find love, to find emotional healing, to find the right profession, to feel good physically, to be comfortable, to have financial security, to keep my loved ones healthy, and of course--the big one--to get enlightened.

For those who want peace of mind and cannot, for the life of them, understand what I am saying when I say things like, "You are already at peace,"
the most direct way to find peace of mind is to simply find out the truth. You don't need to have a special experience to know the truth. You can just earnestly look at your experience and find out who it's happening to. Our minds often make this very simple exploration complicated. Indeed, the truth is so simple that its easy to overlook. Having a friend or a guide to help point us in the right direction and keep us honest can be helpful. This is a new role for me, but I am willing to have a go at being that friend for people who are interested.

Warm regards,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:15:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

I (Beth) forget and remember my true nature many times throughout a day. Lately, the forgetting doesn’t last very long and there is a lot of peace and joy. My agenda, however, is not to have peace and joy. My agenda is to be my authentic self, to be just as I am. Since this is already the case, you could say that I have no agenda.

So that’s where I’m coming from, Tarin. Since we have different agendas, it may not be helpful for us to evaluate and compare different types of investigation for their usefulness. Do you agree?

Wishing you well,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:12:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hi Tarin,

Let’s start at the end of your note, which I think may get to the heart of the matter.

“If i put it this way: is your agenda to be unconcerned with fear, or is it to not be afraid ever
again? or put another way: is your agenda to stop being concerned with how you may harm others with harmful intentions and feelings, or to stop having or being those intentions and feelings entirely?”-Tarin

I don’t have an agenda because I see that the only self that exists is pure awareness itself, which truly has no agenda and transcends all conditioned phenomena. At the same time, all conditioned things are the play of pure awareness, arising out of that awareness, dissolving back into that awareness, and never, for a moment being other than that awareness. Part of the awesomeness of pure awareness is that it can create the experience of separation (which we are all familiar with) even though it is the only game in town.

I am that pure awareness. I am all things. I am the only game in town. (By the way, this isn’t about the personal me; this isn’t about Beth! Beth is just an insubstantial display). As pure awareness, why would I want to get rid of any aspect of experience, including fear and including being concerned with how my feelings, intentions, and actions impact people? I am creating every experience. As the infinite, I am showing what I can become.

When this body-mind display understands the truth of it’s being, it is freed from trying to find peace of mind in the arena of the false self. This is very fortunate for this body-mind because peace cannot be found in that arena (samsara). As Adyashanti says, the small (false) self can never find lasting peace because it knows (on some level) that it is a fake. On some level, it knows that it is the infinite pretending to be limited. It is only when we stop pretending to be other then we are that we can rest as the peace that is our true nature.
(cont.)

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

tarin greco — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:23:00 GMT

to be clear, i am only using fear as an example, and though it is a particularly poignant one, what i say about fear actually holds true for any other feeling or experience of being, be it anger or sorrow or compassion or jealousy or love, etc. the examination of how 'i' am 'my feelings' and 'my feelings' are 'me' ends both being and feelings.

with regard to preference or sensibility, what one would find preferable or more sensible depends on one's agenda (the implied reason for one's practice). my agenda is to be deeply and irrefutably at ease all the time, and to do nothing to encourage others to be ill at ease ever (which is already implied by being at ease myself, as i cannot be happy while i am being harmful), which i accomplish, both gradually and immediately, by paying attention to the very 'me' that exists *as* (as opposed to both *having* or *not having*) 'my feelings', and *not* by looking at Awareness, or the ground from which all things arise (or the same by any other name). when carefully considered, which line of inquiry makes sense to you will depend on what yours (your agenda) is.

if i put it this way: is your agenda to be unconcerned with fear, or is it to not be afraid ever again? or put another way: is your agenda to stop being concerned with how you may harm others with harmful intentions and feelings, or to stop having or being those intentions and feelings entirely?

the me, the latter is true heaven on earth.. the former, an incomplete solution.

tarin

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

tarin greco — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:18:00 GMT

and on another hand still, examining the sensory experience of fear by breaking it down into sensations leads to a clear experience of how all things, including fear, are sensations that are experienced as awareness, or by an awareness which is merely an aspect of those sensations, etc.. yet also does nothing to end the fear (fear still arises and passes, albiet now 'spontaneously').

essentially, this third way leads to the same result as the second way, which is to produce a transcendent state of being (or Being, for those who prefer) that is untouched by fear and is thus unconcerned it. these two inquiries are certainly not going to lead to the end of it. of the three ways i mention above, only the first one ends the fear and the being that is implied in the feeling's very existence.

the absence of this singular phenomenon, of both being and feelings, is a freedom i find preferable to the condition of transcendental freedom that either of the other two inquiries (self-inquiry on one hand and sensation-analysis on the other) leads to.

(cont.)

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

tarin greco — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:16:00 GMT

beth,

no, the line of inquiry i propose is not the same as the vipassana one, the one you addressed in your response to daniel. it is not merely the examination of the sensory experience of a feeling, in this case, fear (as in 'what is this fear that i am afraid of?'), that i am proposing; rather, it is the examination of the very being of fear itself (as in 'what is this i that is afraid?'). can you see the difference?

if so, let me point out how this leads to wholly different results, and therefore, why it is a distinction worth making and why i called the line of inquiry i propose 'more sensible' (than inquiring into 'who is afraid?' or, for that matter, inquiring sensately into 'what is this fear that i am afraid of?'):

examining the matter of what it is, exactly, that is this 'i' that is afraid, sheds light on how 'i' am 'my fear' and 'my fear' is 'me' .. the clear seeing of which cancels out the entire matter. end, finish, no being and no fear (as different from the transcendence of fear - that is, the experience of a spontaneous, natural, free-flowing fear that arises from the ground of being).

examining the 'who' who is afraid, on the other hand, causes one to become aware of an Awareness that includes, but is not limited to, the fear (that is experienced by this Awareness, or as this Awareness, etc), but does nothing to end the fear.. only the concern with whether there is fear or not.

(cont.)

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:51:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hi Amr,

When you ask the question "Who am I," you are simply looking to your experience to see who is at the center of your experience.

Right now, you are experiencing seeing, feeling, breathing, hearing etc. It's easy to turn your attention to any of those things. If I say, pay attention to the inhale and the exhale of the breath--no problem, right? Or pay attention to sound--you can do that. Now what I'm inviting you to do is to pay attention to that which the seeing, feeling, breathing, and hearing is happening to. It isn't a trick, and it isn't supposed to work like magic.

Yesterday, you mentioned that you find blankness. I'm very interested in this blankness!

Please tell me more about it! (Unless you don't want to )

Also, I wouldn't worry too much about whether you're doing vipassana or direct path. One woman's opinion.

Warmly,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

Hi Amr,

WIth vipassana you have Enlightenment to achieve and when you get there all your questions will be answered. Are you doing vipassana? You can not do vipassana and direct path at the same time.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Amr El-Nowehy — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:23:00 GMT

Thanks Gary, but I'm not sure how ithis is different from vipassana then?

And when I ask the question "who am I?", doesn't that mean I'm looking for something? What is the point of the question? Is this supposed to work like magic?

Amr

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

triple think — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:23:00 GMT

hi Beth
Cool. I hope so, I'd likely benefit from that.
upekkha
nathan

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:16:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hi Nathan,

I'm not offended. Thanks for respecting the intended boundaries of this thread. Perhaps our paths will cross again later.

Wishing you peace,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

triple think — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:01:00 GMT

Hi Beth, great to have you here. I'm a total mutt, poly-mutt for that matter, but "can't go wrong"? Here's where I part company with this whole approach. No offense intended. So, in the interest of safety and all that, see you all later, and all the best with it folks.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

"because as instructive and important as the former line of inquiry has been to me [Who is afraid ?], i find the results of the latter [What is fear?] far more sensible and thus preferable.

what the former has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid - there is only Awareness itself, manifesting as this world, this human, this situation, this fear.

what the latter has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid, because no fear."-Tarin

Hi Tarin,

I think that my reply to Daniel may cover my perspective on the issue that you raised. Investigating fear has been useful to me in my practice too. I don't agree that it's results are "more sensible" than looking at "who am I." I would say that both can be useful and powerful, and that there is a time for both.

Be well,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:01:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Also, in Adyashanti's sangha it's more common to investigate the ground upon which all sensations arise than the changing sensations themselves. It would be welcome to also investigate a particular sensory experience, such as the experience of fear ("What is fear?" as Tarin mentioned). And there could indeed be times when that type of inquiry seems to be useful, appropriate, and fruitful, but investigating sense experiences is generally not the focus of inquiry. Of course, through inquiry, we come to see that those sense experiences are not other than light of original mind--not two from the ground on which they appear.

Also, the non-dual teaching that I most resonate with helps me to see from the beginning that everything is already accepted and known. The very task that the vipassana teacher prescribes is already accomplished. I don’t have to dedicate myself to achieving it once I see that that I am that which accepts, that which knows, and that which is not other than all phenomena. Awareness is already aware. For me, this takes all of the pressure off. As someone who has felt a lot of pressure to get this enlightenment thing done and who has suffered immensely in her spiritual efforts, I can’t tell you what a relief it is to stop.

It’s already done. Whatever happens is equally okay. My life is none of my business. Arhatship is none of my business; although my conditioned mind still thinks it sure sounds nice. This moment is self-fulfilled, and I’m not even an arhat.

You wrote, “How are you so sure that you shouldn’t just get arhatship.” All that I’m sure of is that the I who can get anything will never be satisfied and the I who doesn’t need anything is already satisfied.

Love,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:58:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Hey Daniel!

I'm happy that you wrote. Everything that you described about Vipassana sounds great, and I don't find fault with any of it! I don't believe that the non-dual approach is better. I don't think I ever said that. I’m just inclined towards the direct-path. I started this thread because I thought it might be nice to meet some friends who share this inclination and/or are interested in exploring this pathless path together.

Some of the instructions from the "insight teachers" really resonate with me, especially the instructions to become more "clear about the way experience actually is." I don't feel mentally sharp enough or ambitious enough to tease out all of the nuances that differentiate between the vipassana approach the approach that I am drawn to. Also, there are many different non-dual approaches with variations among them. I only feel qualified to speak about my own experiences, which have been heavily influenced by Adyashanti’s approach (which is very open and dynamic).

“On the actual level of practice” the insight approach seems centered around the continuous investigation of sensations--"all sensations that seem to make up both what appears to be me and what appears to be not me, what appears to be the 'I' as well as everything else, as well as all thoughts and emotions, body and mind." In the approach that I'm inclined towards, it’s not common to investigate in that type of continuous way (Although, at certain stages, someone may be continuously asking “Who?” all day long).

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Amr El-Nowehy — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:17:00 GMT

Beth,

While it sounds assuring to say that I can't go wrong, to be honest, I can't get it when you say that. What I'm trying to do is to find the "right" direction then delve deeper into it. Please let me know if you think this is not a helpful approach to start with.

I'm not sure that I identify myself with that blankness. In my world, I have to start with some assumption when I look for an 'I". Assuming that "I" is an object to be looked for, I find my awareness staring at itself as another object. This "leads" to the blankness I'm talking about.

I can't say that I identify with that blankness. It's as if my mind freezes and goes blank. All your questions become irrelevant, there is no thinking. I don't think it's very different from the space that exists between thoughts or sensations.

It's a restful state, that's all.

Am I on the "right" track?

Thanks Beth,

Amr

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:06:00 GMT

Author: ThePoorMan

Dear Gary,

I like what you wrote yesterday! Especially this:

“If you have something to achieve, somewhere to go, something to find, aversion, clinging ... they are all of mind, only to be observed. Observe the things that complicate or add to your essence. You already are what you are, the only thing you can ‘do’ is observe all that comes and goes. This is what you "relax" into.”

Perhaps dependent on our conditioning, we use different words help to unlock our experiences at different times. A few years ago, it was really liberating for me to realize that I (the conventional, small I) didn’t have to “do” anything. As I gave up the agenda of training my mind and of working toward any particular experience, I was stunned to find that on the deepest level, I really didn’t care what what was arising. I was untouched by any of it, but also I was all of it.

Lately, I realize that I can “do” anything. In other words, I can do whatever I am inclined to do without any possibility of messing up the ever-present nature. Some experiences may seem to momentarily “complicate my essence,” but I’m starting to see that this is just “the natural great perfection” masquerading as complication or division. I had heard things like this before, but now, as I am seeing it spontaneously, I am joyfully stunned. It also seems like its harder for complication or division to take hold for very long when it can't convince me that it is a problem.

Wishing you well,
Beth

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Martin Potter — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:05:00 GMT

Here's a nice quote from Jack Kornfield:

"When Maharaj spoke of the I am or I amness, he spoke of it as the bridge between that which is temporal
and that which is eternal. To recognise that all the forms of senses of seeing, and hearing and smelling and
thinking are changing, and to step outside that, to get bigger, one becomes, if you will, the witness to
these things. And this is what he calls the I amness. Everything changes except this witnessing which can
know what is so, and when you rest in that witnessing, in that I amness, then as a bridge it becomes possible
to turn that witnessing back to itself and to see that there is no-one who witnesses, that witnessing appears
like the sun does in the morning and disappears, and beyond that is space and emptiness and what he called
love and wisdom"

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

tarin greco — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:40:00 GMT

because as instructive and important as the former line of inquiry has been to me, i find the results of the latter far more sensible and thus preferable.

what the former has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid - there is only Awareness itself, manifesting as this world, this human, this situation, this fear.

what the latter has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid, because no fear.

i am contributing this distinction to this thread because i consider both to be non-dualistic approaches, in that the question only makes sense beyond the subject/object duality, but i find, from my own experience, that the similarity ends there. anyone who wants to take 'the direct path' might be interested that this difference between the two investigations exists, and that the difference isn't merely semantic, but leads to vastly different results. have you ever checked out this one for yourself?

tarin

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Martin Potter — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:49:00 GMT

I used self-inquiry to challenge the assumption that there is an 'I' who is meditating or who will attain enlightenment or various experiences and stages. I felt that vipassana leaves a blind spot here that caused me to habitually identify with some thoughts which created an extra knot of grasping.

As for the 'presence' thing, I can sort of see what non-dualists mean, there's a feeling that I exist and am aware which never leaves, I travelled for 12 hours yesterday and at every point of the journey it felt like I was 'here', as though I hadn't really moved at all.

When a sentence hits me very hard, e.g. John Wheeler: "there is some old idea hanging in about an entity that can or cannot 'get' this." or "are you a being that can move in and out of it?", this can lead to a kind of effortlessness and refreshing feeling, although it's not long at all before the 'I'-assumption creeps back in and there's a sense that 'I' have to get somewhere or do something. Also, a slight increase in precision in this state seems to lead straight back to vipassana (i.e. it doesn't seem to hold up under close examination?)

- Martin

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:30:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

For the record I am not making any statement about my attainments here, but only talk about my progress. I used the word dissecting because vipassana does this with phenomena. An analogy, three people work on a maths problem one works the solution step by step, another just sees a solution intuitively and another uses a little of both. They all get to the same place all solving the same problem. But if someone were to ask of the intuitor where did the idea come from what answer can he give? I know something other than mind and direct path takes me there vipassana doesn't. But I do not discount the value of vipassana.

RE: A Non-Dual Safe-Space

Wet Paint — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:30:00 GMT

Author: garyrh

Daniel,

Can I chime in. What if I tell you I know something and I am not an arahat? If you ask me to quantify it further I really cannot with your terms.

[edit] There is a knowing aside from disecting phenomena.
Gary