Realization and Development - Discussion
@Jackson: It seems like we making the same point (?), but I think you might be saying it more clearly.
Oh, and to help Kenneth's dust up occur...
Re:"The non-dual aspect is, of course, not addressed in Theravada, which is why we have the Mahayana. If Hinayana were complete, there would be no need for Mahayana or Vajrayana."
Of course, I'm not able to argue this from a perspective of complete non-dual understanding... but this statement seems like the classic Theravada=Hinayana fallacy that has echoed through the ages, right? I get the feeling that these kind of debates are like saying if Latin was complete, we wouldn't need Chinese.
Okay, maybe that will help the dust fly!
Oh, and to help Kenneth's dust up occur...
Re:"The non-dual aspect is, of course, not addressed in Theravada, which is why we have the Mahayana. If Hinayana were complete, there would be no need for Mahayana or Vajrayana."
Of course, I'm not able to argue this from a perspective of complete non-dual understanding... but this statement seems like the classic Theravada=Hinayana fallacy that has echoed through the ages, right? I get the feeling that these kind of debates are like saying if Latin was complete, we wouldn't need Chinese.
Okay, maybe that will help the dust fly!
Author: garyrh
Enlightenment is a label used to describe the experiencing of reality in a fundamentally different way. Experience is always subjective and ones reality are constructs of "objects" and awareness. In the realizing of something fundamentally different about reality there are two paths one is to know about the "objects" (vipassana) the other awareness (non dual). In doing one technique or the other most will realize something of the other because both mind/body objects and awareness are fundamental to reality with subtle or not so subtle connections. Because Enlightenment is subjective a whole spectrum will exist between these two extremes as to on what one labels as Enlightenment.
It would seem one conception of Enlightment is an absolute objective reality to be experience the same. To believe this one would have to ignore or take sides with many discussions on DHO. I would say it is as much a wrong view as there being one true practice to Enlightenment.
With awareness and its objects maybe reality is "two not one"
[edit] To clarify, the two poles of the subjective experience or realizing of enlightenment both describe the one "objective reality" (not entirely accurate but you get what I mean). Just as wave and partical theories both describe the nature of light similarly Enlightened beings realize the same fundamentals of reality in subjective mind/body/awareness.
Enlightenment is a label used to describe the experiencing of reality in a fundamentally different way. Experience is always subjective and ones reality are constructs of "objects" and awareness. In the realizing of something fundamentally different about reality there are two paths one is to know about the "objects" (vipassana) the other awareness (non dual). In doing one technique or the other most will realize something of the other because both mind/body objects and awareness are fundamental to reality with subtle or not so subtle connections. Because Enlightenment is subjective a whole spectrum will exist between these two extremes as to on what one labels as Enlightenment.
It would seem one conception of Enlightment is an absolute objective reality to be experience the same. To believe this one would have to ignore or take sides with many discussions on DHO. I would say it is as much a wrong view as there being one true practice to Enlightenment.
With awareness and its objects maybe reality is "two not one"
[edit] To clarify, the two poles of the subjective experience or realizing of enlightenment both describe the one "objective reality" (not entirely accurate but you get what I mean). Just as wave and partical theories both describe the nature of light similarly Enlightened beings realize the same fundamentals of reality in subjective mind/body/awareness.
Author: ByPasser
Hi theprisonergreco,
As far as I know, all people slip back and forth for a period of time before one arrives “the point of no retreat”. My experience is It will be advisable not to get over excited and wait for a period of 90 days after every quantum leap in perception into non-dual. See whether dullness steps in and dual perception takes over within this 90 days period.
As for the cause, some see the habitual return to the split as necessary and call it the Divine play while Buddhism sees it as imprints and deep latent dispositions. It is part of the makeup of consciousness that all actions carry imprints and this is manifested in all moments, to me there is nothing to deny.
By the way, if you are intermittently having the mirror sensation and a sense of crystal clear transparency, u may want to try dropping all sorts of 'who, what, where, when and why' but merely open yourself fully, fearlessly and unreservedly to whatever arises. Dare to lose yourself completely and be fully authenticated by all things.
Hi theprisonergreco,
As far as I know, all people slip back and forth for a period of time before one arrives “the point of no retreat”. My experience is It will be advisable not to get over excited and wait for a period of 90 days after every quantum leap in perception into non-dual. See whether dullness steps in and dual perception takes over within this 90 days period.
As for the cause, some see the habitual return to the split as necessary and call it the Divine play while Buddhism sees it as imprints and deep latent dispositions. It is part of the makeup of consciousness that all actions carry imprints and this is manifested in all moments, to me there is nothing to deny.
By the way, if you are intermittently having the mirror sensation and a sense of crystal clear transparency, u may want to try dropping all sorts of 'who, what, where, when and why' but merely open yourself fully, fearlessly and unreservedly to whatever arises. Dare to lose yourself completely and be fully authenticated by all things.
Author: AlanChapman
Actually, I was like this well before enlightenment!
I think we need a bit more humour round here, and I certainly take no offense to a bit of fun at my expense (God knows there so much material available!).
There are ideas floating around our heads, but I think it is vitally important that we don't forget that some are ideas are more accurate and helpful than others. I see no reason to assume we can't reach as accurate and as helpful a consensus on enlightenment as any other peer group has on any other subject. I think enlightenment deserves serious consideration; throwing our hands up in the air when an idea turns out to be problematic and sighing 'oh well, we all have our own opinions, there's no right and wrong, enlightenment is all subjective, we're all just guessing in the end, etc' is not only a little patronising, but a complete postmodern dead end.
I hope my above posts have clarified my position and where I think the problems lie.
Actually, I was like this well before enlightenment!
I think we need a bit more humour round here, and I certainly take no offense to a bit of fun at my expense (God knows there so much material available!).
There are ideas floating around our heads, but I think it is vitally important that we don't forget that some are ideas are more accurate and helpful than others. I see no reason to assume we can't reach as accurate and as helpful a consensus on enlightenment as any other peer group has on any other subject. I think enlightenment deserves serious consideration; throwing our hands up in the air when an idea turns out to be problematic and sighing 'oh well, we all have our own opinions, there's no right and wrong, enlightenment is all subjective, we're all just guessing in the end, etc' is not only a little patronising, but a complete postmodern dead end.
I hope my above posts have clarified my position and where I think the problems lie.
I just wanted to say that I've been riveted reading this dharma debate over the past couple of days, and it really feels like an honor be able to witness it. To everyone contributing, thank you and please know that putting your truth on the line is greatly appreciated by a seeker trying to make sense of these subtle and subjective topics.
I keep coming back to this thread intending to contribute something but find that my views have already been stated and the conversation has moved on haha. Anyway thanks again and please don't think that just because this thread is 6 pages long, that it is not relevant, or not being appreciated, because I find it extremely relevant and it is highly appreciated
I keep coming back to this thread intending to contribute something but find that my views have already been stated and the conversation has moved on haha. Anyway thanks again and please don't think that just because this thread is 6 pages long, that it is not relevant, or not being appreciated, because I find it extremely relevant and it is highly appreciated
Author: garyrh
The simplest thing and source are synonymous. The variation being consider here is intrinsic not personal and it is only at the source there is consensus thus the simplest thing must be at the source. If the "simplest thing" is defined as awareness then the simplest thing cannot be viewed with the phenonma "lens". Phenomena lens has a different nugget that cannot be reduced, a contradiction assuming one reality. Also equating simplest thing with awareness means the simplest thing is not reality hence Hokai can make his point. Much better to define the simplest thing as the same simplest "thing" (haha) going up stream from phenomena or awareness lens. This means the phenoma lens is not denied knowing the source. Simplest thing is known by both phenomena and awareness lens at source.
The simplest thing and source are synonymous. The variation being consider here is intrinsic not personal and it is only at the source there is consensus thus the simplest thing must be at the source. If the "simplest thing" is defined as awareness then the simplest thing cannot be viewed with the phenonma "lens". Phenomena lens has a different nugget that cannot be reduced, a contradiction assuming one reality
. Also equating simplest thing with awareness means the simplest thing is not reality hence Hokai can make his point. Much better to define the simplest thing as the same simplest "thing" (haha) going up stream from phenomena or awareness lens. This means the phenoma lens is not denied knowing the source. Simplest thing is known by both phenomena and awareness lens at source.
Author: garyrh
Thanks Trent.
You did not mis read. In this thread (and other sources) it often seemed one was a hindrance to the other.
From non-dual awareness subject - object duality is an illusion. The emptiness of phenomena has subject - object reality being seen through. These are two lenses on one reality whereby one is not more real than the other. To know them as the same is to move in both.
[edit] Wonder if I can use this for the glossary without the word illusion, come on Hokai.
Thanks Trent.
You did not mis read. In this thread (and other sources) it often seemed one was a hindrance to the other.
From non-dual awareness subject - object duality is an illusion. The emptiness of phenomena has subject - object reality being seen through. These are two lenses on one reality whereby one is not more real than the other. To know them as the same is to move in both.
[edit] Wonder if I can use this for the glossary without the word illusion, come on Hokai
.