RE: Responses to 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
.
Hi Ed
Your comments are really great. They are very helpful to evaluate where I am and where I should try to get to from here!
Yesterday I was thinking to myself "If you have to ask, you're not done." Maybe that wasn't the throwaway thought I thought it was.
Based on what you've said it sounds like I'd better crank up the practice a few notches for a bit longer. The funny thing is that having embraced unknowing, part of me thinks that an enlightenment where you *know* actually sounds like a relief... but in saying that I feel like a character in a cartoon standing on a trap door as the evil genius is about to pull the level and send him down the chute The only problem with that analogy is that I am also the evil genius, and apparently the chute.
Thanks so much for your feedback!
Craig
Your comments are really great. They are very helpful to evaluate where I am and where I should try to get to from here!
Yesterday I was thinking to myself "If you have to ask, you're not done." Maybe that wasn't the throwaway thought I thought it was.
Based on what you've said it sounds like I'd better crank up the practice a few notches for a bit longer. The funny thing is that having embraced unknowing, part of me thinks that an enlightenment where you *know* actually sounds like a relief... but in saying that I feel like a character in a cartoon standing on a trap door as the evil genius is about to pull the level and send him down the chute
The only problem with that analogy is that I am also the evil genius, and apparently the chute.Thanks so much for your feedback!
Craig
Author: garyrh
Who was annoyed ?
I think the reason for the questions is that glimpses of awareness are in the answer before the thinking. But if the questions are not in the right context they are a waste of time.
When we consider the knower, the knower cannot be divisble because if it were we would not know into which part the knower went.
[edit] Asking these questions is how I get to know Awareness and settle into it. It will be interesting to know the techniques of others. Each question is meant to reveal these cannot be the knower. Because Awareness is not of thought or words a lot can be said about what it is not. There is a sense that even if you say what it is, it is not that because what you say is always of thought. You get to the brink by thought and then most naturally Awareness of Awareness carries you over.
Who was annoyed ?
I think the reason for the questions is that glimpses of awareness are in the answer before the thinking. But if the questions are not in the right context they are a waste of time.
When we consider the knower, the knower cannot be divisble because if it were we would not know into which part the knower went.
[edit] Asking these questions is how I get to know Awareness and settle into it. It will be interesting to know the techniques of others. Each question is meant to reveal these cannot be the knower. Because Awareness is not of thought or words a lot can be said about what it is not. There is a sense that even if you say what it is, it is not that because what you say is always of thought. You get to the brink by thought and then most naturally Awareness of Awareness carries you over.
Now we're talking
That's a good argument for an indivisible knowing. I don't like to use the word "knower" because of the dualistic mess it creates.
If the knowing is divisible, the fact that it appears to be indivisible could be explained by the illusion of continuity, much like the way the impermanence of objects is so easily overlooked. But I don't think this argument is as good as the one you proposed. Nicely done. From a 1st person standpoint, we may as well understand the knowing as indivisible, as this explanation works as good as any - and better than most..
I'm still not sure how cessation fits in, so that's going to require some more investigation. Thanks for keeping the conversation going.
Jackson
That's a good argument for an indivisible knowing. I don't like to use the word "knower" because of the dualistic mess it creates.
If the knowing is divisible, the fact that it appears to be indivisible could be explained by the illusion of continuity, much like the way the impermanence of objects is so easily overlooked. But I don't think this argument is as good as the one you proposed. Nicely done. From a 1st person standpoint, we may as well understand the knowing as indivisible, as this explanation works as good as any - and better than most..
I'm still not sure how cessation fits in, so that's going to require some more investigation. Thanks for keeping the conversation going.
Jackson
Author: ByPasser
Yes! It is very subtle, like a magical spell. Infact 'ignorance' is also a form of knowing; a very very deep and conditioned form of relative knowing. The subject-object way of seeing things is not the only way, it is just a convenient way but has since then become ultimate. When we are not completely out of the subtle influences, it is advisable to have firm establishment of the right view of dependent origination (a non-dual and non-local view) and practice with this new 'awaken eye of immediacy'. When the non-dual and non-local direct experience dawn, the emptiness view will dissolve itself. It too is a raft.
Happy Journey.
Yes! It is very subtle, like a magical spell. Infact 'ignorance' is also a form of knowing; a very very deep and conditioned form of relative knowing. The subject-object way of seeing things is not the only way, it is just a convenient way but has since then become ultimate. When we are not completely out of the subtle influences, it is advisable to have firm establishment of the right view of dependent origination (a non-dual and non-local view) and practice with this new 'awaken eye of immediacy'. When the non-dual and non-local direct experience dawn, the emptiness view will dissolve itself. It too is a raft.
Happy Journey.
Hi Ed
That's a great point about it being easier to do while reading than talking. I've made serious insight progress reading and reflecting on Nisargadatta Maharaj and Jiddu Krishnamurti quotes and talks.
I'm not entirely confident saying this without the disclaimer that I'm no master of this territory and I could be speaking out of my ass (please tell me if I'm jerking my own chain and this is impossible) but I believe I've been able several times to progress up through to mid dark night nanas just reading the descriptions of them in MCTB. That said, frequently spending the afternoon at work in dark night as a result of getting stuck there during lunch makes me wonder, at times, why I bother
Craig
That's a great point about it being easier to do while reading than talking. I've made serious insight progress reading and reflecting on Nisargadatta Maharaj and Jiddu Krishnamurti quotes and talks.
I'm not entirely confident saying this without the disclaimer that I'm no master of this territory and I could be speaking out of my ass (please tell me if I'm jerking my own chain and this is impossible) but I believe I've been able several times to progress up through to mid dark night nanas just reading the descriptions of them in MCTB. That said, frequently spending the afternoon at work in dark night as a result of getting stuck there during lunch makes me wonder, at times, why I bother
Craig
Author: garyrh
Essence, nature and energy are a balanced whole, the knowing (or not knowing) of each affects the whole. Without essence the matters of 'spirit' are mystical or nonsensical or seen only with energy being mechanical and lifeless. Without energy the matters of spirit have no "grounding" there is nowhere to move in reality.
A question I asked for a long time; why is there something and not nothing?
If there be only essence there is no something (with regards to phenomena).
If there be only nature there is no question (all is empty the question is not meaningful).
If there be only energy there is no answer (or for that matter no meaningful asking).
Mystical crap? maybe, maybe not -
[edit] I realised I have only inferred my point. It is a simple (or stupid :-p) question and if you find yourself asking it after it is understood, not neccesarily answered, I am saying there in is essence, nature and energy.
Essence, nature and energy are a balanced whole, the knowing (or not knowing) of each affects the whole. Without essence the matters of 'spirit' are mystical or nonsensical or seen only with energy being mechanical and lifeless. Without energy the matters of spirit have no "grounding" there is nowhere to move in reality.
A question I asked for a long time; why is there something and not nothing?
If there be only essence there is no something (with regards to phenomena).
If there be only nature there is no question (all is empty the question is not meaningful).
If there be only energy there is no answer (or for that matter no meaningful asking).
Mystical crap? maybe, maybe not -
[edit] I realised I have only inferred my point. It is a simple (or stupid :-p) question and if you find yourself asking it after it is understood, not neccesarily answered, I am saying there in is essence, nature and energy.
Hi Jackson, haha I know what you mean. Your original post mentioned a passage from the Tao Te Ching... that same passage ends with "Mystery of mysteries. The gate of all wonders!"
I don't know that I find much benefit in the quoted cross-definitions either.
On what you said about slippery concepts: When I bring forth (without getting into whether from upstream downstream or just here) non-dual awareness I can clearly see the three aspects of it. I don't see them as being concepts but fundamental characteristics which are self evident. When discussed, sure, they're concepts... but the concepts point to the characteristics, however poorly.
I'm still trying to work out if boundlessness is really a good replacement for emptiness as you can't the sense doors are boundless of self. But in way that I see emptiness in realtime, it really does seem to be boundlessness, and using that pointer, dualistic awareness gives way to nondual awareness very naturally.
What do you think?
Craig
I don't know that I find much benefit in the quoted cross-definitions either.
On what you said about slippery concepts: When I bring forth (without getting into whether from upstream downstream or just here) non-dual awareness I can clearly see the three aspects of it. I don't see them as being concepts but fundamental characteristics which are self evident. When discussed, sure, they're concepts... but the concepts point to the characteristics, however poorly.
I'm still trying to work out if boundlessness is really a good replacement for emptiness as you can't the sense doors are boundless of self. But in way that I see emptiness in realtime, it really does seem to be boundlessness, and using that pointer, dualistic awareness gives way to nondual awareness very naturally.
What do you think?
Craig