what is noting if not dis-embedding? - Discussion
what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 5:24 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 5:20 PM
what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
To me it seems like what noting accomplishes - and what the Paths as we have defined them here do - is progressive dis-embedding. At 4th path there is still suffering, but it's not happening to "me", type of thing.
However from a few posts here it appears dis-embedding is not what Buddhism tells us to do...
If so then what is noting actually doing, if not dis-embedding? What is realizing the selflessness of all phenomena if not dis-embedding?
If it is dis-embedding then it is wrong (according to the Buddha, which is what we base our practice on (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha)). In that case, what is Vipassana supposed to actually accomplish?
(Actually it being "wrong" would explain why Vipassana seems to stop working at 4th path. There is still suffering (though perceived differently enough to make one say there isn't) but Vipassana cannot do anything to remove that suffering.)
However from a few posts here it appears dis-embedding is not what Buddhism tells us to do...
If so then what is noting actually doing, if not dis-embedding? What is realizing the selflessness of all phenomena if not dis-embedding?
If it is dis-embedding then it is wrong (according to the Buddha, which is what we base our practice on (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha)). In that case, what is Vipassana supposed to actually accomplish?
(Actually it being "wrong" would explain why Vipassana seems to stop working at 4th path. There is still suffering (though perceived differently enough to make one say there isn't) but Vipassana cannot do anything to remove that suffering.)
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 6:59 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 6:54 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent PostsBeoman Beo Beoman:
To me it seems like what noting accomplishes - and what the Paths as we have defined them here do - is progressive dis-embedding. At 4th path there is still suffering, but it's not happening to "me", type of thing.
However from a few posts here it appears dis-embedding is not what Buddhism tells us to do...
If so then what is noting actually doing, if not dis-embedding? What is realizing the selflessness of all phenomena if not dis-embedding?
If it is dis-embedding then it is wrong (according to the Buddha, which is what we base our practice on (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha)). In that case, what is Vipassana supposed to actually accomplish?
(Actually it being "wrong" would explain why Vipassana seems to stop working at 4th path. There is still suffering (though perceived differently enough to make one say there isn't) but Vipassana cannot do anything to remove that suffering.)
However from a few posts here it appears dis-embedding is not what Buddhism tells us to do...
If so then what is noting actually doing, if not dis-embedding? What is realizing the selflessness of all phenomena if not dis-embedding?
If it is dis-embedding then it is wrong (according to the Buddha, which is what we base our practice on (Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha)). In that case, what is Vipassana supposed to actually accomplish?
(Actually it being "wrong" would explain why Vipassana seems to stop working at 4th path. There is still suffering (though perceived differently enough to make one say there isn't) but Vipassana cannot do anything to remove that suffering.)
Who said noting and vipassana stops working at 4th? Links? Haha!
4th path as it's called here and at KFD (not for long it seems) , in my opinion, is Sakadagami level of the fetter model of awakening. I don't think 4th path as it's called here, was meant to be the end goal. It was mistaken for it, yes. But it isn't and further progress on the path is very very possible. The fetter model appears to be very valid. One can still use the noting technique to keep progressing. Or one can do other practices and techniques to progress. Haha!, Beoman, maybe it'd be a better idea to wait till you get to what has been called 4th path before miking those sweeping statements. ;)
I personally have dropped noting as my practice and have switched to a practice which is more inline with what the buddha taught in the suttas concerning jhanas and practicing insight within them. 4th path (DhO and KfD) is not the end in my current experience and that of other so called 4th pathers. It is only half way in my current subject to change opinion. And the process of disembedding from the process of conceiving continues....and quite well I might say.
Nick
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 7:16 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 7:15 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent PostsNikolai H.:
Who said noting and vipassana stops working at 4th? Links? Haha!
I'm just going by what 4th pathers have said. Some in private correspondences. Others publicly, e.g. Dan Ingram (from here):
Daniel M. Ingram:
Since then vipassana doesn't seem to do anything in particular and there is no sense of some new vipassana thing to finish or work on and any cycles that do occur are relatively trivial and don't seem to lead anywhere on that front.
Note: on that front. as in, still stuff to be done (based on his experiment with AF), just not on that front.
variations on that front. KFD's approach (paraphrasing): "You're done when you are done. If there were a survey asking for Enlightened participants, you would sign up." You yourself have said you're done before, as opposed to midway done as you say now. done not only as in, "yay I'm enlightened now!" but also as in "this meditation practice will not get me anywhere anymore." Even on KFD, there seems to be a focus on 2nd and 3rd gear and other approaches, as opposed to continuing Vipassana.
i'm not saying the fetter model is invalid - in fact I think it's all possible. I'm just saying that I think Vipassana/noting won't get you there. and if it won't I'm wondering whether we're going wrong.
Nikolai H.:
I personally have dropped noting as my practice and have switched to a practice which is more inline with what the buddha taught in the suttas concerning jhanas and practicing insight within them. 4th path (DhO and KfD) is not the end in my current experience and that of other so called 4th pathers. It is only half way in my current subject to change opinion. And the process of disembedding from the process of conceiving continues....and quite well I might say.
What you said on earlier threads gave me the impression that you thought you were totally disembedded. Is that correct? If yes, what do you experience now that makes you think you are not? If not, then what did you mean when you say things such as ( paraphrasing again, sorry), "there is anger, but no Nick being angry"?
Thanks for the link, I'll definitely check it out.
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 8:02 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 7:41 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
I wont comment on Daniel's take on it and why he said that as I have no idea why.
At the moemnt, my practice is this: http://thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com/2011/01/yogi-tool-box-letting-go-approach-to.html
So, in a sense I am not the best supporter of noting post DhO 4th path. It has served me though post 4th in the past 6 months. But I'll save that for a Hamilton Project post. Get to 4th and see for yourself for the moment. ;)
In my earlier threads I was in the honeymoon period where it all feels hunky dory. Then I began to spiral further down the rabbit hole.There is no-one who gets angry, yes. But getting angry and other crappy emotions still suck in a certain way. They are irritating and seem triggered by the mirage of "I AM" that seems to still arise. . Just not like pre-DhO 4th path. In my experience craving and aversion have been attenuated but not eradicated. In my current practice, it seems I am headed in that direction of eradication. More time needed though.
At DhO 4th path, insight disease is done away with. That weird centre point knot of illusory self is untangled. Craving and aversion lose the hold they once had, but shit still can surface. You just have a very nice tool to work with it now. The DhO 4th path mind!
But, the PCE practice showed that there was more to do. It showed the possibility that what the pragmatic dharma crowd had previously denied as possible was actually possible. It shed light on things unseen previously and kind of put some of us back on the ride. In a way, it could be considered the AP of post 4th. Daniel and Kenneth both seem to have had it reboot their practices. Now I aint gonna comment on AF as the final goal, I have no idea what to think there. But suffice to say, experiencing the PCE snapped me out of any "4th path pathology" or resting my laurels too soon. I think it's rampant among 4th pathers. There was more to do and if you don't go looking for something more to see, you won't be tempted to keep investigating and seeing what can be done. Once you do, one can keep practicing without that incessant urge to get it done like pre-4th (insight disease). Which kind of corresponds nicely to having aversion and craving attenuated (sakadagami-fetter model) . Think about monks who adhered to the fetter model for centuries. Do you think they would have rested their laurels at a stage that was obviously matching up with the 2nd stage of awakening of the fetter model? They would have certainly not thought themselves done and would continue onwards.
And concerning getting angry (which was awhile ago now), when i explained getting angry, I explained it as a process that was easily seen, and easily let go of. The composite of sensations and the mind bending and reacting towards them with emotions and intentions was easily seen as separate parts of a thing called "emotion". None of it self. .But there was still a tendency (not as strong anymore) to compound phenomena and create sankhara after sankhara. But it was still occuring. Just not as "in one's face" and very much sticky-free. But they kept arising as mirages that could trip one up and lead to unskillful behaviour and suffering. Now, due to my current practice, getting angry seems not to occur like it did directly after post 4th. It seems to have lost soemthing and I need more time to explain it properly. Future blog post. ;) It is notoriously hard for me to explain the way the mind has been left at DhO-4th path. I lack the vocab. Sorry about that.
Anyway, onward and upward!
Nick
At the moemnt, my practice is this: http://thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com/2011/01/yogi-tool-box-letting-go-approach-to.html
So, in a sense I am not the best supporter of noting post DhO 4th path. It has served me though post 4th in the past 6 months. But I'll save that for a Hamilton Project post. Get to 4th and see for yourself for the moment. ;)
In my earlier threads I was in the honeymoon period where it all feels hunky dory. Then I began to spiral further down the rabbit hole.There is no-one who gets angry, yes. But getting angry and other crappy emotions still suck in a certain way. They are irritating and seem triggered by the mirage of "I AM" that seems to still arise. . Just not like pre-DhO 4th path. In my experience craving and aversion have been attenuated but not eradicated. In my current practice, it seems I am headed in that direction of eradication. More time needed though.
At DhO 4th path, insight disease is done away with. That weird centre point knot of illusory self is untangled. Craving and aversion lose the hold they once had, but shit still can surface. You just have a very nice tool to work with it now. The DhO 4th path mind!
But, the PCE practice showed that there was more to do. It showed the possibility that what the pragmatic dharma crowd had previously denied as possible was actually possible. It shed light on things unseen previously and kind of put some of us back on the ride. In a way, it could be considered the AP of post 4th. Daniel and Kenneth both seem to have had it reboot their practices. Now I aint gonna comment on AF as the final goal, I have no idea what to think there. But suffice to say, experiencing the PCE snapped me out of any "4th path pathology" or resting my laurels too soon. I think it's rampant among 4th pathers. There was more to do and if you don't go looking for something more to see, you won't be tempted to keep investigating and seeing what can be done. Once you do, one can keep practicing without that incessant urge to get it done like pre-4th (insight disease). Which kind of corresponds nicely to having aversion and craving attenuated (sakadagami-fetter model) . Think about monks who adhered to the fetter model for centuries. Do you think they would have rested their laurels at a stage that was obviously matching up with the 2nd stage of awakening of the fetter model? They would have certainly not thought themselves done and would continue onwards.
And concerning getting angry (which was awhile ago now), when i explained getting angry, I explained it as a process that was easily seen, and easily let go of. The composite of sensations and the mind bending and reacting towards them with emotions and intentions was easily seen as separate parts of a thing called "emotion". None of it self. .But there was still a tendency (not as strong anymore) to compound phenomena and create sankhara after sankhara. But it was still occuring. Just not as "in one's face" and very much sticky-free. But they kept arising as mirages that could trip one up and lead to unskillful behaviour and suffering. Now, due to my current practice, getting angry seems not to occur like it did directly after post 4th. It seems to have lost soemthing and I need more time to explain it properly. Future blog post. ;) It is notoriously hard for me to explain the way the mind has been left at DhO-4th path. I lack the vocab. Sorry about that.
Anyway, onward and upward!
Nick
Bruno Loff, modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 10:12 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 10:12 AM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1104 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent PostsNikolai H.:
The composite of sensations and the mind bending and reacting towards them with emotions and intentions was easily seen as separate parts of a thing called "emotion". None of it self.
Interesting to compare this with "I am my feelings and my feelings are me."
Are you actively trying to see emotion as "not self"?
I come to the conclusion that the "sense of self" is made up of the exact same building blocks as emotion, but given that you came to the opposite reasoning ("None of it self"), I'm wondering "how can that be?"
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 10:44 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 10:39 AM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent PostsBruno Loff:
Nikolai H.:
The composite of sensations and the mind bending and reacting towards them with emotions and intentions was easily seen as separate parts of a thing called "emotion". None of it self.
Interesting to compare this with "I am my feelings and my feelings are me."
Are you actively trying to see emotion as "not self"?
I come to the conclusion that the "sense of self" is made up of the exact same building blocks as emotion, but given that you came to the opposite reasoning ("None of it self"), I'm wondering "how can that be?"
Yeh, you spilt up the emotion into the sum of its parts (sensations and mental "bending") and it ceases to be an emotion in the same sense as before. I assume Tarin talks about the sensations that remain as still being emotions connected to a sense of being or the same thing. The aggregates are not self. There is no self to be found in any aggregate. This is getting clearer and clearer in my own experience. And I can't see anything beyond the aggregates. And emotions are a combo of the aggregates doing their thing too. The sense of self is a misreading of the aggregates as is the misreading of emotions in my experience- this opinion is subject to explode in my face in the future. ;) I do believe the emotions are connected to that sense of "I AM" and prob the same thing. Maybe Tarin is talking about a subtler sense of being that underlies all that. I dont know.
Steph S, modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 5:38 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 5:37 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 672 Join Date: 3/24/10 Recent Posts
Hi Nick,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word aggregate here, but your quotes I outlined below sparked curiosity.
"Yeh, you spilt up the emotion into the sum of its parts (sensations and mental "bending") and it ceases to be an emotion in the same sense as before"
So you would see an emotion as each individual sensation, and just that. For example, happiness might be made up of a bunch of wave like sensations and thoughts. So it's components would be - wave sensation, thought, wave sensation, thought, wave sensation.
"There is no self to be found in any aggregate."
Aggregate is ag·gre·gate Adjective /ˈagrigit/ - Formed or calculated by the combination of many separate units or items; total.
So the aggregate of sensations in the example above would be happiness. How is there not self in that aggregate? Possibly the perception that certain sensations combine to create an aggregate (which may have at one point seemed familiar as a particular emotion) is one of the things which perpetuates "self".
"And I can't see anything beyond the aggregates. And emotions are a combo of the aggregates doing their thing too."
If you are splitting the emotion up into parts, how are you seeing an aggregate? Aren't you just seeing its components? I hope I'm not confusing you, cuz this is kind of confusing to me right now too. What I'm getting at is... where does the bundling of certain sensations start and end, to decide that an aggregate happens? To me, aggregate suggests something that is formed from a perception, when it seems the very nature of sensations being perpetual would render them formless, thus not able to be combined into an aggregate.
Steph
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word aggregate here, but your quotes I outlined below sparked curiosity.
"Yeh, you spilt up the emotion into the sum of its parts (sensations and mental "bending") and it ceases to be an emotion in the same sense as before"
So you would see an emotion as each individual sensation, and just that. For example, happiness might be made up of a bunch of wave like sensations and thoughts. So it's components would be - wave sensation, thought, wave sensation, thought, wave sensation.
"There is no self to be found in any aggregate."
Aggregate is ag·gre·gate Adjective /ˈagrigit/ - Formed or calculated by the combination of many separate units or items; total.
So the aggregate of sensations in the example above would be happiness. How is there not self in that aggregate? Possibly the perception that certain sensations combine to create an aggregate (which may have at one point seemed familiar as a particular emotion) is one of the things which perpetuates "self".
"And I can't see anything beyond the aggregates. And emotions are a combo of the aggregates doing their thing too."
If you are splitting the emotion up into parts, how are you seeing an aggregate? Aren't you just seeing its components? I hope I'm not confusing you, cuz this is kind of confusing to me right now too. What I'm getting at is... where does the bundling of certain sensations start and end, to decide that an aggregate happens? To me, aggregate suggests something that is formed from a perception, when it seems the very nature of sensations being perpetual would render them formless, thus not able to be combined into an aggregate.
Steph
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:34 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:17 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent PostsSteph S:
Hi Nick,
So you would see an emotion as each individual sensation, and just that. For example, happiness might be made up of a bunch of wave like sensations and thoughts. So it's components would be - wave sensation, thought, wave sensation, thought, wave sensation.
So you would see an emotion as each individual sensation, and just that. For example, happiness might be made up of a bunch of wave like sensations and thoughts. So it's components would be - wave sensation, thought, wave sensation, thought, wave sensation.
Hi Steph,
The discerning and breaking down of what most people consider an "emotion" into its compounded parts reduces it generally, in my experience, into just sensations without the mental reaction and thought patterns triggered by those sensations. Happiness is a flow of sensations somewhere in the body (usually flowing at my chest for me) that either is triggered by or triggers a flow of pleasant thoughts and a pleasant mind state. But if these "emotions" are discerned as they arise, without conceiving of any self in the "parts", and perhaps seeing the 3 C's in it all, or disembedding from it via noting or some other technique, then they are seen directly as just materiality and mentality and the interplay between the two. Nothing but nama and rupa. So yes, an emotion could be seen as wave of sensation after sensation coupled with waves of thoughts. Each influencing, triggering and supporting each other. A process of creating sankharas after sankharas and pushing the flow of mind forward, becoming , becoming, becoming. This is my current experience.
Steph S:
"There is no self to be found in any aggregate."
Aggregate is ag·gre·gate Adjective /ˈagrigit/ - Formed or calculated by the combination of many separate units or items; total.
So the aggregate of sensations in the example above would be happiness. How is there not self in that aggregate? Possibly the perception that certain sensations combine to create an aggregate (which may have at one point seemed familiar as a particular emotion) is one of the things which perpetuates "self".
The skhandas/aggregates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
No, I wouldnt say the aggregate of vedana/sensations would be happiness. Happiness is a compounded phenomena: a sensation with tone, and mental reaction/thoughts (sankhara) with perception, consciousness and form all playing their parts. . Take away a part, via seeing it all arise and pass away (such as the thoughts), and does it still exist as "an emotion" as you see it? I wouldn't call the sensation alone , the emotion.
I don't follow the AF idealogy nor theory for now. So we may be talking across each other.
Steph S:
"And I can't see anything beyond the aggregates. And emotions are a combo of the aggregates doing their thing too."
If you are splitting the emotion up into parts, how are you seeing an aggregate? Aren't you just seeing its components? I hope I'm not confusing you, cuz this is kind of confusing to me right now too. What I'm getting at is... where does the bundling of certain sensations start and end, to decide that an aggregate happens? To me, aggregate suggests something that is formed from a perception, when it seems the very nature of sensations being perpetual would render them formless, thus not able to be combined into an aggregate.
I probably didn't explain myself in the best way. I am referring to the aggregates as talked of by the Buddha also called the skandhas or khandas. There are 5 of them. They correspond to nama and rupa- mentality and materiality. Mentality consists of 1/ consciousness, 2/ mental formations-ie all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object, 3/ perception 4/ and the tone of sensations i.e. pleasant , unpleasant or neutral, and 5/ the rupa/materialty part which is form. All of these aggregates can be seen to arise and pass away if a yogi looks with discernment. They are mistaken for self all the time. But they are just impersonal, impermanent phenomena in my current experiecne. No self there to find.
Does this help?
metta,
Nick
Tommy M, modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 4:57 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 4:57 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts4th path as it's called here and at KFD (not for long it seems) , in my opinion, is Sakadagami level of the fetter model of awakening. I don't think 4th path as it's called here, was meant to be the end goal. It was mistaken for it, yes. But it isn't and further progress on the path is very very possible.
This is very similar to my own thoughts on this matter Nick, especially the Sakadagami idea. It seems that AF sounds about as close as it gets to the Theravadan 3rd path, based on my very limited knowledge, and what I've come to call "MCTB 4th-path" looks as near as damnit to 2nd. It's only since getting more involved in studying the suttas that this is becoming more apparent, I still absolutely agree and wholeheartedly believe that Arahatship, whatever that may be, is possible and that much of the controversy surrounding discussion of attainment within traditional Buddhism is still total bullshit.
If Dan, Kenneth or anyone who's claimed 4th path has been incorrect then I certainly wouldn't lose any respect for them, after all they've been instrumental in helping all of us and have paved the way for considerable progress in spreading the Dharma in the Western world. If it weren't for hardcore (or practical, which I prefer...Ha!) dharma via, in particular, Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk I wouldn't have discovered the beauty of the suttas and the original teachings of the Buddha and I'm sure many others, particularly from the Western mystery tradition, would share this view.
What this does lead me to question is things like nirodha samapatti (which I now wonder if it's perhaps some sort of 'special' fruition rather than an attainment in itself) or the arupa jhanas, things which were supposedly unavailable to those below 3rd path in the Theravdan model? What's your take on this? You can attain NS and you've gotten into the PL-jhanas too so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
As for noting vs. disembedding, I see no problem with either term. My opinion is that becoming aware of the Three Characteristics will lead one to experience reality as it it, with no seperate observer, no dualistic knot in perception, the removal of any belief in a self through direct experience. This could be considered disembedding the illusion of self, it's not entirely eradicated yet, we still feel emotion, we still think, but we no longer identify with these functions which is what created the suffering. You see through duality, the whole paradox collapses and "I" am seen as being the same as everything else that can be experienced through the six sense doors, no more and no less. AF removes the "self" entirely, or at least it certainly seems that way within PCE, and the words of those practicing, or AF themselves, seem to indicate the same but I stand to be corrected here as always.
So much for me not posting for a while.....Good thread though.
Tommy
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 5:19 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 5:09 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
I whole heartedly agree, Tommy, concerning NS. I can only get access to what people have been calling NS, at least the cessation , for a brief moment. I'm unable to dwell in it for long periods. I feel like it might be just a different way to cessation, but what nirodha is in the suttas? I am not sure. It still rcoks though and is very very insight inducing and probably ha a vital role to play in progressing further onwards. At least hat is how Iam experiencing it. I do know of another yogi who has professed to me that he has reached at least anagami in the fetter model and this yogi seemingly has experienced very long periods in cessation. PL jhanas are only talked of by Kenneth and Daniel. No where to be found mentioned in suttas. I can get into them sure, but are they a sure fire sign of anagami as it was meant in the fetter model? No, I don't think so. No mention of the PL jhanas anywhere.
NS may not be the real deal. I dont know. But I aint there yet.
Onwards and upwards!
Nick
NS may not be the real deal. I dont know. But I aint there yet.
Onwards and upwards!
Nick
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:08 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:08 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent PostsNikolai H.:
I whole heartedly agree, Tommy, concerning NS. I can only get access to what people have been calling NS, at least the cessation , for a brief moment. I'm unable to dwell in it for long periods. I feel like it might be just a different way to cessation, but what nirodha is in the suttas? I am not sure. It still rcoks though and is very very insight inducing and probably ha a vital role to play in progressing further onwards. At least hat is how Iam experiencing it. I do know of another yogi who has professed to me that he has reached at least anagami in the fetter model and this yogi seemingly has experienced very long periods in cessation. PL jhanas are only talked of by Kenneth and Daniel. No where to be found mentioned in suttas. I can get into them sure, but are they a sure fire sign of anagami as it was meant in the fetter model? No, I don't think so. No mention of the PL jhanas anywhere.
NS may not be the real deal. I dont know. But I aint there yet.
Onwards and upwards!
Nick
NS may not be the real deal. I dont know. But I aint there yet.
Onwards and upwards!
Nick
Heh my current potentially blasphemous theory (no backing of course) is that we're not the first to mistake Anagami in our way with Anagami in the 10 fetter model... so perhaps people who made the same mistake as us all those years ago came to that conclusion, and were speaking of our Anagami? Or something.
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:31 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:31 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent PostsBeoman Beo Beoman:
[
Heh my current potentially blasphemous theory (no backing of course) is that we're not the first to mistake Anagami in our way with Anagami in the 10 fetter model... so perhaps people who made the same mistake as us all those years ago came to that conclusion, and were speaking of our Anagami? Or something.
Heh my current potentially blasphemous theory (no backing of course) is that we're not the first to mistake Anagami in our way with Anagami in the 10 fetter model... so perhaps people who made the same mistake as us all those years ago came to that conclusion, and were speaking of our Anagami? Or something.
I happen to completely agree with you Beoman.
Nick
Tommy M, modified 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:12 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/28/11 6:12 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Aye, that's how I'd describe what I've seen of NS too! I've been doubting it's even NS at all, and now this reconsideration of the path system we've all been using till now is giving me more reason to question what's going on there. Absolutely agree about the possibility of this being some new (?) cessation, possibly even Path if the profound insights afterwards are anything to go by!
I've also read about extended periods of cessation, I think Kenneth has got something on his site about that actually but I can't remember for sure. It's definitely very interesting and there's so much to consider, whatever the answer is I can't possibly disagree with your parting shot: Onwards and upwards! Although maybe adding some trans-dimensional quantum level hilarity might be a laugh....
As for the PL's, I know it's just a name that's used on here for those jhanas above 8th and aren't mentioned in the suttas, my apologies if it seemed I was implying otherwise. I was mainly talking about them being unlikely to be attained pre-MCTB 3rd-Path in the same way as NS, or the arupa jhanas in general. Interesting business indeed.
Thanks for the reply.
I've also read about extended periods of cessation, I think Kenneth has got something on his site about that actually but I can't remember for sure. It's definitely very interesting and there's so much to consider, whatever the answer is I can't possibly disagree with your parting shot: Onwards and upwards! Although maybe adding some trans-dimensional quantum level hilarity might be a laugh....
As for the PL's, I know it's just a name that's used on here for those jhanas above 8th and aren't mentioned in the suttas, my apologies if it seemed I was implying otherwise. I was mainly talking about them being unlikely to be attained pre-MCTB 3rd-Path in the same way as NS, or the arupa jhanas in general. Interesting business indeed.
Thanks for the reply.
Nikolai , modified 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 7:05 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/27/11 7:05 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Poststarin greco, modified 13 Years ago at 1/29/11 8:06 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/29/11 8:05 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
the practice of noting is the practice of noticing a particular process, namely, that of the arising of an object and the knowing of it, and the passing of the object and the knowing of it.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop.
in 'practical insight meditation', mahasi wrote:
'The objects noticed and the consciousness noticing them cease altogether'
though the passage from which the above quotation comes concerns the cessation of formations (as in a fruition), the phenomenon described is what happens all the time. in the cessation of the objects noticed and the consciousness noticing them, there is no binding; in no binding, there is cessation here and now.
tarin
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop.
in 'practical insight meditation', mahasi wrote:
'The objects noticed and the consciousness noticing them cease altogether'
though the passage from which the above quotation comes concerns the cessation of formations (as in a fruition), the phenomenon described is what happens all the time. in the cessation of the objects noticed and the consciousness noticing them, there is no binding; in no binding, there is cessation here and now.
tarin
Daniel Johnson, modified 13 Years ago at 1/31/11 3:39 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 1/31/11 3:39 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/16/09 Recent Poststarin greco:
the practice of noting is the practice of noticing a particular process, namely, that of the arising of an object and the knowing of it, and the passing of the object and the knowing of it.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop.
Thank you for this. .
mico mico, modified 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 4:36 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 4:36 AM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 79 Join Date: 8/13/10 Recent Poststarin greco:
the practice of noting is the practice of noticing a particular process, namely, that of the arising of an object and the knowing of it, and the passing of the object and the knowing of it.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop
Whereas in the hurricane ranch discussion you say 'the sensations of self, through mystical disembedding, dissociation, whichever whatever, can be seen to be.."
But anyway, can't you see what you are doing here? You are describing a process based on the atomic units of 'arising', 'passing', 'object' and 'knowing of it', then claiming other constructions of a different level of abstraction aren't a part of that picture; as you rightly can, it's your picture after all. But you write as if you are describing reality when you are simply outlining the boundaries of your own thinking, and your refusal to conflate a structural paradigm with a procedural one (whilst ignoring the necessary atomicity of the basis of your process analysis).
Incidentally, in how many ways do the practice of Noting and asking HAIETMOBA intersect?
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 9:22 AM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 9:22 AM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Postsmico mico:
But anyway, can't you see what you are doing here? You are describing a process based on the atomic units of 'arising', 'passing', 'object' and 'knowing of it', then claiming other constructions of a different level of abstraction aren't a part of that picture; as you rightly can, it's your picture after all. But you write as if you are describing reality when you are simply outlining the boundaries of your own thinking, and your refusal to conflate a structural paradigm with a procedural one (whilst ignoring the necessary atomicity of the basis of your process analysis).
I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but here's my take on why people might call it 'dis-embedding.' like you say, it's a process over the course of many months. so in the arising and the knowing, and the passing and the knowing, when you get to do that really well you understand something about sensations, and you stop taking them so seriously (various Paths). so you might call that over-arching thing 'dis-embedding', though with a peculiar nuance to the word since you're not going anywhere by doing so.
however, if you're meditating and noting and trying to dis-embed, you're not doing it so effectively... the idea isn't to hide from the sensations, or try to separate yourself from them, but to see them. i notice lately when i think "whatever is happening is happening NOW", my perspective goes from kind of a few steps removed from the sensations, observing them, type thing, to the sensations coming up right to the forefront and me actually feeling like i'm experiencing them.
mico mico, modified 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 2:04 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 2:04 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 79 Join Date: 8/13/10 Recent PostsBeoman Beo Beoman:
I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but here's my take on why people might call it 'dis-embedding.' like you say, it's a process over the course of many months. so in the arising and the knowing, and the passing and the knowing, when you get to do that really well you understand something about sensations, and you stop taking them so seriously (various Paths). so you might call that over-arching thing 'dis-embedding', though with a peculiar nuance to the word since you're not going anywhere by doing so.
If I managed to say all that with my words then that's cool
(Although I was making a more general point about language and the nature of thought, confusing levels and types of abstraction and the way a partial reification hides in our expressions...but using this specific example as my poor target.)
So yes, the individual is dis-embedding from the fantasy, freeing up awareness. We can look at this as an objective statement about process, where our words are successful if we manage to communicate (make common), but get into trouble if we read it as a subjective description of actuality, as I think you now point out:
Beoman Beo Beoman:
however, if you're meditating and noting and trying to dis-embed, you're not doing it so effectively... the idea isn't to hide from the sensations, or try to separate yourself from them, but to see them. i notice lately when i think "whatever is happening is happening NOW", my perspective goes from kind of a few steps removed from the sensations, observing them, type thing, to the sensations coming up right to the forefront and me actually feeling like i'm experiencing them.
I wonder, instead of feeling as though 'you' are 'having' 'experiences', or even the closer 'i'm actually experiencing them', do you sometimes feel as though experience is 'having you'?
Jeff Grove, modified 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 6:10 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 6:04 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 310 Join Date: 8/24/09 Recent Postsmico mico:
tarin greco:
the practice of noting is the practice of noticing a particular process, namely, that of the arising of an object and the knowing of it, and the passing of the object and the knowing of it.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop
Whereas in the hurricane ranch discussion you say 'the sensations of self, through mystical disembedding, dissociation, whichever whatever, can be seen to be.."
But anyway, can't you see what you are doing here? You are describing a process based on the atomic units of 'arising', 'passing', 'object' and 'knowing of it', then claiming other constructions of a different level of abstraction aren't a part of that picture; as you rightly can, it's your picture after all. But you write as if you are describing reality when you are simply outlining the boundaries of your own thinking, and your refusal to conflate a structural paradigm with a procedural one (whilst ignoring the necessary atomicity of the basis of your process analysis).
Incidentally, in how many ways do the practice of Noting and asking HAIETMOBA intersect?
If you investigate now you will only find elements of experience in this moment. The element of experience at its source is a response which instinctively occurs to your surroundings. It starts out as an unconsious act, a release of chemicals and wave of visceral changes, these feelings are the conscious experience in this moment, and with feeling feed thoughts we create an immaterial internal world, "me", "my mind", "I" that is seperate from the external world of objects. There is no mind to disembed only this material body partcipating sensorily with its surroundings. By disembedding we are giving substance to a mind even if it is taken as being empty. An empty mind and the disembeded objects. Noting uses attention to observe change and pause before action to allow understanding of the 3 characteristics
For the really geeky I cant help but see the parrallel between signal processing techniques and the use of a window, a waveform function through which the signal is processed to reveal patterns that would otherwise not be seen in the signal.
By applying the 3 characteristics window and observing through a higher resolution (concentration - smaller window) a pattern or stratification of experience (no mind) is revealed (stable levels of jhana and cycles). The arising of an object the knowing of it, the passing of the object and the knowing of it. Asking HAIETMOBA brings attention to "How" these elements of experience occur, the process mistaken for "me".
cheers
Jeff
tarin greco, modified 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 8:38 PM
Created 13 Years ago at 2/1/11 8:38 PM
RE: what is noting if not dis-embedding?
Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Postsmico mico:
tarin greco:
the practice of noting is the practice of noticing a particular process, namely, that of the arising of an object and the knowing of it, and the passing of the object and the knowing of it.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop
Whereas in the hurricane ranch discussion you say 'the sensations of self, through mystical disembedding, dissociation, whichever whatever, can be seen to be.."
the entire quote, which regards the actualism method, is as follows (with additional clarification in brackets):
''all right, well, first off, you can't really go about this by thinking of it as a means to eliminate emotion, this isn't that. the elimination of emotions happens as a necessary result, a necessary consequence, to [sic] the elimination of being/of this feeling of presence/of this sense of 'i'/of subject, which, through insight practice, through mystical dis-embedding, dissociating, whichever whatever, becomes just part of the sensate field and is no more and no less [a part of that field] than any sensation of anything else. this [, the actualism method,] actually causes the binding which causes that very sense of there even being a self in any way, shape, or form ... that [very sense that] is felt to be one - it causes that to simply vanish.'
in that discussion with daniel ingram, recorded in august of last year, i was contrasting the practice of actualism with the conflated category of vipassana practices for the sole purpose of drawing a difference in the overall results that i (and by their descriptions and accounts, that any others with whom i was acquainted) had found from those practices. for that purpose, it was not necessary to distinguish between the orthodoxy of the mahasi method, the re-presentation offered by daniel ingram, or the interpolation offered by kenneth folk (which is where the notion of 'dis-embedding' gets introduced).
going strictly by the mahasi method, whatever feeling of presence or sense of 'i' or subject is noticed is to be taken as an object and noticed to pass (along with the mind-consciousness noticing it) ... as is done with anything else which is noticed. now, whether this method can or does lead to the permanent cessation of such feeling or sense of presence given the appropriate intent is an open question, and one which i am willing to entertain in discussion so long as there is an actual practitioner practically attempting to answer that question/do the entertaining; however, that question is another matter entirely (from what has been so far discussed in this thread) and does not pertain to the fact that nowhere, in either mahasi's literature or the practice of the method, is anything taken to exist other than objects and the consciousnessnes of them (and this goes for supramundane objects as well[1]) ... which is what the quote from earlier in this thread[2] that you were contrasting the hurricane ranch discussion quote against[3] was about.
mico mico:
But anyway, can't you see what you are doing here?
if by 'here' you mean in the above quotation from my writing in this thread, yes; i am describing the practice of noting and noticing and the perspective which arises on the basis of such practice.
what are you doing here?
mico mico:
You are describing a process based on the atomic units of 'arising', 'passing', 'object' and 'knowing of it', then claiming other constructions of a different level of abstraction aren't a part of that picture; as you rightly can, it's your picture after all.
those 'other constructions of a different level of abstraction' which i have claimed are not a part of the experience afforded by the correct and exhaustive application of noting and noticing practice[4] are not a part of that experience not because i have claimed so but because they are simply not part of the experience afforded by the correct and exhaustive application of noting and noticing practice.
simply put: it doesn't matter 'whose' experience (or description) it is. i put forth that if one - anyone - does the practice as instructed thoroughly enough, their experience will be as has been described[5].
mico mico:
But you write as if you are describing reality when you are simply outlining the boundaries of your own thinking, and your refusal to conflate a structural paradigm with a procedural one (whilst ignoring the necessary atomicity of the basis of your process analysis).
and so have you written off the experiential results of the practice of noting and noticing ... as you rightly can, it's your picture after all (and so you can choose to have whatever picture you like).
myself, i'll stick with the view of it which has arisen on the basis of its practice.
mico mico:
Incidentally, in how many ways do the practice of Noting and asking HAIETMOBA intersect?
in no number of ways that can be understood by anyone who has not comprehended at least one of those two practices or that can be fruitfully explained to anyone who has not indicated a comprehension of at least one of the two exercises' consequences as well as expressed an interest in comprehending the other's.
paradigmatic analysis is the spiralling road to nowhere as far as understanding either of those practices - or their results - is concerned.
*
what i am mostly interested in is that people on the dho with whom i interact do the practice-oriented things which i value with whatever theoretical lines they have drawn in order to achieve the practical things which i value, and so i am interested in those theoretical lines only to the extent that my expressed interest may help them do those things. if there is anything you think i can do to be of assistance to you in this regard please let me know. if you are seeking something else in further correspondence, please excuse me for not participating further; i am not currently active on these forums to either socialise or engage in conceptual-only discussions.
tarin
[1] 'While fruition knowledge lasts, consciousness is absolutely set upon the cessation of formations known by the designation "Nibbana."' (practical insight meditation, bps edition p. 39)
[2]
tarin greco:
the practice of noting is the practice of noticing a particular process, namely, that of the arising of an object and the knowing of it, and the passing of the object and the knowing of it.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop.
there isn't anything else; there isn't 'that which is aware'; there isn't a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process. there is this process, full stop.
[3]
mico mico:
Whereas in the hurricane ranch discussion you say (...)
[4] 'anything else'; ''that which is aware''; 'a mind that is either 'embedded' or 'disembedded' in this process'.
[5] to re-iterate (with [indicated] slight edits): the practice of noting is the practice of noticing a particular process, namely, that of the arising of an object and the knowing of it, and the passing of the object and the knowing of it .... in the cessation of the objects noticed and the consciousness noticing them, there is no binding; in no binding, there is [such] cessation [there and then].