People who say reality is "Infinite"

thumbnail
David Matte, modified 1 Year ago.

People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 82 Join Date: 8/3/19 Recent Posts
Hello.

I have heard people of various spiritual traditions describe reality as "Infinite". I was reading Ken Wilber recently and he seems to frequently enjoy using the terms Infinity and Infinite. Here's one quote from the book "One Taste".
The ego is just the dream of the Witness, the film that the Witness creates about of it's infinite plenitude, simply so it will have something to watch at the movies.


Since I don't have the opportunity to ask Ken personally, what do you think is meant by Infinite plenitude? I believe this is mostly a Hindu conception of things. It also seems like a metaphysical claim about reality. Is this Infinite plentitude something one can experience, fantastical speculation, or what?
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
David Matte:
Hello.

I have heard people of various spiritual traditions describe reality as "Infinite". I was reading Ken Wilber recently and he seems to frequently enjoy using the terms Infinity and Infinite. Here's one quote from the book "One Taste".
The ego is just the dream of the Witness, the film that the Witness creates about of it's infinite plenitude, simply so it will have something to watch at the movies.


Since I don't have the opportunity to ask Ken personally, what do you think is meant by Infinite plenitude? I believe this is mostly a Hindu conception of things. It also seems like a metaphysical claim about reality. Is this something one can experience or just fantastical speculation?


At the I AM phase of http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html one realizes one's 'true self' as an all-pervading Presence/Eternal Witness. It is a direct experiential realization. I have personally gone through these phases myself.

Here is how my friend Sim Pern Chong (one of Thusness's 'early students' who realised anatta in 2006) described the I AM in 2004:

"The Eternal Watcher- The True IdentityIn one ‘awakening’ meditation, I came to a state of no thoughts. Suchexperiences are very hard to describe. This is because the explanationprocess itself, is within the medium of thoughts and concepts. It isimpossible to describe a state of no thoughts using thoughts! Anyway, inthe void of no thoughts, one naturally assume that everything must bean unconscious blank. However, that was not the case! What came nextwas quite a revelation to me. In the void of no thought, I perceivedmyself to be a Presence... Here's how I will describe myself. "The Presence is all pervasive, yet un-intrusive. He seems to be in allthings and observes with utter passiveness. He exists beyond concepts,beliefs and do not need any form. Therefore, I understand him aseternal.He also seems to be the subtler state of myself. I also got the feelingthat he existed in all my lifetimes or even more. If I were to name him, Iwill describe him as The Eternal Watcher.”5You can say that I was completely blown away by the experience. The‘discovery’ of the Eternal Watcher was a very important event thatcompletely changed the way I understood consciousness. It also mademe contemplated very deeply and seriously about the possible existenceof the Divine. These spurred me on an ardent search to understand andmake sense of it all. I corresponded with whoever I think can help meunlock the mystery. These people included clairvoyants, othermeditators, people on spiritual paths and new-agers.From these investigations, it was discovered that others have had similarexperiences as well. Based on the consistency and plurality of thedescriptions by others, something becomes very certain to me. That is, ahuman being is much more than a body that can talk and think. TheHuman Personality, which is our character, is only an outer consciousnessof the human. With regard to our identity, our personality is merely thetip of the iceberg. Within the human being’s psyche lie much subtler andoften-obscured levels of consciousness. I believe these innerconsciousnesses could be the different depths of the Soul or levels ofbeing-ness even more profound than that.About the Eternal Watcher, he is ever present. You didn’t see him doesn’tmeans he is not there. Because the Presence is so close to the mind, it isnot easily perceived.Perceiving the Eternal Watcher was achieved through the relaxedobservation of my own breath. The ultra-relaxed observation eventuallybecomes a purely passive allowance for thoughts to pass through myconsciousness. This, in turn, led to a gradual shutting down of the mentalprocesses of my physical brain cumulating into a state of ‘no-thoughts’.Beyond the transitional phase of ‘no-thoughts’, I became the EternalWatcher. Experiencing the Eternal Watcher is not an exercise that I caneasily brush off as inconsequential. It is not possible for me to assumethat my perception of existence and life can be the same as before.Doing so will be blatantly self-deceiving" -

.....


In another post he wrote (in 2007?) he wrote:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Simpo%2FLongchen

Just my opinion only,I think
Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly
he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results
in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise
to the experience of Presence.To
me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just
that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the
'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness
aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual
is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may
still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence.
This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous
concept that there is a relative world make up
of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source'
that is watching it. The I AM stage person will
make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to
enter the 'absolute source'.However,
at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one
have understood that the division into a relative world and an
absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot
be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
In the MCTB, it Daniel wrote:

"Here’s another one of the more interesting ones: it’s also somewhere in that territory that seems basically like pure presence, like being a super-pervading watcher, with the quality of its self-perception dominant. This has a very different quality from the sixth jhana, Boundless Consciousness, and in my opinion is far superior, and at points I have been so impressed by it that I have been tempted to consider it one of the highest of the temporary states that involve experience. I can see why people who chance into these might be compelled to ascribe to them some ultimate status, or “ground of being”, “self”, as well as to use them as visions of a final endpoint of the path, but, being conditioned and being specific states, they end. So beware of yet another of the dangerous golden chains that would tempt you to stop there and fail to progress further."

- https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/the-concentration-models/
thumbnail
David Matte, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 82 Join Date: 8/3/19 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
In the MCTB, it Daniel wrote:

"Here’s another one of the more interesting ones: it’s also somewhere in that territory that seems basically like pure presence, like being a super-pervading watcher, with the quality of its self-perception dominant. This has a very different quality from the sixth jhana, Boundless Consciousness, and in my opinion is far superior, and at points I have been so impressed by it that I have been tempted to consider it one of the highest of the temporary states that involve experience. I can see why people who chance into these might be compelled to ascribe to them some ultimate status, or “ground of being”, “self”, as well as to use them as visions of a final endpoint of the path, but, being conditioned and being specific states, they end. So beware of yet another of the dangerous golden chains that would tempt you to stop there and fail to progress further."

- https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/the-concentration-models/

What you posted are temporary states but what I believe Ken Wilber and other people mean by "Infinite plentitude" is not a temporary state but a view about an objective quality of reality.
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
David Matte:
An Eternal Now:
In the MCTB, it Daniel wrote:

"Here’s another one of the more interesting ones: it’s also somewhere in that territory that seems basically like pure presence, like being a super-pervading watcher, with the quality of its self-perception dominant. This has a very different quality from the sixth jhana, Boundless Consciousness, and in my opinion is far superior, and at points I have been so impressed by it that I have been tempted to consider it one of the highest of the temporary states that involve experience. I can see why people who chance into these might be compelled to ascribe to them some ultimate status, or “ground of being”, “self”, as well as to use them as visions of a final endpoint of the path, but, being conditioned and being specific states, they end. So beware of yet another of the dangerous golden chains that would tempt you to stop there and fail to progress further."

- https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/the-concentration-models/

What you posted are temporary states but what I believe Ken Wilber and other people mean by "Infinite plentitude" is not a temporary state but a view about an objective quality of reality.
while i was at the I AM phase, the I AM did not seem temporary to me.

Once you reach thusness stage 1 or I AM realization, the I AM seems eternal/unchanging. Only after thusness stage 5 do you overcome fully the sense or notion of consciousness as unchanging and inherent.

also the I AM is indeed a realization more than an experience or state

"
1. On Experience and Realization

Comments by Soh: Also see related article - I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being)

One of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness. While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.

So what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".

Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom. emoticon" - jt http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html

also related: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2019/01/no-awareness-does-not-mean-non.html
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
To put it straightforwardly although it may not sound nice or respectful, Ken Wilber only got to as far as thusness stage 4 in all the books i read including recent ones. And he is only describing thusness stage 1 in his description of the infinite plenitude of the Witness.

He has not overcome the metaphysical view of consciousness as unchanging Self (with the capital S) although he has accessed both I Am and substantialist form of nonduality -- one mind.

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/difference-between-thusness-stage-1-and.html
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Likewise in mctb daniel wrote about the golden chains about an unchanging ground of being  which is pretty much the same thing 
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Now does this mean that after mctb fourth path one no longer experiences reality as "infinite"?

That is also not correct.

mctb fourth path talks about infinite, also the frank yang video i just posted about his experience of fourth path talks about infinite, i talk about infinitude and so does actual freedom richard

but it is not the infinitude of an unchanging Self, its a different sort of different view and realization

the I AM is also boundless but restricted to pure consciousness of subtle mind.

Post anatta the infinitude is what my mentor thusness calls it Maha (boundless, great) total exertion
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
This conversation explains how the world is viewed to be contained in the infinitude plenitude of the Witness or I-I after the I AM realization and how further realization dissolves the container view. 

i am unable to paste the convo here from my phone (becomes one paragraph without separate lines) so i will only leave a link:


Reality, I AM, nondual, anatta, karmic constructs and mental proliferation: a conversation with John Tan 
thumbnail
David Matte, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 82 Join Date: 8/3/19 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
This conversation explains how the world is viewed to be contained in the infinitude plenitude of the Witness or I-I after the I AM realization and how further realization dissolves the container view. 

i am unable to paste the convo here from my phone (becomes one paragraph without separate lines) so i will only leave a link:


Reality, I AM, nondual, anatta, karmic constructs and mental proliferation: a conversation with John Tan 
I'm not familiar with these maps your referencing but it sounds like you're saying Ken Wilber has not reached the higher level of consciousness based on these models and therefore negates his credence to term reality a "Infinite plentitude". 

Also, that link you posted with that conversation seems sort of... lengthy. I did a find search for "infin" on that webpage and it returned no results. I'm not sure where in that dialogue they were talking about this.
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
David Matte:
An Eternal Now:
This conversation explains how the world is viewed to be contained in the infinitude plenitude of the Witness or I-I after the I AM realization and how further realization dissolves the container view. 

i am unable to paste the convo here from my phone (becomes one paragraph without separate lines) so i will only leave a link:


Reality, I AM, nondual, anatta, karmic constructs and mental proliferation: a conversation with John Tan 
I'm not familiar with these maps your referencing but it sounds like you're saying Ken Wilber has not reached the higher level of consciousness based on these models and therefore negates his credence to term reality a "Infinite plentitude". 

Also, that link you posted with that conversation seems sort of... lengthy. I did a find search for "infin" on that webpage and it returned no results. I'm not sure where in that dialogue they were talking about this.


No, I am saying the infinite plenitude of the I AM or Witness is a valid realization, but it is not the same as anatta or post-anatta infinitude which is Maha Total Exertion. It is a different kind of realization. The I AM realization is an important realization of pristine awareness but after that realization it is distorted due to our faulty framework (view) that reifies it into an ultimate Self and background.

At the I AM realization, the Witness is mistaken to be a background, so finite phenomena arise and cease within an infinite unchanging background Witness.

After anatta, there is no background, it is seen that there never is/was a background -- in seeing, seeing is only colors without a seer, in hearing, hearing is none other than sounds without a hearer, all phenomena are the vivid presencing. Even the I AM is seen to be just another foreground manifestation mistaken to be a background, it is no more ultimate or different than any other manifestation, equally radiant, luminous, etc. It is only different insofar as sound is different from taste or touch is different from smell -- different sense doors, the I AM is the subtle non-conceptual luminous mind/thought of clear light. The I AM or Witness is not denied, it is just that it is realized that the Witnessing is of a non-dual, empty, no-self, interdependent nature. Witnessing collapses into radiant manifestation.

After anatta one later reveals total exertion, which is also infinitude.

Total exertion is linked to penetrating dependent origination. Understanding dependent origination post-anatta has different phases of understanding for me:

[12:14
AM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Means the whole appearance is an unfolding
of dependent origination, has no referent besides the magical unfolding
that is nowhere to be found but vividly spontaneously displayed
[12:14
AM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: Now if I tell u in total exertion, the sound
of someone opening the door is like my heart beat...
[12:15 AM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: The Aircon is closer than my skin
[12:16 AM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: So how is this different?
[12:17 AM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: A vivid sponstaneous display before division...
[12:18 AM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: Like color, sensation, sound, odor
[12:21 AM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: Hearer hearing sound

and

Ear, sound and sound consciousness

and

Now if I tell u in total exertion, the sound of someone opening the door is like my heart beat...

Any differences?
[2:18
AM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: in hearer hearing sound, hearer is one
thing, hearing is one thing, sound is one thing.. but in total exertion,
the ear, sound, sound consciousness, and all the conditions are factors
are the hearing
[2:18 AM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: *and factors

[6:19
PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: in anatta in hearing there is just sound,
the ear, sound, sound consciousness are just delineations of the field
of happening.. one can also see and have insight into dependent
origination at the anatta level but not exactly like total exertion
yet.. right after anatta i wrote my experience is more like spontaneous
happening dependent on conditions but without agency or subject-object
[6:19 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: field of happening but without agent*
[6:24
PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: so right after anatta, its like there is no
hearer, only ear, sound and sound consciousness... the sound
consciousness manifests spontaneously when ear meets sound. but there
can still be true existence of ear, sound, sound consciousness as truly
arising momentary dharmas
[6:24 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: even if there is no subject-object
[6:28 PM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: So in hearing, there is only sound, no hearer. This deconstructs hearer.

Ear, sound, sound consciousness is post anatta.

But now ear and sound is not deconstructed.
[6:28 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: yeah
[6:31
PM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: In total exertion, it is not only ear hears,
the eyes, ears...whole body hears...ear is no ear, and eyes is no eyes,
body is no body and mind is no mind...all r deconstructed into that
sound...

(AEN:

“Wondrous! Marvelous!
The teachings of the insentient are inconceivable.
If you listen with the ears, you won't understand.
When you hear with the eyes, then you will know.” - Zen Master Dongshan

“When
I talk about listening, I don’t mean just listening with the ear.
Listening here includes the totality of perception—all senses open and
alive, and still much more than that. The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body
and mind are receptive, open, not controlled. A Zen saying describes it
as “hearing with one’s eyes and seeing with one’s ears.” It refers to
this wholeness of perception. The wholeness of being!
Another
Zen saying demands: “Hear the bell before it rings!” Ah, it doesn’t
make any sense rationally, does it? But there is a moment when that bell
is ringing before you know it! You may never know it! Your entire being
is ringing! There’s no division in that—everything is ringing.”” - Toni
Packer, The Wonder of Presence, excerpt from Finding a New Way to
Listen

“In ceremony there are forms and there are
sounds, there is understanding and there is believing. In liturgy there
is only intimacy. Haven't you heard the ancient master's teaching:
Seeing forms with the whole body-and-mind, hearing sounds with the whole
body-and-mind one understands them intimately. Intimate understanding
is not like ordinary understanding. Ordinary understanding is seeing
with the eye and hearing with the ear; intimacy is seeing with the ear
and hearing with the eye. How do you see with the ear and hear with the
eye? Let go of the eye, and the whole body-and-mind are nothing but the
eye; let go of the ear, and the whole universe is nothing but the ear.” - Zen Master Dogen, Shobogenzo
)
[6:33 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: ic.. yeah
[6:33
PM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: Now when u look back all the deconstructions,
it is just the sound that is heard. Only sound...but it was "hearer
hearing sound"
Then
"Ears, sound, sound consciousness"
Then
It is connectedness of everything as this hearing...
[6:34 PM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: So look into ur experience, sees how the parts r divided by names and designations
[6:39 PM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: Now where does causes and conditions step in? Is there any division and can u trace any division?
[7:05 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Cause and conditions step in when the parts, conditions and relations and designation step in
[7:05 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Therefore Cause and effect are interdefined
[7:06 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: There is no real division, only dependently designated relations
[7:40
PM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: So what does it mean that causes and
conditions r empty? Also what is the purpose of deconstructing?
[7:55
PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The conventional causes and conditions
unfindable and dependent on the whole host of factors and relations..
purpose is to deconstruct the naive notion of real entities like real
ears interacting with real sound producing real effects (inherent
production).. in effect all relations are experienced as total exertion
and empty clarity rather than truly existent causes and effects or what
malcolm said as if eye is inherent agent of inherent forms etc
[7:57 PM, 6/16/2020] John Tan: If u don't u any Buddhist terms, what do u think is the purpose of deconstruction?
[8:08 PM, 6/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: to experience fully free of artificial fragmentation and solidification and holdings

[this is still an ongoing discussion with JT]
punto, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 20 Join Date: 1/17/18 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
In the MCTB, it Daniel wrote:

"Here’s another one of the more interesting ones: it’s also somewhere in that territory that seems basically like pure presence, like being a super-pervading watcher, with the quality of its self-perception dominant. This has a very different quality from the sixth jhana, Boundless Consciousness, and in my opinion is far superior, and at points I have been so impressed by it that I have been tempted to consider it one of the highest of the temporary states that involve experience. I can see why people who chance into these might be compelled to ascribe to them some ultimate status, or “ground of being”, “self”, as well as to use them as visions of a final endpoint of the path, but, being conditioned and being specific states, they end. So beware of yet another of the dangerous golden chains that would tempt you to stop there and fail to progress further."

- https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/the-concentration-models/

Hi AEN, I have been thoroughly reading your materials as of late; thank you for your contributions.  Following a heavy dose of "non-agency" realization at the start of this year, I began to transition from dry vipassana to a more non-dual approach. Your writings/colations have been quite useful thus far.

Haven't read MCTB in some time, but was intrigued by the description above; namely some experiences in the past few months have been similar to boundless consciousness in the character of concentration, but quite different in that singlepointedness is not evident and there's clarity and awareness of all sensations in the field.  Realize I'm using more of the DHO language than AtR, but bear with me.

This subsequently stabilized into "Settling the attention on awareness itself -- a sort of container for all experience and non-experience; shapeless, formless, timeless, but stable and luminous.  No need to engage with any consciousness, just letting the sense doors oscillate without any need to label or even recognize."

But now the container itself is disbanding; "stable awareness" or whatever one might call it is quite a nice meditation object for concentration and arises early in my sits, but it seems just another mirage coupled with subtle clinging. From my notes: "Noticing a tendency to “solidify” the “container” or the “background” but this too doesn’t seem to exist on closer inspection.  Just events arising naturally where they are, no consistent background to be found." “No one, just events.”

I haven't tried to map these experiences directly, but they all relate quite closely to the "infinite," so I thought worth sharing on this topic.

Always up for a good pointer on what to explore next...
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
punto:
An Eternal Now:
In the MCTB, it Daniel wrote:

"Here’s another one of the more interesting ones: it’s also somewhere in that territory that seems basically like pure presence, like being a super-pervading watcher, with the quality of its self-perception dominant. This has a very different quality from the sixth jhana, Boundless Consciousness, and in my opinion is far superior, and at points I have been so impressed by it that I have been tempted to consider it one of the highest of the temporary states that involve experience. I can see why people who chance into these might be compelled to ascribe to them some ultimate status, or “ground of being”, “self”, as well as to use them as visions of a final endpoint of the path, but, being conditioned and being specific states, they end. So beware of yet another of the dangerous golden chains that would tempt you to stop there and fail to progress further."

- https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/the-concentration-models/

Hi AEN, I have been thoroughly reading your materials as of late; thank you for your contributions.  Following a heavy dose of "non-agency" realization at the start of this year, I began to transition from dry vipassana to a more non-dual approach. Your writings/colations have been quite useful thus far.

Haven't read MCTB in some time, but was intrigued by the description above; namely some experiences in the past few months have been similar to boundless consciousness in the character of concentration, but quite different in that singlepointedness is not evident and there's clarity and awareness of all sensations in the field.  Realize I'm using more of the DHO language than AtR, but bear with me.

This subsequently stabilized into "Settling the attention on awareness itself -- a sort of container for all experience and non-experience; shapeless, formless, timeless, but stable and luminous.  No need to engage with any consciousness, just letting the sense doors oscillate without any need to label or even recognize."

But now the container itself is disbanding; "stable awareness" or whatever one might call it is quite a nice meditation object for concentration and arises early in my sits, but it seems just another mirage coupled with subtle clinging. From my notes: "Noticing a tendency to “solidify” the “container” or the “background” but this too doesn’t seem to exist on closer inspection.  Just events arising naturally where they are, no consistent background to be found." “No one, just events.”

I haven't tried to map these experiences directly, but they all relate quite closely to the "infinite," so I thought worth sharing on this topic.

Always up for a good pointer on what to explore next...

That's good.. the disbanding of the container and background will stabilize after clear insight into anatta as 'always is'. As Thusness/John Tan wrote in 2009  in DhO 1.0:


“The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco.
 
84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT
Hi theprisonergreco,
 
First is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience.
 
When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -emoticon So the “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an afterthought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action.
 
The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it.
 
Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center.
 
After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies...
 
86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
To be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -emoticon
 
Many non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue to sink back to a Source.
 
It is natural to reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is. Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back? Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience
Olivier, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 733 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
Greetings AEN,

Just have one question/remark.

From wiktionary : Absolute comes from Middle French absolut, replaced earlier asolu (c. 1100), from Latin absolūtus (“unconditional”), perfect passive participle of absolvō (“loosen, free; complete”). From ab- (“from, away from”) +‎ solvō (“release, loosen, dissolve, take apart”).

absolvō (present infinitive absolvereperfect active absolvīsupine absolūtum); third conjugation
So, absolute can mean, basically, unbound, unconditioned, and doesn't necesarily designate a substantial reality of sorts. 

This is the way I would use the word actually.

In fact, in the XIIth century, according to the french page of wiktionary, absolu meant "perfected ; completed ; detached from." 

In that general semantic cloud, it seems there's a way to see the word "absolute" as quintessentially equivalent with terms like "Dzogchen" (great perfection) or "Mahamudra" (the great seal). Terms which are also subject to reification sometimes, right ?

Other question in the same kind of line of inquiry : Shinzen Young speaks of "the source" a lot. It seems to me to be the same as the trikaya teaching, where the source is the dharmakaya and the not source is the relative nirmanakaya, for instance. Aren't all words bound to be confusing ? Would you say Shinzen Young hasn't perfected his insights ? (genuine question for you.)

What do you think ?

Best regards
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
The words aren't so important as the understanding and insight. But most people when they talk about 'Absolute', they are talking about an Absolute that precedes, contains, transcends the relative. This understanding is based on a paradigm of duality and inherent existence, which can be seen through. Right now my 'Ultimate' and 'Thoroughgoing relativity/dependent origination' are inseparable as to be synonymous or almost synonymous*, or rather two sides of the same coin. I do not find anything which exists independently, inherently, dualistically, that stands in contrast to 'thoroughgoing relativity' -- in fact it is this 'thoroughgoing relativity' which could be described as being 'perfect, complete, free of limitation', boundless and so on, and they are vibrantly alive, luminous, radiant, without self/Self, and empty of identity and intrinsic existence. It is not the sort of Absolute that stands in contrast to conditionality, that you find for example in Advaita.

(absolute[ ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot ]
free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.)

(*Ultimate and Relative

"If asked what I am most drawn to (in Tsongkhapa's teachings), I am most drawn to Prasangika's "mere imputation". The quintessence of "mere imputation" is IMO the essence of Buddhism. It is the whole of 2 truths; the whole of 2 folds. How the masters present and how it is being taught is entirely another matter. It is because in non-conceptuality, the whole of the structure of "mere imputation" is totally exerted into an instantaneous appearance that we r unable to see the truth of it. In conceptuality, it is expanded and realized to be in that structure. A structure that awakens us the living truth of emptiness and dependent arising that is difficult to see in dimensionless appearance.""In ultimate (empty dimensionless appearance), there is no trace of causes and conditions, just a single sphere of suchness. In relative, there is dependent arising. Therefore distinct in relative when expressed conventionally but seamlessly non-dual in ultimate.""When suchness is expressed relatively, it is dependent arising. Dependent designation in addition to causal dependency is to bring out a deeper aspect when one sees thoroughly that if phenomena is profoundly without essence then it is always only dependent designations."- Thusness, 2015)


I would rather not comment on specific teachers, but since you asked, I think Shinzen Young has I AM realization and then describes nondual experience of one mind and no mind. But not anatta realization. But I enjoyed reading some of his teachings nonetheless, and his practice of nothingness or non doing as a means of returning to the source was recommended to me by Thusness over a decade ago, as another means of self-realization besides self-enquiry. So please do not think that this somehow invalidates the value of his teachings or the teachings of teachers that do not express the anatta insight.

It is very rare to even realise anatta in my definition (which I would say is identical with MCTB 4th path), I sometimes say >98% of teachers with realisations I've come across are only speaking from the I AM and one mind level, and mostly I AM. I would say many old Mahamudra masters have realised anatta and clearly expresses anatta and post-anatta insights. But in this day and age, not as many modern teachers in each of the traditions -- Dzogchen or Mahamudra (or any of the other traditions for that matter - Mahayana/Zen/Theravada/etc), seem to have this realisation. There are also old Dzogchen texts that express very deep insight but most Dzogchen teachers that I read nowadays are expressing from the 'I AM' and 'one mind' level of insight. For Dzogchen, I think Prabodha Yogi and Abhaya Devi Yogini realised anatta based on some of their expressions. Also, I think Arcaya Malcolm Smith realised it, based on some of his writings in recent years and even in recent days. Also, Malcolm's student Kyle Dixon clearly realised anatta and described his realisation and experience. I met both of them at California last year.

To understand how Dzogchen's understanding differs from substantialist source and substratum of Advaita, you have to read this piece by Malcolm: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html

I wrote this in Reddit a week ago:

"In the following years however, I did not really follow MCTB path. I had my own type of practices more akin to the Ch'an Hua Tou/Koan/Self-Enquiry and then further forms of nondual enquiry. I was led to a series of experiential insights, and eventually come to see for myself that what people like Daniel, Frank Yang, etc described is a rather accurate description of some of the fundamental insights that I myself have been through. And that despite it not necessarily being the sutta's version of arahant (imo more akin to suttic stream entry), it is actually very rare to come to even this level of realization. I eventually come to find out that even my Chinese Mahayana teachers, and all the other teachers in the country I come from (Singapore) does not seem to express from the direct experiential insight into anatta, but mostly I AM, one mind and no mind experience.


To give an illustration of how rare the realization of anatman is, I wrote in my free online guide just now:

"..."Dogen is really a difficult person with whom to practice. In a sense, he’s so stubborn and picky. Many Zen texts agree with this theory in these sutras and Zongmi’s. Dogen is a very unusual and unique Zen master. To be his student is a difficult thing." - Shohaku Okumura

“And it is not just I that would openly criticise the views of these teachers and practitioners. Zen Master Dogen was very open about criticizing his contemporary Zen masters that fall into such views. It was very common for Zen masters to get stuck at I AM and One Mind back then, as it is today. Zen Master Dogen was a rare beacon of clarity, although of course there are some other Zen masters that were also clear. Zen Master Dogen would not mince a word at critiquing his contemporaries or those who hold erroneous views, and would even use words that I would not use, like 'madmen' to describe holders of such view.

To point out how rare anatta and emptiness realisation is, I would also like to quote a passage from 'Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Jamgon Mipham',

"There is a story that once when Atisha was in Tibet, he received news of the death of the master Maitripa. He was deeply grieved, and on being questioned about the reasons for his sorrow, he replied that Buddhism was in decline in India and that everywhere there was syncretism and confusion. Until then, Atisha continued, there had been only two masters in the whole of India, Maitripa and himself, capable of discerning the correct teaching from the doctrines and practices of the reviving Hindu schools. The time is sure to come, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche commented, and perhaps it is already here, when there will be an analogous situation in the West. Only the correct establishment of the view will enable one to find one's way through the religious confusion of the modern West and to distinguish authentic Buddhism from the New Age "self-help" versions that are already taking hold.”

Just like it is rare today to find someone who is able to penetrate wrong views and distinguish between the views of I AM/One Mind and anatta & emptiness, it was rare even in ancient times.

Personally, I just find myself so fortunate to have come to know John Tan, otherwise I will 100% be stuck at I AM like so many other practitioners and teachers. It is rare now, just like it was rare back in the days to have someone with such clarity, to be able to distinguish clearly and have such deep comprehension.” - Soh, About whether XYZ teacher realised anatta, etc

If you find it is strange that there were only two masters in the whole of India that had realized anatta back then in the 11th century, a similar analogous situation is present today – I can only find two dharma teachers in the whole of India (a sub-continent with over 1 billion+ population) that is currently teaching from the experiential insight of anatman – the Dzogchen practitioners/teachers Prabodha Jnana Yogi and Abhaya Devi Yogini. You’ll probably say, well, that’s to be expected because Buddhism largely died out in India, Hinduism being its predominant religion, so of course the Atman view is prevalent. However, I would also add that throughout China and Taiwan (where roughly 20% and 35% respectively are Buddhists), another subcontinent with currently over 1+ billion people, I can only find two dharma teachers that teaches with the experiential insight into anatman – Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (洪文亮禅师)and Zen Master Hui Lu (慧律法师). The others, as I found, mostly teach from the realization of I AM and one mind. I believe this is largely due to the gradual evolution of doctrinal influences over hundreds/thousands of years that made the Chinese Mahayana teaching gradually deviate from the original doctrine of No-Mind/Anatman taught by the first Ch’an Patriarch Bodhidharma, as I discussed in Problem with Many Zen Teachings, and perhaps elucidated more clearly in scholastic books like How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China (which I never read, but the synposis seems interesting).

Interestingly, insight into anatman is somewhat more common in the west at the moment. Realization of anatman is seemingly more common in Soto Zen (a Japanese Zen sect that was derived from the Chinese Cao Dong school of Ch’an Buddhism) perhaps due to the emphasis on the study of its founder Zen Master Dogen’s teachings, but I have known people who realize anatman in all the three main Buddhist traditions – Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, and within Vajrayana I know of and can name people [currently alive] who realized anatta in basically all the subsects of Vajrayana, so I know that this insight is fundamental to all Buddhist traditions without exception, although not always commonly attained.

Arcaya Malcolm said in 2020, “While there are problems with Sino-Japanese concepts of self, as eloquently illustrated by the late Jungnok Park in his How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China, the idea of all phenomena possessing buddhanature that we see frequently mentioned in Sino-Japanese Buddhism is not a problematic at all, if understood as Nāgārjuna states it in the MMK, "Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world. As the Tathāgata has no nature, the world has no nature."”"

later, someone mentioned that it is common to have insight into anatman, it happens even in the first insight knowledge prior to stream entry

I explained that 99% of the time when someone has an insight of no-self, it is the non-doership level of insight. That can happen at the first insight knowledge prior stream entry as he/she said. It also happened spontaneously for some people, like Suzanne Segal, which later threw her into a dark and lost period before she had nondual (one mind) realisation.

There are different faces of self/Self and what I call realization of anatta, thusness stage 5, etc, is quite rare

I discussed the details in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html
thumbnail
terry, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 1718 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
The words aren't so important as the understanding and insight. But most people when they talk about 'Absolute', they are talking about an Absolute that precedes, contains, transcends the relative. This understanding is based on a paradigm of duality and inherent existence, which can be seen through. Right now my 'Ultimate' and 'Thoroughgoing relativity/dependent origination' are inseparable as to be synonymous or almost synonymous*, or rather two sides of the same coin. I do not find anything which exists independently, inherently, dualistically, that stands in contrast to 'thoroughgoing relativity' -- in fact it is this 'thoroughgoing relativity' which could be described as being 'perfect, complete, free of limitation', boundless and so on, and they are vibrantly alive, luminous, radiant, without self/Self, and empty of identity and intrinsic existence. It is not the sort of Absolute that stands in contrast to conditionality, that you find for example in Advaita.

(absolute[ ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot ]
free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.)

(*Ultimate and Relative

"If asked what I am most drawn to (in Tsongkhapa's teachings), I am most drawn to Prasangika's "mere imputation". The quintessence of "mere imputation" is IMO the essence of Buddhism. It is the whole of 2 truths; the whole of 2 folds. How the masters present and how it is being taught is entirely another matter. It is because in non-conceptuality, the whole of the structure of "mere imputation" is totally exerted into an instantaneous appearance that we r unable to see the truth of it. In conceptuality, it is expanded and realized to be in that structure. A structure that awakens us the living truth of emptiness and dependent arising that is difficult to see in dimensionless appearance.""In ultimate (empty dimensionless appearance), there is no trace of causes and conditions, just a single sphere of suchness. In relative, there is dependent arising. Therefore distinct in relative when expressed conventionally but seamlessly non-dual in ultimate.""When suchness is expressed relatively, it is dependent arising. Dependent designation in addition to causal dependency is to bring out a deeper aspect when one sees thoroughly that if phenomena is profoundly without essence then it is always only dependent designations."- Thusness, 2015)


I would rather not comment on specific teachers, but since you asked, I think Shinzen Young has I AM realization and then describes nondual experience of one mind and no mind. But not anatta realization. But I enjoyed reading some of his teachings nonetheless, and his practice of nothingness or non doing as a means of returning to the source was recommended to me by Thusness over a decade ago, as another means of self-realization besides self-enquiry. So please do not think that this somehow invalidates the value of his teachings or the teachings of teachers that do not express the anatta insight.

It is very rare to even realise anatta in my definition (which I would say is identical with MCTB 4th path), I sometimes say >98% of teachers with realisations I've come across are only speaking from the I AM and one mind level, and mostly I AM. I would say many old Mahamudra masters have realised anatta and clearly expresses anatta and post-anatta insights. But in this day and age, not as many modern teachers in each of the traditions -- Dzogchen or Mahamudra (or any of the other traditions for that matter - Mahayana/Zen/Theravada/etc), seem to have this realisation. There are also old Dzogchen texts that express very deep insight but most Dzogchen teachers that I read nowadays are expressing from the 'I AM' and 'one mind' level of insight. For Dzogchen, I think Prabodha Yogi and Abhaya Devi Yogini realised anatta based on some of their expressions. Also, I think Arcaya Malcolm Smith realised it, based on some of his writings in recent years and even in recent days. Also, Malcolm's student Kyle Dixon clearly realised anatta and described his realisation and experience. I met both of them at California last year.

To understand how Dzogchen's understanding differs from substantialist source and substratum of Advaita, you have to read this piece by Malcolm: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html

I wrote this in Reddit a week ago:

"In the following years however, I did not really follow MCTB path. I had my own type of practices more akin to the Ch'an Hua Tou/Koan/Self-Enquiry and then further forms of nondual enquiry. I was led to a series of experiential insights, and eventually come to see for myself that what people like Daniel, Frank Yang, etc described is a rather accurate description of some of the fundamental insights that I myself have been through. And that despite it not necessarily being the sutta's version of arahant (imo more akin to suttic stream entry), it is actually very rare to come to even this level of realization. I eventually come to find out that even my Chinese Mahayana teachers, and all the other teachers in the country I come from (Singapore) does not seem to express from the direct experiential insight into anatta, but mostly I AM, one mind and no mind experience.


To give an illustration of how rare the realization of anatman is, I wrote in my free online guide just now:

"..."Dogen is really a difficult person with whom to practice. In a sense, he’s so stubborn and picky. Many Zen texts agree with this theory in these sutras and Zongmi’s. Dogen is a very unusual and unique Zen master. To be his student is a difficult thing." - Shohaku Okumura

“And it is not just I that would openly criticise the views of these teachers and practitioners. Zen Master Dogen was very open about criticizing his contemporary Zen masters that fall into such views. It was very common for Zen masters to get stuck at I AM and One Mind back then, as it is today. Zen Master Dogen was a rare beacon of clarity, although of course there are some other Zen masters that were also clear. Zen Master Dogen would not mince a word at critiquing his contemporaries or those who hold erroneous views, and would even use words that I would not use, like 'madmen' to describe holders of such view.

To point out how rare anatta and emptiness realisation is, I would also like to quote a passage from 'Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Jamgon Mipham',

"There is a story that once when Atisha was in Tibet, he received news of the death of the master Maitripa. He was deeply grieved, and on being questioned about the reasons for his sorrow, he replied that Buddhism was in decline in India and that everywhere there was syncretism and confusion. Until then, Atisha continued, there had been only two masters in the whole of India, Maitripa and himself, capable of discerning the correct teaching from the doctrines and practices of the reviving Hindu schools. The time is sure to come, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche commented, and perhaps it is already here, when there will be an analogous situation in the West. Only the correct establishment of the view will enable one to find one's way through the religious confusion of the modern West and to distinguish authentic Buddhism from the New Age "self-help" versions that are already taking hold.”

Just like it is rare today to find someone who is able to penetrate wrong views and distinguish between the views of I AM/One Mind and anatta & emptiness, it was rare even in ancient times.

Personally, I just find myself so fortunate to have come to know John Tan, otherwise I will 100% be stuck at I AM like so many other practitioners and teachers. It is rare now, just like it was rare back in the days to have someone with such clarity, to be able to distinguish clearly and have such deep comprehension.” - Soh, About whether XYZ teacher realised anatta, etc

If you find it is strange that there were only two masters in the whole of India that had realized anatta back then in the 11th century, a similar analogous situation is present today – I can only find two dharma teachers in the whole of India (a sub-continent with over 1 billion+ population) that is currently teaching from the experiential insight of anatman – the Dzogchen practitioners/teachers Prabodha Jnana Yogi and Abhaya Devi Yogini. You’ll probably say, well, that’s to be expected because Buddhism largely died out in India, Hinduism being its predominant religion, so of course the Atman view is prevalent. However, I would also add that throughout China and Taiwan (where roughly 20% and 35% respectively are Buddhists), another subcontinent with currently over 1+ billion people, I can only find two dharma teachers that teaches with the experiential insight into anatman – Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (洪文亮禅师)and Zen Master Hui Lu (慧律法师). The others, as I found, mostly teach from the realization of I AM and one mind. I believe this is largely due to the gradual evolution of doctrinal influences over hundreds/thousands of years that made the Chinese Mahayana teaching gradually deviate from the original doctrine of No-Mind/Anatman taught by the first Ch’an Patriarch Bodhidharma, as I discussed in Problem with Many Zen Teachings, and perhaps elucidated more clearly in scholastic books like How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China (which I never read, but the synposis seems interesting).

Interestingly, insight into anatman is somewhat more common in the west at the moment. Realization of anatman is seemingly more common in Soto Zen (a Japanese Zen sect that was derived from the Chinese Cao Dong school of Ch’an Buddhism) perhaps due to the emphasis on the study of its founder Zen Master Dogen’s teachings, but I have known people who realize anatman in all the three main Buddhist traditions – Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, and within Vajrayana I know of and can name people [currently alive] who realized anatta in basically all the subsects of Vajrayana, so I know that this insight is fundamental to all Buddhist traditions without exception, although not always commonly attained.

Arcaya Malcolm said in 2020, “While there are problems with Sino-Japanese concepts of self, as eloquently illustrated by the late Jungnok Park in his How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China, the idea of all phenomena possessing buddhanature that we see frequently mentioned in Sino-Japanese Buddhism is not a problematic at all, if understood as Nāgārjuna states it in the MMK, "Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world. As the Tathāgata has no nature, the world has no nature."”"

later, someone mentioned that it is common to have insight into anatman, it happens even in the first insight knowledge prior to stream entry

I explained that 99% of the time when someone has an insight of no-self, it is the non-doership level of insight. That can happen at the first insight knowledge prior stream entry as he/she said. It also happened spontaneously for some people, like Suzanne Segal, which later threw her into a dark and lost period before she had nondual (one mind) realisation.

There are different faces of self/Self and what I call realization of anatta, thusness stage 5, etc, is quite rare

I discussed the details in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html


"No dependence on words and letters."

~bodhidharma




81.

Truthful words are not beautiful.
Beautiful words are not truthful.
Good men do not argue.
Those who argue are not good.
Those who know are not learned.
The learned do not know.

The sage never tries to store things up.
The more he does for others, the more he has.
The more he gives to others, the greater his abundance.
The Tao of heaven is pointed but does no harm.
The Tao of the sage is work without effort.





56.


Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

Keep your mouth closed.
Guard your senses.
Temper your sharpness.
Simplify your problems.
Mask your brightness.
Be at one with the dust of the earth.
This is primal union.

He who has achieved this state
Is unconcerned with friends and enemies,
With good and harm, with honor and disgrace.
This therefore is the highest state of man.
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Also see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/03/about-whether-xyz-teacher-realised.html
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Jun01Also, for Dzogchen check this video out

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/06/elias-caprilles-interviewed-by-vladimir.html

Jun
01
Elias Caprilles interviewed by Vladimir Maykov on Ken Wilber's distortion of Buddhism and Dzogchen
"Not sure if you have seen this but Elias Capriles contrasts different traditions and states of realization in this interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDWDF35A-1U

Elias Caprilles interviewed by Vladimir Maykov on Ken Wilber's distortion of Buddhism and Dzogchen

He starts to mention at 17:00, then again around 19:00 and also 25:00
He seems to reference Mahā total exertion at the end" - Kyle Dixon

"Interesting...Elias Capriles talk about total exertion and non-action. He also give an example of some one drawing a circle...which I think is very good. My son intro-ed an artist that is like that into total non-action...every point he draws is simply perfect...when they later map and calculate the ratio and distance... Kim Jung Gi" - John Tan

"Very good. The view is clear." - John Tan


Also here is a nice article that is related: http://www.integralworld.net/capriles1.html

THE TRANSRELIGIOUS FALLACY
IN WILBER’S WRITINGS
And Its Relation With Wilber's
“Philosophical Tradition" And Views
"Beyond Mind", Part III, Appendix 1
ELÍAS CAPRILES


Also, another article: http://www.integralworld.net/capriles4.html
Labels: Action, Anatta, Dzogchen, Elias Caprilles, Ken Wilber, Maha, Taoism, Total Exertion |
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Elias Capriles is a Dzogchen teacher (more specifically: Elías Capriles is a Santi Maha Sangha Teacher appointed by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu)

And an author of many lengthy texts explaining Dzogchen view. His scholarly and lengthy writing style plus his terminology actually reminded me so much of another guy in DhO -- Omega Point, including their use of specific terminologies like 'Total Plenitude and Perfection', and 'Indivisible Complex', etc, that for a while I thought they were the same person. But upon further investigation and asking around, I think they are not the same guy. Not important anyway, same or not.

Also coincidentally, quite relevant to this topic since Elias Capriles is explaining infinite plenitude from a non-substantialist, total exertion standpoint, and distinguishes it from substantialist non-dual insights and experiences of infinite plenitude.
Olivier, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 733 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
Thank you AEN. Great stuff, a lot to take in. I've been discovering your work and I am loving it.

For some reason, I have the intuition that you will be on my path at some point, in one way or another. Expect to be bothered by me some day emoticon

I have a couple more question, kind of personal, so you may feel free to ignore totally !!

(1) If you read, or have read, people's meditation journals around here or on other sites, "pragmatic dharma" practicioners' stuff. How often is it, in your view, that people do actually realize the higher stages which are described in your model ? Not trying to get names, but just your perspective on realization, as it seems you have such high standards. DO you sometimes get a sense that someone who gets mctb 4th path, doesn't see what you do ?

(2) And so, on that high standard and extreme rarity of ultimate realization, I want to move on to the more personal question. Does it feel lonely to "have insights" that almost no one else has ? 
...
Sorry, it might be a bit stupide, but I'll only be 26 for so long and want to make use of the opportunity to ask silly questions while I still can emoticon
I know that, however non-ultimate the insights/realization I may have encountered, it is still so remote from the experience of the majority of people, that there is a real disconnect there. Not that this is necesarilly unpleasant or a cause for suffering. But it does feel isolated sometimes. I can only imagine what it would be like to just, not be able to find someone in your country who can get what you're on about.
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Olivier:
Thank you AEN. Great stuff, a lot to take in. I've been discovering your work and I am loving it.

For some reason, I have the intuition that you will be on my path at some point, in one way or another. Expect to be bothered by me some day emoticon

I have a couple more question, kind of personal, so you may feel free to ignore totally !!

(1) If you read, or have read, people's meditation journals around here or on other sites, "pragmatic dharma" practicioners' stuff. How often is it, in your view, that people do actually realize the higher stages which are described in your model ? Not trying to get names, but just your perspective on realization, as it seems you have such high standards. DO you sometimes get a sense that someone who gets mctb 4th path, doesn't see what you do ?

(2) And so, on that high standard and extreme rarity of ultimate realization, I want to move on to the more personal question. Does it feel lonely to "have insights" that almost no one else has ? 
...
Sorry, it might be a bit stupide, but I'll only be 26 for so long and want to make use of the opportunity to ask silly questions while I still can emoticon
I know that, however non-ultimate the insights/realization I may have encountered, it is still so remote from the experience of the majority of people, that there is a real disconnect there. Not that this is necesarilly unpleasant or a cause for suffering. But it does feel isolated sometimes. I can only imagine what it would be like to just, not be able to find someone in your country who can get what you're on about.

1) I don't know as I haven't been following the threads closely here, and probably wouldn't be very nice for me to proclaim the attainment level of others. They should do it themselves since they are here.

If you are interested to know where other people are, just be familiar with the maps. You can make a good guess if you are good at the maps -- I could make good guesses before I was enlightened myself simply by pure theory and glimpses in experience. Then after enlightenment it becomes even easier to know who else are enlightened or to what degree.

2) Not exactly lonely, though there was a period I felt a little disillusioned with teachers and lineages because it seems that many of these authoritative teachers do not get to the same level of insight that I felt was crucial. But nowadays I am appreciative of all teachers and teachings regardless of which level of insight they have realised.

Plus, anyway, in my AtR community I have plenty of people to talk with, to the extent that I can hardly keep up with it. Along with my ongoing conversations with my mentor John Tan/Thusness.

In Singapore, there are at least 5 people now who have realised anatta, all who come across AtR, and worldwide, 30+.
Olivier, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 733 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Olivier:

1) I don't know as I haven't been following the threads closely here, and probably wouldn't be very nice for me to proclaim the attainment level of others. They should do it themselves since they are here.

If you are interested to know where other people are, just be familiar with the maps. You can make a good guess if you are good at the maps -- I could make good guesses before I was enlightened myself simply by pure theory and glimpses in experience. Then after enlightenment it becomes even easier to know who else are enlightened or to what degree.

So, my interest is not particularly in knowing where people are, and I do know the maps very well, but I was curious to know how common you think it is that 4th pathers haven't had the full realization, or what.

It's linked to a question I've had for a while, which is related to how people describe things - and I've had this conversation with arahats who also shared my perplexity. It's the fact that people seem to describe realisation of anatta in such a wide range of vocabulary.

(1) For some, and this seems the majority here - it just seems like almost nothing, like it's just understanding a "cosmic joke", and that it's basically like going back to a very normal way of perceiving, chop wood and carry water, nothing special, and perhaps "oh, i feel like i wasted 22 years of my life" (Kenneth Folk), with just something fundamental which has been understood.

(2)Then, there are people who describe it as a cosmic insight which totally changes everything, like a "quantum leap" (Frank Yang ! emoticon), like entering a world of divine appearances, etc. Those poems of the mahamudra masters for instance, etc. Thich Nhat Hahn also has a way of conveying the profundity and extremely subtle and refined beauty of how it seems he experiences things (well... you know what I mean... The extreme refinement of beauty which experiences itself in the experiencedness that is Thay, etc.) 

You seem to be in that general category too, from what I read.

That is what I'm itnerested in, to be honest emoticon

And I'm just really curious ; is it just people's make up ?

Is it varying depth of insight ? Is it that some people think they got when they didn't ?

Is it connected to what people actually expect ? To what they truly seek and desire ? Hence, to a form of belief in what "liberation" is or should be ? Burbea suggests that.

I also ask this because I've been told by an arahat that I'm probably approaching the "end of the path" - how close they think I am I don't know, but closer than farther I guess. And I'm surprised... The glimpses i've had of natural mind, etc., had strong aspects of amazingly magical, insubstantial, beautiful, vivid, colorful, compassionate, joyful, sacredness. These aspects have been slowly suffusing my experience. But I would expect that further insights would deepen this and just transform my experience more than what I feel is the case so far. You see the connection. 

How much do you think there is a connection between "conceptions of what awakening is" and the actual experience of awakening ? Again, Burbea is pretty clear on his ideas about this, and I must say he is ver convincing.


2) Not exactly lonely, though there was a period I felt a little disillusioned with teachers and lineages because it seems that many of these authoritative teachers do not get to the same level of insight that I felt was crucial. But nowadays I am appreciative of all teachers and teachings regardless of which level of insight they have realised.



Plus, anyway, in my AtR community I have plenty of people to talk with, to the extent that I can hardly keep up with it. Along with my ongoing conversations with my mentor John Tan/Thusness.

In Singapore, there are at least 5 people now who have realised anatta, all who come across AtR, and worldwide, 30+.

Sounds good !
An Eternal Now, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
"cosmic insight which totally changes everything, like a "quantum leap" (Frank Yang ! emoticon), "

You can add Daniel Ingram to that list probably:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2018/03/daniel-ingram-on-what-is-awakening-and.html

"Would I trade this for anything? Maybe world peace, but I would have to think about it. Until then, this totally rocks, and missing out on it would be barking crazy from my point of view."


"And I'm just really curious ; is it just people's make up ?"

No. It is not. Someone with a deep and intense awakening will not help but marvel at the wondrousness of it. See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-magical-fairytale-like-wonderland.html



The glimpses i've
had of natural mind, etc., had strong aspects of amazingly magical,
insubstantial, beautiful, vivid, colorful, compassionate, joyful,
sacredness. These aspects have been slowly suffusing my experience. But I
would expect that further insights would deepen this and just transform
my experience more than what I feel is the case so far.



Yes, the insights will deepen this.



How much do you think there is a connection between "conceptions of what awakening is" and the actual experience of awakening ?


More wondrous than anything you can imagine.
Olivier, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 733 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
Thank you for the genuine inspiration, aen !
Tim Farrington, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 2470 Join Date: 6/13/11 Recent Posts
Olivier:
Thank you for the genuine inspiration, aen !

Yes, AEN, bows of gratitude. And to you too, Olivier. And to David Matte for setting off this avalanche of wisdom with what I was quite sure at first was a stupid question. But there are no stupid questions, it turns out, only stupid people hearing ( or mis=-hearing, rather) the answers.

Yes, I do mean myself here, lol. Fortunately, I can take refuge in the sangha.

If we could bottle this thread's heart, and sell it on street corners in DC, we could be the richest enlightenment dealers north of Union Station. Until the fucking Columbians take a run at us--- we'd be badly outgunned. But if we just get them to sample the product, oh baby . . .
love, tim
Olivier, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 733 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
"Interesting...Elias Capriles talk about total exertion and non-action. He also give an example of some one drawing a circle...which I think is very good. My son intro-ed an artist that is like that into total non-action...every point he draws is simply perfect...when they later map and calculate the ratio and distance... Kim Jung Gi" - John Tan


I am so effing interested in this.

I believe this is what's going on with famous improviser Keith Jarret - do you know the guy ? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRSNcpI7UA

I
n this speech he explains that when he doesn't try to control the music and "let his left hand do what it has to", which sounds like non-action, the music that comes out, which is utterly out of his control, is better than anything he ever could have thought of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDbOKHOuy9M

This happens to me too. My brother is an example of that kind of guy who knows how to do that - he sucks at reading music, sucks at learning melodies or new pieces, and basically is a loser pianist in regard to the standards which have been institutionnalized. Yet somehow, when he improvises on the piano, every note he plays is, like you say, perfect, and touches the heart.

There is such a discrepancy between the institutionnalized notions of what human activity should be, and what enlightened activity is. Our understanding of culture is just... wrong emoticon What culture may look like from the non-dual non-substantialist perspective, is somethin I'm all curious about. 

What do you think of this quote by Nietzsche : "Buddhists lack art : hence quietism."

?
thumbnail
Steph S, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 669 Join Date: 3/24/10 Recent Posts
Olivier:

What do you think of this quote by Nietzsche : "Buddhists lack art : hence quietism."

?

I think this is making Buddhists into a monolithic entity. I guess in the time of Nietzsche he was likely referring mostly to monastics. I don't know how aware he might have been of that householder Buddhist life, many of whom have had their own creative pursuits. Although Buddhism throughout the ages has not been without its own art, even in monastic life. Religious art - music, chanting, visual art like painting & sculpture - happens in all major traditions. I'd even call meditation itself the art of bending the mind and pushing it to its frontiers - seeing how it is shaped, fabricating experience, using the powers... all of this I think counts as an imaginative and artful endeavor.
Olivier, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 733 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
Steph S:
Olivier:

What do you think of this quote by Nietzsche : "Buddhists lack art : hence quietism."

?

I think this is making Buddhists into a monolithic entity. I guess in the time of Nietzsche he was likely referring mostly to monastics. I don't know how aware he might have been of that householder Buddhist life, many of whom have had their own creative pursuits. Although Buddhism throughout the ages has not been without its own art, even in monastic life. Religious art - music, chanting, visual art like painting & sculpture - happens in all major traditions. I'd even call meditation itself the art of bending the mind and pushing it to its frontiers - seeing how it is shaped, fabricating experience, using the powers... all of this I think counts as an imaginative and artful endeavor.
He was certainly very unaware ...

And yet...

I read this quote by him yesterday, it's from The birth of tragedy from the spirit of music, and something rings true. But maybe I'm just drunk ;) emoticon
thumbnail
terry, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 1718 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Olivier:
Steph S:
Olivier:

What do you think of this quote by Nietzsche : "Buddhists lack art : hence quietism."

?

I think this is making Buddhists into a monolithic entity. I guess in the time of Nietzsche he was likely referring mostly to monastics. I don't know how aware he might have been of that householder Buddhist life, many of whom have had their own creative pursuits. Although Buddhism throughout the ages has not been without its own art, even in monastic life. Religious art - music, chanting, visual art like painting & sculpture - happens in all major traditions. I'd even call meditation itself the art of bending the mind and pushing it to its frontiers - seeing how it is shaped, fabricating experience, using the powers... all of this I think counts as an imaginative and artful endeavor.
He was certainly very unaware ...

And yet...

I read this quote by him yesterday, it's from The birth of tragedy from the spirit of music, and something rings true. But maybe I'm just drunk ;) emoticon

...neo-nitzschean spin: the art of buddhists is quietism (hence they lack for nothing)...

the village drunk
thumbnail
terry, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 1718 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
terry:
Olivier:
Steph S:
Olivier:

What do you think of this quote by Nietzsche : "Buddhists lack art : hence quietism."

?

I think this is making Buddhists into a monolithic entity. I guess in the time of Nietzsche he was likely referring mostly to monastics. I don't know how aware he might have been of that householder Buddhist life, many of whom have had their own creative pursuits. Although Buddhism throughout the ages has not been without its own art, even in monastic life. Religious art - music, chanting, visual art like painting & sculpture - happens in all major traditions. I'd even call meditation itself the art of bending the mind and pushing it to its frontiers - seeing how it is shaped, fabricating experience, using the powers... all of this I think counts as an imaginative and artful endeavor.
He was certainly very unaware ...

And yet...

I read this quote by him yesterday, it's from The birth of tragedy from the spirit of music, and something rings true. But maybe I'm just drunk ;) emoticon

...neo-nitzschean spin: the art of buddhists is quietism (hence they lack for nothing)...

the village drunk


from "the sayings of sri ramakrishna":


MAXIMS OF SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE

1042. Heaven sometimes speaks through the mouths of lunatics, drunkards and children.


(me x3)
thumbnail
terry, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 1718 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Steph S:
Olivier:

What do you think of this quote by Nietzsche : "Buddhists lack art : hence quietism."

?

I think this is making Buddhists into a monolithic entity. I guess in the time of Nietzsche he was likely referring mostly to monastics. I don't know how aware he might have been of that householder Buddhist life, many of whom have had their own creative pursuits. Although Buddhism throughout the ages has not been without its own art, even in monastic life. Religious art - music, chanting, visual art like painting & sculpture - happens in all major traditions. I'd even call meditation itself the art of bending the mind and pushing it to its frontiers - seeing how it is shaped, fabricating experience, using the powers... all of this I think counts as an imaginative and artful endeavor.

aloha steph,


   Nietzsche's father died young. He idealized his father, as he was very aware. He once said, "if you don't have a good father, you should get one." Following his own advice, he attached himself to certain individuals, intellectually and emotionally, and then surpassed and repudiated them.

   Nietzsche was deeply influenced by schopenauer, whose philosophy was the first major western interpretation of buddhism. When his infatuation with this second hand buddhism was over, he moved on. Later it was wagner.

   There is little difference, metaphysically, between buddhism and nihilism, or "pessimism" as schopenauer's (very perceptive and infinitely more readable than hegel or kant) philosophy came to be regarded. Buddhism is not a philosophy, however, but a means to enlightenment, so in that sense it is not nihilistic but life-affirming. Nietzsche never achieved this insight (neither did schopenauer).

   Nietzsche's quite thorough-going nihilism led him to repudiate nihilism itself, and embrace life without restraint. Given his circumstances, sick, frail, friendless and unappreciated; his only sexual contact resulting in the syphilis which demented and killed him; the only woman he wanted to marry (the incredible lou andreas-salome, rilke's mistress and freud's confidante) thoroughly picked his brain and then dumped him hard - his embrace of life in brilliant, scintillating aphoristic prose was incredibly courageous.

   His sister was a piece of work, who exploited his legacy and buried it in the will to power, last and not his best bunch of ideas.

   Just rambling...

terry



FIGS FROM THISTLES

FIRST FIG

BY EDNA ST. VINCENT MILLAY
  
My candle burns at both ends;
   It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends—
   It gives a lovely light!
thumbnail
terry, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 1718 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
terry:
Steph S:
Olivier:

What do you think of this quote by Nietzsche : "Buddhists lack art : hence quietism."

?

I think this is making Buddhists into a monolithic entity. I guess in the time of Nietzsche he was likely referring mostly to monastics. I don't know how aware he might have been of that householder Buddhist life, many of whom have had their own creative pursuits. Although Buddhism throughout the ages has not been without its own art, even in monastic life. Religious art - music, chanting, visual art like painting & sculpture - happens in all major traditions. I'd even call meditation itself the art of bending the mind and pushing it to its frontiers - seeing how it is shaped, fabricating experience, using the powers... all of this I think counts as an imaginative and artful endeavor.

aloha steph,


   Nietzsche's father died young. He idealized his father, as he was very aware. He once said, "if you don't have a good father, you should get one." Following his own advice, he attached himself to certain individuals, intellectually and emotionally, and then surpassed and repudiated them.

   Nietzsche was deeply influenced by schopenauer, whose philosophy was the first major western interpretation of buddhism. When his infatuation with this second hand buddhism was over, he moved on. Later it was wagner.

   There is little difference, metaphysically, between buddhism and nihilism, or "pessimism" as schopenauer's (very perceptive and infinitely more readable than hegel or kant) philosophy came to be regarded. Buddhism is not a philosophy, however, but a means to enlightenment, so in that sense it is not nihilistic but life-affirming. Nietzsche never achieved this insight (neither did schopenauer).

   Nietzsche's quite thorough-going nihilism led him to repudiate nihilism itself, and embrace life without restraint. Given his circumstances, sick, frail, friendless and unappreciated; his only sexual contact resulting in the syphilis which demented and killed him; the only woman he wanted to marry (the incredible lou andreas-salome, rilke's mistress and freud's confidante) thoroughly picked his brain and then dumped him hard - his embrace of life in brilliant, scintillating aphoristic prose was incredibly courageous.

   His sister was a piece of work, who exploited his legacy and buried it in the will to power, last and not his best bunch of ideas.

   Just rambling...

terry



FIGS FROM THISTLES

FIRST FIG

BY EDNA ST. VINCENT MILLAY
  
My candle burns at both ends;
   It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends—
   It gives a lovely light!


TO LOU ANDREAS-SALOME
(rainer maria rilke, trans mitchell)

I
I kept myself too open, I forgot
that outside there are not just Things, not just
animals at home within themselves,
whose eyes do not reach out from their life’s roundness
differently than a picture from its frame;
that all along I snatched into myself
glances, opinion, curiosity.
  For all we know, eyes may appear in space,
staring down. Only when hurled in you
is my face not imperiled, as it grows
into you, as it continues darkly
forever onward within your sheltered heart.

II
As one would hold a handkerchief in front of
one’s piled-up breath … no: as one would press it
against a wound from which life, all in one spurt,
is trying to escape—I held you close
till you were red with me. Who can describe
what happened to us? We made up for all
that there had been no time for. I ripened strangely
in every impulse of my unlived youth,
and you, Beloved, found yourself beginning
a kind of savage childhood in my heart.

III
Remembering them will not suffice: there must,
from all those moments, still remain a pure
existence in my depths, the sediment
from a measurelessly overfilled solution
moves me because of you. It’s not that I
discover you at the sad, cooled-off places
you left; the very fact that you're not there
is warm with you and realer and is more
than a privation. Yearning ends so often
in vagueness. Why should I be desperate while
your presence still can fall upon me, gently
as moonlight on a seat beside the window.
Olivier, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 733 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
Terry ! Hi !!

I think Nietzsche would be on this forum with us had he been alibe today. 

I have a lot if love for that man.

He and his Zarathoustra were my companion when i first happened into the "DN" dark wisdom. 

I thought i had moved on and gotten to the real stuff, and indeed, i think that's the case. But just in this first book, The birth of tragedy... Wow, man !

Dyionisiac and appolinian indeed !

I am about to write the updated version of this book, having very luckily been in touch with the vital parts of buddhism and its actual practices.
thumbnail
terry, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 1718 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Olivier:
Terry ! Hi !!

I think Nietzsche would be on this forum with us had he been alibe today. 

I have a lot if love for that man.

He and his Zarathoustra were my companion when i first happened into the "DN" dark wisdom. 

I thought i had moved on and gotten to the real stuff, and indeed, i think that's the case. But just in this first book, The birth of tragedy... Wow, man !

Dyionisiac and appolinian indeed !

I am about to write the updated version of this book, having very luckily been in touch with the vital parts of buddhism and its actual practices.


   In many ways "the birth of tragedy" was his best book. I also like another early work, "untimely meditations," especially "the uses and abuses of history in life." Also, "a genealogy of morals."

t





from "human, all too human" by friedrich nietzsche:

Men at present begin by entering the realm of culture as children affected religiously, and these sensations are at their liveliest in perhaps their tenth year, then pass over into feebler forms (pantheism) while at the same time drawing closer to science; they put God, immortality and the like quite behind them but fall prey to the charms of a metaphysical philosophy. At last they find this, too, unbelievable; art, on the other hand, seems to promise them more and more, so that for a time metaphysics continues just to survive transformed into art or as a mood of artistic transfiguration. But the scientific sense grows more and more imperious and leads the man away to natural science and history and especially to the most rigorous methods of acquiring knowledge, while art is accorded an ever gentler and more modest significance. All this nowadays usually takes place within a man's first thirty years. It is the recapitulation of a curriculum at which mankind has been labouring for perhaps thirty thousand years.
Sleeping Buddha Syndrome, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 805 Join Date: 12/4/11 Recent Posts
I am in favor of letting questions like this go unanswered. Due to the possibility of speculation.

I would like to point out that getting into the watcher is fairly straightforward. People in today's world are arguing about wearing masks. It's dumb. You could just put a mask on a pretend to be a watcher
thumbnail
terry, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 1718 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
David Matte:
Hello.

I have heard people of various spiritual traditions describe reality as "Infinite". I was reading Ken Wilber recently and he seems to frequently enjoy using the terms Infinity and Infinite. Here's one quote from the book "One Taste".
The ego is just the dream of the Witness, the film that the Witness creates about of it's infinite plenitude, simply so it will have something to watch at the movies.


Since I don't have the opportunity to ask Ken personally, what do you think is meant by Infinite plenitude? I believe this is mostly a Hindu conception of things. It also seems like a metaphysical claim about reality. Is this Infinite plentitude something one can experience, fantastical speculation, or what?

   Eternity and infinity are the two poles of reality, time and space extended to the limitless.

   God is eternal, matter is infinite. In one direction we have absolute unity in eternity. In the other we have absolute proliferation in the infinite number of finite things.

   These are the two emanations of plotinus, as elaborated by sufis like ibn 'arabi. The first emanation of the absolute iS unity, in which nothing can be saparated or distinguished. The second emanation is oneness. Every unique thing is one, one and one is two, two and one is three and so on to infinity.

   Ken wilber has made a  career out of measuring the ocean with a cup. There is no ego as there is no witness. I expect infinite plenitude means plenty of inifnity, every where you look. Reality can be subdivided infinitely. 


terry



SIPHONAPTERA
(augustus de morgan)

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

  

tao te ching, trans mitchell



42.


The Tao gives birth to One. 
One gives birth to Two. 
Two gives birth to Three. 
Three gives birth to all things.

All things have their backs to the female 
and stand facing the male. 
When male and female combine, 
all things achieve harmony.

Ordinary men hate solitude. 
But the Master makes use of it, 
embracing his aloneness, realizing 
he is one with the whole universe. 
Tim Farrington, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 2470 Join Date: 6/13/11 Recent Posts
David Matte:
Hello.

I have heard people of various spiritual traditions describe reality as "Infinite". I was reading Ken Wilber recently and he seems to frequently enjoy using the terms Infinity and Infinite. Here's one quote from the book "One Taste".
The ego is just the dream of the Witness, the film that the Witness creates about of it's infinite plenitude, simply so it will have something to watch at the movies.


Since I don't have the opportunity to ask Ken personally, what do you think is meant by Infinite plenitude? I believe this is mostly a Hindu conception of things. It also seems like a metaphysical claim about reality. Is this Infinite plentitude something one can experience, fantastical speculation, or what?

Hi David,

The infinite plenitude can experience the movie the Witness has created for the ego to watch by approaching a furnace, sticking the ego's hand into it, and considering the nature of time and suffering until Enlightenment is achieved.

This is a little known variation on the Fire Kasina, and has given many some crucial insight into the three characteristics.

love, tim
punto, modified 1 Year ago.

RE: People who say reality is "Infinite"

Posts: 20 Join Date: 1/17/18 Recent Posts
Likewise and much gratitude AEN. Much to contemplate and practice with here.

Breadcrumb