Sahaja Nirbikalpa Samadhi - Discussion
The only phenomenon was "boundless consciousness", perceived in a way that is as tension-free and peaceful as anything else I have ever experienced. It appears to be absolutely still and unmoving. It gives the impression of being more "real" than normal sensory experience. One might (depending on their background) think that, in retrospect, the world is an illusion, this is the Absolute (or one face of it), or some form of unity with the unmanifest ground of existence. Even if one does not think that, one will still be very impressed by it (to say the least).
Excuse my butting in
This is pretty much identical in description to something I've experienced also, although not at the same level as yourself i.e. "AF". I'm coming to see that I was accessing less stable versions of the sutta-style rupa jhanas long before 1st path and continued practice with "actualizing" the arupa jhanas, in this case the 6th, seems to bring about the same sort of thing. Interesting stuff, I'm going to play around with this as part of my practice and see what comes of it.
Seraphis M.:
May we take Emptiness as a synonym for the Absolute in our context?
It depends. As some Mahayana schools use the term, I think so. But, I wouldn't say that MCTB Emptiness corresponds to it. It certainly wasn't involved in my experience of the various MCTB paths.
In fact, I realize now that during the time I spent practicing according to MCTB, my experiences of the Absolute were few and far between...during that time, in many ways I forgot why I ever became interested in spirituality (it was the Absolute, obviously, though I didn't understand it at all in the beginning)...it is very strange, because MCTB paths have been life-changing in various ways for me.
Seraphis M.:
Let me have a go:
Absolute is the Source of everything, even the ego and mind and emotions and physical body. It is differentiated, manifested by itself as everything we perceive inside and outside of us. The duality is there, suffering also….
…until one realizes directly what Absolute really Is. And what it always turns out to be is something that is far beyond the material sensory perception, and way above (or beyond) even the most sublimely abstract thoughts in the refined mind. When experienced directly (sama(one with) adi (absolute)) it becomes Known as the Only truth, Eternal and the meditator identifies his own consciousness as being at-one with the Absolute. The “nature” of the Absolute is such that (when directly experienced) all perception is immediately shut down, for various lengths of “time”. Only the Absolute remains.
When meditatior exits the Samadhi (union with the Absolute), mind kicks in and his previous conditioning colors interpretations of the experience (in my case, tears flew etc…)
Yes, sounds like what I have in mind with savikalpa.
Seraphis M.:
The latter experience comes in different strengths (related to the grossness of the dual “trailer”), but is always fundamentally the same as I have seen it. The former experience seems to come in one strength only. I tentatively associate the former with nirvikalpa, and the latter with savikalpa, based on the quotes you provided.
If this distinction makes sense to you, I would ask, what is this “Self” that you perceive in the experience you had, in addition to “boundless consciousness”? Perhaps that is the effort and the activity of the false ego that qualifies it as savikalpa? In the experience I described, there was only the percept (insofar as I could discern), and that very absence of the perception of an Absolute is the revelation that whatever is perceived is the Absolute.
If this distinction makes sense to you, I would ask, what is this “Self” that you perceive in the experience you had, in addition to “boundless consciousness”? Perhaps that is the effort and the activity of the false ego that qualifies it as savikalpa? In the experience I described, there was only the percept (insofar as I could discern), and that very absence of the perception of an Absolute is the revelation that whatever is perceived is the Absolute.
Your stream of thoughts is blowing my mind away, EiS. Obviously you know what you are talking about. I am grateful for that, sir.
I am a regular person (or at least: a contemplative just like you), you should not address me in a unique way.
Seraphis M.:
Again, here, just now, the "anagami like" insight manifested, after which all you just said made perfect sense:
There is no separation between the Self and boundless consciousness.
There is no separation between the Self and boundless consciousness.
Is there a separation between the Self and the sensory image of these words in front of you?
Seraphis M.:
I am not liberated, I enter Samadhi at will, because something in me still distinguishes me form the Absolute and relative phenomena from the Absolute. I know that.
How do you enter it at will?
Seraphis M.:
Savikalpa…still not quite nibbana, as there is a dualistic residue (which is suffering)
Nirvikalpa…nibbana as a phenomenon, phenomena appear as the Absolute
Sahaja…nibbana as the absence of phenomena (NOT THE SAME AS THE "SELF" SEPARATE FROM PHENOMENA!) .
Nirvikalpa…nibbana as a phenomenon, phenomena appear as the Absolute
Sahaja…nibbana as the absence of phenomena (NOT THE SAME AS THE "SELF" SEPARATE FROM PHENOMENA!) .
Yes.
Sabikalpa (in Sanskrit B usually interchanges with V) is still not it, just as you said, there is still dualistic residue (which brings suffering/joy etc… along with it). That dualistic residue is why I still perceive as thought I have to enter Absolute.
I have no idea about Sanskrit.
If you think this way of dividing things up is helpful and accurate, then here is what would happen to go from savikalpa to nirvikalpa (I don't know if this can be implemented as a practice, but it might be interesting to think about):
The difference between what you described and what I described is that you perceive, in your experience, that there is a Self in it, or behind it. This means you believe there is an object called "Self" in your experience (whether or not you conceive of it as an object or subject). The belief in / perception of that object is dualistic residue that stands in the way of actually apprehending what you would call the Self. In the experience I described, there is no particular object called Self that is separate from manifestation, because the Self has infinite faces...whatever there is, that is it.
And to go from nirvikalpa to sahaja (speculation / theory based on what I previously wrote), now using my terminology:
Craving causes all dualistic experience and all existential suffering, and nibbana is sometimes referred to as the end of craving (e.g. Satta sutta). When one glimpses experience without craving, that is the most profound and inconceivable happiness...and yet, there is a tendency to see that happiness as either 1) inhering in the objects of the experience, or 2) inhering in the experience itself. Thus I would say: "This percept, free of craving, is the Absolute", or "This moment of perception, free of craving, is the Absolute". But the only happiness is the end of craving, and the end of craving is an absence rather than something with some positive reality. When there is no craving while seeing-hearing-smelling-tasting-touching-thinking is happening, that is one way of apprehending the Absolute. When there is no craving and no perception at all (as one fully liberated would experience after death), that is another way of apprehending the Absolute. This second way is literally empty of everything (including "boundless consciousness", including whatever nonsensory perception there is in savikalpa, etc.)...and yet, this non-thing, empty of everything, is profound and inconceivable happiness just the same. One who experiences sahaja understands this and sees no significant difference between these two ways of apprehending the Absolute.
I can't figure out how this makes sense, and yet it appears to be the position of the Pali suttas...hence, I am still a seeker.
Seraphis M.:
I admit, the spontaneously manifestation of Absolute in real time is more and more frequent, every day in my day to day life.
You mean, savikalpa (as you described it earlier)?
Seraphis M.:
My question, if I may:
where and how NS fits (if at all) into the above description in your opinion, please?
where and how NS fits (if at all) into the above description in your opinion, please?
This is a multifaceted question.
To start off with, I will state that some people (e.g. Jan) say that nirvikalpa is unconsciousness. In that case, NS (as described in MCT
is nirvikalpa, as is cessation / fruition. But, this doesn't seem to be what Ramana means, and is Jan's own personal usage based on whatever tradition he sees himself in.NS, as described in MCTB, is unconsciousness, or at least is as far as I or anyone else can tell. If it isn't unconsciousness, no one seems to have access to whatever occurs during it. But it isn't unconsciousness in the sense of there being no mind in the way that there is in savikalpa. Whatever is experienced during savikalpa, isn't experienced during NS. Whatever is experienced during what I suggested was nirvikalpa, isn't experienced during NS either.
Is NS nibbana? There is no craving that I can see during it (as there is no anything that I can see during it), so, it would seem so. (In the sense that nibbana = cessation of craving, whether in context of experience or not.) Again, this is no different from cessation / fruition.
There is a complication, which is that there is another thing that vies for the title of NS (or sanna-vedayita-nirodha in the suttas)...let's call it 9th jhana. One attains it in a similar way, with the difference being, one seems to require MCTB 3rd path for NS, whereas one seems to require something that seems like it could be anagami (according to the suttas' comparatively extreme criteria) for easy access to 9th jhana.
"Sutta anagami" is probably closer to having the false ego destroyed, with vasanas continuing, than MCTB 3rd path is.
The suttas say that the faculties of one who experiences sanna-vedayita-nirodha "are clear", and there appears to be a difference between NS and 9th jhana in the sense that, in NS, there is no experience, whereas in 9th jhana, there is no normal experience, but still possibly something. (I find it impossible to say what. In some ways the question seems nonsensical to me. I could also be misperceiving things in some way, as I can only enter 9th jhana for a tiny fraction of a second, and may be mixing it together with something before / after it ) On the other hand, there could be a translation issue here regarding what "clear faculties" really means.
The suttas say that one makes contacts with "emptiness", "the signless", and "the undirected" coming out of sanna-vedayita-nirodha. I don't know what those are, but there is a very distinct uncommon experience when coming out of 9th jhana which I have not noticed after NS.
The suttas say that one "tends towards isolation" after sanna-vedayita-nirodha. NS has a narcotic hangover which seems to fit with that, whereas 9th jhana does not.
So, I don't know how to answer your question very well. I would say this is a very murky area, and my understanding is still evolving.
Seraphis M.:
(about Jan) I read the article, interesting.
You should read his whole site, including his relevant satsangs, for the full picture. He does not have all his ideas collected in one single place.
Seraphis M.:
According to that author, the bliss (I seem to experience in sabikalpa samadhi) can be brought to even a higher level.
Maybe, but also, maybe not in the way that you think.
My understanding of what Jan means is...imagine your experience of savikalpa, and then imagine the bliss of that occurring while you walk around in a normal state of consciousness.
What is the bliss? Not an emotion, not a body experience (though there may be pleasant sensations in your body)...the bliss is the Absolute experiencing itself. Seeing, hearing, etc. are all some kind of incomprehensible silent ecstasy. Every face of the Absolute, every little sensory thing, is bliss. They don't cause feelings of ecstasy, they *are* ecstasy.
And, it's all quite mundane and down-to-earth. Just seeing, hearing, etc.
Seraphis M.:
How would you describe the 4th tech path, in the light of our conversation thus far, please?
I am not sure. I suppose I would have to say that it's not quite related to what we've been talking about, but can be attained on the way to these things, and is helpful for attaining them. It's like a "cognitive" understanding of what enlightenment is supposed to be about, without actually experiencing it. (I got this from someone at KFD...it's very apt.) One understands that all the normal identifications with objects are confused, one feels "in their bones" that there can be no self (in the conventional sense), one attains some measure of freedom on account of that, but still, no appreciation of the Absolute need follow from it.
Jan's "nothingness-being" is potentially the same as MCTB 4th path. He says that there is no possibility of thinking that one is a "somebody" or "I", but one recognizes that one is pure Being...the entire ego-structure remains and causes all kinds of weird suffering, but neither the ego-structure nor the suffering is identified with, and, if left to itself, it slowly falls apart.
What does he mean by "pure Being"? He could mean all kinds of things, and (as I mentioned before) I haven't asked him. But he does seem to be capturing the flavor of the belief that many people have, that they have somehow transcended all self-identification and found an impersonal "Awareness", which is not a thing, which transcends the subject/object duality, to be the nature of reality. I'm not sure I had the same perspective on it that others did (and I'm not sure that everyone who attains it has the same perspective, either), but there is some core perceptual thing which changes that makes a perspective / interpretation like this very reasonable-seeming when one is hanging out at 4th path.
End in Sight:
I am a regular person (or at least: a contemplative just like you), you should not address me in a unique way..
I know, thank you.
But I can still respect you and express my gratitude, I think.
Seraphis M.:
Is there a separation between the Self and the sensory image of these words in front of you?
Now, at this moment there is.
There was none at the time when I first read your words. As per my memory, it all just stopped for a moment and there were no difference between, well, anything. There was no Self, Absolute, only Empty of I-dont-know-what and yet present.
These insights into Empty nature of phenomena, for the lack of a better word, are happening to me on a daily basis, several times a day now.
How do you enter it at will?.
I intend it.
Most of the times the samadhi happens when I am in meditation. Speaking about sabikalpa samadhi now and the experience of the Self, and of the I am Presence.
The Emptiness (I call it the non-dual as opposed to the high causal - wilber map) is happening more spontaneously, there is no Self present, no overwhelming bliss, nor the absolute sense of omnipresence (I am everywhere, only I am etc...). It happened just yesterday when I read your words about boundless-consciousness.
It is different from the sabikalpa as there is no Self present, no Me or I am. Empty and yet present.
The difference between what you described and what I described is that you perceive, in your experience, that there is a Self in it, or behind it. This means you believe there is an object called "Self" in your experience (whether or not you conceive of it as an object or subject). The belief in / perception of that object is dualistic residue that stands in the way of actually apprehending what you would call the Self. In the experience I described, there is no particular object called Self that is separate from manifestation, because the Self has infinite faces...whatever there is, that is it.
And to go from nirvikalpa to sahaja (speculation / theory based on what I previously wrote), now using my terminology:
Craving causes all dualistic experience and all existential suffering, and nibbana is sometimes referred to as the end of craving (e.g. Satta sutta). When one glimpses experience without craving, that is the most profound and inconceivable happiness...and yet, there is a tendency to see that happiness as either 1) inhering in the objects of the experience, or 2) inhering in the experience itself. Thus I would say: "This percept, free of craving, is the Absolute", or "This moment of perception, free of craving, is the Absolute". But the only happiness is the end of craving, and the end of craving is an absence rather than something with some positive reality. When there is no craving while seeing-hearing-smelling-tasting-touching-thinking is happening, that is one way of apprehending the Absolute. When there is no craving and no perception at all (as one fully liberated would experience after death), that is another way of apprehending the Absolute. This second way is literally empty of everything (including "boundless consciousness", including whatever nonsensory perception there is in savikalpa, etc.)...and yet, this non-thing, empty of everything, is profound and inconceivable happiness just the same. One who experiences sahaja understands this and sees no significant difference between these two ways of apprehending the Absolute.
I can't figure out how this makes sense, and yet it appears to be the position of the Pali suttas...hence, I am still a seeker.
It does make sense, it makes perfect sense.
Thank you.
"I admit, the spontaneously manifestation of Absolute in real time is more and more frequent, every day in my day to day life"
You mean, savikalpa (as you described it earlier)?
No, I am sorry, I keep using this word, Absolute, for every samadhi that manifests. I can enter sabikalpa at will (see above), but since a few weeks ago, things have changed, I am loosing the impulse to intend samadhi to happen, instead there is no one there anymore to intend it (sometimes). There is no process available anymore to go from point A (normal awareness) to point B (samadhi) - again, not constantly, only sometimes.
Since I have been here, reading about Insight paths, anagami etc... and especially since conversing with some of you 4th tech path (here and elsewhere), things are getting clearer.
So, no, not sabikalpa, but some sort of Emptiness without the Self there.
To start off with, I will state that some people (e.g. Jan) say that nirvikalpa is unconsciousness. In that case, NS (as described in MCT
is nirvikalpa, as is cessation / fruition. But, this doesn't seem to be what Ramana means, and is Jan's own personal usage based on whatever tradition he sees himself in.NS, as described in MCTB, is unconsciousness, or at least is as far as I or anyone else can tell. If it isn't unconsciousness, no one seems to have access to whatever occurs during it. But it isn't unconsciousness in the sense of there being no mind in the way that there is in savikalpa. Whatever is experienced during savikalpa, isn't experienced during NS. Whatever is experienced during what I suggested was nirvikalpa, isn't experienced during NS either.
OK, when you say "...But it isn't unconsciousness in the sense of there being no mind in the way that there is in savikalpa.." by mind you mean the non-sensory perception of the Self, I am, the Absolute?
Is NS nibbana? There is no craving that I can see during it (as there is no anything that I can see during it), so, it would seem so. (In the sense that nibbana = cessation of craving, whether in context of experience or not.) Again, this is no different from cessation / fruition.
There is a complication, which is that there is another thing that vies for the title of NS (or sanna-vedayita-nirodha in the suttas)...let's call it 9th jhana. One attains it in a similar way, with the difference being, one seems to require MCTB 3rd path for NS, whereas one seems to require something that seems like it could be anagami (according to the suttas' comparatively extreme criteria) for easy access to 9th jhana.
"Sutta anagami" is probably closer to having the false ego destroyed, with vasanas continuing, than MCTB 3rd path is.
The suttas say that the faculties of one who experiences sanna-vedayita-nirodha "are clear", and there appears to be a difference between NS and 9th jhana in the sense that, in NS, there is no experience, whereas in 9th jhana, there is no normal experience, but still possibly something. (I find it impossible to say what. In some ways the question seems nonsensical to me. I could also be misperceiving things in some way, as I can only enter 9th jhana for a tiny fraction of a second, and may be mixing it together with something before / after it ) On the other hand, there could be a translation issue here regarding what "clear faculties" really means.
The suttas say that one makes contacts with "emptiness", "the signless", and "the undirected" coming out of sanna-vedayita-nirodha. I don't know what those are, but there is a very distinct uncommon experience when coming out of 9th jhana which I have not noticed after NS.
The suttas say that one "tends towards isolation" after sanna-vedayita-nirodha. NS has a narcotic hangover which seems to fit with that, whereas 9th jhana does not.
So, I don't know how to answer your question very well. I would say this is a very murky area, and my understanding is still evolving.
OK, thank you.
You should read his whole site, including his relevant satsangs, for the full picture. He does not have all his ideas collected in one single place.
Oh well, lots of reading to do. The problem is that my mind is not as fast as it used to be.
More often than not, the aforementioned "insight" into Emptiness happens and then I cant think straight for a various periods of time.
Maybe, but also, maybe not in the way that you think.
My understanding of what Jan means is...imagine your experience of savikalpa, and then imagine the bliss of that occurring while you walk around in a normal state of consciousness.
What is the bliss? Not an emotion, not a body experience (though there may be pleasant sensations in your body)...the bliss is the Absolute experiencing itself. Seeing, hearing, etc. are all some kind of incomprehensible silent ecstasy. Every face of the Absolute, every little sensory thing, is bliss. They don't cause feelings of ecstasy, they *are* ecstasy.
And, it's all quite mundane and down-to-earth. Just seeing, hearing, etc.
I can intuitively understand what you mean, but I am not there yet.
At the moment, I am leaving the harsh intended sabikalpas behind and embracing more spontaneous Emptiness "insights", it seems.
I am not sure. I suppose I would have to say that it's not quite related to what we've been talking about, but can be attained on the way to these things, and is helpful for attaining them. It's like a "cognitive" understanding of what enlightenment is supposed to be about, without actually experiencing it. (I got this from someone at KFD...it's very apt.) One understands that all the normal identifications with objects are confused, one feels "in their bones" that there can be no self (in the conventional sense), one attains some measure of freedom on account of that, but still, no appreciation of the Absolute need follow from it.
Jan's "nothingness-being" is potentially the same as MCTB 4th path. He says that there is no possibility of thinking that one is a "somebody" or "I", but one recognizes that one is pure Being...the entire ego-structure remains and causes all kinds of weird suffering, but neither the ego-structure nor the suffering is identified with, and, if left to itself, it slowly falls apart.
What does he mean by "pure Being"? He could mean all kinds of things, and (as I mentioned before) I haven't asked him. But he does seem to be capturing the flavor of the belief that many people have, that they have somehow transcended all self-identification and found an impersonal "Awareness", which is not a thing, which transcends the subject/object duality, to be the nature of reality. I'm not sure I had the same perspective on it that others did (and I'm not sure that everyone who attains it has the same perspective, either), but there is some core perceptual thing which changes that makes a perspective / interpretation like this very reasonable-seeming when one is hanging out at 4th path.
I see.
Thank you.
s.
To start off with, I will state that some people (e.g. Jan) say that nirvikalpa is unconsciousness. In that case, NS (as described in MCT
is nirvikalpa, as is cessation / fruition. But, this doesn't seem to be what Ramana means, and is Jan's own personal usage based on whatever tradition he sees himself in.NS, as described in MCTB, is unconsciousness, or at least is as far as I or anyone else can tell. If it isn't unconsciousness, no one seems to have access to whatever occurs during it. But it isn't unconsciousness in the sense of there being no mind in the way that there is in savikalpa. Whatever is experienced during savikalpa, isn't experienced during NS. Whatever is experienced during what I suggested was nirvikalpa, isn't experienced during NS either.
OK, when you say "...But it isn't unconsciousness in the sense of there being no mind in the way that there is in savikalpa.." by mind you mean the non-sensory perception of the Self, I am, the Absolute?
Just to be explicit: in NS, or in cessation, there is nothing whatsoever that I can talk about. Like anaesthesia. Like the way an atheist conceives of the afterlife. If there is something, I am either unable to discern it, or unable to remember it.
Maybe, but also, maybe not in the way that you think.
My understanding of what Jan means is...imagine your experience of savikalpa, and then imagine the bliss of that occurring while you walk around in a normal state of consciousness.
What is the bliss? Not an emotion, not a body experience (though there may be pleasant sensations in your body)...the bliss is the Absolute experiencing itself. Seeing, hearing, etc. are all some kind of incomprehensible silent ecstasy. Every face of the Absolute, every little sensory thing, is bliss. They don't cause feelings of ecstasy, they *are* ecstasy.
And, it's all quite mundane and down-to-earth. Just seeing, hearing, etc.
I can intuitively understand what you mean, but I am not there yet.
The transition between perceiving the Absolute as some kind of subject / object unity, and perceiving it as phenomena themselves, had some gradual aspects for me. (There is another sense in which it isn't gradual, but the sense in which it is tends to be more helpful in terms of practice, I think.)
At the moment, I am leaving the harsh intended sabikalpas behind and embracing more spontaneous Emptiness "insights", it seems.
If you can see that these are "harsh" then you are on the right track!
Keep in mind that there are at least two ways to approach the path:
1) Removing defilements, removing the things that stand in the way of further insight and realization. ("Push")
2) Seeing more advanced stages of the path temporarily, and using that for transformation. ("Pull")
Examples of "push" practices are what the Pali suttas recommend, what Adi Shankara recommends, etc.
Examples of "pull" practice are vajrayana, what the AFT recommends, etc.
(Of course, each has elements of the other.)
The point is, you should make a judgment about which is likely to help you more, given your own strengths and weaknesses...or, alternatively, you should see if there are practical bits from the opposite sort of practice than the one you have now which you could incorporate.
Have you described your current / recent practice history anywhere? I'd be interested in hearing about it.
An Eternal Now:
Her description of subject/object unity is I AM, and the no subject and falling away of clinging at I AM is non-dual.
As I said, I think you underestimate the attainments of non-Buddhists.
No need to discuss this further.
As for the non-linearity of stages...can one experience stage 2 without stage 1? Can one experience stage 7 without stage 6? 5 without 4? I am curious.
As the Pali suttas state clearly there is an absolute end to the path, should I take this (about stage 7) to mean that you and Thusness disagree with them on that point?
In any case, I find non-theoretical descriptions to be the most telling, as they are wrapped up in very little sociocultural baggage. Ramana says that one who is liberated has "no movement". The Pali suttas use the metaphors of "feeding" and "growth and proliferation" for the fundamental problem of becoming, i.e. action / movement. (The word "becoming" is itself one related to action / movement.) Dan Ingram talks about the way that the attention wave "wiggles", i.e. action / movement. A similarity underlying the apparent theoretical disagreement.
Q: What is the dual "trailer" in samadhi that generates an experience of a palpable Self? A: Attention wave.
Q: What is the thought of a "mirror" in stage 4, which is later seen through? A: Attention wave.
Q: How does one cling to the Absolute in stage 5? A: Attention wave.
Q: What problem does Dan Ingram see remaining, untouched, after MCTB 4th path (stage 5, if I understand you correctly) A: Attention wave.
Q: How can the differences between various levels of attainment be understood? A: As variations in the way that the attention wave manifests.
Do you disagree? If so. I would love to talk about it (= the phenomenology of these experiences) on a different thread. FYI, my fundamental view is:
Q: How does the path absolutely end? A: I assume, with the final end of the attention wave.
In general, the various insights that are gained when moving through various stages are insights which I believe can be analyzed in simple phenomenological terms that relate to the experience of action / movement, rather than insights which must be left as alterations in experience which can't be analyzed down to a more fundamental level.
(EDIT: Another data-point with respect to the claim that no movement is experienced at very early stages on Thusness' map, I will point out that Bernadette Roberts very carefully states that her "unity" experience involved finding a still point which is still in relation to all the non-still activity going on around it! i.e. the whole experience, which you claim to be the experience of the I AM stage, cannot be described as unmoving.)
IMO (based on my experience with an earlier part of my path and this happens to be the understanding of Thusness as well), even AF clings to a purest state and thus is not the liberation of Buddhism, there are still certain aspects missing, but no further comments here.
Do you experience *any* vibrations or any flux of attention whatsoever? (I will clarify this if necessary.)
End in Sight:
As I said, I think you underestimate the attainments of non-Buddhists.
No need to discuss this further.
As the Pali suttas state clearly there is an absolute end to the path, should I take this (about stage 7) to mean that you and Thusness disagree with them on that point?
In any case, I find non-theoretical descriptions to be the most telling, as they are wrapped up in very little sociocultural baggage. Ramana says that one who is liberated has "no movement". The Pali suttas use the metaphors of "feeding" and "growth and proliferation" for the fundamental problem of becoming, i.e. action / movement. (The word "becoming" is itself one related to action / movement.) Dan Ingram talks about the way that the attention wave "wiggles", i.e. action / movement. A similarity underlying the apparent theoretical disagreement.
.....
In general, the various insights that are gained when moving through various stages are insights which I believe can be analyzed in simple phenomenological terms that relate to the experience of action / movement, rather than insights which must be left as alterations in experience which can't be analyzed down to a more fundamental level.
(EDIT: Another data-point with respect to the claim that no movement is experienced at very early stages on Thusness' map, I will point out that Bernadette Roberts very carefully states that her "unity" experience involved finding a still point which is still in relation to all the non-still activity going on around it! i.e. the whole experience, which you claim to be the experience of the I AM stage, cannot be described as unmoving.)
.....
In general, the various insights that are gained when moving through various stages are insights which I believe can be analyzed in simple phenomenological terms that relate to the experience of action / movement, rather than insights which must be left as alterations in experience which can't be analyzed down to a more fundamental level.
(EDIT: Another data-point with respect to the claim that no movement is experienced at very early stages on Thusness' map, I will point out that Bernadette Roberts very carefully states that her "unity" experience involved finding a still point which is still in relation to all the non-still activity going on around it! i.e. the whole experience, which you claim to be the experience of the I AM stage, cannot be described as unmoving.)
For those I AM experiencers: they experience no movement while abiding in the Self.
Actually what is meant by abiding in Self? It is simply abiding in the NDNCIDIMOP of a non-conceptual thought. However that is treated as the ultimate, the purest identity, etc. So to them, the non-conceptual thought is clung to as Self, and the Self has no movement, while all other manifestation has movement. So the Self may seem at this point to be a "still-point at the center of a turning world" (except that the 'point' is not a finite point but an infinite all-pervading presence)
But what happens when you experience PCE or NDNCIDIMOP in all other six sense entries? A sound? A sight? etc
Then you experience something amazing: Everything that you thought was 'moving', that is transient, in fact turns out to be not-moving. In other words, transience reveals non-movement. In seeing - just seen, in hearing - just heard. Each manifestation is complete, whole, in itself - there is no self or observer apart from the transience to measure movement.
So at this point 'non-movement' shifts from simply abiding in the Source, to every transient phenomenal manifestation.
One point remains however: your emphasis on phenomenal descriptions can lead to an over-emphasis on experience to the overneglecting of insights. Why? You can have countless non-dual glimses, and yet without the correct insights that lead to a complete overturning of views, in which the entire framework of viewing inherently and dualistically is resolved through a realization (i.e. anatta, shunyata), then no matter how you try to rest in NDNCIDIMOP, PCE, there remains a desync between view and experience. You may end up using dualistic terms to express non-dual experience, or you may still have a tendency to sink back to a base, a ground, etc. Without those insights, you can have many PCEs and still remain deluded and fail to experience true liberation.
The insights may sound theoretical, but I assure you it is not - it is an experiential seeing of a fact about reality.
For example, Alex Weith has expressed very well his recent insight into Anatta: http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4765011/A+Zen+exploration+of+the+Bahiya+Sutta?offset=0&maxResults=20
Q: What is the dual "trailer" in samadhi that generates an experience of a palpable Self? A: Attention wave.
Q: What is the thought of a "mirror" in stage 4, which is later seen through? A: Attention wave.
Q: What is the thought of a "mirror" in stage 4, which is later seen through? A: Attention wave.
On a sidenote, the non-conceptual thought is simply the natural state of mind in its quiescent state. It is not fabricated or conceptual in any way. It is simply mind at rest in its purity. This is what Buddha meant in the suttas by 'O monks, luminous is the mind', etc. But it is in no way a purest identity, a self, a dualistic witness, etc - that is a fabricated experience due to clinging to inherent thought and false reification of a previous non-dual experience.
The thought of a 'mirror' or an 'essence' on the other hand arises through false reification due to the paradigm/framework at seeing an inherent substance/essence.
Therefore there are two bonds: the bond/view of duality - a subject/object division, removed at stage 4, and the bond/view of inherency - seeing an inherent self, awareness, essence, which is progressively removed at stage 5 (emptiness of self) and stage 6 (emptiness of objects, dependent origination).
Therefore it is not just a matter of 'attention' that 'dualifies' or 'solidifies' experience - it is rather, the inherent/dualistic framework or view, the deeply rooted ignorance that does so. This can only be eradicated through deepening insight and wisdom. Trying to sustain in non-dual experience without a fundamental realization will not lead to liberation of these views and clinging. In other words you can have non-dual experience, and yet the framework of viewing experience/consciousness is still based on inherent/dualistic thought.
So attention in and of itself is never the problem, as of course, attention is a useful tool necessary for daily functioning (such as paying close attention to what the lecturer is explaining, etc) and more. Sorry I may be talking something completely different to what you mean by attention wave as I honestly do not know what that term means.
Q: How does one cling to the Absolute in stage 5? A: Attention wave.
Q: What problem does Dan Ingram see remaining, untouched, after MCTB 4th path (stage 5, if I understand you correctly) A: Attention wave.
Q: How can the differences between various levels of attainment be understood? A: As variations in the way that the attention wave manifests.
Do you disagree? If so. I would love to talk about it (= the phenomenology of these experiences) on a different thread. FYI, my fundamental view is:
Q: How does the path absolutely end? A: I assume, with the final end of the attention wave.
Q: How can the differences between various levels of attainment be understood? A: As variations in the way that the attention wave manifests.
Do you disagree? If so. I would love to talk about it (= the phenomenology of these experiences) on a different thread. FYI, my fundamental view is:
Q: How does the path absolutely end? A: I assume, with the final end of the attention wave.
An Eternal Now:
End in Sight:
As I said, I think you underestimate the attainments of non-Buddhists.
No need to discuss this further.
Yes, I was merely sharing my opinion with you, for whatever it was worth. I was not looking to have a debate.
In general, you may consider that my position is that those in non-Buddhist traditions are not simply using different terminology (which could in principle be aligned with yours by substituting some words), but are using radically different ways of thinking about the path.
A person like Ramana Maharshi, for example, might have tried to explain Thusness' stage 7 using the terminology and viewpoint of Advaita. A very unnatural choice (to you). It would be difficult to understand his attainment without recognizing that a "linear" translation between his terms and your terms (concept by concept) would be grossly misleading in such a case.
As the Pali suttas state clearly there is an absolute end to the path, should I take this (about stage 7) to mean that you and Thusness disagree with them on that point?
According to the Pali suttas, arahants are Buddhas (and Gotama was an arahant). Should I take your statement to mean that you disagree with them on that point?
But what happens when you experience PCE or NDNCIDIMOP in all other six sense entries? A sound? A sight? etc
Then you experience something amazing: Everything that you thought was 'moving', that is transient, in fact turns out to be not-moving. In other words, transience reveals non-movement. In seeing - just seen, in hearing - just heard. Each manifestation is complete, whole, in itself - there is no self or observer apart from the transience to measure movement.
Then you experience something amazing: Everything that you thought was 'moving', that is transient, in fact turns out to be not-moving. In other words, transience reveals non-movement. In seeing - just seen, in hearing - just heard. Each manifestation is complete, whole, in itself - there is no self or observer apart from the transience to measure movement.
With the cessation of the passions comes the cessation of their "stir", i.e. movement, revealing what you described.
To give you a very concrete example of the attention wave, which may be the basis for the beginning of a discussion...can you visualize something in your mind, with your eyes open? If so, can you see that in the split-second of visualizing it, what would have been seen with your eyes is tuned-out and not-seen?
If so, you may be able to discern that there is a phenomenologically similar process of tuning out seeing, which is happening constantly, i.e. the attention wave, i.e. movement.
Can you discern this?
One point remains however: your emphasis on phenomenal descriptions can lead to an over-emphasis on experience to the overneglecting of insights.
As my emphasis on phenomenal descriptions aims to understand what stands in the way of insights on a fundamental level (i.e. aims to analyze the insights into something more elemental rather than leaving them as unanalyzable atomic concepts in a model), I would not worry about this.
Talk with me about the attention wave, and see what you think.
Q: How does one cling to the Absolute in stage 5? A: Attention wave.
As I said, I am not an expert on Thusness' model.
End in Sight:
An Eternal Now:
End in Sight:
As I said, I think you underestimate the attainments of non-Buddhists.
No need to discuss this further.
Yes, I was merely sharing my opinion with you, for whatever it was worth. I was not looking to have a debate.
In general, you may consider that my position is that those in non-Buddhist traditions are not simply using different terminology (which could in principle be aligned with yours by substituting some words), but are using radically different ways of thinking about the path.
A person like Ramana Maharshi, for example, might have tried to explain Thusness' stage 7 using the terminology and viewpoint of Advaita. A very unnatural choice (to you). It would be difficult to understand his attainment without recognizing that a "linear" translation between his terms and your terms (concept by concept) would be grossly misleading in such a case.
As the Pali suttas state clearly there is an absolute end to the path, should I take this (about stage 7) to mean that you and Thusness disagree with them on that point?
According to the Pali suttas, arahants are Buddhas (and Gotama was an arahant). Should I take your statement to mean that you disagree with them on that point?
l.
"Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it.
After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on."
A Buddha is arahant, an arahant need not be a Buddha, since Buddha confers qualities like perfection of ten paramis, omniscience, etc etc
Sorry no more time to reply the rest of the points and posts, will continue another time
[quote=Seraphis .'.]
Mindfulness extended to everything is important as it leads to the experience of different and unique instances of consciousness arising out of different conditions (sense faculty and sense object). This was noticed here when I was at thai massage with my parents, then I did vipassana (direct perception, not noting), as there are lots of unique sensations/instance of consciousness due to different conditions. Then I noticed how perculiar is each manifestation (which is pure consciousness) arising upon different conditions. It is quite effortless but requires relaxing distracted mind into each spontaneous unique manifestation of consciousness upon conditions or the meeting of the dhatus. For example the consciousness of the sense of touch is very perculiar or uniquely different from a pure consciousness of sound, but always without center, division, substance or location, it is an instance of pure consciousness that liberates upon contact. Completely luminous but empty, dependent lay arisen, momentary and transient. Consciousness is completely inseparable from causes and conditions. This is, that is.
Yes, thank you for that.
Consciousness AS causes and effects, each free on its own and liberating/liberated.
Its almost funny how old and deeply rooted personal or even intimate issues are almost gone. All is slowly
loosing the grip over "me". There is not Self to (be) Witness, ergo no issues.
It all makes perfect sense, now, after anatta insight.
This also leads to the intensity of luminosity... the texture and fabric of reality (awareness), but understood from D.O. Perspective. Thusness advises me to spend quality hours without concepts, lose myself and be deep in this. Also failure to experience this intensity of luminosity, or the forms and textures of awareness, one may be prone to a form of "oneness presence" but fail to experience it as pure manifestation.
Yes, at the moment, the anatta insight is not stable yet, it usually slips "back" to nondual and rarely, in fact, almost never back to the Witness or "I AM" Presence or "The Self".
It seems that the Witness has done its job.
This is arising here, when I read your words:
to stabilize the anatta insight, intention to different senses ought to be directed, to one at a time and
dive deeply into each.
What do you think?
Or do you have maybe better suggestion for stabilize anatta insight, pls?
I have done something similar on the nondual.
I went into nondual and slowly moved my palm down the wall.
First time I did that, OMG, it was almost overwhelming. But, back then, no anatta, so...
Eighteen dhatus (elements) teaching define the relation of consciousness and conditions. Consciousness is not some ultimate self or source, rather it is a manifestation, an effect, of various causes and conditions. There is no place where consciousness resides because consciousness is empty (of self) and arisen conditionally. Different conditions result in very unque instances of consciousness. For example in eighteen dhatus:
With the meeting of eye and visual object there arises visual consciousness.
This is very different from skin touching tactile object resulting in tactile consciousness. Each instant of consciousness is differentiated and is precisely "where manifestation is". Self-aware manifestation. No purest consciousness, all consciousness-es are primordially pure.
Yes, all manifestations AS consciousness, all equal and empty (of observer, doer etc...)
Could you suggest a book on the subject, pls (apart from your e-book, which I am reading as I go along)?
Has your Teacher written any book maybe?
Read this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/munindra-on-anatta.html
So you see, Buddha's teaching of consciousness is very unique and different from any other (including non dual like kashmir shaivism) teachings but it can be fully verified in experience.
Yes, I can see that.
Actually, I know next to nothing about Kashmir Shaivism (I know lots about Vedanta and Advaita, obviously), but the triggers in the said book did work.
Also, I believe that weekend spent with my ex professor (who is thoroughly into nondual) added to the ease of anatta insight.
Actually, when I think about it, it is the loose approach to insight meditation I employ, that was crucial in all of this. If I focused too much, I put too much energy into harnessing the mind and it rebelled. Maybe I should have used more noting. Oh well.
It doesn't make much difference now, though.
Ego, may s/he rest in peace. LOL
It seems, my previous actions resulted in my tantra practice (kriya, mantra and direct insight/perception practice) and only after meeting You (more so than meeting others) here, things changed. There must be some karmic connection involved or at least some "kindred spirits and insights" going on here.
However, how this extend to total exertion is a different issue.
I read the Total exertion article, and it speaks very loudly.
How did you do it, if I may ask?
s.
PS
I'd just like to express silent but strong joy that is arising here, when I read your words and receive your sharing.It is a joy to read your sharing too
Thusness advises that I should look at it from 2 different angle: before or after maturity of anatta.
From passive moving into active mode of non-action when the insight is mature is natural. It just comes when that tendency to create any form of 'self/Self' in from the deepest level is uprooted, the flow into total movement or oneness of action (non-action) is a natural progression. That is, once 'the cause that reify and separate' is dissolved, we just wake up one day and it becomes so natural and actions are fully embraced. It is also the trigger point for the arising of deep compassion. Before that, certain practices for me like anapanasati* (breath-mindfulness) to go in tandem with the insight of anatta will help but don't rush into experience..
I am still in the midst of refining view and experience. I don't know what books are good for you, I can recommend a few and they all have slightly different emphasis*.
P.s. I don't know much about kashmir shaivism too, but its basic philosophy is that unlike advaita vedanta where all phenomena are relegated as illusory superimpositions on the ultimate reality of brahman, in KS all manifestation are real, they are all shiva, they are all ultimate consciousness, only subject-object duality is delusional. So it is nondual realism where shiva is the source and substance of the world like gold is to neckless. Buddhism (or: seeing the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness) on the other hand does not fall into the inherent view of realism/eternalism nor nihilism.
*on anapanasati, check out mahasatipatthana sutta and anapanasati sutta
*books you might want to check out:
(Arranged alphabetically)
Buddha:
Topic: Buddhism
In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha) by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Majjhima Nikaya
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:
Topic: Mahamudra
Clarifying the Natural State: A Principal Guidance Manual for Mahamudra
Dogen:
The Heart of Dogen's Shobogenzo (by Norman Waddell)
Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche:
Topic: Mahamudra
Essentials of Mahamudra: Looking Directly at the Mind
Mu Soeng
Topic: Buddhism/Emptiness teachings
The Heart of the Universe: Exploring the Heart Sutra
Steve Hagen:
Topic: Buddhism and Zen
Buddhism Is Not What You Think: Finding Freedom Beyond Beliefs
Buddhism Plain & Simple
Meditation Now or Never
Ted Biringer
Topic: Zen; Dogen studies
The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing: The Second Ancestor of Zen in the West
Thich Nhat Hanh
Topic: Buddhism
The Sun My Heart
Toni Packer:
Topic: Zen and Krishnamurti influenced
The Wonder of Presence: And the Way of Meditative Inquiry
The Silent Question: Meditating in the Stillness of Not-Knowing
Walpola Rahula
Topic: Buddhism
What The Buddha Taught
An Eternal Now:
Mindfulness extended to everything is important as it leads to the experience of different and unique instances of consciousness arising out of different conditions (sense faculty and sense object). This was noticed here when I was at thai massage with my parents, then I did vipassana (direct perception, not noting), as there are lots of unique sensations/instance of consciousness due to different conditions. Then I noticed how perculiar is each manifestation (which is pure consciousness) arising upon different conditions. It is quite effortless but requires relaxing distracted mind into each spontaneous unique manifestation of consciousness upon conditions or the meeting of the dhatus. For example the consciousness of the sense of touch is very perculiar or uniquely different from a pure consciousness of sound, but always without center, division, substance or location, it is an instance of pure consciousness that liberates upon contact. Completely luminous but empty, dependent lay arisen, momentary and transient. Consciousness is completely inseparable from causes and conditions. This is, that is.
Yes, thank you for that.
Consciousness AS causes and effects, each free on its own and liberating/liberated.
Its almost funny how old and deeply rooted personal or even intimate issues are almost gone. All is slowly
loosing the grip over "me". There is not Self to (be) Witness, ergo no issues.
It all makes perfect sense, now, after anatta insight.
An Eternal Now:
This also leads to the intensity of luminosity... the texture and fabric of reality (awareness), but understood from D.O. Perspective. Thusness advises me to spend quality hours without concepts, lose myself and be deep in this. Also failure to experience this intensity of luminosity, or the forms and textures of awareness, one may be prone to a form of "oneness presence" but fail to experience it as pure manifestation.
Yes, at the moment, the anatta insight is not stable yet, it usually slips "back" to nondual and rarely, in fact, almost never back to the Witness or "I AM" Presence or "The Self".
It seems that the Witness has done its job.
This is arising here, when I read your words:
to stabilize the anatta insight, intention to different senses ought to be directed, to one at a time and
dive deeply into each.
What do you think?
Or do you have maybe better suggestion for stabilize anatta insight, pls?
I have done something similar on the nondual.
I went into nondual and slowly moved my palm down the wall.
First time I did that, OMG, it was almost overwhelming. But, back then, no anatta, so...
An Eternal Now:
Eighteen dhatus (elements) teaching define the relation of consciousness and conditions. Consciousness is not some ultimate self or source, rather it is a manifestation, an effect, of various causes and conditions. There is no place where consciousness resides because consciousness is empty (of self) and arisen conditionally. Different conditions result in very unque instances of consciousness. For example in eighteen dhatus:
With the meeting of eye and visual object there arises visual consciousness.
This is very different from skin touching tactile object resulting in tactile consciousness. Each instant of consciousness is differentiated and is precisely "where manifestation is". Self-aware manifestation. No purest consciousness, all consciousness-es are primordially pure.
Yes, all manifestations AS consciousness, all equal and empty (of observer, doer etc...)
Could you suggest a book on the subject, pls (apart from your e-book, which I am reading as I go along)?
Has your Teacher written any book maybe?
An Eternal Now:
Read this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/munindra-on-anatta.html
So you see, Buddha's teaching of consciousness is very unique and different from any other (including non dual like kashmir shaivism) teachings but it can be fully verified in experience.
Yes, I can see that.
Actually, I know next to nothing about Kashmir Shaivism (I know lots about Vedanta and Advaita, obviously), but the triggers in the said book did work.
Also, I believe that weekend spent with my ex professor (who is thoroughly into nondual) added to the ease of anatta insight.
Actually, when I think about it, it is the loose approach to insight meditation I employ, that was crucial in all of this. If I focused too much, I put too much energy into harnessing the mind and it rebelled. Maybe I should have used more noting. Oh well.
It doesn't make much difference now, though.
Ego, may s/he rest in peace. LOL
It seems, my previous actions resulted in my tantra practice (kriya, mantra and direct insight/perception practice) and only after meeting You (more so than meeting others) here, things changed. There must be some karmic connection involved or at least some "kindred spirits and insights" going on here.
An Eternal Now:
However, how this extend to total exertion is a different issue.
I read the Total exertion article, and it speaks very loudly.
How did you do it, if I may ask?
s.
PS
I'd just like to express silent but strong joy that is arising here, when I read your words and receive your sharing.It is a joy to read your sharing too
Thusness advises that I should look at it from 2 different angle: before or after maturity of anatta.
From passive moving into active mode of non-action when the insight is mature is natural. It just comes when that tendency to create any form of 'self/Self' in from the deepest level is uprooted, the flow into total movement or oneness of action (non-action) is a natural progression. That is, once 'the cause that reify and separate' is dissolved, we just wake up one day and it becomes so natural and actions are fully embraced. It is also the trigger point for the arising of deep compassion. Before that, certain practices for me like anapanasati* (breath-mindfulness) to go in tandem with the insight of anatta will help but don't rush into experience..
I am still in the midst of refining view and experience. I don't know what books are good for you, I can recommend a few and they all have slightly different emphasis*.
P.s. I don't know much about kashmir shaivism too, but its basic philosophy is that unlike advaita vedanta where all phenomena are relegated as illusory superimpositions on the ultimate reality of brahman, in KS all manifestation are real, they are all shiva, they are all ultimate consciousness, only subject-object duality is delusional. So it is nondual realism where shiva is the source and substance of the world like gold is to neckless. Buddhism (or: seeing the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness) on the other hand does not fall into the inherent view of realism/eternalism nor nihilism.
*on anapanasati, check out mahasatipatthana sutta and anapanasati sutta
*books you might want to check out:
(Arranged alphabetically)
Buddha:
Topic: Buddhism
In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha) by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Majjhima Nikaya
Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:
Topic: Mahamudra
Clarifying the Natural State: A Principal Guidance Manual for Mahamudra
Dogen:
The Heart of Dogen's Shobogenzo (by Norman Waddell)
Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche:
Topic: Mahamudra
Essentials of Mahamudra: Looking Directly at the Mind
Mu Soeng
Topic: Buddhism/Emptiness teachings
The Heart of the Universe: Exploring the Heart Sutra
Steve Hagen:
Topic: Buddhism and Zen
Buddhism Is Not What You Think: Finding Freedom Beyond Beliefs
Buddhism Plain & Simple
Meditation Now or Never
Ted Biringer
Topic: Zen; Dogen studies
The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing: The Second Ancestor of Zen in the West
Thich Nhat Hanh
Topic: Buddhism
The Sun My Heart
Toni Packer:
Topic: Zen and Krishnamurti influenced
The Wonder of Presence: And the Way of Meditative Inquiry
The Silent Question: Meditating in the Stillness of Not-Knowing
Walpola Rahula
Topic: Buddhism
What The Buddha Taught
An Eternal Now:
Sounds good. Indeed. As we progress we will see these three poisons disappearing though not immediately after initial realization. It is also unfolding day by day and moment by moment for me. Now there is simply unreserved openness as uncontrolled manifestations always. At times when there is karmic disturbance, still there is retraction and contraction but I will spend quality hours to open up fully until Anatta is clear in view and effortless again.
Not poisons, if I may say so, only images seen, feelings felt and thoughts cognized, thats all. No sin as there is no sinner.
s.
Just remembered something Thusness wrote yesterday as a comment on someone on Facebook, a sharing:
"It is not easy... Will take some time. Even for me the struggle continues for years. Faith in Buddha's words was important in my case. As you authenticate the truth of Buddha's teaching with direct experience, a time will come when "the willingness" to let go arises, that will be the turning point. This willingness to let go of any inner/outer Essence gives rise to clear and unsurpassed clarity of uncontrived Awareness; relaxed, natural and groundless, yet vividly present. Then somehow the "fear" and "stubborn" attachment just disappears and it is seen clearly. Just the ongoing play of dharma."
[quote=Seraphis .'.]Question, if I may, AEN, Thusness (or anyone else):
anitya (anicca), is translated as impermanence, an inherent quality of arising and ceasing events.
How would you relate anitya to anatta and sunyata, pls?
s.Nikolai's post and article is good. Its good to focus on penetrating the impermanency in practice. It is related to the first stanza: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
With the seeing through of the sense of a substantial ground or coordinating self underlying momentary experience, theres only disjoint arising and passing away phenomena very much like bubbles, spontaneously manifesting in an uncontrolled manner and releasing upon its very inception in lightning speed.
..........
Thusness:
http://sgforums.com/users/97367/posts?page=2
After gaining experiential insight of what you expressed above, there is a natural tendency to let Presence manifests spontaneously in the flow of phenomenality. Depending on your condition, you will eventually realize that your 'letting Presence manfests spontaneously' turns out to be a contrieve effort of substaining a pure consciousness experience in the foreground.
There are 2 aspects of anatta as I have written to you in the article On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection.
Your tendency now will still be centered on the ‘brilliant and pristine presence’, the direct vivid experience of ‘aliveness’ in the foreground (The essence instead of the empty nature). So not to talk about spontaneous perfection of whatever arises for now. :-)
Rather focus on the essence of the first stanza of the article:
The impermanent nature...
The stream of arising and passing away...
The stream of continual releasing...
Perpetually letting go...
......
Yes Simpo,
That is what I understand too. There are subtle differences between Advaita non-duality and buddhist's anatta both in terms of realization and experience.
When contemplating on the subject of 'no-self', the mind of the practitioner is directed towards the transient phenomena and upon the ripening of conditions, the mind suddenly sees the illusionary division of subject-object duality; with the maturing of this realization, experience becomes seamlessly whole. There is no hearer in hearing or perceiver in perceiving, just simply a sense of perception. In terms of this experience, they are similar.
However although the blinding bond of 'duality' is dissolved, the tendency to see things 'inherently' isn't. The practitioners continue to resort back to a Self despite after the clear seeing of this truth and rest their understanding of 'no-self based on Self'. This is substantialist non-duality. There is an ultimate essence and abiding in Self is still the way towards liberation and there is also the temptation to treat this experience as a sort of pseudo finality.
Buddhism on the other hand sees this experience and realization as the first step in the 8 fold path -- right view. It means right view of anatta is fully authenticated with this non-dual experience but Buddhist’s non-dual is non-abiding, groundless and essence-less. There is no resorting back to an ultimate essence and the entire idea of liberation is based on seeing clearly the anatta, non-substantiality, essence-less empty nature of whatever arises, including Awareness or Self. Experience is luminously non-dual yet empty.
Therefore in Buddhism, besides the experience, right view is very important. Upon the clearing seeing of ‘no division’, it is advisable to penetrate further into the impermanent nature of phenomena both at the micro and macro level of experience. In terms of practice, there is no letting go to an ultimate ground or great void but the letting go is due to the thorough insight of the ‘empty nature’ of all arising -- Reality is perpetually ‘letting go’.
So in addition to the non-dual seamless experience, there must also be the clear experience of perpetual letting go of non-holding to whatever arises. Therefore when AEN told me non-dual presence, the NDNCDIMOP or being lock up permanently in PCEs of the AF as the key solution to eliminate emotion, pride and anger…the 10 fetters, I told him not yet, not because I am stubbornly attached to Buddha's teaching but because that is my realization and experience. :-)
The journey towards 'no-self' is analogous to peeling an onion. Practitioner goes through the process of peeling from dissolving of personality and identity to non-conceptuality to non-duality to realization of the lack of ownership to clear seeing of 'no agent behind transient phenomena to the empty nature of whatever arises. As we peel, the 'willingness' to let go certain aspects of 'self'/Self' grow and with more 'willingness' to let go, we come closer to seeing the true face of freedom.
Deeper clinging to a Self is not washed away with the non-dual insight. There must be further integration of the ‘non-dual’ experience into this arising and passing away, this impermanent nature, to dissolve the illusionary sense of self, anger, emotion, pride even the non-dual presence that we treasure so much; let whatever arises goes, be it during the waking, dreaming or deep sleep state. There will then come a time where a practitioner realizes the same ‘taste’ of the 3 states as there is no holding of the non-dual presence and all experiences turn natural, effortless and self-liberating.
Just my 2 cents.
......
anitya (anicca), is translated as impermanence, an inherent quality of arising and ceasing events.
How would you relate anitya to anatta and sunyata, pls?
s.Nikolai's post and article is good. Its good to focus on penetrating the impermanency in practice. It is related to the first stanza: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
With the seeing through of the sense of a substantial ground or coordinating self underlying momentary experience, theres only disjoint arising and passing away phenomena very much like bubbles, spontaneously manifesting in an uncontrolled manner and releasing upon its very inception in lightning speed.
..........
Thusness:
http://sgforums.com/users/97367/posts?page=2
After gaining experiential insight of what you expressed above, there is a natural tendency to let Presence manifests spontaneously in the flow of phenomenality. Depending on your condition, you will eventually realize that your 'letting Presence manfests spontaneously' turns out to be a contrieve effort of substaining a pure consciousness experience in the foreground.
There are 2 aspects of anatta as I have written to you in the article On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection.
Your tendency now will still be centered on the ‘brilliant and pristine presence’, the direct vivid experience of ‘aliveness’ in the foreground (The essence instead of the empty nature). So not to talk about spontaneous perfection of whatever arises for now. :-)
Rather focus on the essence of the first stanza of the article:
The impermanent nature...
The stream of arising and passing away...
The stream of continual releasing...
Perpetually letting go...
......
Yes Simpo,
That is what I understand too. There are subtle differences between Advaita non-duality and buddhist's anatta both in terms of realization and experience.
When contemplating on the subject of 'no-self', the mind of the practitioner is directed towards the transient phenomena and upon the ripening of conditions, the mind suddenly sees the illusionary division of subject-object duality; with the maturing of this realization, experience becomes seamlessly whole. There is no hearer in hearing or perceiver in perceiving, just simply a sense of perception. In terms of this experience, they are similar.
However although the blinding bond of 'duality' is dissolved, the tendency to see things 'inherently' isn't. The practitioners continue to resort back to a Self despite after the clear seeing of this truth and rest their understanding of 'no-self based on Self'. This is substantialist non-duality. There is an ultimate essence and abiding in Self is still the way towards liberation and there is also the temptation to treat this experience as a sort of pseudo finality.
Buddhism on the other hand sees this experience and realization as the first step in the 8 fold path -- right view. It means right view of anatta is fully authenticated with this non-dual experience but Buddhist’s non-dual is non-abiding, groundless and essence-less. There is no resorting back to an ultimate essence and the entire idea of liberation is based on seeing clearly the anatta, non-substantiality, essence-less empty nature of whatever arises, including Awareness or Self. Experience is luminously non-dual yet empty.
Therefore in Buddhism, besides the experience, right view is very important. Upon the clearing seeing of ‘no division’, it is advisable to penetrate further into the impermanent nature of phenomena both at the micro and macro level of experience. In terms of practice, there is no letting go to an ultimate ground or great void but the letting go is due to the thorough insight of the ‘empty nature’ of all arising -- Reality is perpetually ‘letting go’.
So in addition to the non-dual seamless experience, there must also be the clear experience of perpetual letting go of non-holding to whatever arises. Therefore when AEN told me non-dual presence, the NDNCDIMOP or being lock up permanently in PCEs of the AF as the key solution to eliminate emotion, pride and anger…the 10 fetters, I told him not yet, not because I am stubbornly attached to Buddha's teaching but because that is my realization and experience. :-)
The journey towards 'no-self' is analogous to peeling an onion. Practitioner goes through the process of peeling from dissolving of personality and identity to non-conceptuality to non-duality to realization of the lack of ownership to clear seeing of 'no agent behind transient phenomena to the empty nature of whatever arises. As we peel, the 'willingness' to let go certain aspects of 'self'/Self' grow and with more 'willingness' to let go, we come closer to seeing the true face of freedom.
Deeper clinging to a Self is not washed away with the non-dual insight. There must be further integration of the ‘non-dual’ experience into this arising and passing away, this impermanent nature, to dissolve the illusionary sense of self, anger, emotion, pride even the non-dual presence that we treasure so much; let whatever arises goes, be it during the waking, dreaming or deep sleep state. There will then come a time where a practitioner realizes the same ‘taste’ of the 3 states as there is no holding of the non-dual presence and all experiences turn natural, effortless and self-liberating.
Just my 2 cents.
......
End in Sight:
For example, in the case of Tommy suggesting that Seraphis may have attained MCTB 3rd path, such an attribution should require that Seraphis be able to satisfy MCTB's technical criteria. (In this case, the bare minimum requirement is three path-like cessations.)
It is possible that Seraphis has an attainment or insight or mode of perception that is similar to MCTB 3rd path, but to qualify for MCTB 3rd path per se, the technical criteria spelled out in MCTB should be satisfied.
Interesting, I have to admit.
if and when I get to the point of wanting to assume a certain position on any given map, I will be happy to broadcast the news all over the DhO
In the meantime, I will try to learn as much as possible and put that into "the earth is my witness" scenario.
s
An Eternal Now:
To end in sight:
W.r.t your example of attention wave:
And yet this applies equally for normal ordinary thinking (like right now as I am writing this post and pondering what words to type) in everyday lives isn't it? I do not think attention is some kind of hindrance and is something necessary for daily functioning.
W.r.t your example of attention wave:
And yet this applies equally for normal ordinary thinking (like right now as I am writing this post and pondering what words to type) in everyday lives isn't it? I do not think attention is some kind of hindrance and is something necessary for daily functioning.
1) This phenomenon (of attention moving) is gone during a PCE, which suggests that it is not necessary for everyday lives.
2) As the previous point is true, this implies that it is not attention (which is required for functioning), but 'attention'...something that appears as attention, but is incidental.
Anyway, as you can see that attention (or 'attention') is constantly fluctuating, and constantly tuning out sensory experience, when you look at the experience of seeing --> tuning out --> seeing, can you break the "tuning out" part down any further? Can you discern what that "tuning out" part consists of? What kind of experience or experiences?
And because there is no self, agent, and all manifestations are implicitly nondual, then every manifestation be it sensation, sight, sound, thought, etc - are experienced to have no movement.
Including defilements?
Attention is similar.
If 'attention' (as in the attention wave) is similar, I would say that we mean different things by "movement".
Your attention to thoughts, to the lecturer speaking, and so on are not a hindrance to the experience of anatta. Nor does attention necessarily mean movement if experienced from a nondual perspective (not a "someone" attending to "something", but attention as simply another complete, whole, non-moving manifestation/happening of the moment). I don't see removal of attention as something necessary.
Let's analyze the experience further and see what happens.
W.r.t. "As my emphasis on phenomenal descriptions aims to understand what stands in the way of insights on a fundamental level (i.e. aims to analyze the insights into something more elemental rather than leaving them as unanalyzable atomic concepts in a model), I would not worry about this."
This is good. However what I am trying to say is that when comparing descriptions there should be clarity what is experience and what is realization and the relation between them. Therefore my emphasis is not only on experiential descriptions, but description of the insight or realization (which are far from being concepts). So it is important to delineate experience from realization.
you are using criterias that does not reflect the particular state of insight. You are looking for phenomenological descriptions which are not necessarily indicative of a particular insight.
This is good. However what I am trying to say is that when comparing descriptions there should be clarity what is experience and what is realization and the relation between them. Therefore my emphasis is not only on experiential descriptions, but description of the insight or realization (which are far from being concepts). So it is important to delineate experience from realization.
you are using criterias that does not reflect the particular state of insight. You are looking for phenomenological descriptions which are not necessarily indicative of a particular insight.
Now I see and understand your point.
My response is, let's analyze the attention wave and see whether that sheds any light on this.
Like I said regarding arahant and buddhahood: buddha is (consist of) arahant/arahantship but is not merely that. I often said Buddhahood is Arahant++ (But the issue of buddha and arahant is a different or unrelated topic, one that perhaps a Mahayana or Vajrayana master would be more knowedgeable in)
An arahant has the same realization as the historical Buddha according to the Pali suttas, although perhaps not according to the Mayahana / Vajrayana traditions.
Taking those traditions as authoritative with respect to material in the Pali suttas is probably not the best idea.
(EDIT: i.e., one should not assume that what other traditions mean by "arahant" is definitive with respect to what the Pali suttas mean. They could mean quite a different thing.)
My main concern in talking about the arahant vs. Buddha distinction was simply to clarify that the view that there is a spiritual difference between them is a view that stands outside the Pali suttas. In terms of a contemplative guide, the Pali suttas seem complete-in-themselves, and I am keen to ensure that contrary views are generally understood to be held by those who have not taken the Pali suttas as a guide and not practiced according to them.
End in Sight:
1) This phenomenon (of attention moving) is gone during a PCE, which suggests that it is not necessary for everyday lives.
2) As the previous point is true, this implies that it is not attention (which is required for functioning), but 'attention'...something that appears as attention, but is incidental.
Anyway, as you can see that attention (or 'attention') is constantly fluctuating, and constantly tuning out sensory experience, when you look at the experience of seeing --> tuning out --> seeing, can you break the "tuning out" part down any further? Can you discern what that "tuning out" part consists of? What kind of experience or experiences?
Including defilements?
Movement is perceived when it is falsely perceived that there is some unchanging self-entity that links two moments together.
For example as a bystanding observer on the roadside, it appears that a car quickly moves through your field of vision. So it appears that you, as an observer, observed an object moving across. What if however, you are on a vehicle moving at the same speed as the other vehicle, do you perceive movement of another vehicle? No. Why? Because the observer is now at the same speed as the observed object, and movement only occurs as a contrast between the unmoving subject and a moved object.
But what if there is no observer at all (which is what we realised to have been always the case in the insight into anatta - the observer being merely a constructed illusion) - with no reference point, is there movement? No. Because movement requires a dualistic contrast, and without a perceiving subject, perceptions have no reference point to compare with. In fact there is no 'perceived object' either - there is just disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing images that has no link to each other. Without a self and an object, only unsupported and disjoint images, each manifestation being complete and whole in itself with no dualistic contrast, transience reveals itself to be non-moving. You don't say "You" walked from Point A to Point Z. Because there is no 'You' there to link or observe movement. Instead, Point A is Point A, Point B is point B, and so on... Z is Z, whole and complete in itself. Each moment, ever fresh, whole, complete, and leaving no trace the next moment.
As for defilements: defilements only arise along with the sense of self. If the sense of self arise, there is reference points, (sense of self itself being merely a clinging to a falsely constructed reference to a person, a self) and so there can be a perceived movement. If there is no sense of self/Self, then also there is no sense of movement (such as during a PCE, even though PCE is just experience and need not imply realization). We realise that any sense of a movement is merely a dualistic referencing and contrasting, a referencing that asserts an entity (a subjective observer) that links the process and sees movement. It is not attention in and of itself (which as you agreed is necessary for daily normal functioning) that causes perception of movement, but the delusion of an inherent self and of dualistic perception.
An arahant has the same realization as the historical Buddha according to the Pali suttas, although perhaps not according to the Mayahana / Vajrayana traditions.
Taking those traditions as authoritative with respect to material in the Pali suttas is probably not the best idea.
(EDIT: i.e., one should not assume that what other traditions mean by "arahant" is definitive with respect to what the Pali suttas mean. They could mean quite a different thing.)
My main concern in talking about the arahant vs. Buddha distinction was simply to clarify that the view that there is a spiritual difference between them is a view that stands outside the Pali suttas. In terms of a contemplative guide, the Pali suttas seem complete-in-themselves, and I am keen to ensure that contrary views are generally understood to be held by those who have not taken the Pali suttas as a guide and not practiced according to them.
Taking those traditions as authoritative with respect to material in the Pali suttas is probably not the best idea.
(EDIT: i.e., one should not assume that what other traditions mean by "arahant" is definitive with respect to what the Pali suttas mean. They could mean quite a different thing.)
My main concern in talking about the arahant vs. Buddha distinction was simply to clarify that the view that there is a spiritual difference between them is a view that stands outside the Pali suttas. In terms of a contemplative guide, the Pali suttas seem complete-in-themselves, and I am keen to ensure that contrary views are generally understood to be held by those who have not taken the Pali suttas as a guide and not practiced according to them.
Also, regarding Mahayana Shunyata, this is what I told Beoman a week ago:
Beoman:
did the pali canon buddha talk much about shunyata? (in buddhist terms i only look at the pali canon. mahayana sutras don't really appeal to me...) i would be interested to read some suttas talking about it if you know some.
My reply: Yes he does. Phena Sutta and Kaccayanagotta Sutta of the Pali Canon described the emptiness of dharmas.*
The arhats however do not realize this, they realize emptiness of persons/atman/soul but not the emptiness of dharmas, so they posit the svabhava or existence of dharmas in the commentaries (Abhidhamma).
Mahayana arose partly in reaction to this by emphasizing not only the emptiness of persons but also emptiness of dharmas. The first Mahayana sutras belong to the prajnaparamita category, which deals with emptiness. Mahayana teaches that arhats realize the first emptiness but bodhisattvas realize both emptinesses.
You should be open to Mahayana Sutras as many of them contain deep wisdom. At least when an insight into Shunyata arose, the Prajnaparamita and Mahayana sutras start to make a lot more sense and appeal. Maybe it is part of the process - something that didn't appeal to you as much before might appeal to you at another time, so just be open to it. Also, the Mahamudra teachings (those I read from Thrangu Rinpoche) has a lot on experiential investigation of emptiness so after anatta you might want to look into it. Some of the Mahamudra pointers is what led to my insight.
*Pegembara, a Theravadin practitioner with a good view/understanding of emptiness informed me recently about a number of pali suttas regarding shunyata: "
As for emptiness teachings, it occurs in spades in the Pali canon.
Phena and Kaccayanagotta suttas has been mentioned.
Kalakarama Sutta Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to, is esteemed as truth by other folk,Midst those who are entrenched in their own views being 'Such' I hold none as true or false.
Loka Sutta: The World Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey
"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
"When there is no ear...
"When there is no nose...
"When there is no tongue...
"When there is no body...
Dharmapada 13.170 –
The World : See it as a bubble, see it as a mirage: one who regards the world this way the King of Death doesn't see.
Mogharaja's Question
View the world, Mogharaja,
as empty —
always mindful
to have removed any view
about self.
This way one is above & beyond death.
This is how one views the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king."
End in Sight:
Please excuse me if this comes across as pedantic, but I want to make sure that I understand your answer completely.
Yes, there is this oscillating arising-and-passing, or no, there is not?
If you imagine something, in the exact moment that you are imagining it (i.e. in that fraction of a second), do you simultaneously perceive a static wall rather than a wall that vibrates or fluxes (or a tuned-out visual field, or the perception of a wall that occurs slightly before or after the imagining)? Yes, there is an oscillating arising-and-passing of the wall and the imagining, or no, there is not?
Is your understanding of the impermanence characteristic of sensations that all sensations vibrate, or is it something else?
p.s. if by attention wave you mean something like being so engrossed in daydreaming until you fall into a trance and become oblivion of the surroundings, then nope I don't think this is whats happening.
This is the the attention wave, but you are describing one of the grossest manifestations of it, whereas I am asking you about a very subtle manifestation of it.
AEN:
When I stare at the wall, attention relaxes to a more open awareness inclusive of all details of the room. Nothing is tuned out in the sense that the wall is definitely still perceived as before, it is rather that there is a de-focusing on any particular details.
MCTB:
These two kinds of sensations (sensory experiences and mental impressions) actually oscillate back and forth, a back and forth interplay, one arising and passing and then the other arising and passing, in a somewhat quick but quite penetrable fashion. (...) Each one of these arises and vanishes completely before the other begins...
Yes, there is this oscillating arising-and-passing, or no, there is not?
If you imagine something, in the exact moment that you are imagining it (i.e. in that fraction of a second), do you simultaneously perceive a static wall rather than a wall that vibrates or fluxes (or a tuned-out visual field, or the perception of a wall that occurs slightly before or after the imagining)? Yes, there is an oscillating arising-and-passing of the wall and the imagining, or no, there is not?
Is your understanding of the impermanence characteristic of sensations that all sensations vibrate, or is it something else?
AEN:
p.s. if by attention wave you mean something like being so engrossed in daydreaming until you fall into a trance and become oblivion of the surroundings, then nope I don't think this is whats happening.
This is the the attention wave, but you are describing one of the grossest manifestations of it, whereas I am asking you about a very subtle manifestation of it.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc26559.htm
The image of a worm hesitant to leave its hold was used in a personal conversation I had in 1981 with a Theravada monk from Thailand, a meditation master named Phra Khemananda. This was before I discovered the passage from Ramana Maharshi; what Khemananda said was not prompted by any remark of mine, but was taught to him by his own teacher in Thailand. He began by drawing the following diagram:
Each oval represents a thought, he said; normally, we leave one thought only when we have another one to go to (as the arrows indicate), but to think in this way constitutes ignorance. Instead, we should realize that thinking is actually like this:
Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts do not arise from each other but by themselves.
Basically this is what Diamond Sutra says: Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva should produce an unsupported thought, a thought which is nowhere supported, which is not supported (apratisthiti) by forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or objects of mind. [23]
No, my understanding of impermanence is not that attention shifts between physical and mental objects (if I understand what you mean), but rather whatever perceptions there is, are insubstantial, bubble-like, disjoint, unsupported, spontaneously-arising and self-releasing/traceless, like the second diagram
However I do not deny that attention can occur - and when they occur, the entire sense-field or field of perception is still insubstantial, bubble-like, disjoint, unsupported, spontaneously-arising and self-releasing/traceless, like the second diagram
Impermanence is the natural characteristic of all experiences whether or not attention is focused or unfocused.
Attention simply amplifies a particular detail of an experience (such as focusing attention on the voice of Person A among the sea of sound to catch what he's saying) Attention happens: One moment the attention may be focused on breathe, the other moment attention may be focused on Person A's voice, another moment on a thought, etc. I don't see attention focused on thought, or on physical sensations, as different in anyway.
The image of a worm hesitant to leave its hold was used in a personal conversation I had in 1981 with a Theravada monk from Thailand, a meditation master named Phra Khemananda. This was before I discovered the passage from Ramana Maharshi; what Khemananda said was not prompted by any remark of mine, but was taught to him by his own teacher in Thailand. He began by drawing the following diagram:
Each oval represents a thought, he said; normally, we leave one thought only when we have another one to go to (as the arrows indicate), but to think in this way constitutes ignorance. Instead, we should realize that thinking is actually like this:
Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts do not arise from each other but by themselves.
Basically this is what Diamond Sutra says: Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva should produce an unsupported thought, a thought which is nowhere supported, which is not supported (apratisthiti) by forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or objects of mind. [23]
No, my understanding of impermanence is not that attention shifts between physical and mental objects (if I understand what you mean), but rather whatever perceptions there is, are insubstantial, bubble-like, disjoint, unsupported, spontaneously-arising and self-releasing/traceless, like the second diagram
However I do not deny that attention can occur - and when they occur, the entire sense-field or field of perception is still insubstantial, bubble-like, disjoint, unsupported, spontaneously-arising and self-releasing/traceless, like the second diagram
Impermanence is the natural characteristic of all experiences whether or not attention is focused or unfocused.
Attention simply amplifies a particular detail of an experience (such as focusing attention on the voice of Person A among the sea of sound to catch what he's saying) Attention happens: One moment the attention may be focused on breathe, the other moment attention may be focused on Person A's voice, another moment on a thought, etc. I don't see attention focused on thought, or on physical sensations, as different in anyway.
Eckhart Tolle: I woke up in a state of incredible inner peace, bliss in fact. With my eyes still closed, I heard the sound of a bird and realized how precious that was. And then I opened my eyes and saw the sunlight coming through the curtains and felt: There is far more to that than we realize. It felt like love coming through the curtains. And then as I walked around the old familiar objects in the room I realized I had never really seen them before. It was as if I had just been born into this world; a state of wonder. And then I went for a walk in the city. I was still in London. Everything was miraculous, deeply peaceful. Even the traffic.
"All I do know is that the next morning I woke up and even before opening my eyes I heard the sounds of birds and it was so precious; everything was so precious. Then I opened my eyes and everything was alive and new and fresh as if I had never seen it before. And I walked around and picked up things and looked at them. I was amazed at everything. There was no understanding of it. I was not even trying to understand anything. It was just so beautiful. Then I walked around the city in the same state, even in the midst of traffic. I was in a state of amazement and it was all so beautiful."
"All I do know is that the next morning I woke up and even before opening my eyes I heard the sounds of birds and it was so precious; everything was so precious. Then I opened my eyes and everything was alive and new and fresh as if I had never seen it before. And I walked around and picked up things and looked at them. I was amazed at everything. There was no understanding of it. I was not even trying to understand anything. It was just so beautiful. Then I walked around the city in the same state, even in the midst of traffic. I was in a state of amazement and it was all so beautiful."
This is a great example of how the way we describe these things can lead to very different understandings, the way Tolle describes this period of post-awakening matches (along with the way he describes things before that point), with uncanny accuracy, the way I experienced things for about six to eight weeks after what I'm calling stream-entry. How it would map in AF terms? No idea, but I'm certain that it was not a PCE.
Just thought I'd throw that into the pot...
