Insight and the Pali suttas

Insight and the Pali suttas End in Sight 12/1/11 3:00 PM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 9:09 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 8:42 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 8:46 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 8:51 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 9:12 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 9:11 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 9:14 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 9:52 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 10:08 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 10:14 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 10:24 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 11:03 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 11:26 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 11:32 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 11:35 AM
RE: This is not for me m m a 11/30/11 12:35 PM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 12:42 PM
RE: This is not for me m m a 11/30/11 12:41 PM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 12:44 PM
RE: This is not for me m m a 11/30/11 1:01 PM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 11/30/11 1:05 PM
RE: This is not for me m m a 11/30/11 1:23 PM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 1:23 PM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 9:45 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 10:21 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 10:34 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 10:45 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 7:32 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 7:33 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 7:54 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 8:05 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 9:01 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 9:03 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 9:13 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 9:35 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 9:41 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 9:46 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 9:46 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 9:51 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 9:55 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/1/11 10:21 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 11:19 PM
RE: This is not for me katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 12/1/11 1:43 PM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 11:12 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/1/11 11:14 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 12/1/11 11:19 AM
RE: This is not for me Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/1/11 11:28 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 10:03 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 9:40 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 12/1/11 7:54 AM
RE: This is not for me An Eternal Now 11/30/11 10:56 AM
RE: This is not for me End in Sight 11/30/11 10:57 AM
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 3:00 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:08 AM

Insight and the Pali suttas

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
… if those who enter upon the path of Liberation smash the billions of kleshas [defilements] like a jar, they will then see the entire Dhatu [Buddha Essence] as though it were a mango upon the palm of their hand. For example, though the sun and moon do not shine upon the earth when they are veiled by clouds, they do shine upon the earth when they are released from the clouds. Similarly, when the Tathagatagarbha is hidden by the billions of kleshas, it is not visible; but when it is freed from the kleshas, the sun and moon of the Buddha-dhatu are also visible, just like the sun and moon.


Winning!

EDIT: Smash the defilements, and theory won't matter.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:09 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:31 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
… if those who enter upon the path of Liberation smash the billions of kleshas [defilements] like a jar, they will then see the entire Dhatu [Buddha Essence] as though it were a mango upon the palm of their hand. For example, though the sun and moon do not shine upon the earth when they are veiled by clouds, they do shine upon the earth when they are released from the clouds. Similarly, when the Tathagatagarbha is hidden by the billions of kleshas, it is not visible; but when it is freed from the kleshas, the sun and moon of the Buddha-dhatu are also visible, just like the sun and moon.


Winning!

EDIT: Smash the defilements, and theory won't matter.
Yes, theories doesn't matter but awakeness and freedom. However the question is 'how to smash the defilements', as obviously, you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning. Sorry had to mention this because I sometimes see people thinking that they should attack 'feelings' head-on, 'suffering is bad, feeling is bad, so I need to get rid of it', but saying all that is not going to make a difference, or trying to suppress that isn't going to work as well. Also, if one holds tightly to a view of self, then the practice becomes a form of dissociation ('I' dissociates from 'feelings'), which is not the path to liberation/end of defilements.

Rather, what is needed is to see through and drop that sense of self/Self, then indeed 'the entire Dhatu' would reveal itself.

Just as Richard says:

http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/aprecisofactualfreedom.htm

Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings.

It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others. What the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel well, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre, bonhomie and so on) then with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception).

Delight is what is humanly possible, given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity born of the pure consciousness experience, and from the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive now. Then one is no longer intuitively making sense of life ... the delicious wonder of it all drives any such instinctive meaning away. Such luscious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté – the nourishing of which is essential if fascination in it all is to occur – and the charm of life itself easily engages dedication to peace-on-earth. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with sensuously caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and one is the experiencing of what is happening.

But refrain from possessing it and making it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.

End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:42 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:38 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Yes, theories doesn't matter but awakeness and freedom. However the question is 'how to smash the defilements', as obviously, you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning.


If one can discern the attention wave, one can observe the stream of defilements directly (which is why I emphasize this).

If one can see them, then one can smash them.

If one can't see them, one can smash them anyway, in the same way: one develops the eightfold path.

The simplicity of the issue, divested of any deep theory of How Things Are, is astounding.


EDIT:

Nava sutta:
Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:46 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:43 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
An Eternal Now:
Yes, theories doesn't matter but awakeness and freedom. However the question is 'how to smash the defilements', as obviously, you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning.


If one can discern the attention wave, one can observe the stream of defilements directly (which is why I emphasize this).

If one can see them, then one can smash them.

If one can't see them, one can smash them anyway, in the same way: one develops the eightfold path.

The simplicity of the issue, divested of any deep theory of How Things Are, is astounding.
No ideas or comments about attention wave, since so far I have not had a clear understanding about you meant by it, since it doesn't seem to have been part of my experience at all.

However what is very apparent to me is that any clinging and sense of a self/Self is what stands in the way of pure-consciousness-experience, AF, and the freedom from 'affects'. This to me is much more important and essential.

But anyway, my previous post also pointed out something about 'view'... if without 'right view' (1st of the eightfold path), if one holds to 'wrong views' (views that cling to an identity), it is impossible to walk the correct path which leads to the end of suffering.

Lastly I agree no 'deep theories' are necessary.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:51 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:47 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
End in Sight:
An Eternal Now:
Yes, theories doesn't matter but awakeness and freedom. However the question is 'how to smash the defilements', as obviously, you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning.


If one can discern the attention wave, one can observe the stream of defilements directly (which is why I emphasize this).

If one can see them, then one can smash them.

If one can't see them, one can smash them anyway, in the same way: one develops the eightfold path.

The simplicity of the issue, divested of any deep theory of How Things Are, is astounding.
No ideas or comments about attention wave, since so far I have not had a clear understanding about it.

However what is very apparent to me is that any clinging and sense of a self/Self is what stands in the way of pure-consciousness-experience and the freedom from 'affects'. This to me is much more important and essential.


"Clinging" is one component of the attention wave.

What would it be other than a discernible experience arising shortly after vedana?

But anyway, my previous post also pointed out something about 'view'... if without 'right view' (1st of the eightfold path), if one holds to 'wrong views' (views that cling to an identity), it is impossible to walk the correct path which leads to the end of suffering.


Magga-vibhanga sutta:
And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.


Wrong view, then, is "not knowing right view".

Simple!

EDIT: As right view is only perfected upon arahantship, it is completely possible to walk the path without fully-developed right view...in fact, if it were not, there would be no path to walk.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:12 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 8:54 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
An Eternal Now:
End in Sight:
An Eternal Now:
Yes, theories doesn't matter but awakeness and freedom. However the question is 'how to smash the defilements', as obviously, you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning.


If one can discern the attention wave, one can observe the stream of defilements directly (which is why I emphasize this).

If one can see them, then one can smash them.

If one can't see them, one can smash them anyway, in the same way: one develops the eightfold path.

The simplicity of the issue, divested of any deep theory of How Things Are, is astounding.
No ideas or comments about attention wave, since so far I have not had a clear understanding about it.

However what is very apparent to me is that any clinging and sense of a self/Self is what stands in the way of pure-consciousness-experience and the freedom from 'affects'. This to me is much more important and essential.


"Clinging" is one component of the attention wave.

What would it be other than a discernible experience arising shortly after vedana?
So craving = attention wave, attention wave = craving?

End in Sight:
And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.

Wrong view, then, is "not knowing right view".

Simple!
Simple, but also not so simple, since if you want to discuss wrong views, you should discuss in terms of the 62 possible wrong views (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html).

For example, in MN 2, the Sabbasava Sutta, the Buddha describes "a fetter of views" in the following manner:

"This is how [a person of wrong view] attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? ... Shall I be in the future? ... Am I? Am I not? What am I? ...'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: ...

'I have a self...'
'I have no self...'
'It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self...'
'It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self...'
'It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self...'
'This very self of mine ... is the self of mine that is constant...'

"This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed ... is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."[24]


Someone who holds wrong view, holds the view of Self, nonetheless may proclaim that they have the view of four noble truths. However, in truth, they merely have a conceptual knowledge of 4nt, not a direct experiential insight into 4nt. Holders of self-view cannot perceive the end nor way to end craving and suffering.

Richard (as quoted from above): Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings.


Thusness: "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."

~ Thusness
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:11 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:11 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
So craving = attention wave, attention wave = craving?


let me try to help explain it... have you ever started at an object quite intently, while meditating or not, and it started to distort in weird ways? like the perspective would get kind of weird, or it would start shimmering or waving about?
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:14 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:13 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Eternal Now:
So craving = attention wave, attention wave = craving?


let me try to help explain it... have you ever started at an object quite intently, while meditating or not, and it started to distort in weird ways? like the perspective would get kind of weird, or it would start shimmering or waving about?
Ah, another attention wave topic starting....

My answer is nope, or at least not that I recall.

It seems that after many posts with End in Sight I still don't get this... so maybe I'll just drop this topic and see if I get it on my own in future.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:52 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:52 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Ah, another attention wave topic starting....

My answer is nope, or at least not that I recall.

It seems that after many posts with End in Sight I still don't get this... so maybe I'll just drop this topic and see if I get it on my own in future.


i think you have experienced it, but you just haven't labeled that category of things as anything...

well let me try again: you talk about clarity, lumostiy, etc. have you, in the past when practicing, experienced things less clearly/less luminously, and then more clearly/more luminously, then less clearly, etc? a variance in the level of clarity?
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:08 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:05 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Eternal Now:
Ah, another attention wave topic starting....

My answer is nope, or at least not that I recall.

It seems that after many posts with End in Sight I still don't get this... so maybe I'll just drop this topic and see if I get it on my own in future.


i think you have experienced it, but you just haven't labeled that category of things as anything...

well let me try again: you talk about clarity, lumostiy, etc. have you, in the past when practicing, experienced things less clearly/less luminously, and then more clearly/more luminously, then less clearly, etc? a variance in the level of clarity?
Luminosity is never clear before anatta. Why? Because the sense of self/Self prevents luminosity from revealing. Since all manifestations are self-luminous, and sense of self/Self prevents the 'non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception' of the self-luminosity of manifestation, luminosity. When anatta is realized, all manifestations are naturally implicitly self-luminous.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:14 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:14 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Luminosity is never clear before anatta. Why? Because the sense of self/Self prevents luminosity from revealing. Since all manifestations are self-luminous, and sense of self/Self prevents the 'non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception' of the self-luminosity of manifestation, luminosity. When anatta is realized, all manifestations are naturally implicitly self-luminous.

ok. so when luminosity isn't clear yet, does the perception of the senses vary in clarity? for example - does your perception of eyesight have varying degrees of crispness? like you can tune into the eyesight and your eyesight will literally become crisper/more vivid/more pleasant, and if you aren't paying attention it goes back to being duller/not as bright (though you only notice it has become dull when you pay attention again and it is suddenly crisper). has that happened in your experience? the perception of vision literally being duller or crisper.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:24 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:24 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

ok. so when luminosity isn't clear yet, does the perception of the senses vary in clarity? for example - does your perception of eyesight have varying degrees of crispness? like you can tune into the eyesight and your eyesight will literally become crisper/more vivid/more pleasant, and if you aren't paying attention it goes back to being duller/not as bright (though you only notice it has become dull when you pay attention again and it is suddenly crisper). has that happened in your experience? the perception of vision literally being duller or crisper.
Yes.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 11:03 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:41 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

ok. so when luminosity isn't clear yet, does the perception of the senses vary in clarity? for example - does your perception of eyesight have varying degrees of crispness? like you can tune into the eyesight and your eyesight will literally become crisper/more vivid/more pleasant, and if you aren't paying attention it goes back to being duller/not as bright (though you only notice it has become dull when you pay attention again and it is suddenly crisper). has that happened in your experience? the perception of vision literally being duller or crisper.
Yes.


great! so, that is one manifestation of the attention wave - that dullness in the senses. a relatively coarse/gross manifestation, but that's the idea. it is simply whatever distorts what is going on sense-wise in a similar fashion. does that help point you in the right direction for knowing what the attention wave is?

if so: did you notice in the past how it isn't necessarily a panoramic dullness (like the entire visual field getting crisper), but sometimes localized? like in my vision, if i really pay attention, i'll notice that certain parts - like a little under the center, or the bottom-left corner - are not as clear as the rest. it is not obvious at all, cause if i am not looking for it, i simply don't notice it (as it is the not-noticing). but when i pay attention to it its like holes in my visual field slowly get filled up.

another potential manifestation of attention wave is to look at the sense of touch. if you're sitting on a chair, you should basically feel your entire rear end and upper legs at once. but if i try to do that i'll notice that it kind of goes in 'pockets' - like there will be a 'most prominent sensation', which keeps shifting around. that also is a manifestation of the attention wave. in a PCE there is no such thing - just everything all-at-once.

do you see what we mean now by attention wave?

EDIT: Also, is there a 'most prominent sensation' in your current experience? Something you can point to and say, 'that one sticks out'.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 11:26 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 11:20 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
An Eternal Now:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

ok. so when luminosity isn't clear yet, does the perception of the senses vary in clarity? for example - does your perception of eyesight have varying degrees of crispness? like you can tune into the eyesight and your eyesight will literally become crisper/more vivid/more pleasant, and if you aren't paying attention it goes back to being duller/not as bright (though you only notice it has become dull when you pay attention again and it is suddenly crisper). has that happened in your experience? the perception of vision literally being duller or crisper.
Yes.


great! so, that is one manifestation of the attention wave - that dullness in the senses. a relatively coarse/gross manifestation, but that's the idea. it is simply whatever distorts what is going on sense-wise in a similar fashion. does that help point you in the right direction for knowing what the attention wave is?

if so: did you notice in the past how it isn't necessarily a panoramic dullness (like the entire visual field getting crisper), but sometimes localized? like in my vision, if i really pay attention, i'll notice that certain parts - like a little under the center, or the bottom-left corner - are not as clear as the rest. it is not obvious at all, cause if i am not looking for it, i simply don't notice it (as it is the not-noticing). but when i pay attention to it its like holes in my visual field slowly get filled up.

another potential manifestation of attention wave is to look at the sense of touch. if you're sitting on a chair, you should basically feel your entire rear end and upper legs at once. but if i try to do that i'll notice that it kind of goes in 'pockets' - like there will be a 'most prominent sensation', which keeps shifting around. that also is a manifestation of the attention wave. in a PCE there is no such thing - just everything all-at-once.

do you see what we mean now by attention wave?
Hmm... I get attention wave as a form of dulling or tuning out of the senses. However you seem to be attributing this dulling or tuning out or lack of luminosity to shifts of attention. To me attention is not the cause of dulling of luminosity.

To me, all that is necessary is to drop all sense of self/Self (which is holding on to a vantage referent point and thus not being able to have NDNCDIMOP of the senses as they are), in terms of realization and experience. All else is naturally resolved... all manifestations at every moment is implicitly self-luminous, centerless, borderless, etc, you don't have to try to be centerless, try to be borderless, try to be self-luminous and so on.. which are contrived and misses the point. The sense of self/Self prevents this.

Once self/Self goes into abeyance, everything is naturally self-luminous, no matter how attention focuses on what particularities (and attention being merely a quality or aspect of the self-luminous experience and not something separate from experience, and all experience being whole, complete, centerless, borderless, self-luminous). So attention in and of itself is not a problem: only when attention is tainted with sense of self/Self, that is the problem.

Thusness:

Division of subject and object is merely an assumption.
Thus someone giving up and something to be given up is an illusion.
When self becomes more and more transparent,
Likewise phenomena become more and more luminous.
In thorough transparency all happening are pristinely and vividly clear.
Obviousness throughout, aliveness everywhere!
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 11:32 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 11:27 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Hmm... I get attention wave as a form of dulling or tuning out of the senses. However you seem to be attributing this dulling or tuning out or lack of luminosity to shifts of attention. To me attention is not the cause of dulling of luminosity.


It's not attention that is the problem. It's the attention wave. The attention wave is not attention... the term may be confusing for that reason. It is, as you said, attention tainted with sense of self/Self. Well, more accurately, it is self/Self. The problem isn't what actual attention is looking at - it's just this pasting-over of experience, which we have dubbed the attention wave (which is not actual attention). attention wave isn't the cause of dulling of luminosity, per se, it is the dulling of luminosity. as tarin said (emphasis mine):

tarin:
more about the attention wave:

the attention wave and affect are the same thing.

the attention wave dulls and distorts actual sensitivity (and the subtle way in which it does this confuses people who experience it in its barest form into thinking that it is the faculties of sensitivity themselves, which it is most certainly not; for an example of this, see ian's thread about feeling-tones, to which i will reply later).

the urge to obsess about the attention wave is part of the wave itself. hence, doing so may be unavoidable to some extent; if so, it will fade as one realises that the entire thing (the wave) is increasingly irrelevant to how one is actually experiencing this moment of being alive.
[link]

An Eternal Now:
Once self/Self goes into abeyance, everything is naturally self-luminous, no matter how attention focuses on what particularities (and attention being merely a quality or aspect of the self-luminous experience and not something separate from experience, and all experience being whole, complete, centerless, borderless, self-luminous). So attention in and of itself is not a problem: only when attention is tainted with sense of self/Self, that is the problem.


Right, very true.

But, do you see how being able to discern this attention wave (not attention, but the attention wave) could be beneficial for a practitioner? attention wave is self/Self. If you get really good at discerning the attention wave, then you will never be mistaken as to whether there is suffering in your experience, since if you can notice the attention wave, there is suffering. and it is easy to notice if you pick up on what it is - it's just whatever distortion/lack of clarity there currently is in your experience.

Also, noticing the attention wave directly seems to be a good practice (emphasis mine - i think it refers to the distortion i was talking about earlier when staring at an object for too long):

Dan Ingram:
a) Notice the attention wave itself and how looking at anything distorts the thing itself. Notice how attention itself filters out substantial portions of the field of what manifests. Doing this long and well enough at a high level taking it to the level of seeming like a spacial distortion eventually can cause PCE mode to arise. This is the least pleasant but the most revealing and has resulted in the longest duration of PCE-like mode when I can pull it off.
(same thread as the tarin post)

Now that you seem to understand what the attention wave is, perhaps you can communicate with EndInSight more effectively? (Maybe you can re-read his posts about it and see if you can understand what he's trying to say now.)
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 11:35 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 11:33 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
EDIT: beoman beat me to it.
m m a, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:35 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:28 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 153 Join Date: 6/9/11 Recent Posts
I've been reading this thread with some interest, and trying to get a handle on 'attention wave'

I don't get it.
Part that sticks out as not clear is what beoman said about clarity - the defilement of clarity is somehow the wave.

Is there a practice I can do to help understand the difference between a pointed awareness and an attention wave?

beoman said something like observing your whole but in the chair at once versus different parts being prominent in any moment, but

does this mean the INTENT and ACT of putting my attention in a physical location (tanden, balls of feet, fingertip), and moving it around, is the wave? What does this mean for practice? Is it a bad thing?

right now, it feels a little like choiceless vs. choiceful awareness parallels the idea of attention vs. attention wave, but this understanding seems at odds with some of the AF descriptions I'm seeing.

The descriptions this far, while interesting, have not resulted in me grokking the crux of this discussion.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:42 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:35 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
m m a:
I've been reading this thread with some interest, and trying to get a handle on 'attention wave'

I don't get it.

Is there a practice I can do to help understand the difference between awareness and an attention wave?
The descriptions this far, while interesting, have not resulted in me grokking the crux of this discussion.


Try walking around and tuning into the senses in a wondrous/wonder-filled fashion. Just take in the beauty/clarity of it all. This is easiest for me when walking around outside.

Do you notice your visual field getting clearer/crisper if you do this? Colors getting more vivid/richer/deeper?

m m a:
does this mean the INTENT and ACT of putting my attention in a physical location (tanden, balls of feet, fingertip), and moving it around, is the wave?

Yep, those are ways the wave manifests.

m m a:
What does this mean for practice? Is it a bad thing?


"Bad" is a loaded word. Let's use conducive for what you want to do, or not. And that depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to access the nyanas in the progress of insight, then this is just what you want to do, as all of those depend on the attention wave.

If you are activating sensuousness then you should try to see everything all-at-once without placing attention on any particular spot. But it's probably not conducive to 'try not to' have an attention wave, as that trying would be the attention wave.. and one can hardly be expected to do it successfully as everything one does is the attention wave, except in a PCE... 'naivete' is the key, here.

but even so you might get benefit from focusing on something in particular and checking it out. There are insights to be gained in that way... so yea it all depends on what you're trying to do. i wouldn't feel guilty about having an attention wave, if that's what you were asking, heh..
m m a, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:41 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:41 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 153 Join Date: 6/9/11 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
m m a:
I've been reading this thread with some interest, and trying to get a handle on 'attention wave'

I don't get it.

Is there a practice I can do to help understand the difference between awareness and an attention wave?
The descriptions this far, while interesting, have not resulted in me grokking the crux of this discussion.


Try walking around and tuning into the senses in a wondrous/wonder-filled fashion. Just take in the beauty/clarity of it all. This is easiest for me when walking around outside.

Do you notice your visual field getting clearer/crisper if you do this? Colors getting more vivid/richer/deeper?




Wow, fast response. I actually went back and edited it a bit while you were typing.

Ok, 5 minutes of cultivating wonder/naivete (which is not my usual practice) in my sun-filled, serene spot..... and go!

****

Do you notice your visual field getting clearer/crisper if you do this? Colors getting more vivid/richer/deeper?


no. i feel a bit of access-concentration, i think, a pristine calmness, but no difference in the ACTUAL world
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 12:44 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
m m a:
Wow, fast response. I actually went back and edited it a bit while you were typing.


heh yea i edited my reply to reply to your edited reply... i'll wait for you to reply to that.

Another thing to try is: take a tall glass and stare at it. try to get a 'grip' on the space 'inside' the glass, specially at the top. look at the oval shape the circle makes when looking at it from the side. and just stare at it a bit. does it start to distort in a weird way?
m m a, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:01 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:00 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 153 Join Date: 6/9/11 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


Another thing to try is: take a tall glass and stare at it. try to get a 'grip' on the space 'inside' the glass, specially at the top. look at the oval shape the circle makes when looking at it from the side. and just stare at it a bit. does it start to distort in a weird way?


Hm.... I get a bit of visual fatigue, eyes crossing, general fading of vision, some saccades, and a distortion of the oval a bit like those Necker cube optical illusions where two configurations pop up and you can 'flip' between one and the other somehow.



However, i do not see how this is at all related to the other ideas associated with 'the wave.', especially the idea that I understand most intuitively (the wave as the intent of putting awareness)

my handle on this is still pretty vague, but i find these exercises/investigations pretty interesting.

I think I feel you on the distinction between vipassana and PCE cultivation, though....even if i don't have first hand experience.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:05 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:05 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
m m a:
Hm.... I get a bit of visual fatigue, eyes crossing, general fading of vision, some saccades, and a distortion of the oval a bit like those Necker cube optical illusions where two configurations pop up and you can 'flip' between one and the other somehow.

However, i do not see how this is at all related to the other ideas associated with 'the wave.', [...]

ah no those effects aren't what i was referring to. they are a result of the way the actual eye works, i think.

when i would do it sometimes my whole visual field would just start warping and twisting in a weird way. which was very obviously the attention wave. but at that point i already had stream entry + such and it might just need more implicit concentration for that to happen.

m m a:
no. i feel a bit of access-concentration, i think, a pristine calmness, but no difference in the ACTUAL world

you're not looking for differences in the actual world, but in your perception of eyesight.

m m a:
my handle on this is still pretty vague, but i find these exercises/investigations pretty interesting.


hehe well that's good. curiosity goes a long way in these types of things, i find...
m m a, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:23 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:23 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 153 Join Date: 6/9/11 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:


when i would do it sometimes my whole visual field would just start warping and twisting in a weird way. which was very obviously the attention wave. but at that point i already had stream entry + such and it might just need more implicit concentration for that to happen.



That makes sense. My many hours of concentration practice has been with eyes closed, would figure that I have a harder time hitting those states with a visual focus.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:23 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 1:23 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
m m a:
does this mean the INTENT and ACT of putting my attention in a physical location (tanden, balls of feet, fingertip), and moving it around, is the wave?


If possible, notice how, in the moment of putting your attention on a sensory experience, the sensory experience is tuned out in some way.

If you can notice that, see if you can observe that process occurring continuously, no matter what you try to do with your attention.

If you practice MCTB-style vipassana, the attention wave will become clearer.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:45 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:25 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
EIS:
An Eternal Now:

"Clinging" is one component of the attention wave.

What would it be other than a discernible experience arising shortly after vedana?
So craving = attention wave, attention wave = craving?


"Craving" is origin of, and the first discernible event, in the attention wave.

AEN:
End in Sight:
And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.

Wrong view, then, is "not knowing right view".

Simple!
Simple, but also not so simple, since if you want to discuss wrong views, you should discuss in terms of the 62 possible wrong views (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html).


Are those views dukkha or sukha?

If they are dukkha, all one needs to recognize is "thinking this way is suffering", and right view is developed.

No theory or analysis required.

Here is a typical explanation of how the path begins:

Samaññaphala Sutta:
Suppose there were a man of yours: your slave, your workman, rising in the morning before you, going to bed in the evening only after you, doing whatever you order, always acting to please you, speaking politely to you, always watching for the look on your face. The thought would occur to him: 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? — the destination, the results, of meritorious deeds. For this King Ajatasattu is a human being, and I, too, am a human being, yet King Ajatasattu enjoys himself supplied and replete with the five strings of sensuality — like a deva, as it were — while I am his slave, his workman... always watching for the look on his face. I, too, should do meritorious deeds. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

"So after some time he shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth he lives restrained in body, speech, and mind, content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude.


i.e. it begins with developing right view in the sense of developing the eightfold path, and the parts of the eightfold path that it develops first are right speech, right livelihood, right action, and (perhaps) right effort and right resolve. No theory, no analysis. Not even any meditation!

If adjusting view floats one's boat, that's fine (that seems to be the domain of some of the Mahayana traditions), I am sure that can be practical too, but my point is that it isn't required by far.

About Richard and self-view...what is the origin of identification according to the Pali suttas? Craving. The entire path is about subduing craving. It does not even necessarily require that one have any explicit insight at all to subdue craving; one could sit in jhana all day and find, after coming out, that no craving was left. The suttas talk about that constantly. (EDIT: the entirety of one's explicit insight would be: "the absence of craving is the absence of becoming is nibbana", and one would develop that insight simply by subduing craving.)

This is why actualism is so cool. For a person who can pursue it this way, the whole actualist path could be: chill out, feel good, eventually have PCEs, eventually find that (after chilling out, feeling good, and having PCEs) that no craving is left. (As 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me', with the absence of craving comes the absence of 'being'.)

EDIT: From the Therigatha:

Uttama:
Four times, five, I ran amok from my dwelling,
having gained no peace of awareness,
my thoughts out of control.
So I went to a trustworthy nun.
She taught me the Dhamma:
aggregates, sense spheres, & elements.
Hearing the Dhamma,
I did as she said.
For seven days I sat in one spot,
absorbed in rapture & bliss.
On the eighth, I stretched out my legs,
having burst the mass of darkness.


Patacara:
"Plowing the field with plows,
sowing the ground with seed,
supporting their wives & children,
young men gather up wealth.

So why is it that I,
consummate in virtue,
a doer of the teacher's bidding,
don't gain Unbinding?
I'm not lazy or proud."

Washing my feet, I noticed
the
water.

And in watching it flow from high
to
low,
my heart was composed
like a fine thoroughbred steed.

Then taking a lamp, I entered the hut,
checked the bedding,
sat down on the bed.
And taking a pin, I pulled out the wick:
Like the flame's unbinding
was the liberation
of awareness.


What insight is required?

To me, these illustrate: from the cessation of craving comes the cessation of becoming, however craving is made to cease.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:21 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 9:54 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
EIS:
An Eternal Now:

"Clinging" is one component of the attention wave.

What would it be other than a discernible experience arising shortly after vedana?
So craving = attention wave, attention wave = craving?


"Craving" is origin of, and the first discernible event, in the attention wave.

AEN:
End in Sight:
And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.

Wrong view, then, is "not knowing right view".

Simple!
Simple, but also not so simple, since if you want to discuss wrong views, you should discuss in terms of the 62 possible wrong views (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html).


Are those views dukkha or sukha?

If they are dukkha, all one needs to recognize is "thinking this way is suffering", and right view is developed.

No theory or analysis required.
The three characteristics must be known, not just one, namely: anicca, dukkha, and anatta. In fact they go together.*

Stream entry confers the 'ending of self-view', Arahant confers the 'end of conceit [of 'I Am']'. If for example, you merely recognise 'this thought is painful' but don't see that 'the view of self is false', then this current thought may subside, and yet the view of self remains intact, so new thoughts tainted with self-view will certainly arise. Without uprooting self-view and self-conceit via realization/insight and tranquility in tandem, there is no way defilements can be overcome.

*“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, Venerable sir.” - a must-read, well-known sutra: http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Suttas/Anattalakkhana/anattalakkhana.html
Here is a typical explanation of how the path begins:

Samaññaphala Sutta:
Suppose there were a man of yours: your slave, your workman, rising in the morning before you, going to bed in the evening only after you, doing whatever you order, always acting to please you, speaking politely to you, always watching for the look on your face. The thought would occur to him: 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? — the destination, the results, of meritorious deeds. For this King Ajatasattu is a human being, and I, too, am a human being, yet King Ajatasattu enjoys himself supplied and replete with the five strings of sensuality — like a deva, as it were — while I am his slave, his workman... always watching for the look on his face. I, too, should do meritorious deeds. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

"So after some time he shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth he lives restrained in body, speech, and mind, content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude.


i.e. it begins with developing right view in the sense of developing the eightfold path, and the parts of the eightfold path that it develops first is right speech, right livelihood, right action, and (perhaps) right effort and right resolve. No theory, no analysis. Not even any meditation!
According to Buddha, right view is the right understanding of four noble truths (supramundane level), the right understanding of things like karma and rebirth (mundane level).

Four noble truths can be realized experientially, though at first of course it is good (the only way for a beginner) to understand it at least theoretically. Theories are useful - not something to be thrown away (until one has actualized it through experiential insight, experience), for navigating and understanding the path.

Meditation is Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration
If adjusting view floats one's boat, that's fine (that seems to be the domain of some of the Mahayana traditions), I am sure that can be practical too, but my point is that it isn't required by far.
Adjusting view is important for beginner (some kind of theoretical understanding of the path) even in Theravada, or just from a purely pragmatic point of view*

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/06/the-core-features-of-pragmatic-dharma/

*If you emphasize practice too much you can get what Tibetan meditation master Chogyam Trungpa called “dumb meditators”—people who don’t understand what they’re doing or why. They never really got what they were supposed to be looking for, so they spin out endlessly doing a practice, which leads to something interesting, but not to what was intended.

Another pitfall of leaving out theory is that we find it difficult to integrate the experiences we’ve had into their lives. We have trouble because we are rejecting the importance of the thinking mind. Our complex mental abilities and highly developed brains are what make us distinctly human. Without complex thought it’s unlikely that we’d even be able to ask ourselves the important spiritual questions. Homo sapien is latin for “knowing man” or “wise man.” It can be a disaster if we throw out the “wise” part of our evolutionary heritage.

What’s encouraging is that if we can these helpful theories into practice, using them as maps to help us find our way, then we get into the business of having direct experiences ourselves. Through doing this we become internal scientists, and can begin to confirm, reject, and even build upon the theories we’ve been handed. Theories are alive and open-ended when we can test their validity. They are not the end point but rather the starting point for an incredible journey.


However one more step than simply a mere 'adjustment of view' is to end false view altogether (which is stream entry) and then further to end the conceit of 'I am' (arhantship), which can occur through insight, through knowledge and vision of things as they are.
About Richard and self-view...what is the origin of identification according to the Pali suttas? Craving. The entire path is about subduing craving.
I know the point of subduing craving, but the path is the eightfold path, and the eightfold path leads to knowledge and vision of things as they are [realization, insight into dharma], without which end of craving is not possible.*

*"The knowledge of destruction with respect to destruction has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for the knowledge of destruction? 'Emancipation' should be the reply.

"Emancipation, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for emancipation? 'Dispassion' should be the reply.

"Dispassion, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for dispassion? 'Disenchantment' should be the reply.

"Disenchantment, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for disenchantment? 'The knowledge and vision of things as they really are' should be the reply.


etc...
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html

"The destruction of the cankers, monks, is for one who knows and sees, I say, not for one who does not know and does not see. Knowing what, seeing what does the destruction of the cankers occur? 'Such is material form, such is the arising of material form, such is the passing away of material form. Such is feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness; such is the arising of consciousness, such is the passing away of consciousness' — for one who knows and sees this, monks, the destruction of the cankers occurs. - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.bodh.html

If insights were not important, the Buddha would not have extolled practitioners to investigate and see the three dharma characteristics.
It does not even necessarily require that one have any explicit insight at all to subdue craving; one could sit in jhana all day and find, after coming out, that no craving was left. The suttas talk about that constantly.
I do not see it as being possible as explained above: how could there be end of self-view, self-conceit if no insights were involved, if self-view still retains in the psyche?

Also, jhana in the suttas need not be mere shamatha jhana, but it could be a mix of jhana and insight. It is not possible however, that dispassion could arise without knowledge and vision (insight). This is made very very clear not just in one sutta but throughout the canon.

Furthermore, the Buddha have explicitly made clear that all who attains Arhantship does so with insight and tranquility in tandem:

AN 4.170
PTS: A ii 156
Yuganaddha Sutta: In Tandem
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1998–2011

On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Friends!"

"Yes, friend," the monks responded.

Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four?

"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

"Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

"Whoever — monk or nun — declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths."



p.s. pure jhana without insight merely suppresses hindrances (temporarily), but does not end defilements
This is why actualism is so cool. For a person who can pursue it this way, the whole actualist path could be: chill out, feel good, eventually have PCEs, eventually find that (after chilling out, feeling good, and having PCEs) that no craving is left. (As 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me', with the absence of craving comes the absence of 'being'.)

Daniel: What you are ultimately going for is not the PCE: that is like concentration, where as investigation is insight and is part of what may be necessary for attaining AF. - (Notes from Conversations with Trent and Tarin on AF Practice) http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1484905
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:34 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:18 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
Stream entry confers the 'ending of self-view', Arahant confers the 'end of conceit [of 'I Am']'. If for example, you merely recognise 'this thought is painful' but don't see that 'the view of self is false', then this current thought may subside, and yet the view of self remains intact,


No.

According to the Pali suttas, all identifications are caused by craving.

When you abandon the painful view, you abandon craving.

There is no view of self that does not manifest via craving and is thus not visible in the attention wave.

According to Buddha, right view is the right understanding of four noble truths (supramundane level), the right understanding of things like karma and rebirth (mundane level).


I already quoted the suttic definition of right view.

Adjusting view is important for beginner (some kind of theoretical understanding of the path) even in Theravada, or just from a purely pragmatic point of view*


Yes, and it can be as simple as this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.036.than.html

I know the point of subduing craving, but the path is the eightfold path, and the eightfold path leads to knowledge and vision of things as they are [realization, insight into dharma], without which end of craving is not possible.*


And what would knowledge and vision of things as they are be, other than right view?

It does not even necessarily require that one have any explicit insight at all to subdue craving; one could sit in jhana all day and find, after coming out, that no craving was left. The suttas talk about that constantly.
I do not see it as being possible as explained above: how could there be end of self-view, self-conceit if no insights were involved, if self-view still retains in the psyche?


Because, according to the Pali suttas, all identification (including all self-view) is caused by craving.

If you practice full-on jhana, you can observe how it occurs: not by adjusting views, but by not thinking, which reduces the attention wave, which allows one to not think more, which reduces the attention wave more...a short-cut to subduing craving, completely independent of one's views and beliefs.

Also, jhana in the suttas need not be mere shamatha jhana, but it could be a mix of jhana and insight.


The distinction you are drawing does not exist in the Pali suttas.

I have been describing a way to practice jhana that I believe accords with the descriptions in the Pali suttas. The deeper the concentration, the deeper the non-reflective "insight" (in the sense that one sees: this craving is suffering, with the cessation of this craving comes the cessation of the suffering it conditions, etc.)

Furthermore, the Buddha have explicitly made clear that all who attains Arhantship does so with insight and tranquility in tandem:


As you are well aware, the kind of insight you are talking about is the sort that is discussed in Mahayana traditions, not the Pali suttas.

There are lots of pithy short teachings in the suttas which do not talk about insight in the sense that you mean it.

But they talk about insight in the sense that I mean it (i.e. right view as defined in the suttas):http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html


This is why actualism is so cool. For a person who can pursue it this way, the whole actualist path could be: chill out, feel good, eventually have PCEs, eventually find that (after chilling out, feeling good, and having PCEs) that no craving is left. (As 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me', with the absence of craving comes the absence of 'being'.)

Daniel: What you are ultimately going for is not the PCE: that is like concentration, where as investigation is insight and is part of what may be necessary for attaining AF. - (Notes from Conversations with Trent and Tarin on AF Practice) http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1484905


And what is that insight? "This way of thinking about things generates affective stuff; why am I doing this? Better not to." Along those lines.

As you have debated with Tarin on the DhO concerning the need for your style of insight in order to reach the goal of actualism, you should be aware of the pitfalls of pursuing the line of reasoning you are currently pursuing with respect to actualism.

In general, my main point in this discussion is that I expect you are aware that the insights you talk about, in the way you talk about them, are not mentioned in the suttas; and even if those insights are useful, they are not required, as shown by various "abbreviated teachings" in the suttas that people attain arahantship by applying.

I have no problem with Mahayaha traditions, but stating that Mahayana-style insights are required in order to follow the path seems to be a form of provincialism.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:45 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:41 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Sabbasava sutta:


The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. (...)

And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas unfit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.


i.e. wrong views originate in inappropriate attention, and appropriate attention is understanding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to that cessation, and doing that leads to the abandonment of views of identity, i.e. identity-view is abandoned by understanding suffering and not necessarily by adjusting views directly.

(Whether identity-view can be abandoned by adjusting views directly via your style of insight...sure, why not? But, that is a separate issue.)
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:32 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:04 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:

i.e. wrong views originate in inappropriate attention, and appropriate attention is understanding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to that cessation, and doing that leads to the abandonment of views of identity, i.e. identity-view is abandoned by understanding suffering and not necessarily by adjusting views directly.

(Whether identity-view can be abandoned by adjusting views directly via your style of insight...sure, why not? But, that is a separate issue.)
Not just suffering, but also the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering, which includes right view .... right mindfulness. If one were to hold on to the view of self (wrong view), one cannot be said to see the end, nor way to end suffering.

The Buddha said,

12. "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self."*
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html

*"8. This passage clearly indicates that the critical differentiating factor of the Buddha's Dhamma is its "full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self." This means, in effect, that the Buddha alone is able to show how to overcome all views of self by developing penetration into the truth of non-self (anatta)."

There is no way you can 'adjust view directly' (as if by sheer will or effort, like beating the hell out of the child, or by simply following a line of reasoning which is merely conceptual), and no way you can 'abandon identity view' without proper discernment. The factor of investigation, mindfulness, contemplation is necessary for insight to arise. No (experiential) insight can arise 'directly' without the proper kind of effort and contemplation.

"But, lady, how does self-identity not come about?"

"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

"Now, a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self ... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He discerns, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form' ... inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'

Or like Bahiya Sutta said,

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Without such discernment, it cannot be said that one has relinquished self-view nor self-conceit.

p.s. A lot of people think contemplating not-self means dissociation or on first impression it may seem like a different set of instructions from Bahiya Sutta but actually it is exactly the same as Bahiya Sutta. Many people think of not-self as meaning "does not assume form to be the self" (which means there could still be a person or witness dissociating himself from form), yet anatta is not only that, since it negates also “the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form” (no possibility of a witness or awareness which contains or observes form - form is just form without any referent of self - whether it is a self seen to be inside my body, or my body inside me as if I am a container-like awareness!), in other words, exactly as per Bahiya Sutta, “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen... only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Many people practice vipassana as a kind of dissociation, not understanding that anatta-contemplation as Buddha intended it actually leads to insight-discernment of anatta, not-self, which is not a form of dissociation or merely a rejection of 'form = self' but a rejection of the view of self pertaining to forms, feelings .... consciousness in all manners (including as happening to self, in self, or self in it, etc), including any self of a permanent, independent, separate nature, or of agency (perceiver, controller), such that there is "In reference to the seen, only the seen, no you in terms of that". It furthermore ends with, "this, just this, is the end of stress."
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:33 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:33 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
I believe I agree with what you've written, but I think we may still disagree regarding the implementation of what you've written. emoticon
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:54 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:53 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
I believe I agree with what you've written, but I think we may still disagree regarding the implementation of what you've written. emoticon
Whatever works, just have to lead to "He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'" which is basically the insight I'm talking about.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 8:05 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 8:03 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
As I have stated, perceptions of 'self' are all linked back to the attention wave, so anything that subdues the attention wave subdues self-view.

I don't know if you consider that sufficient. I do (for reasons previously stated). I will also point out that the suttas often describe understanding the anatta characteristic in this way:

Anatta-lakkhana sutta:

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'



i.e. from understanding the nature of suffering (right view), one thereby abandons self-view.


AEN:
p.s. A lot of people think contemplating not-self means dissociation or on first impression it may seem like a different set of instructions from Bahiya Sutta but actually it is exactly the same as Bahiya Sutta.


I agree very strongly.

Without attention wave, there is nothing besides the sense-perception in the percept.

When you experience variations in the luminosity and clarity of perception, would say that that, in the less clear moments, there is nothing but the sense-perception in the percept?
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:01 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 8:45 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
As I have stated, perceptions of 'self' are all linked back to the attention wave, so anything that subdues the attention wave subdues self-view.

I don't know if you consider that sufficient. I do (for reasons previously stated). I will also point out that the suttas often describe understanding the anatta characteristic in this way:


i.e. from understanding the nature of suffering (right view), one thereby abandons self-view.
As I said whatever works, but it has to lead to the realization which results in the permanent abandonment of self-view (in the same way that realizing the apparent snake to be rope leads to a permanent abandonment of a false view with regards to the rope which causes suffering and afflictions). Meaning that investigation into the nature of phenomenon has to occur in order for realization to take place, otherwise whatever experiences we have are just experiences.

As Thusness said: there is a difference between experience, realization, and view.

The falling away of the sense of self/Self, as in PCE, is experience.

The experiential realization that 'in seeing just the seen, no seer-seeing-seen' is the experiential realization.

The view is not merely the sense of self/Self in its manifested sense, so it is not merely something you can subdue like the gross thoughts we subdue in meditation for calm abiding, but rather it is an imprinted belief and notion about the inherency of self, a position, a view, a belief, a stance, with regards to self, such as 'assume form/../consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing form/../consciousness, or form/../consciousness as in the self, or the self as in form/../consciousness'. Such positions with regards to self does not get done away with merely by the temporary abeyance of self, or even if PCE somehow became perpetual. This position, ignorance, can only be done away with by the clear realization and right view of anatta, which is the negation and overcoming of all the 62 views altogether in a single instant when it is clearly seen that there is "in seeing just the seen, no you in terms of that", no self in reference to that in any ways. This is a permanent realization of the way things are and not just an experience. This is what is meant by clear discernment.

PCE in and of itself does not lead to abandonment of view. Lots of people have considerably short or lengthy PCEs in their life, and their views and position about self remain unchanged, their lives go on untransformed. No investigation, no insight, no transformation.

When you want to cut ignorance, you go for its roots, not cut off its leaves and branches. In this analogy, sense of self/Self is its manifest form (leaves and branches), while the latent view is its roots. As an example: if you view that your self abides in the heart center, then you may sense a contraction in the heart center, if your belief/position is that your self abides in the head, you may sense a contraction or clinging there, as well as that sense of alienation from the sensate world at large, a sense that there is this seer behind the eyes looking outwards at the world in a distance. That felt-sense of contraction and alienation, that sense of self/Self, is its manifest form, while the self-view/position/belief/ignorance is its root.
I agree very strongly.

Without attention wave, there is nothing besides the sense-perception in the percept.

When you experience variations in the luminosity and clarity of perception, would say that that, in the less clear moments, there is nothing but the sense-perception in the percept?
Any variance, any 'less clear moments' is a sign that the sense of self/Self has creeped in, and as Richard always say, it is simply this sense of 'being' that stands in the way of the full brilliance of pce/sensate world.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:03 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:00 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
AEN:
The view is not merely the sense of self/Self in its manifested sense, so it is not merely something you can subdue like the gross thoughts we subdue in meditation for calm abiding, but rather it is an imprinted belief and notion about the inherency of self, a position, a view, a belief, a stance, with regards to self, such as 'assume form/../consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing form/../consciousness, or form/../consciousness as in the self, or the self as in form/../consciousness'. Such positions with regards to self does not get done away with merely by the temporary abeyance of self, or even if PCE somehow became perpetual.


Without agreeing or disagreeing...how do you see yourself as qualified to make statements about the attention wave and what would persist in its absence, when you have stated that you don't discern it clearly?

Anyway, I should also point out that the attention wave is not usually subdued in an all-or-nothing fashion. The key thing for me is this: it is fueled by tension (craving), one can discern that tension, one can release that tension, and doing this over and over leads to the subduing of the attention wave as a whole. (You keep throwing the PCE into this, but you did not confirm whether that's what I had in mind.)

The view is not merely the sense of self/Self in its manifested sense, so it is not merely something you can subdue like the gross thoughts we subdue in meditation for calm abiding, but rather it is an imprinted belief and notion about the inherency of self, a position, a view, a belief, a stance, with regards to self,


If you think there is such a thing as a view that is unmanifest and not present in experience in any way, I really don't know what to tell you.

If you think that it is manifest in some way, then what is the basis for your disagreement with my claim that it manifests in the attention wave?

PCE in and of itself does not lead to abandonment of view. Lots of people have considerably short or lengthy PCEs in their life, and their views and position about self remain unchanged, their lives go on untransformed. No investigation, no insight, no transformation.


Do you think there is a reason related to this that I have mentioned right view (understanding suffering) so many times, or do you have a different understanding of my motivation for emphasizing right view?

When you want to cut ignorance, you go for its roots, not cut off its leaves and branches. In this analogy, sense of self/Self is its manifest form (leaves and branches), while the latent view is its roots.


I believe you are mixing terminology from traditions, and mixing metaphors, in a way that is unhelpful.

I already quoted you the definition of ignorance in the suttas.

Any variance, any 'less clear moments' is a sign that the sense of self/Self has creeped in, and as Richard always say, it is simply this sense of 'being' that stands in the way of the full brilliance of pce/sensate world.


Out of curiosity, how do you know that your maximal experience of clarity is maximal with respect to what's possible?

For me, the answer is easy: if there is an attention wave manifesting in any way whatsoever, clarity is not maximal.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:13 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:05 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
By the way, I also want to restate the point of Sabbasava sutta with respect to self-view: one overcomes self-view by not attending to [things that generate] it.

Sabbavasa sutta:
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity.(...)

The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.(...)

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:35 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:23 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
AEN:
The view is not merely the sense of self/Self in its manifested sense, so it is not merely something you can subdue like the gross thoughts we subdue in meditation for calm abiding, but rather it is an imprinted belief and notion about the inherency of self, a position, a view, a belief, a stance, with regards to self, such as 'assume form/../consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing form/../consciousness, or form/../consciousness as in the self, or the self as in form/../consciousness'. Such positions with regards to self does not get done away with merely by the temporary abeyance of self, or even if PCE somehow became perpetual.


Without agreeing or disagreeing...how do you see yourself as qualified to make statements about the attention wave and what would persist in its absence, when you have stated that you don't discern it clearly?
In the same way that nothing short of an insight and realization would resolve the fear of seeing a rope as snake. In this situation you can't subdue the snake through any other means, the only resolution is to realize what it is (a rope). Any attempt to subdue the snake is a sign of illusion to begin with.
Anyway, I should also point out that the attention wave is not usually subdued in an all-or-nothing fashion. The key thing for me is this: it is fueled by tension (craving), one can discern that tension, one can release that tension, and doing this over and over leads to the subduing of the attention wave as a whole. (You keep throwing the PCE into this, but you did not confirm whether that's what I had in mind.)
I take attention wave as being the sense of self/Self (which beoman says it is), in which case, it is already explained above: letting go the sense of self/Self works for entry into PCE. But that alone wouldn't result in insight of anatta.

To realize the snake as rope, you don't master your subduing of snakes, but realize that there is no snake to begin with. This leads to the overcoming of false view.
If you think there is such a thing as a view that is unmanifest and not present in experience in any way, I really don't know what to tell you.
I did not say 'unmanifest' which makes it sound theoretical. Making things simple and straightforward: false view is just a belief, a position, a stance, which is latent (won't be washed away by PCE, drugs, deep sleep, coma [if he wakes up again there it is], etc).

If you are a Christian, you may believe Buddhists are destined to hell. But you may not manifest that belief in your dealings with Buddhists on a daily basis. But the belief is still there, and will still affect the way you perceive them. You may subdue any sense of intolerance or hatred that stems from the belief, yet that doesn't mean the belief isn't there and doesn't have the potential someday to manifest some inappropriate action. Bad example, but something like that.

If you think that it is manifest in some way, then what is the basis for your disagreement with my claim that it manifests in the attention wave?
Sense of self is the manifest experience of contraction, alienation, distance, separation, etc. It is the experience of taking up a referent either as a personality (leads to 'personal' feelings), a separate experiencer (a feeling of separateness from the universe), or something of a more transcendent order (like an ultimate Self), all are conducive to 'feelings' or 'emotions' (as Richard says, don't get rid of feelings first but 'being' first). View is the belief or position or stance that caused that experience of contraction ... etc.

Out of curiosity, how do you know that your maximal experience of clarity is maximal with respect to what's possible?

For me, the answer is easy: if there is an attention wave manifesting in any way whatsoever, clarity is not maximal.
If there is any sense of self/Self whatosever, clarity is not maximal. Actually clarity is always there - but it's like clouds covering the sun.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:41 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:35 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
At this point I will insist that our discussion come to a close.

I sum up this particular discussion thus: the Pali suttas are clear about the definition of ignorance, about the cause of suffering, and about the way to eliminate all suffering, including all self-views, but you insist on reading the Pali suttas according to a Mahayana perspective. I have no problem with your Mahayana perspective with respect to practice, but your Mahayana perspective appears to insist on not reading the Pali suttas on their own terms, and thus appears to have a problem with the Pali suttas on their own terms with respect to practice. Which is unfortunate.

As a secondary issue, I see no justification for your making of assertions about the attention wave, what it is, what happens when it is subdued, how it relates to practice and the goal of practice, etc. when you have stated many times in this thread that you don't discern it. Even if you were able to discern it at this point, it would be unreasonable to think that you discern it as well as those of us who have been looking at it for a long time do, and so it seems to me that deep caution with respect to assertions about it is warranted.

If you want to add a final statement, go ahead.

In any case, it has been a pleasure to discuss this with you.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:46 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:41 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
I don't know why you kept mentioning Mahayana. Nothing I wrote here is Mahayana at all. I did not even speak about Shunyata to begin with (which is an insight I discovered after the 2 stanzas)

Also I want to qualify my previous statement, "In the same way that nothing short of an insight and realization would resolve the fear of seeing a rope as snake. In this situation you can't subdue the snake through any other means, the only resolution is to realize what it is (a rope). Any attempt to subdue the snake is a sign of illusion to begin with."

to

"In the same way that nothing short of an insight and realization would resolve the illusion of seeing a rope as snake. In this situation you can't subdue the snake through any other means, for even if you managed to subdue the snake you still can't overcome that delusion of false view, and the only resolution in this case is to realize what it is (a rope). Any attempt to subdue the snake is a sign of illusion to begin with."

which goes along with

"If you are a Christian, you may believe Buddhists are destined to hell. But you may not manifest that belief in your dealings with Buddhists on a daily basis. But the belief is still there, and will still affect the way you perceive them. You may subdue any sense of intolerance or hatred that stems from the belief, yet that doesn't mean the belief isn't there and doesn't have the potential someday to manifest some inappropriate action. Bad example, but something like that."


In other words, you may be affectless as a result of sustaining a particular state, but that doesn't mean the view is clear.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:46 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:45 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
The way you talk about insight, and the forms of it you talk about, are things that I cannot locate in the Pali suttas without imposing an interpretation on them that appears to be highly influenced by Mahayana traditions. The Pali suttas are very clear about how things like ignorance is defined, what the causes for views are, etc., but you do not seem to be interested in those clear explanations, favoring some other explanation that would appear to be more at-home in a Mahayana tradition.

In any case, whatever my reasons for thinking this are, it is my perspective on what is going on here, correct or incorrect, and stating it may help to clarify things for anyone reading this (or not).
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:51 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:50 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
The way you talk about insight, and the forms of it you talk about, are things that I cannot locate in the Pali suttas without imposing an interpretation on them that appears to be highly influenced by Mahayana traditions. The Pali suttas are very clear about how things like ignorance is defined, what the causes for views are, etc., but you do not seem to be interested in those clear explanations, favoring some other explanation that would appear to be more at-home in a Mahayana tradition.

In any case, whatever my reasons for thinking this are, it is my perspective on what is going on here, correct or incorrect, and stating it may help to clarify things for anyone reading this (or not).
You kept saying 4nt, which I don't disagree, but as I said, without proper discernment of phenomena as it is (see below) there cannot be an end or way to end suffering (in other words no experiential insight into what 4nt is, apart from an incomplete or conceptual knowledge).

I have quoted many many suttas above, and none of my statements are in any way influenced by Mahayana or Mahayana scriptures:
"But, lady, how does self-identity not come about?"

"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

"Now, a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self ... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He discerns, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form' ... inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'

Or like Bahiya Sutta said,

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:55 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:55 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Thank you for your summary statement. I believe that any interested viewer who reads through our discussion will be able to understand what each of our positions are.

And thanks for the discussion.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 10:21 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 10:15 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
Thank you for your summary statement. I believe that any interested viewer who reads through our discussion will be able to understand what each of our positions are.


I'm not even sure what you two are debating anymore. Maybe I just can't hold each of your positions in my head at once. It sounds like you are saying pretty similar things. Could you write a summary paragraph detailing your take on this, and exactly why you think AEN's take is different? Be extremely explicit, yet be as concise as possible as well.

I would ask the same from AEN - what is your take, and how exactly do you think it differs from EIS's take?

I think it would be most clear if the second person to reply does not address the first person's reply - that these are independent concluding posts. And it would also be clearer if there aren't large quotes in the middle of them. If you need to introduce a quote then do it with a footnote[1]. Hopefully will clear things up. If you don't want to continue the debate, then don't, but I'm just not sure what it's about really.

[1] Like this:

Waffle Master:
I like waffles.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:19 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 10:49 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
End in Sight:
Thank you for your summary statement. I believe that any interested viewer who reads through our discussion will be able to understand what each of our positions are.


I'm not even sure what you two are debating anymore. Maybe I just can't hold each of your positions in my head at once. It sounds like you are saying pretty similar things. Could you write a summary paragraph detailing your take on this, and exactly why you think AEN's take is different? Be extremely explicit, yet be as concise as possible as well.

I would ask the same from AEN - what is your take, and how exactly do you think it differs from EIS's take?

I think it would be most clear if the second person to reply does not address the first person's reply - that these are independent concluding posts. And it would also be clearer if there aren't large quotes in the middle of them. If you need to introduce a quote then do it with a footnote[1]. Hopefully will clear things up. If you don't want to continue the debate, then don't, but I'm just not sure what it's about really.

[1] Like this:

Waffle Master:
I like waffles.
It seems to me that EIS takes the path of eliminating sense of self/Self (which he calls attention wave) as being the cure for afflictions. This to me, is focusing on the experience, sustaining the experience (through letting go of the manifested sense of self, while not addressing the view of self which sustains the sense of self). This also explains why EIS says AF path simply focus on PCEs without any need of a particular insight at all.

I say, eliminating the sense of self/Self and cultivating PCEs in itself (while not implying they are unimportant either) does not result in eliminating the self-view nor self-conceit, just like taking pills to control anxiety doesn't mean resolving the underlying causes, just like temporarily forgetting something doesn't mean it won't come back. Even if you mastered 'forgetting the self', erasing the memories of self so to speak, it doesn't mean you have overcome self-view.

For example, the view that "the seer sees the seen" is a deeply rooted view of how we see things (and self). You can cultivate the state where 'there is just sense perception without any distortion or sense of self' until seeming stability, yet that doesn't mean you have overcome the view 'the seer sees the seen' by realizing from the beginning, 'in seeing just the seen, no seer, i.e. no you in terms of that'. All phenomena as they are, annica, dukkha, anatta, meaning they are impermanent, suffering, not-self (does not pertain to a self in any way - whether I in it, it in I, I see it, etc). Discernment of three characteristics lead to dispassion, falling away of afflictions and liberation.

When the Buddha taught four noble truths, it was immediately followed by the sutta on anattalakkhana (on not-self), showcasing the importance of contemplating anatta (along with anicca and dukkha) for liberation. Without discerning phenomena as it is, no matter how many glimpses or how stable our PCE is, it is not really liberation as the Buddha taught. Without discernment of phenomena as they are, four noble truths cannot be realized.

The Buddhist path is not just about cultivating a particular state of experience (e.g. PCE, or jhanas, etc), it is about arising insight and tranquility which in tandem leads to liberation. Of course he doesn't separate jhana from insight in a way some teachers would today, but my point is, to purely cultivate states is not the point - discernment of phenomena (in terms of three characteristics) is ultimately what leads to liberation.


p.s. something more recent by Thusness:

Session Start: Sunday, 29 May, 2011

(7:17 PM) Thusness: anatta is often not correctly understood
it is common that one progress from experience of non-dual to no-mind instead of direct realization into anatta
(7:19 PM) Thusness: many focus on the experience
and there is a lack of clarity to penetrate the differences
so u must be clear of the various phases of insights first and anot mistake one for the other
at the same time, refine ur experience
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 1:43 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 1:43 PM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
AEN: 12/1/11 9:46 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
...
In other words, you may be affectless as a result of sustaining a particular state, but that doesn't mean the view is clear.


AEN: 12/1/11 11:22 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
It seems to me that EIS takes the path of eliminating sense of self/Self (which he calls attention wave) as being the cure for afflictions. This to me, is focusing on the experience, sustaining the experience (through letting go of the manifested sense of self, while not addressing the view of self which sustains the sense of self). This also explains why EIS says AF path simply focus on PCEs without any need of a particular insight at all.


AEN: 11/30/11 10:56 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
Imagine a holder of Self-view, trying to eliminate craving. What will he do? Surely, he will dissociate himself from the craving, but by doing so simply strengthens his hold onto 'self'. Without insight that his view is false, no matter how he tries to let go, he is in fact increasing his holding in disguise.


AEN: 11/30/11 9:09 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
(...)you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning. Sorry had to mention this because I sometimes see people thinking that they should attack 'feelings' head-on, 'suffering is bad, feeling is bad, so I need to get rid of it', but saying all that is not going to make a difference, or trying to suppress that isn't going to work as well. Also, if one holds tightly to a view of self, then the practice becomes a form of dissociation ('I' dissociates from 'feelings'), which is not the path to liberation/end of defilements.


AEN: 12/1/11 7:32 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
A lot of people think contemplating not-self means dissociation(...)
...
Many people practice vipassana as a kind of dissociation, not understanding that anatta-contemplation as Buddha intended it actually leads to insight-discernment of anatta, not-self, which is not a form of dissociation or merely a rejection of 'form = self' but a rejection of the view of self pertaining to forms, feelings .... consciousness in all manners (including as happening to self, in self, or self in it, etc), including any self of a permanent, independent, separate nature, or of agency (perceiver, controller), such that there is "In reference to the seen, only the seen, no you in terms of that". It furthermore ends with, "this, just this, is the end of stress."


AEN: 11/30/11 9:12 AM as a reply to End in Sight.

Thusness: "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise.Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature.... "


AEN:11/30/11 10:56 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
All identifications are caused by ignorance, ignorance is supported by taints, and taints supported by ignorance.

However, you cannot remove taints without removing ignorance via "knowledge and vision of things as they are" in other words, insights, realization. It cannot be removed by sheer suppression, by sheer will, etc.


AEN: 12/1/11 9:01 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
As I said whatever works, but it has to lead to the realization which results in the permanent abandonment of self-view (in the same way that realizing the apparent snake to be rope leads to a permanent abandonment of a false view with regards to the rope which causes suffering and afflictions). Meaning that investigation into the nature of phenomenon has to occur in order for realization to take place, otherwise whatever experiences we have are just experiences.

PCE in and of itself does not lead to abandonment of view. Lots of people have considerably short or lengthy PCEs in their life, and their views and position about self remain unchanged, their lives go on untransformed. No investigation, no insight, no transformation.


AEN: 12/1/11 7:32 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
End in Sight:

i.e. wrong views originate in inappropriate attention, and appropriate attention is understanding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to that cessation, and doing that leads to the abandonment of views of identity, i.e. identity-view is abandoned by understanding suffering and not necessarily by adjusting views directly.

(Whether identity-view can be abandoned by adjusting views directly via your style of insight...sure, why not? But, that is a separate issue.)

Not just suffering, but also the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering, which includes right view .... right mindfulness. If one were to hold on to the view of self (wrong view), one cannot be said to see the end, nor way to end suffering.


AEN: 12/1/11 9:01 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
Such positions with regards to self does not get done away with merely by the temporary abeyance of self, or even if PCE somehow became perpetual. This position, ignorance, can only be done away with by the clear realization and right view of anatta, which is the negation and overcoming of all the 62 views altogether in a single instant when it is clearly seen that there is "in seeing just the seen, no you in terms of that", no self in reference to that in any ways. This is a permanent realization of the way things are and not just an experience. This is what is meant by clear discernment.

PCE in and of itself does not lead to abandonment of view. Lots of people have considerably short or lengthy PCEs in their life, and their views and position about self remain unchanged, their lives go on untransformed. No investigation, no insight, no transformation
.


AEN: 12/1/11 9:01 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
End in Sight:
Without attention wave, there is nothing besides the sense-perception in the percept.

When you experience variations in the luminosity and clarity of perception, would say that that, in the less clear moments, there is nothing but the sense-perception in the percept?

Any variance, any 'less clear moments' is a sign that the sense of self/Self has creeped in(...)


AEN: 12/1/11 10:03 AM as a reply to End in Sight.
How to liberate?

To discern phenomena as it is.

Without which: you will be under the illusion that you need to 'get rid of santa claus' or 'get rid of self'. Notice that Buddha never taught you to 'get rid of self' as if it were a real thing.

Even if you 'get rid of sense of self', it is by no means an indication that you have arisen discernment, or overcome false views.

He only taught you to discern phenomena as it is, which as a result of this penetrating wisdom into things as they are will naturally lead to dispassion, abandonment of clinging - to views, to craving, to any fetters and afflictions and suffering.


AEN: 12/1/11 11:22 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
When the Buddha taught four noble truths, it was immediately followed by the sutta on anattalakkhana (on not-self), showcasing the importance of contemplating anatta (along with anicca and dukkha) for liberation. Without discerning phenomena as it is, no matter how many glimpses or how stable our PCE is, it is not really liberation as the Buddha taught. Without discernment of phenomena as they are, four noble truths cannot be realized.

The Buddhist path is not just about cultivating a particular state of experience (e.g. PCE, or jhanas, etc), it is about arising insight and tranquility which in tandem leads to liberation. Of course he doesn't separate jhana from insight in a way some teachers would today, but my point is, to purely cultivate states is not the point - discernment of phenomena (in terms of three characteristics) is ultimately what leads to liberation.


Above some excerpts of brilliant elucidation, made by one well-qualified: this thread alone may lead to many persons' final liberation and awareness of how to use the tools they chose to get there.


Thusness:

Division of subject and object is merely an assumption.
Thus someone giving up and something to be given up is an illusion.
When self becomes more and more transparent,
Likewise phenomena become more and more luminous.
In thorough transparency all happening are pristinely and vividly clear.
Obviousness throughout, aliveness everywhere!
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:12 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:02 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Could you write a summary paragraph detailing your take on this, and exactly why you think AEN's take is different? Be extremely explicit, yet be as concise as possible as well.


I would rather not continue this. However, I will quote a sutta which I think is extremely characteristic of the approach that is emphasized in the Pali canon (which may explain why I consider AEN's take to be Mahayana-influenced):

Cula-dukkhakkhandha sutta:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Sakyans at Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Park. Then Mahanama the Sakyan went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "For a long time now, lord, I have understood the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One thus: 'Greed is a defilement of the mind; aversion is a defilement of the mind; delusion is a defilement of the mind.' Yet even though I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One that greed is a defilement of the mind, aversion is a defilement of the mind, delusion is a defilement of the mind, there are still times when the mental quality of greed invades my mind and remains, when the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades my mind and remains. The thought occurs to me: What mental quality is unabandoned within me so that there are times when the mental quality of greed invades my mind and remains, when the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades my mind and remains?"

"Mahanama, that very mental quality is what is unabandoned within you so that there are times when the mental quality of greed... the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades your mind and remains.(...)

"Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.


In other words, one abandons craving-fueled experiences by abandoning craving-fueled experiences. And one finds a way to do so via insight into the nature of suffering (and NOT into the nature of 'self' apart from the recognition that belief in 'self' is dukkha). If one has that insight but still cannot abandon them, it is sufficient to find something else to preoccupy the mind with; no further insight beyond insight into suffering is required.

(EDIT: And what is the nature of the insight into suffering? At a simple level, nothing more than "this sucks"; at a deep level, dependent origination / 4NTs)

Tarin and AEN had a discussion on the DhO in the past with respect to this issue ("abandoning" vs. "insight"). I do not have a reference at hand, but if you are further interested in this line of discussion, you may want to search around for it.

(EDIT: I ask that this be the end of the discussion insofar as it concerns me.)
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:14 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:14 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
I would rather not continue this.


I wasn't asking you to continue it. Just to write a more satisfactory concluding paragraph for what your point actually is, as contrasted with AEN's point. Which you kind of did in that post, though not too clearly. I think I see each of your points now, though. Up to you if you want to make one final post or not.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:19 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:18 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Up to you if you want to make one final post or not.


Suffering is caused by craving. Craving is discernible as the origin of the attention wave. If one understands suffering, it is sufficient to abandon craving, in whatever way is effective, and this abandonment in itself is defined by the suttas as developing right view / lessening ignorance, which is the entire path. When there is no craving, that is nibbana.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:28 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 11:27 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Alright, I think I see the distinction now - thanks to both of you for making it clear.

(To EIS: I split this thread off from the other one. As you are now the first poster, feel free to edit the title to something more appropriate.)
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 10:03 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 10:00 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Let me make this even more explicit:

In the suttas, any views pertaining to self is false. It is a false view.

How to liberate?

To discern phenomena as it is.

Without which: you will be under the illusion that you need to 'get rid of santa claus' or 'get rid of self'. Notice that Buddha never taught you to 'get rid of self' as if it were a real thing.

Even if you 'get rid of sense of self', it is by no means an indication that you have arisen discernment, or overcome false views.

He only taught you to discern phenomena as it is, which as a result of this penetrating wisdom into things as they are will naturally lead to dispassion, abandonment of clinging - to views, to craving, to any fetters and afflictions and suffering.

I don't see how any of these got to do with Mahayana.
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:40 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 9:40 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
From a very very old post which might explain the diff between experience and realization:

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, or from 'I hear sound' to 'just sound' as a stage, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:54 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/1/11 7:52 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
...

"But, lady, how does self-identity not come about?"

"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

"Now, a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self ... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He discerns, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form' ... inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'

Or like Bahiya Sutta said,

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Without such discernment, it cannot be said that one has relinquished self-view nor self-conceit.

p.s. A lot of people think contemplating not-self means dissociation or on first impression it may seem like a different set of instructions from Bahiya Sutta but actually it is exactly the same as Bahiya Sutta. Many people think of not-self as meaning "does not assume form to be the self" (which means there could still be a person or witness dissociating himself from form), yet anatta is not only that, since it negates also “the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form” (no possibility of a witness or awareness which contains or observes form - form is just form without any referent of self - whether it is a self seen to be inside my body, or my body inside me as if I am a container-like awareness!), in other words, exactly as per Bahiya Sutta, “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen... only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Many people practice vipassana as a kind of dissociation, not understanding that anatta-contemplation as Buddha intended it actually leads to insight-discernment of anatta, not-self, which is not a form of dissociation or merely a rejection of 'form = self' but a rejection of the view of self pertaining to forms, feelings .... consciousness in all manners (including as happening to self, in self, or self in it, etc), including any self of a permanent, independent, separate nature, or of agency (perceiver, controller), such that there is "In reference to the seen, only the seen, no you in terms of that". It furthermore ends with, "this, just this, is the end of stress."
Thusness sent me an email of commendation on this: "This is very well written and u have understood what is the purpose of right view. Before u were still unable to clearly differentiate between realization, experience and view."
An Eternal Now, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:56 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:47 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
An Eternal Now:
Stream entry confers the 'ending of self-view', Arahant confers the 'end of conceit [of 'I Am']'. If for example, you merely recognise 'this thought is painful' but don't see that 'the view of self is false', then this current thought may subside, and yet the view of self remains intact,


No.

According to the Pali suttas, all identifications are caused by craving.

When you abandon the painful view, you abandon craving.

There is no view of self that does not manifest via craving and is thus not visible in the attention wave.
All identifications are caused by ignorance, ignorance is supported by taints, and taints supported by ignorance.

However, you cannot remove taints without removing ignorance via "knowledge and vision of things as they are" in other words, insights, realization. It cannot be removed by sheer suppression, by sheer will, etc.

It's like trying to remove your craving for santa claus when you still believe that santa claus exist. Even if you can subdue that craving for santa claus to a great extent by whatever means, that belief in santa claus will keep you locked in ignorance, delusion, effort, etc. Once you clearly see that santa claus doesn't exist, then likewise your craving ceases too. That is why Thusness said, "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
Yes, and it can be as simple as this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.036.than.html
How simple or how difficult depends on the person's capacity to understand things. Some people can understand the dharma in brief, some need elaborations, it all depends.
Because, according to the Pali suttas, all identification (including all self-view) is caused by craving.
I don't deny that, but still, you cannot eliminate craving by simply eliminating it heads on, without insight. Ignorance is at the base of the 12 links, so it is the remainderless cessation of ignorance we should practice for - the cessation of ignorance leads to the cessation of the rest of the links. Also, you don't expect to end ignorance by ceasing sense-perception, or you don't expect to end ignorance through ceasing birth (you are already born). You end ignorance through wisdom.

Also, as Richard says, you cannot eliminate feeling without eliminating being (sense of self) first.

You also cannot eliminate defilements without 'knowledge and vision of things' (aka insight), which is what leads to disenchantment and dispassion which brings about release.

Imagine a holder of Self-view, trying to eliminate craving. What will he do? Surely, he will dissociate himself from the craving, but by doing so simply strengthens his hold onto 'self'. Without insight that his view is false, no matter how he tries to let go, he is in fact increasing his holding in disguise.

When insight arises however, no such contrived effort (which never leads to resolution) is necessary at all. With the seeing of the nature of dharma - being anicca, dukkha, anatta, there is no way one can fasten in a sense of self.

Without seeing through the false view of self by insight, one can never release the false of view of self, in the same way as a child who doesn't realize santa claus as false will never end craving for santa claus. Even if he is convinced not to crave santa claus in a gross way, that very belief in santa claus leads to clinging. And the way to end the belief of santa claus is not to beat the hell out of the child, to take the child's gift away, etc etc... it's just to tell him that there's no santa claus.

Another example: someone who is deluded into seeing a rope as a snake will try to get away from the snake. He will try all methods to subdue the snake. Or maybe he managed to get some distance from the snake, but the delusion that the snake is there will surely haunt him again, despite the temporary relieve. There is no resolution to this - except through knowledge and vision of the rope as it is.
If you practice full-on jhana, you can observe how it occurs: not by adjusting views, but by not thinking, which reduces the attention wave, which allows one to not think more, which reduces the attention wave more...a short-cut to subduing craving, completely independent of one's views and beliefs.
No beliefs are required: but knowledge and vision of things as they are. Whatever ways, long or short, must lead to this, without which no dispassion, disenchantment, release can be brought about.

As you are well aware, the kind of insight you are talking about is the sort that is discussed in Mahayana traditions, not the Pali suttas.
Insights into the three characteristics is what I'm talking about. You need to have the insight that ends self-view, followed by self-conceit.

You cannot end self-view, which means self-belief, merely by suppressing it (i.e. beating the hell out of the kid), all it takes is to see it as false. Try as you may to forget about it, but without seeing the falsity of a snake in a rope, there is no hope for liberation.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:57 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 11/30/11 10:56 AM

RE: This is not for me

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:
All identifications are caused by ignorance, ignorance is supported by taints, and taints supported by ignorance.


Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga sutta:

And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.


Everything loops back to this. This is the fundamental thing in the Pali suttas.

AEN:
Imagine someone clinging to a Self, trying to eliminate craving. What will he do? Surely, he will dissociate himself from the craving, but by doing so simply strengthens his hold onto 'self'. Without insight that his view is false, no matter how he tries to let go, he is in fact increasing his holding in disguise.


Part of the difficulty you see here comes from not having practiced in terms of discerning the attention wave.

The problem you are describing does not arise when things are analyzed in terms of the attention wave.

I don't think that this style of practice is required, but I will say that not understanding the attention wave is likely to lead to not understanding what I am trying to describe in terms of the path (which appears to me to be what is going on here).

Anyhow, I think we have both explained our positions fairly well, and so I am willing to let this part of the discussion come to an end if you are.

As always, it is a pleasure to discuss these things with you (even if we perennially come to no agreement).

Breadcrumb