Fruition. But Nibbana?

Gone, Gone, modified 11 Years ago at 8/12/12 8:06 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/12/12 8:06 AM

Fruition. But Nibbana?

Posts: 17 Join Date: 8/12/12 Recent Posts
10 days ago I had a fruition, after a harrowingly intense retreat at IMS early this summer that ended in equanimity. I'd been gradually letting go of effort, anticipation, looking, and observing the groups of sensations that give the illusion of self. Then everything jumped forward, sank, and went out. A second later there was the thought - Was that it?

It was entirely anti-climactic. I had to laugh, that this non-event carries so much weight. But then again, suddenly everything is very simple and whole, and for days I was completely merged in everything with no center. It's repeated around 4 times now. Though I'm still a little hesitant to use language about these things -

Since the fruition, another thing has grown predominant. In the flux of equanimity suddenly everything shifts forward and becomes even more Present - as if there was a subtle reflection going in consciousness that creates an experiencer that suddenly disappears. The experiencer is gone, awareness loses it's center, but there is definitely still "experience" - it's not a cut out into nothing like the fruition. Is this Nibbana? Is this just high equanimity after having attained fruition and seen through the self?

In Practical Insight Meditation, Mahasi Sayadaw instructs to prolong the fruition. Does this mean prolonging that cut out of experience? Or is it this non-dual awareness?

I ask because it seems very similar to the Bahiya Sutta:

"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 connection with that.

When there is no you in connection with 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."


I'm actually pretty new to Vipassana. I'd really appreciate advice from some more experienced practitioners.
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 11 Years ago at 8/12/12 10:40 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/12/12 10:40 AM

RE: Fruition. But Nibbana?

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Hiya John,

Welcome to the DhO.

Since the fruition, another thing has grown predominant. In the flux of equanimity suddenly everything shifts forward and becomes even more Present - as if there was a subtle reflection going in consciousness that creates an experiencer that suddenly disappears. The experiencer is gone, awareness loses it's center, but there is definitely still "experience" - it's not a cut out into nothing like the fruition. Is this Nibbana? Is this just high equanimity after having attained fruition and seen through the self?

Based on what your descriptions and the questions you're asking, I have no reason to doubt that you've attained Path. Nice one!

The whole "is this Nibbana" question is quite a technical thing, depending on which tradition you're coming at it from you could say that cessation is a direct experience of Nibbana, but other models would say that it's not although marks a massive transitional point which brings one closer to it as ongoing experience. In terms of your practice, I wouldn't say that it's hugely important 'cause you've hit Path and now a lot of this stuff will become much clearer from here. Once you've got Path, you enter Review and cycle through the ñanas from 4th up to fruition until the cycle for the next Path begins, however your general perceptual baseline will remain as it is, becoming more 'normal' as time goes by.

In Practical Insight Meditation, Mahasi Sayadaw instructs to prolong the fruition. Does this mean prolonging that cut out of experience? Or is it this non-dual awareness?

Nikolai on this site posted an excellent article on The Hamilton Project blog on this very subject HERE which might be of use to you.

I ask because it seems very similar to the Bahiya Sutta:

What you're experiencing is like a glimpse of what those words in the Bahiya Sutta refer to, it's easy to think that, particularly in the period immediately after Path, you completely understand those words experientially, but it gets even more ridiculously clear as you continue and you'll see why I'm saying this. The first time I read that sutta, I thought "yeah, I totally get it", but further practice and subsequent shifts in perceptual baseline demonstrated that I was still missing something.

I'm actually pretty new to Vipassana.

Interesting. What's your practice history prior to that? Clearly you've got your insight chops together anyway so it'd be interesting to know what brought you to this point.

Thanks again for sharing your experience, welcome on board!

- Tommy
Change A, modified 11 Years ago at 8/12/12 10:58 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/12/12 10:58 AM

RE: Fruition. But Nibbana?

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
I think you can find the answer in the new Mahasi translation - Manual of Insight

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion?p_p_id=19&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=exclusive&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_19_struts_action=%2Fmessage_boards%2Fget_message_attachment&_19_messageId=476414&_19_attachment=Buddhist+Geeks%2C+Cha+5.pdf
An Eternal Now, modified 11 Years ago at 8/13/12 1:40 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/13/12 1:40 AM

RE: Fruition. But Nibbana?

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Hi, frankly not familiar with mahasi method so can't comment on it. Your bahiya-like experience is non-dual experience but not non-dual insight nor realization of anatta and therefore it is still intermittent and temporary for you.

When anatta is directly realized it becomes effortless without entry/exit*.

As for fruition and nirvana check out http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451

What someone may consider as nirvana may be different from what another or what buddha had in mind. When the Buddha say cessation of all afflictions (passion, aggression, delusion), I'd say neither of what you described is it, but it is something a (fetter model) arahant would experience.


*something I wrote for someone:

Hi Mauris,

For your non-dual experience to become totally effortless, it is necessary to give rise to the realization of anatta or no-self, otherwise your non-dual state will forever be intermittent passing states.

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience nor a temporary non-dual state; 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 or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; 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’, 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.

Lastly, contemplating on this will lead to insight of anatta:

In seeing, there is always just the seen, no seer.
In hearing, there is always just sound, no hearer.

Also if you have time, read these articles plus the advise by PasserBy in the comments section of the first following article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.ca/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 11 Years ago at 8/13/12 8:26 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/13/12 3:15 AM

RE: Fruition. But Nibbana?

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
An Eternal Now:

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’, 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.

Lastly, contemplating on this will lead to insight of anatta:

In seeing, there is always just the seen, no seer.
In hearing, there is always just sound, no hearer.

Also if you have time, read these articles plus the advise by PasserBy in the comments section of the first following article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.ca/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html


Hi AEN,

Jeff pointed this out before recently in another thread as well and I agree, the use of the terms 'no seer' and 'no hearer' in your interpretation/translation could confuse others into reifying the notion/idea of 'no-self' into a very subtle re-ified 'no-self' type experience that does not lead to the complete 'end of stress' as advertised in the mentioned sutta.

Jeff:
The Bahiya Sutta never states ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ and there is a significant difference if investigating ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’ to ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen". The very act of observing "no seer" perpetuates the self. It took me a while to get insight into the self being replaced by "no seer or no self". In fact you could say there is a 180 degrees difference. I hope this makes sense.


Does anyone else see a major difference in how one would train the mind considering one translation over another? Would one experience differing results? I think they possibly could.

1/ In reference to the seen, just the seen. (Thanissaro's translation of Bahiya instructions)
VS
2/ Seeing in the seen, no seer. (AEI's translation)

In neither of the translations available on Access To Insight of the Bahiya sutta does it say 'no seer' nor 'no hearer' (see translation quotes below). It does however say 'when there is no you there', which does not really imply that there was never a 'you' there to begin with. Of course we could say there was never a 'you' to begin with ultimately concerning 'dharma seals' but there is still 'stress' and it is clear that the notion of 'you' as talked of in the sutta is equaled to stress, as when 'you' is not there, neither is stress.

Stress is something that is undeniably experienced by most and can be conventionally equated to the notion of 'you' even though 'you' as a process is illusory. The 'I-making' tendencies are resulting in stress. Your translation could lead one to actually perpetuating a subtle 'no-self' themed 'I-making'. I speak from experience. When I followed such translation, it led to a very subtle mental overlay of still fabricated 'I' making which was seen to be not inherently a 'self', i.e. 'no self'. It continued to arise and pass regardless of whether it was seen as 'no self' or not. Sure, it is one way of not attaching to such a fabrication but it may not lead to its complete cessation. There was some aspect of that translation which was tripping me up and conditioning the way in which the mind experienced 'seeing' and the 'seen' as well as the notion of 'no seer'. It was leading to a very subtle fabrication overlaying 'just the seen'. The 'I' in 'I' am seeing the seen, simply was seen as 'no-self'/not-self but kept compounding, the same overlay as before, just now seen differently. Ultimately the experience is more freeing than having a mind that attaches more weight and status to a 'self' on phenomena. But, it wasn't the end of stress in my experience.

In Thanissaro and Ireland's translation the translation is simply 'just the seen' and 'merely what is seen'. This to me, greatly shifts the practice and simplifies it to its intended aim: to experience an end to stress. While there was a sense of 'me-ness' that was interspersing the experience of 'the seen', it gave off the impression that 'I' was 'seeing' the 'seen'. When I took on a translation like AEN's, the result gave off the impression that 'no self' was 'seeing in the seen', resulting in a very subtle mentally fabricated overlay still. This did not result in the end of stress. When it was simply 'in reference to the seen, just the seen', then there was no subtle overlay, self or no-self. There is no room for such an overlay when it is simply 'just the seen'.

I agree that the Bahiya instructions don't point to a 'stage'. Rather they point to a way to train the mind towards the end of 'stress'. Why is there 'stress'? Because there is some process of ignorance going on. What is there ignorance of? The process leading to becoming and 'I-making'. This process results in 'stress'. It results in the arising of 'you' as an experience that seemingly interrupts, cuts up and segregates the experience of 'just the seen'. I think this is what the main point of the instructions in the sutta.

More than just simply seeing the 'I'-making process as 'no self' and leaving it that, when this 'I' making process ceases to arise period, either temporarily or permanently, there is no felt sense of 'me' to bamboozle the mind into believing that 'I' (seen as no-self or not) is doing the act of 'seeing'. Yes, this 'I' making is ultimately not real, smoke and mirrors and yes, it can be said to really not be made up of some real inherent 'self', but if such 'I'-making compounding continues regardless of being seen as self or no-self, then the mind still gets overlayed with fabricated filters.

But once one takes out the 'I' process (regardless of whether it is seen as self or no-self), there is no longer any 'I' making process to be being mistakenly perceived to be 'acting', even if previously seen to be 'no-self'. Once there is no 'me' (nor tricky no-self overlays) that is mistakenly perceived to be acting, there is no 'acting' as 'acting' needs an actor whether experienced as no-self or self. When there is no 'I' and thus no experience of some illusory no self 'I'-making process 'seeing', one is simply left with 'just the seen'. In my experience, this is a very different experience from 'seeing in the seen, no seer'. Indeed, perhaps somewhat 180 degrees opposite.

I think the differing emphasis of the translations are ultimately very important to consider for all who consider them. Does one result in a training that leads to the end of stress? If not, reconsider the translation the mind has adapted one's training to.

Relevant Quotes

"diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissatī"ti
Pali


"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." by Thanissaro


"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." By John D. Ireland


Advice: If the end of stress is the ultimate objective, use the experience that can be described as 'simply the seen, heard, sensed and cognised' with no 'you' there at all in any gross or subtle manifestation whatsoever to orient and condition whatever practice or approach you are utilising, to train and aim the mind to experience living like so continuously. When there is no experience of 'you' there to speak of, insight into the end of stress results. To deal with any hindrances to continuing to do this training and aiming, seeing the Three C's in the factors that give rise to such hindrances leads to dispassion and relinquishment (no more fuel) for them and training the mind via 'in reference to the seen, just the seen', becomes much easier to do. Jhana access will also grease the wheels to be able to train the mind thus as well. A pliant and malleable mind is sort of a pre-requisite. 11th nana/4 th jhana access and cultivation leads very much towards such a pliant and malleable mind in my experience.

My 2 cents.

Edit: I prefer the notion of ''the end of stress' to be be what the term 'nibbana' points to. The going out of that which leads to continued becoming, 'I-making', stress.
End in Sight, modified 11 Years ago at 8/13/12 7:06 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/13/12 7:06 AM

RE: Fruition. But Nibbana?

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
John Baker:
I started zen around 10 years ago, but very inconsistent. For the past 4 years I've had an intense yoga practice, following Patanjali's yoga as taught by BKS Iyengar - asana, pranayama, and meditation. Yoga really taught me concentration and opened up jhana/samadhi. I'm a big fan of the Iyengar method. It's all about expanding mindfulness through the body, especially to the "black holes" that escape awareness, and letting go of automatic tension response.


What does Iyengar say will happen when there are no more "black holes"?
An Eternal Now, modified 11 Years ago at 8/17/12 5:04 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 8/16/12 10:00 AM

RE: Fruition. But Nibbana?

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:

Jeff pointed this out before recently in another thread as well and I agree, the use of the terms 'no seer' and 'no hearer' in your interpretation/translation could confuse others into reifying the notion/idea of 'no-self' into a very subtle re-ified 'no-self' type experience that does not lead to the complete 'end of stress' as advertised in the mentioned sutta.
Thanks for pointing out. I seldom surf this forum so I'm probably missing out on a lot of discussions. I have replied Jeff there.
Stress is something that is undeniably experienced by most
Stress is undeniable when it occurs, but also, 'stress' is just a label for many kinds of experiences. The Buddha described eight kinds of stress. Lets not go into that but just look at 'fear' for example. 'Fear' is just a blanket label, just a convention, for what is actually an intimate, interdependent, whole body-mind process. One sees very clearly through direct experience, not a concept, how everything is the total exertion of dependent origination. It is entirely an interdependent process that is empty of a self whatsoever.

As Thusness pointed out in 2006:

“Fear is just like Self, is a process being molded into a label. What hides behind this label is a vivid process of involvement, interplay between the causes, conditions giving rise to all appearances. The activity is alive and vivid. The flow of blood, the pulsating of the heart beats, the humming of the aircon, the cold air touches the skin, awareness is all these. It is a mere knowingness without effort to recognize anything, it is one whole sensing. All true knowledge must evolve from the mere Presence.”
and can be conventionally equated to the notion of 'you' even though 'you' as a process is illusory.
'You' is again a blanket label. Sure, it is a convention, a useful one, but it is without reality or any kind of true existence which could be pinned down. Conventional truths are not in fact true (other than being mere imputation). Ultimately there is no 'you' at all - but it is through this ignorance, this ignorance of dependent origination, this ignorance of whatever arises (and their nature), this ignorance of suffering, this ignorance of arising and passing, this ignorance of emptiness (emptiness of self), that we fabricate the whole 'I' notion, this entire 'I' and 'mine' making and all these results in much afflictions and clinging. We could say this entire notion of a self is a thought (in the sense that there is always every just thought, feeling, sensation, but no real thinker, self, etc), but when there is a view of self, that a self exists, there also comes the felt bodily contraction or conceived vantage point of a self or an observer as if located inside the body looking outwards, so it is not just the 'thought' (thought of self is merely a symptom of the latent/underlying tendencies) that is the problem but the entire 'attachment', 'belief', 'view', 'ignorance' being invested causing the felt sense of contraction, the suffering, etc. But then, the view is not the same as the felt sense of contraction/sense of self... as the latter can be absent in a temporary state but the view and the ignorance is something latent and persists through whatever temporary states of 'forgetting self' including deep sleep and PCEs. Even though the 'forgetting self' 'in seeing just seen' experiential state of bahiya sutta must become permanent practically speaking for true liberation, it is through help of insight and tranquility in tandem that they are washed away (including all traces of false view and ignorance). Therefore there must be a right and balanced perspective equally emphasizing the realization, experience, view, practice. Otherwise it is a case of someone mistaking a rope as a snake, trying all day to forget the snake (successfully at times, but still deluded, as the view is wrong). This is the case of someone focusing on cultivating the experience but overlooking realization of the right view of anatta, dependent origination, emptiness.

There is no 'you' as a process, but there is indeed this process of fabricating a 'you', which leads to all manners (interdependent processes) of afflictions and attachments. One must be able to see how we (not exactly a 'we', but rather all causes and conditions) are constantly creating everything, our life, from moment to moment. Of course 'creating' is simply a loose term, there is no creator or some entity being created. But rather it is just an expression of everything as the dynamic, ever-advancing state of manifesting inseparably from all causes and conditions. We see that there is no 'self' or 'objects' waiting out there or in here to be discovered or seen. There is only this coming-into-manifestation out of everything as if the entire universe is doing the work.

The moment we say 'fear' (or 'stress' or 'self' or anything), we must not be blinded by the notion but see what 'fear' is, it is this whole interpenetrating, dynamically manifesting of all causes and conditions. 'Fear' is empty of 'fear' but is 'The flow of blood, the pulsating of the heart beats, the humming of the aircon, the cold air touches the skin,' as well as 'the I-making, the worrisome thoughts, the thoughts of insecurity', as one whole, boundless, seamlessly interpenetrating process. One also sees that 'cause' is not same as 'effect', so you do not suppress the effect (say, bodily sensation of tension in so called 'fear') but the solution is to rid of the afflictive cause (say, ignorance) through the proper way (therefore one's view becomes aligned with the buddha's teachings on dependent origination and four noble truths naturally). When there is no clarity what 'fear' or 'stress' is, there is a tendency to try to 'get rid of it' through wrong methods, as we have wrong view of self, and we are ignorant of its causes and the way to end them.

Clearly seeing so, practice is simply this (rather effortless) sustaining and deepening of wisdom (in tandem with tranquility), of which the overcoming of afflictions are the natural outcome. Wisdom in terms of experience has three aspects: total exertion (the seamless interpenetration of D.O.), self-release (the self-release of all sensations and thoughts due to their empty and impermanent nature), no cold and heat*.

*"A monk asked Tozan, “When cold and heat come, how can we avoid them?”
Tozan said, “Why don’t you go to the place where there is no cold or heat?”
The monk said, “What is the place where there is no cold or heat?”
Tozan said, “When it’s cold, the cold kills you; when it’s hot, the heat kills you.”

This is not advice to “accept” your situation, as some commentators have suggested, but a direct expression of authentic practice and enlightenment. Master Tozan is not saying, “When cold, shiver; when hot, sweat,” nor is he saying, “When cold, put on a sweater; when hot, use a fan.” In the state of authentic practice and enlightenment, the cold kills you, and there is only cold in the whole universe. The heat kills you, and there is only heat in the whole universe. The fragrance of incense kills you, and there is only the fragrance of incense in the whole universe. The sound of the bell kills you, and there is only “boooong” in the whole universe…"

~The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing, Ted Biringer
The 'I-making' tendencies are resulting in stress.
Agreed.
Your translation could lead one to actually perpetuating a subtle 'no-self' themed 'I-making'.
That is not possible unless there is a misunderstanding of what I wrote.

In any case I told Jeff:

Hi, to be precise, Bahiya Sutta states "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

"No seer or no self" is a non-affirming negation. It does not assert the non-existence of self, but merely rejects the true existence of a self or agent. You do not observe no-self, you realize self isn't real (just like how santa claus is completely made up, fabricated, fictitious, without reality). There must be insight into how arising does not pertain to a subjective essence, an agent, a self, in any way whatsoever (whether in it, with it, containing it, etc). This rejection of something untenable leaves nothing at all - no position at all, not even a "no self". If you have a "no self" or treating "no self" as if it is an object that can be observed then it is completely not what I am talking about. When in seeing there is just the seen, there is no self and no no-self - there is only in seeing just the seen.

On this, see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html

However my point is that there must be realization, insight, and not merely a state of 'in seeing just the seen' (which is temporary). Insight makes this effortless. If you only focus on non-conceptual or non-dual state but missed the insight, then you will miss an essential key towards effortlessness and seamlessness.

SN 35.85
PTS: S iv 54
CDB ii 1163
Suñña Sutta: Empty
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997–2012

Then Ven. Ananda 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, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty...

"The nose is empty...

"The tongue is empty...

"The body is empty...

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."

I speak from experience. When I followed such translation, it led to a very subtle mental overlay of still fabricated 'I' making which was seen to be not inherently a 'self', i.e. 'no self'. It continued to arise and pass regardless of whether it was seen as 'no self' or not. Sure, it is one way of not attaching to such a fabrication but it may not lead to its complete cessation.
My experience is that seeing the complete falsity of an agent leads to the complete dropping off or cessation of any conceiving or proliferation of an agent, perceiver, subject-object, etc, and instead there is simply direct luminous perception of seeing, hearing, etc (like in bahiya sutta). There isn't any 'I' that is 'no self' or 'not-self'.

Secondly, I guess your progression of no-self insight seems to be from the first stanza to the second. Some may be reverse. ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html )

Skewing to the second stanza (which many people here are doing - of course they are free to disagree) also results in a tendency to overlook the other insights which are equally important for true liberation.
There was some aspect of that translation which was tripping me up and conditioning the way in which the mind experienced 'seeing' and the 'seen' as well as the notion of 'no seer'. It was leading to a very subtle fabrication overlaying 'just the seen'. The 'I' in 'I' am seeing the seen, simply was seen as 'no-self'/not-self but kept compounding,
I do not have an 'I' that I saw as not-self. There is seeing through the complete falsity of any 'I', or an agent, full stop - that in reality there never was anything like that. Seeing there never was any 'I', that all along it was a delusion, there is therefore no more fabricating of an 'I' agent. There is ever only in seeing just seen, hearing/heard, cognizing/cognized, etc (ala bahiya sutta).
the same overlay as before, just now seen differently. Ultimately the experience is more freeing than having a mind that attaches more weight and status to a 'self' on phenomena. But, it wasn't the end of stress in my experience.

In Thanissaro and Ireland's translation the translation is simply 'just the seen' and 'merely what is seen'. This to me, greatly shifts the practice and simplifies it to its intended aim: to experience an end to stress. While there was a sense of 'me-ness' that was interspersing the experience of 'the seen', it gave off the impression that 'I' was 'seeing' the 'seen'. When I took on a translation like AEN's, the result gave off the impression that 'no self' was 'seeing in the seen', resulting in a very subtle mentally fabricated overlay still.
You are making 'no self' into a thing or a subject, which was not my intention as I pointed out to Jeff.
This did not result in the end of stress. When it was simply 'in reference to the seen, just the seen', then there was no subtle overlay, self or no-self. There is no room for such an overlay when it is simply 'just the seen'.
I understand. Do read my article carefully: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html
I agree that the Bahiya instructions don't point to a 'stage'. Rather they point to a way to train the mind towards the end of 'stress'. Why is there 'stress'? Because there is some process of ignorance going on. What is there ignorance of? The process leading to becoming and 'I-making'. This process results in 'stress'. It results in the arising of 'you' as an experience that seemingly interrupts, cuts up and segregates the experience of 'just the seen'. I think this is what the main point of the instructions in the sutta.
I agree with your interpretation.
More than just simply seeing the 'I'-making process as 'no self' and leaving it that, when this 'I' making process ceases to arise period, either temporarily or permanently, there is no felt sense of 'me' to bamboozle the mind into believing that 'I' (seen as no-self or not) is doing the act of 'seeing'. Yes, this 'I' making is ultimately not real, smoke and mirrors and yes, it can be said to really not be made up of some real inherent 'self', but if such 'I'-making compounding continues regardless of being seen as self or no-self, then the mind still gets overlayed with fabricated filters.

But once one takes out the 'I' process (regardless of whether it is seen as self or no-self), there is no longer any 'I' making process to be being mistakenly perceived to be 'acting', even if previously seen to be 'no-self'. Once there is no 'me' (nor tricky no-self overlays) that is mistakenly perceived to be acting, there is no 'acting' as 'acting' needs an actor whether experienced as no-self or self. When there is no 'I' and thus no experience of some illusory no self 'I'-making process 'seeing', one is simply left with 'just the seen'. In my experience, this is a very different experience from 'seeing in the seen, no seer'. Indeed, perhaps somewhat 180 degrees opposite.
First of all you are misinterpreting what I meant. As nowhere have I said anything about a self that is seen as not-self, or a no-self self, or a no-self 'thing'. No-self to me is a non-affirming negation (see my article).

Secondly, whatever you said above is correct, but you missed out the importance or role of realization and right view. Without this I do not think there is any possibility of ending I-fabrication. You are focusing on the experience but missing the realization and view. This is why I wrote http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html

It is like the case of someone mistaking a rope as a snake. The way to end his false conceiving of a snake is not to tell him 'forget the snake, forget the snake'. It is to tell him 'realize that there is no snake, it is just rope'. As a result of insight, false ignorant vision ceases, leaving only the pure vision of rope as it is.

Without insight there cannot be true liberation, only struggle, doing, and intermittent states.