Here are some reflections I decided to post because they might be useful to someone.

1. What is the experience of 'self'? For awhile my operating theory was that the experience of 'self' originates in the reaction to sense-experience: seeing things, hearing things, remembering things, etc. gives rise to an experience based on desire or aversion in some form or other, and, to oversimplify, that experience of desire or aversion is a kind of self-experience. (Thus, there are numerous kinds of self-experiences). However, I recently found that there is also an additional kind of self-experience, which might be described as a thought whose content is "I".

It isn't the normal sense of "I" that a person may have when walking around, or when trying to chase down who the "I" is that is observing different experiences during Equanimity nana, or anything like that. In fact, I found that it was only clearly visible during concentration that was strong enough to suppress almost all of the hindrances, as the hindrances (the miscellaneous collection of desires and etc.) block the view of it. And unlike with the hindrances, it wasn't nearly so clear to me how this "I"-thought is dukkha. Although I was able to see that it was fabricated, the drawbacks of experiencing it were muddily-comprehended at best.

In the thread "Jhanic like "lock-in" experience" I mentioned a previous experience I had, which I believe concerned the same thing, and related it to something Richard wrote:



Notable similarities are the relationship between the "I"-thought and the hindrances swirling around it (the "I"-thought stands separately from the rest, and presumably, is covered by the rest normally), and the sense that the "I"-thought is special, interesting, and valuable. I can't admit to being as enthralled with it as Richard describes, but there was definitely a sense that I was seeing some rare and delicate thing, like a beautiful bird usually hidden away from most would-be watchers, but gracing my vision on this special occasion.

Ramana Maharshi may have been referring to this same "I"-thought when he recommended finding the "I" and tracing it back to its origin.

If I remember correctly, "The Cloud of Unknowing" has a passage where it describes how union with God is achieved only when one has reduced their experience to the simple perception of the individuality of one's soul, and God negates that perception; a thought whose content is "I" seems like a good candidate for that perception.

In the Pali suttas, there are frequent references to "I AM" (linked to the fetter of conceit, which is not one of the hindrances, so not suppressed by concentrating), so that's how it would fit in there.

It's possible that Thusness' "I AM" realization refers to this, but it's just as possible that it doesn't; I don't claim to understand that model.


2. I had a discussion with beoman about meditation and its relationship to the ability to describe one's experience in the thread "Actual Freedom vs. Spiritual Freedom":



I spent some time thinking about this kind of disconnect between noticing experience and being able to describe experience, and realized that there were times that I experienced something and analyzed it as "dukkha" but could have or should have been able to give a more precise analysis. So I spent some time analyzing hindrances that came up according to their nature (sensual desire / ill will / sloth / restlessness / doubt: part of the fourth satipatthana) and realized that, instead of analyzing in real-time, I suddenly had the ability to examine my life and its events, and analyze my actions with respect to what motivated them, and I saw the ways that I had very crass and unskillful motivations beginning in childhood which continued on until the present day to influence my behavior, continuously building on each other (karmic acts leading to more karmic acts of the same sort), with only a small let-up due to my progress in meditation. What was interesting about this was that I was only partially able to obtain this kind of insight in the past, despite trying, and that apart from being psychotherapeutic, it was also helpful from the perspective of meditative development (thoughts becoming un-repressed led to a reduction in tension and a partial allaying of the old, previously-hidden motivations?).

In the thread "EIS' concentration thread" I wrote:



On a general, practical level, it seems to me that these kinds of experiences (where something is bothersome, vibrating, flickering, whatever, but it's hard to say what it is) indicate some kind of lack of insight into the particular qualities of what's being experienced, and it could be good to find a way to enquire into what the particular experience is (apart from "dukkha"). These experiences indicate, to me, a kind of alexithymia (maybe "pseudo-alexithymia" is more accurate), which needs to be remedied, as one can't abandon what one doesn't fully understanding.

Although beoman seemed to experience the problem worsening due to his meditative practice, I found that meditation never caused or exacerbated this problem for me [EDIT: though I experienced a strong kind of dissociation while working on MCTB 3rd path, it was not this "alexithymic", unable-to-see-so-as-to-name-the-experience kind], though I suspect it will only be a remedy for it if one is aware of it (or willing to become aware of it, not defensively-oriented against learning about what their hard-to-describe issues may be). I don't really know what makes this a problem for one person and not for another, apart from being sensitive to ways in which one might be trying to dissociate (e.g. the attempt to "observe" or "look" in specific ways is a kind of dissociation, even though it may seem salutary at the time).

3a. The above reflections gave me a strong and healthy respect for the dangerous workings of karma within a lifetime, and the way that a strong moral code extending to one's mental actions can be helpful. One's unrestrained inclinations, whether mental, verbal, or behavioral, can really compound over time and lead to a lot of unhappiness.

3b. Stream entry in the suttas is associated with a kind of moral perfection (that one behaves morally at almost all times, apart perhaps from errors or oversights). In light of the above reflections, it seems perverse to me that I could claim stream entry according to that standard. I analyzed my behavior and motivation in some detail, and found too many unwholesome motivations in the recent past that were previously unseen-by-me to be consistent with that standard. ("Not seeing one's motivations" is not an error or an oversight, as far as I can see.)

I might have had some other reflection in mind, but I can't quite seem to remember what it was, so I'll stop here.

Interesting stuff,
Are you back from that retreat you went to? How was it?

Great to see you back, hopefully we'll get the chance to catch up on skype this time!

Re. 1: AEN's y'er man to talk to about Thusness' model but what you're describing here sounds quite accurate to me, at least based on my own experience of, what I believe to have been, the "I AM" realization. One thing I'm quite certain of though is that I recognize what you're describing here as "the I-thought", and as far as I know it's related to experiencing luminosity rather than emptiness. How it lines up with the Pali canon though, I honestly have no idea but I'd be interested in hearing more about what you've found so far.

Re. 2: That description of being able to trace back karmic patterns is something I've been aware of for a long time now, but have only recently come to see the importance of this and also the actual triggers in everyday life which lead to their arising. I was never that interested in understanding these psychological imprints and conditioning in karmic terms, but lately it's become a bigger part of my practice as it seems like they're more and more exposed with each baseline shift.

Re. 3a & b: I've had to dump trying to line up my experiences with Paths anymore, other than as a convenience on this site when talking to others who know the MCTB model. It got way too confusing after a handful of further baselines shifts and I found myself trying to shoehorn stuff to fit my less-than-educated understanding of the traditional Path system, but your point about stream entry is a good one.

As always, a thoroughly interesting thread!

With regards to my I AM realization: it is the pure luminosity of mind before any concepts arise. It is the luminous essence of mind, of non-conceptual thought. It is Sat Chit Ananda: self-certainty of existence, consciousness (it is a self-knowing consciousness of pure presence without a subject/object split), bliss. Bliss aspect becomes quite prominent if prolonged samadhi in Self is sustained.

Of course later insights reveal that even this is not self - but due to the poverty of our views, our pure consciousness experience of a thought is being moulded, shaped, into some transcendental Self. So the experience itself is not the problem, it is the views about it that is a problem. The experience itself is just an unfabricated pure experience of thought/mind before all images and concepts.

I have read Ramana Maharshi's books, it is not the 'I' thought he was talking about, but the Source, the Self that he is talking about. It is what is left in the wake of 'I' thought dissolving into its source through self-inquiry.

Richard description may be related to the experience of I AM but maybe not the realization.

Yeah, I'm back...the rest of the retreat had to be postponed, unfortunately.

But it was really good, judging only from this snippet that I posted.

How do you relate it to luminosity? (Part of the question is: what precisely does "luminosity" mean to you?)





There are lots of passages like this, but not so much in the way of experiential detail (though the oft-cited Khemo sutta has some).

Here's something really practical from Ramana:



(How to classify the "I"-thought seems difficult to me. I don't see it as a normal thought, so I see that it can be classified in other ways, as Ramana does. If I had to offer something in everyday language, I would say it's an "intuition".)



I did get a sense that baseline shifts make mental workings clearer. As if there's a mental mechanism that actively hides things from normal consciousness, and with every shift, the mechanism works less efficiently, and things that were previously obscured can become a lot clearer.

I've found it quite difficult until recently to actually describe this clearly, but AEN's mention of pure presence hits the nail on the head for me. To me, "luminosity" is the total is-ness of experience, the appearance of all things as they are without any subject/object distinction prior to conceptualization. Purity, clarity, immediacy, all those sort of words express some aspect of it but are themselves luminous and empty, as in quite clearly 'here' but devoid of content in and of themselves.

Realizing "I AM" seems to make it clear that this "I-thought", although it seems like it makes those sensations somehow more important or special, am not seperate from the rest of experience and, even though it's clear that "I" is just another thought, it does not and cannot exist as anything independent from anything else. The word "luminosity" itself basically means "brightness", and this is why I find it to be such a perfect word to describe what became apparent with that realization, everything took on a completely fresh, new brightness. At that point, this seemed to have some sort of deeper meaning, but, as AEN says, with further realizations and particularly with the recognition of emptiness, it no longer held any more importance than anything else as it had before.

Do you think your experience of "I AM" / luminosity will go away in the future, or deepen, or change, or what? I'm pretty sure that the "I"-thought I described can go away, permanently (though it's not clear to me how that will happen).

Also, is the "I AM" realization one in which you continuously perceive the "I"-thought, even when there are hindrances that would otherwise cover it up? If so, how did you make that happen?

The luminosity aspect definitely hasn't gone away, and I don't see how it would be possible to for it to go anywhere at all since it's an intrinsic characteristic of awareness itself. As of last week, I stopped experiencing any sort of "I-thought" at all, or at least that's how it seems at present, along with discursive thought and the internal narrative. I don't know if that will change but it seems unlikely now, that self-referential aspect of thought as it arises just doesn't happen anymore. As far as I can tell, it's just a matter of continually recognizing the emptiness of that thought, and all thoughts for that matter, through bare awareness to sensation, seeing how it's dependently arisen with the other aggregates and how its imputation occurs.

The "I AM" experience happened a good few years ago but one thing I do recall, when looking back on it now, and what's so totally different to how things have played out in the last few months, is that only the 'foreground' of perception, as in the objects themselves, the sense field and "my" relation to them, was seen in that way. Now though, there's no distinction between those sensations and awareness itself, no sense of anything arising 'from' anything or anywhere, like a seamless continuity or something like that.


To be honest, I don't know. What I do remember was that, in the lead-up to it happening, I'd realized that "I" was just a thought but it wasn't until coming to this site that I eventually understood the full implications of this. Again, AEN's the guy to say more about the specifics of it 'cause he's written about it a lot in his journal and elsewhere so he's more qualified, particularly in Thusness' model, to go into more detail that I am.

I remember saying a while back that I'd found some old notes I'd written around that time, so I'll dig them out and post whatever I can later on.

I'm a little worried that we're talking past each other, or talking about different aspects of the same thing, or something like that. (For example, realizing "'I' am just a thought" was something that happened to me after MCTB 1st path, and isn't linked to the "I"-thought I'm talking about here.)

Maybe skype would be good? I'll email you, see what we can work out. But if you find any good notes, post them anyway.

Thusness commented just now: That is I AM. But the concentration has to b strong enough to come to a complete stillness where what's left is only the "I" alone and nothing else. Then it will result in the realization of I AM where one is awaken to the innermost core of one's being.

In I AM realization, there is no thoughts, complete stillness, only I - the complete self felt certainty of existence. When non dual and anatta is realized, then all transient sights, sounds, sensations are seen and experienced to have the same taste as I AM. So the I AM is not more I AM than a transient sight or sound - but instead of complete I, it is complete sight, complete sound etc. Everything has this taste of non-dual luminosity, awareness stands out. Then we also understand that the I AM is just pure consciousness in one particular realm, condition, or dhatu (element). It is pure thought but not thought as we usually experience (all concepts, images, completely ceases in that immediate, direct realization of I). But it is not more special or ultimate than any other transient arisings which share the same taste of luminous-emptiness.

Do you or Thusness believe that "I AM" can stop being experienced (as in, no longer constructed, rather than no longer noticed)? If so, what is that, and how is it done? If not, why not?

Aye, almost certainly 'cause I can't see you having not experienced this at some point at least.

Why do you think that I AM is a problem and do you really feel it as a problem?

Well, it's not the ultimate attainment, and it seems to stand in the way of it. That it isn't the ultimate attainment is directly obvious to me. That it seems to stand in the way of it is in part a practical judgment and in part a theoretical judgment.

On the practical side, there has been an evolution in my perspective on the experience of this "I"-thought: once, in practicing concentration, I found it to be impossible to distinguish from the mental experience of concentration, but now it seems, to a limited extent, like something admixed with or tacked onto everything else, as a separate entity. Given that, it seems that there's every reason to get rid of it and see what remains (and no reason for me to think that this isn't possible), especially given that it's clearly not the crowning glory of the contemplative path.

On the theoretical side, diverse traditions, including most obviously Pali Buddhism, emphasize the suppression of parts or all of conditioned experience as a condition for knowledge (in the most extreme form, here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.034.than.html), and this "I"-thought that I report is conditioned, not a permanent unchanging thing that survives death and continues on for eternity.

Whether it's a problem for me or not: it doesn't stick out sorely as something that obviously should be removed (like the hindrances), but it does seem like something that should be removed after reflecting on my theoretical beliefs and direct experiences.

Here's a metaphor, for the sake of clarity. Suppose there's a pool in your backyard, and people like to swim it in; so you spend your days watching people getting into the pool, getting out of the pool, splashing in the pool, diving into the pool, leaving their inner tubes and water toys floating around in the pool, etc. One day, enough people get out of the pool, and you see: "Ah, the pool isn't just filled with objects, it's also filled with water. Every time I see an object floating in the pool, I also see the water that makes it possible for the object to float." It's possible at this point to become enthralled with watching the objects in combination with the water, or, alternatively, with telling everyone to stay out of the pool so as to make for a better view of the water. But it's also possible to ask: "What would happen if all the water in the pool were drained...?"

This just popped into my head as I was writing something else there...

If I'm understanding your metaphor correctly, it's now experientially evident to you that the people in the pool were just temporary obstructions to seeing the water clearly, but were themselves dependent upon the water to be floating there in the first place?

So, staying with that metaphor, the people are still in the pool doing what they do but you can ask them all to gtfo and let you chill with (as?) the water. At the same time, it's pretty cool to be able to watch the people in the water but without having to distinguish between them, i.e. there's no distinction between "person" and "water" anymore, it's just a wonderful big 'do-ing' or whatever. If we drain the pool, not only is it a buzzkill, it means those people have to get out 'cause they need the water to be there in the first place, how can they have a pool party without water?!

That being the case: What is the pool and why is it still seen as being different from either the people or the water? Can the pool exist without it's constituent parts, is it independent and unchanging?

I hope I haven't totally misunderstood you here and just gave some really shite reply, but if what you're saying is what I've been looking at in the last few months in particular then I hope that it makes some sort of sense.

Something else I just thought about is this: Would draining the pool not be a good metaphor for Nirodha Samapatti? Or at the very least, nirvikalpa samadhi. Perhaps the complete destruction of the pool itself is parinibbana?

Damn I love a good metaphor.

this pool metaphor reminds me of something i put up in one of the humor posts a while back..




also, if you drain the pool of the water, people will come and use the dry pool as a skate spot. point is, the draining of the water doesn't get rid of what seems to be viewed as that which contains the contents of the pool... and other objects will find their way to occupy it in its "new" state. so what are you trying to attempt with the draining of the water?

In the sutta you quoted, a practitioner goes through progressive jhanas until one reaches nirodha samapatti. It is then followed by "And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. "

The main point is that discernment must arise to end mental fermentations and achieve liberation. The point is not to have 24/7 nirodha samapatti. But the jhanas (from the first jhana) up to N.S. may be used as a base for discernment and liberation. But they are not equated with nirvana or liberation. Also see: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451

I AM is just pure consciousness of mind, aka luminous mind, but wrongly reified as Self. The conceit of I Am is thus based on an imputation on the pure experience of luminous mind itself, or any experiences. In reality mind is empty of some independent, unconditioned, inherently existing Self. This is why penetrating into the three characteristics and emptiness leads to liberation.

The pure-conscious experience is no longer associated with "I" with the realization of the right view of twofold emptiness.

So directly realizing the luminous essence of mind is indeed not enough for liberation. But neither is it a hindrance for liberation. Rather, with luminous mind as base, the correct discernment of the empty nature of luminous mind must arise for the purification of mind of defilements including the conceit of I Am. But it is perfectly fine to realize luminous mind first without discerning its emptiness initially - that was the path I went but not everyone is the same.

Luminous mind does not stand in the way of liberation, any more than hearing or seeing stands in the way of liberation (ignorance, false identification, conceit, attachments etc does however stand in the way). Luminosity is the inescapable characteristic or essence of mind just like wetness is to water - it is not something adventitious to mind. Rather I am more concerned of eradicating the adventitious defilements, like clearing water of its detritus.

The Buddha talks about the liberated mind and consciousness of the arahant. He does not say arahant has no mind. As Geoff/Jnana states:

""As for anidassana, in this context I'm liking the translation as "non-illustrative" or "non-indicative." "Non-illustrative" in the sense of the term as used in MN 21 Kakacūpama Sutta: ākāso arūpī anidassano, the sky is formless and non-illustrative. "Non-indicative" in the sense of the term as used in the Abhidhammapiṭaka, where the applications of mindfulness. etc., are said to be anidassana. The sense here being that they are not indicative of defilements, and so on.

Also cf. Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermon 07:
Now viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect anything. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nāma-rūpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nāma-rūpa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and 'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.

We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the established consciousness and the unestablished consciousness. A non-arahant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established consciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or entanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of penetration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to unravel the meaning of the expression anidassana viññāṇa.

All the best,

Geoff"

Also, quotes from Buddha:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}

I'm a little surprised that all three of you are so nonchalant about the thing that seems to me like (among other things) what Richard says is the ultimate delusion. Curious to hear what that's about! Maybe I'm thinking about this in a way that's all wrong, but from where I'm standing I'm fairly perplexed concerning your takes.

@Tommy, Steph: I don't know what the pool is, I hadn't really thought the metaphor through that much. Maybe it's the physical (material, non-percipient) body. A different metaphor, that captures what I mean (without giving rise to the line of questioning that both of you are suggesting for me) is: there are chocolate chips. One day, after grabbing enough of them, one recognizes that they're not free-standing things in themselves, but were previously embedded in a matrix of cookie dough. So now one sees that there's a chocolate-chip cookie; one can leave it as it is, one can take the chips out and have cookie-only; what if one gets rid of the chips and the cookie both?



Ramana Maharshi said that samadhi (I think he's referring to nirvikalpa?) contains the experience of "I AM". I don't really know any definitions other than his, since I'm not really knowledgeable about the yogic / etc. traditions. Got a link or reference?

As for whether it's NS, maybe; I suspect it would have to be this:



My MCTB NS training taught me only to engender the perception of a gap in experience and a cool hangover, not to enter into the Unborn and the Unmanifest (also cf. the previous thread I started on nibbana / NS). So, I would say, how to accomplish what is being talked about here is still beyond me.

BUT, I still have confidence that it's possible to suppress this "I AM" thing outside of concentration, too; and that seems less daunting in principle, though I don't know how to go about it on a practical level.

Here is what appears to me to be a description of the need to suppress "I AM", though the method later given perplexes me. (Sorry that I couldn't find a non-pseudo-archaic translation online.)




@AEN



Are you certain? If so, on what basis is that certainty built? If not, why not?

Apart from this issue, it's inarguable to me that many traditions support the suppression of conditioned experience as a condition for knowledge, and that the suppression of conditioned experience is the highest (concentration?) attainment. The sutta I quoted illustrates how nibbana is pleasant by illustrating how the gradual suppression of conditioned experience is pleasant.

To clarify your position, could you tell me what the fetter of conceit refers to, in your estimation? Is conceit suppressed via concentration?

I think I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from, but I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying and maybe assumed that my use of the pool metaphor suggests an independently existing substratum or something. I understood your use of that metaphor like so:

People = Mental and/or physical objects arising in/as consciousness.
Water = Consciousness.
Pool = 'Awareness', but not reified as a substratum or 'base' from which anything arises; I'm not talking about this as some sort of 'container' or anything, but that's the way you seem to have understood my use of the metaphor.

Is that the way you meant it? I could have totally picked you up wrongly so I'd be interested to know what you meant if I'm incorrect.

Based on the way I understood it, my point was to do with dependent origination/emptiness and not this "ultimate delusion" of the I AM, but I can see how it'd be possible to interpret the words that way. I'm pretty sure Steph and AEN are talking about the same thing here too, but the seeming nonchalance is probably down to a mix-up in how we're all communicating here and understanding certain words and phrases.

Based on that, your cookie metaphor looks like this to me: You come to see that those objects were never separate from consciousness of them, but without a subject to experience the object there is only pure consciousness since the chips and the dough are both required for a chocolate-chip cookie to exist. If we take away the chips, we're left with pure cookie dough, but if we take away the cookie dough too then what are we left with?

I'd really like to get to the bottom of this 'cause I think we're probably just getting mixed up in the words, I'll need to mail you back later and try to sort something out this week to chat. Does what I've written so far here make any sense? If not, would you mind showing me what you think I mean or describing it a bit more as it seems to you?

One way or another, we'll get some mutual understanding happening...

So I was seeing it as, even if you get rid of the water, there is still some element of what constitutes a "pool" in place (the concrete structure of it) - and now instead of having water in it, it is just sitting there as dry concrete form. i.e., you haven't eliminated the "I AM" delusion, it has just changed form or is being seen differently. I was thinking you meant the pool as a whole represents the "I AM" delusion and all the objects floating around & the water were yet more things being added to the mix - so then even the pool structure itself would be part of the delusion in that case.

Edited to add:

In the interpretation I'm explaining here, the issue would lie with the distinction of "pool" as something in the scene. In your example it seems you are viewing water as something that holds these things together and if drained, pool wouldn't exist. There is no singular quality or element that can be picked out to make something what it appears to be. No glue that holds it together to make it what it is.

I think Richard is wrong on certain things and his view of "matter" as ultimate or absolute or inherently existing is hindering true understanding. In truth, so called physical forms and senses are dependently originated and empty, as is mind. So it is not the case that "physical" is actually existing while everything else is illusion. But neither is it the case that physical forms is illusory while the luminous mind is ultimate Self with ontological essence (atman-brahman view of vedanta) which richard is always criticizing. The middle way is seeing that all mental and physical aggregates are a luminous and empty display.

There is something I wrote before: "No-Dog/I AM and PCE

First of all, the issue of No-Dog which is I AM as defined by Kenneth, and its relation with PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience as termed by Richard). Is I AM/No-Dog the same as PCE? Is it different?

We have to consider a few issues here: In the I AM realization, is there emotion? Is there feeling? Is there even thought? Is there division? Or is there complete stillness? Perhaps most importantly: is there Being, is there Identity in the 'I AM' realization?

Now in PCE, in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound! So what is "I AM"? It is important to note there that 'I AM' is not simply an experience of being the Witness/Watcher or a state of witnessing. One can also have an experience similar to I AM yet the realization has not occurred. This is being discussed in the article written by Thusness: Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives. 'I AM' is a profound life changing realization of something undeniable and undoubtable.

Those who have gone through I AM realization (those following Vipassana paths may not experience it), particularly those following Direct Path (as practiced in Advaita, Zen, etc, as I did and written in my e-book) will know, in the I AM realization there is no emotions, no feelings, not even thought, there is no division, it is complete stillness, and there is complete certainty and doubtlessness about what is being realized.

And actually, there is no being either! But as this experience and realization is so powerful, it will leave a very lasting life-changing impression on one's mind, even though one is unable to sustain (unless one is so well trained in absorption such as Ramana Maharshi) such an experience for long.

And because the mind does not have the right view, because the mind is deeply obscured by the view of inherency and duality, it will cling onto that as a Purest Identity. Because the I AM realization appears to be so special... it will be clung to be an ultimate self. The identification actually comes as an 'after-thought' to the actual experience/realization.

In reality, what is it? It is actually just one aggregate, one dhatu out of the 18! (six sense organs, six sense objects, six sense consciousness) What is that one dhatu? It is simply a non-conceptual thought. There is no 'sense of being/identity' at that moment of realization. It is a PCE in a non-conceptual thought, or rather, a pure conscious experience of thought, just like a pure conscious experience of sound (neither are purer). However, because the realization of Anatta has not arisen, the PCE quickly devolves into an ASC after that moment of realization, it becomes reified into a super-self, an ultimate Being (edit: or an Ultimate/Eternal Witness behind thoughts and perception)... especially if one's inquiry is structured in such a way which presumes an ultimate identity: 'Who am I?', which will lead to the realization of I AM. Whereas the inquiry/method of HAIETMOBA does not assume such a being.

What Richard stress however is PCE in all dhatus (all sense experiences) without identity, which can be 'induced' by the practice of HAIETMOBA.

The I AM realization resulted from the practice of self-inquiry becomes reified into an ultimate Background of all experience... a ground of being which everything manifests out of, subsides to, yet itself remaining unchanged. Is there such a background? The background is actually an illusion, an image of a previous PCE captured by memory and made more ultimate than other experiences, and reified into an ultimate Self... the actual realization and experience is a full foreground dhatu, aggregate, just like any other manifestations in the sensate field. In actuality, that non-conceptual thought is not any more special than a passing sight, a passing scent! Further insights into non-dual and then anatta will reveal that All are equally marvellous, wonderful, intensely luminous. There is no need to make the set of dhatu that relates to mind-consciousness more special or ultimate than any other, and just as we do not make sound any more ultimate than taste, we also do not need to make non-conceptual thought more ultimate than a sight or indeed even a conceptual thought itself... even though each dhatu and manifestation is radically different from another and arises according to different and various conditions."

When this is realized there is no doubt. Mind is cognizance, luminous. And it is not an observer seeing mind - the cognizance is the essence inbuilt in mind so to speak. The manifestation of mind is self-aware.

The highest state of suppression is N.S. But all such states are temporary and not liberation - liberation is, as I pointed out in the link, the termination of passion, aggression and delusion through discernment. All other concentration states are just supports.

I am not the person to ask about concentration states but... Even sportsmen who are "in the zone" can temporarily dissolve their sense of self for a few moments. Concentration can suppress anything including sense of self, but not (permanently) dissolve them from their roots.

I think any sense of self/Self, I, me, mine in any shape or form at all is the conceit of I am.

It appears that Richard is claiming that he has destroyed the "luminous mind" / I AM (assuming we have the correspondence between what he wrote and these things correct), and that this destruction is the singular point of the practice he describes on the AFT. That's why I asked you whether you're certain about your position. Or do you see some kind of non-correspondence between what he's talking about and what you mean by I AM?



Are you sure that your understanding of being is the same as Richard's?

From my perspective, it appears that there is 1) a kind of self-experience dependent on the 5 hindrances, and 2) a kind of self-experience not dependent of the 5 hindrances. Taking the former as the paradigm case of being may lead to errors or confusion.



Do you know of a sutta that describes someone attaining NS and yet not seeing with wisdom?

As you are aware, there should be no discernment in the everyday sense during a full experience of I AM, as concentration has suppressed most mental function. The discernment that can exist then is just seeing clearly (experiencing without normal obscurations). Presumably even more so, the discernment involved in NS is just seeing clearly, as what other mental process could exist after what the Vimuttimagga calls the "perishing of mind"?

The Vimuttimagga seems to indicate that NS = nibbana (from my reading of the quote I offered), though not in those words. Even the suttas talk about NS as if it's the ultimate (on the basis of its being inscrutable):



Keep in mind that, in Buddhist cosmology, gods who inhabit the form heavens (and not the sensuality heavens) get there via things such as concentration practice, and so would presumably be quite familiar with I AM, and not failing to see absorption dependent on it in this case.



The suttas as well as the Visuddhimagga talk about concentration suppressing hindrances (off of which a sense of self can be built), but I am not aware of any claim anywhere that concentration in itself can suppress conceit, or any of the higher five fetters for that matter (possibly apart from the case of NS). Are you? Because my worry here is that if you find that concentration suppresses conceit, while other sources do not, it's quite possible that your conception of "conceit" is not as broad as those other sources (you accept the suppression of the hindrances as the suppression of conceit, whereas they do not consider the suppression of the hindrances to be tantamount to the suppression of conceit, as they see other sources of conceit), and you are missing a significant instance of conceit in your own practice.

Here's what I was trying to get at with the pool metaphor. The stuff in the pool is the various hindrances (sensual desire, ill will, sloth, restlessness, doubt). One can look at them all day, enthralled by them, and not see the water that they float on (the "I"-thought). But, the water can become easier to see if enough of the stuff disappears from the pool. The water isn't identical with the stuff in it (in that, without stuff, there's still water), but it seems in some way that the stuff depends on the water in order to be there (though it's easier for me to articulate in the case of water why this is, than to articulate it in the case of the "I"-thought).

Stuff that's not in this metaphor in any way that I thought out: the senses, "awareness", the physical body, the higher 5 fetters (EDIT: apart from restlessness).

Clearer, I hope?

Now, here's a more extensive quote from Richard, which may or may not be related to what I'm talking about:

That's clearer, I think my inclusion of "awareness" into that probably muddied the water somewhat too...ba dum tsh! What I'd said about recognizing the objects in the water as being the same as the water was meant purely in the sense of dependent origination, definitely not in any "one with everything" sense.

I wouldn't say that the hindrances were dependent upon the "I-thought", the "I-thought" is just an imputation which continues to suggest a subject/object split in experience. I don't know if I'm maybe misunderstanding what you mean by "I-thought" or something, but I find it hard to believe that, based on what I'm thinking about this "I-thought", you wouldn't have seen this or gone through it already. I think my lack of knowledge when it comes to the suttas and classical criteria involved in the fetters, as well as a lot of the Buddhist model, isn't helping either so I'll see what you reply with and we can continue to work it out.

The quote you've posted from Richard sounds like, using Thusness' model, an "I AM" experience to me, based on the way in which I'd probably describe the experience in retrospect using similar metaphors. The descriptions of a "calm, still centre" definitely ring a bell, but his description of "crystal-clear fully-lucid hypnopompic state" would only be partly correct, unless his use of "hypnopompic" refers to the apparently dream-like or sleep-like nature of reality prior to that realization and not in the way the word is generally used, i.e. a state of consciousness experienced before completely awakening from sleep.

I don't really use the Actualist model at all anymore, I'm no longer interested in whether or not Richard is right or wrong, or whether Actualism and Buddhism aim in the same direction, but I still think the guy wrote some good stuff and I don't entirely disagree with a lot of it.

Hey, just to clarify the facts a bit I'll provide the context that quote was taken from. He was indeed talking about the state of consciousness experienced before completely awakening from sleep. From this link:

Interesting that he seems to suggest only a resident identity could be hypnopompic. Although this phrase from Wikipedia is actually an interesting way to think about it and corroborates that point: "The hypnagogic state is rational waking cognition trying to make sense of non-linear images and associations; the hypnopompic state is emotional and credulous dreaming cognition trying to make sense of real world stolidity."

Email me back about times, and maybe skype will help!

Other than that, all I can really say at this point is that the "I"-thought that I'm talking about isn't like a regular thought. Perhaps calling it "nonconceptual thought" is more accurate, or calling it an "intuition". And with the pool metaphor: the stuff in the pool is always particular (this object, that person), but the water in the pool is amorphous, sort of boundary-less, seeming to stretch on in all directions, seeming to be the nature of physical space within the pool when it's merely occupying physical space.

Other stuff: it doesn't vibrate (not that I was able to see, anyway) and it isn't associated with any sort of body tension or body anything (not that I was able to see, anyway). When I think of things that are imputations suggesting a subject/object split, all the things that come to mind are things that never satisfied these two criteria. Is that true for you also? (Are we talking about the same thing when we say "imputation"?)



Whatever flaws he or his model have, I think he's very insightful, possibly in some ways that I missed in the past.

Higher fetters may not be suppressed in higher jhanas except n.s. But: NS is not nibbana, at least not in the suttic sense and I have not studied commentaries. Buddha has emphasized in many of his discourses that nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression and delusion. In his first discourse to the five ascetics - the discourse on four noble truths, he also talked about nirvana as the termination of craving (not just some temporary suppression state).

I AM is luminous mind taken as self. When discernment of the three characteristics and conditionality arises, luminous mind is no longer taken as self, but as another experience - it is purified of certain views and holding and conceit in relation to that luminosity. It is no longer considred as "it is I, it is me, it is mine". It is no longer a Self, it is just a pure thought that is empty of a self - same for hearing, seeing, etc which are only "sound in sound, seen in seen" as in Bahiya Sutta. A realization must arise for the purification of these false views. What Richard seems to be saying is, for example, "I am awareness" is a delusion. Which is correct. But what he is doing is in turn making "physical", "sensate" into a new absolute, and then certain mental phenomena like the pure luminous mind (previous clung to as "I am") when other mental and physical factors are shut as "illusion". That is like throwing the baby along with the bathwater. In actuality it is just something that is forgotten in preference for something else. "Luminous mind" is not something to be demonized, but it should be purified of false views and conceit in reference to it. It is just another pure consciousness experience of mind (not some ultimate Mind like God or Self, just mind - not self, conditioned, impermanent, empty), no more and no less important than pure conscious experience of hearing, seeing etc, they are of equal taste being luminous and empty.

"Perceptions, which never existed in themselves, are mistaken for objects.
Awareness itself, because of ignorance, is mistaken for a self.
Through the power of dualistic fixation I wander in the realm of existence.
May ignorance and confusion be completely resolved."

- http://www.naturalawareness.net/mahamudra.html

AEN, thanks for elucidating your position on these matters.

Will do! I've had stuff happening the last few days and my daughter's been off school but I'll mail you tonight.


That makes sense, describing it as "nonconceptual thought" clarifies where I was getting mixed up; I was sure you couldn't have just been talking about regular thought being misidentified.

Based on your elaboration here, I'd say that we're talking about a continuing identification with perception, as well as possibly consciousness at a really subtle level. Would that be more accurate?


Yes! I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same thing with "imputation", and the mention of it being non-physical as well as non-vibratory also suggests that we're getting closer to mutual understanding here. It's more like a really subtle pulling rather than vibratory, I've never experience them in that way either and they're always, always purely mental sensations with no physical aspect present.

The way I've been looking at this is that these imputations are like the fundamental structures which support that subject/object split, their foundation being certain deep-seated beliefs, based on ignorance, regarding the nature of reality as anything independently existing. It's not about "me" and "not me" anymore, if that makes sense, it's still investigating anatta but the emptiness of phenomena is seen clearly as the aggregates are emptied. It's so subtle and hard to describe 'cause it's no longer conceptual, but I've found that the dependent origination model has been the most effective for continuing to investigate it.

We still on the same page?

Richard mistakes perceptions (such as pure intent) for objects and believes that "pure intent" is physical. This shows that Actual Freedom is an ASC. He is incapable of seeing his own delusion.

Thusness wrote something for a friend (who wrote a poem on "perception relying on a knower is ignorance") a few months ago:

Perception relying on a knower is ignorance.
Similarly perception without "knower/known" can be ignorance.

Although in hearing, there is simply and always only sound and no hearer,
Treating 'sound', a dependently originated manifestation, as truly existing is
ignorance.
  
Even though appearances are dependently originated, not realizing
they have not left their primordial suchness for a moment is ignorance too.

Empty appearances freely manifesting in primordial suchness is liberation.
Ungraspable and marvelous, spontaneously perfected!

Right and to spin theories around it saying this perception of mine physically exists while saying that there is no 'being' is being more ignorant.

It sounds more accurate, but I ultimately don't know. I would say that the problem is mine; I can't see the thing I'm talking about accurately enough to type about what it is and sound convinced / convincing.

All I can really add is that it's some kind of process, or at least that it comes in gradations (there can be more or less of it, i.e. it can go away, based on conditions that are unclear to me).



Don't know what "independently existing" means.



Aha! This sounds like you get what I'm talking about. The "I"-thought doesn't really give off the impression of self-ness, strangely enough...



How do you relate DO to it?

Theoretically, I would have to say "some kind of non-sensual craving gives rise to it", but practically, that doesn't do much for me at the moment.

Interesting thing I found.

Oops, I forgot to reply to you!


I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same 'thing' here 'cause I struggled, and continue to do so sometimes, to describe it for ages. The way you describe it as a process, or as coming in gradations makes sense to me. There's clearly no 'do-er' involved and it's not an "I" and "not-I" thing, but it still seems to be related to the reification of a subject/object divide which is ongoing due to the subtle identification with the body. Anything similar there to what you're thinking?


By "independently existing", I mean something which exists independent of the experience of it via the six sense doors; anything which appears to not be dependently originated.


Yeah, I get what you mean. It seems counter-intuitive to investigate it 'cause it doesn't seem to be related to that process but, on closer inspection, it seems to be more about the matrix of beliefs and imputations which support it's arising than about any specific, single trigger. It's purely mental sensation, it doesn't seem to have any physical correlates, or at least not in the same way it might have when affect was still present which, I suspect, is what makes it impossible (?) to investigate prior to this shift.

Sound similar?


I've been trying to write something about relating it to D.O. but I can't find the right way to phrase it without confusing things. Basically, it comes down to investigating what it is that continues to imply that this "I-thought" is any different to any other thought; for me, it's become more apparent that there are no "thoughts" at all, it's more like one big thought which, as I'm finding more and more in the last few days, is what supports and/or creates the idea of 'mind' itself.

Seeing through that "I-thought" led to the collapse of something in the process of distinction, experientially, between one thought and another which has left, as I described above, something I can only really describe as being like one big thought, a stream of mental-consciousness or something along those metaphorical lines. Not in the "one mind" sense or anything like that, the best model I've come across to describe it yet, and in the simplest way, is Thusness' Stage 6 - I'm not saying I'm 'there' yet, but the insights he describes and the way experience has shifted seems to be heading in that direction. It may be that his description of seeing the emptiness of "Presence" is similar to what we're discussing here, just described another way.

If anything else comes to mind I'll post it.

YES!! That emboldened line says it well, even this apparent stillness is fabricated and still implies something unchanging. Deconstruct 'here', 'now', a 'moment', an 'instant', anything implying linear progression of time, successive moments of connected sensate experience, formations basically. There's still the underlying idea there that there's some connection between one moment and the next, the deeply rooted assumption that things move in any sort of direction.

We still on the same page?

Sometimes I think so, but then, sometimes I don't!

I don't see what linear progression of time has to do with the "I"-thought. Actually, I don't see that the "I"-thought has to do with very much at all. It seems to me that, if the "I"-thought is manifesting and clear but other thoughts are as well, then those other thoughts might have something to do with linearity (or whatever else), but to me that seems incidental.

Are you saying that there's some connection between incidental thoughts and the "I"-thought? Or, are you saying that there's something to the "I"-thought that perhaps I don't see?

Hahaha, I know...it's a laugh trying to get to a mutual understanding with this stuff.

I may have picked you up wrongly or something, what I was talking about was seeing if there's anything subtly implied by that "I"-thought, like any sort of "now" or "here", a fixed point, position, location or anything like that. I can see how the linearity comment might have sounded misleading, it was a poor choice of word as it's maybe more a matter of connectivity between different 'frames' of sensate experience than any causal, linear chain of events. I'm still fairly sure we're talking about the same thing here but it's down to the language again.

Here is one by Ajahn Brahm on "Knower is not-self"

The Knower' is Not Self

Even deeper than 'the doer' is 'the knower'. The two actually go together. One can stop 'the doer' for a little while in the jhanas, but later it comes back again. One even can stop 'the doer' for aeons by going to the jhana realms after one dies. However, it will still come back again. Once there is a 'knower' it will react to what it knows, and it will create 'doing'.

'The knower' is usually called consciousness or citta (mind), which is what knows. That knowing is often seen to be the ultimate 'self'. Very often people can get the perception, or the paradigm, in their minds of perceiving something in here, which can just know and not be touched by what it knows. It just knows heat and cold, pleasure and pain. It just knows beauty and ugliness. However, at the same time (somehow or other), it can just stand back and not be known, and not be touched by what's actually happening. It is important to understand that the nature of consciousness is so fast, so quick, that it gives the illusion of continuity. Owing to this illusion, one misses the point that whatever one sees with your eyes, or feels with the body, the mind then takes that up as it's own object, and it knows that it saw. It knows that it felt. It's that knowing that it saw, knowing that it felt, that gives the illusion of objectivity. It can even know that it knew.

When philosophy books talk about 'self reflection' or 'self knowledge', the fact that not only do "I know", but that "I know that I know", or that "I know that I know that I know", is given as a proof of the existence of a self. I have looked into that experience, in order to see what actually was going on with this 'knowing' business. Using the depth of my meditation, with the precision that that gave to mindfulness, to awareness, I could see the way this mind was actually working. What one actually sees is this procession of events, that which we call 'knowing'. It's like a procession, just one thing arising after the other in time. When I saw something, then a fraction of a moment afterwards I knew that I saw, and then a fraction of a moment afterwards I knew that I knew that I saw. There is no such thing as, "I know that I know that I know". The truth of the matter is, "I know that I knew that I knew". When one adds the perspective of time, one can see the causal sequence of moments of consciousness. Not seeing that causal sequence can very easily give rise to the illusion of a continuous 'knower'. This illusion of a continuous 'knower' is most often where people assume that their 'self' resides.

However, as it says in the suttas, one can see that even knowing is conditioned (sankhata) (MN 64). One can see that this too rises because of causes, and then ceases when the causes cease. This is actually where one starts to see through the illusion of objectivity. It is impossible to separate the 'knower' from the known. As the Buddha said many times, "In all of the six senses, such as the mind base, when mind base and mind objects come together it turns on mind consciousness. The coming together of the three is called phassa (contact)" (eg. MN, 28). Consciousness is conditioned, it has its causes, and it's not always going to be there. During the experience of jhana one is totally separated from the world of the five senses. All five senses have disappeared. All that's left is mind, mind base, mind experience. One then knows clearly what mind (citta) is.

Understanding the Nature of Consciousness

Once one knows what mind consciousness is (mind activity, the mind sense), then one can actually notice outside of the jhanas, in ordinary worldly consciousness, that whatever one sees is followed immediately by a different type of consciousness. Different types of consciousness are arising and passing away, one after the other. Maybe it's another sight consciousness, and then mind consciousness, or maybe taste consciousness, and then mind consciousness. This mind consciousness follows immediately, so close behind the other five types of sense consciousness, that it gives the five senses an illusion of similarity. When one sees something, when one hears something or feels something with the body, what is in common with those experiences? What gives it the illusion of sameness? After experiencing jhana one will know that there is this mind consciousness always following behind; holding the hand, so to speak, of the other five senses. Once one sees that, then one can understand why there's an illusion of continuity in the experience of consciousness.

'Knowing' is like the particles of sand on a beach. From a distance it looks like there is no gap, no space, between those grains of sand. Then one goes closer and closer and closer and sees that there are just grains of sand, and in between those grains there is nothing. Nothing runs through those grains of sand. Like water in a stream. It looks like there is a continuous flow. However, once one gets closer with a microscope, an electron microscope, one can see that between the water molecules there is nothing, just space. One can then see the granular nature of consciousness. One consciousness arises and then another disappears. As it says in the Satipatthana Samyutta, "cittas arise and pass away" (SN 47, 42).

A person who still thinks they are the citta (mind), 'the knower', might be able to let go of the body, and get reborn into the jhana realms. But they would have to be reborn into this world again. They are again subject to more rebirths, more suffering. This is because they haven't fully let go of bhava (being). This person has not yet eradicated bhava-tanha (the craving to be), which results from taking the 'knower' to be self. It's like the simile of the tadpole. The tadpole is hatched in the pond, always in the water, and therefore it can't understand what dry land is. However, when the tadpole grows up to be a frog and leaves that water for the first time it carries the water on it's back. It's wet and slimy, but at least it knows what dry land is and it gets an idea for the first time what dryness is.

Hey End in Sight, you never did send me that PM you were going to on this topic. Thought I'd pop over to your house, as it were, to chat on the same subject :


OK, I'll focus right in on that single question because it gets right to the heart of my difficulty. And it's all down to the way we use the various words involved. It is of the form "What is X?" In this case X is "The experience of 'self'" and that's where my problem lies.

Notice the possible ambiguity in that English phrase,"the experience of 'self'". It has the same form as the following phrase:

[indent]"the fear of Death"
[/indent]
There are at least two possible meanings. In one it is referring to the fear that other people have of the person or thing called "Death". For example:

[indent]1. "The deepest fear of all mankind is the fear of Death"[/indent]
In the other meaning it is referring to someone called Death and something that scares him. For example:

[indent]2. "The fear of Death is that his scythe gets blunt and it slips while he's out reaping and he ends up chopping his own leg off by accident. The last time that happened all the rest of the gods laughed at him for weeks. They just wouldn't drop it, and he got so embarrassed he thought he'd ... well, he couldn't *die* obviously, but was really really red-faced..."
[/indent]
OK, so back to "the experience of 'self'". I'm pretty sure from the context that you're talking about the first meaning. That is, you're using it in the same sense as:

[indent]"The most enigmatic experience a person can have is the experience of 'self'"[/indent]
But I suppose it's possible that your intended sense was as in:

[indent]"The experience of 'self' was that he (self) tripped over a copy of MCTB and fell on his (self's) ass"[/indent]
Which of the two was it? (Or was it something else again?)

Robert

P.S. We could of course get all funky and Quinian, postulate a bloke called Death who has only one fear, and ask, in head-scratching puzzled tones, "So ... just what *is* Death's fear?" to which the reply could be: "The fear of Death is the fear of Death" But though that sounds self-referential, it's really not. You still need to pick a meaning for each chunk, and then once youve done that the sentence is clear -- tautological in two out of the four possible choices perhaps, but clear nevertheless.