Hey all, nice to be back at the DhO.  I’d like to try a new log of sorts, though less of a traditional daily practice log and more of a place for more open-ended philosophical musing and documenting various on and off cushion insights and techniques.

My intention here is simply to inspire thought and discussion, and perhaps motivation towards others’ practice, as I am inspired by others here. You get what you give. We’ll see where and how this goes!

.
.
.

To quickly recap on my practice over the last several months - it’s been okay, pretty good even.  I have not been able to sit as much as I would like, if I’m lucky maybe 30 mins to an hour a day.  Regardless, progress continues on and off cushion, slowly and steadily, and sometimes (often) when least expected.  Rough emotional patches still happen… over this summer there was a period of a week or so in particular that was bad, resulting in lots of apologies to one person in particular who I love very much.  I would say mostly due to behavioral trappings and clinging, as well as environmental issues (we were living in a van for 3 months so that was a little bit rough at times.) definitely not because of ‘overmeditating’… probably more meditation would’ve helped.  Anyway, no lasting damage done at least, I got through that as I always do, it’s going to probably something I’ll have to deal with in form or fashion for the rest of my life, but I think I’ve (we’ve) gotten better at working through these rough patches when they do happen. 

Lately practice, if I’m “officially” sitting, is around Jhana, particularly if concentration is supple, if not, then more Mahasi/Ingram style noting of raw vibrations.  The qualities of 1st and 4th Jhana have always been easier to spot for me than the 2nd and 3rd.  For this reason, I have been focusing on is the 2nd and 3rd and the transition between these two.  On one good day in particular while sitting, I found a way to observe the qualities of 2nd and 3rd whilst utilizing the breath as an object: 

J2 is the in breath, focus towards the crown, like rising up, reaching up, towards the warm sun, basking in the warmth, the bliss, the joy… 
3rd jhana is the out breath, relaxing outward into the peripheral and body, feeling the coolness and the relaxation of that transition.  

This is all ‘soft jhanas’, and yeah I know there’s a bunch of people who will say that’s not jhana and that's fine, I can certainly respect that opinion.

.
.
.

A note regarding paths and models.  I do still follow or “believe in” if you will, some version of the 4 (or 5) path model.  I have been chewing on something recently though, which while catching up on some of these other threads, I was reminded of by something Che said on another thread, and wanted to discuss here.  
There is a lot of emphasis placed in this community on the non-experience of cessation (nirvana).  And for good reason; it is after all the 3rd noble truth and it is this achievement which is the ultimate goal of the Buddhist Path.  However, in my personal experience - (to put it in a very oversimplified way) I feel like the experience of “This” or “thus-ness” or “IS-ness” as Che describes it, is a better measurement of enlightenment than the experience of cessation.
 
Why? Well, for one reason, cessation is not really something you can measure very well because there’s nothing there to measure.  We have to rely on the build up, the ‘after effects’, and the permanent shifts that happen as a result in order to determine if whatever happened was indeed a cessation, and secondly, if it was a Path experience of just a run of the mill cessation.  The ‘non-experience’ itself also presents in different ways, sometimes vastly so.  In MCTB, Daniel talks about the three doors and the differences between each.
It all gets quite messy and confusing. 

On the other hand, ‘This’ is immediately obvious, unquestionably so, so obvious in fact, that anything else (paths, attainments, etc) seems utterly unimportant.  Having my first undeniable experience with it, what I felt was so clearly “this is it, this is what it’s all about”, no if, ands, or buts about it.  It’s crystal clear.  Why would this not be the golden standard for enlightenment?

Now, perhaps where I differ from Che is that I don’t view “This” as incompatible with a progression or model of some sort. 
Again to vastly oversimplify - 
• 1st path = your first glimpse of “this”.  
• Middle paths = somewhere between 1-99% This (On-Demand).  
• 4th Path = Always On.  This is always this, no need to turn it off, never wondering about turning it off, nothing to turn off, no one to turn it off

Using such a model, one may have an experience of This, while still recognizing they are nowhere near done; myself for example, someone who has had an undeniable experience but does not experience This most of the time during ‘normal life’.  It’s something that can happen and does happen, but clearly much more practice / experience needed to solidify the realization into a permanent and thing  …..

** perhaps there is an argument to be made that this and nirvana are one and the same and/or that the original buddhist scriptures already classify things this way, I’m not at all a Buddhist scholar or expert so I won’t comment on that, but perhaps a discussion for another thread or this thread, now or later! **

.
.
.

Now, for an insight I had a few nights back, which occurred before sleep, in a pretty curious way phenomenologically. 
I had been socializing all day, talk talk talking, and my inner monologue was just going off, constant stream of thought.  I’ve always been a little bit socially anxious.  Fear of saying the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing, fear of shame or feeling like I’m making others uncomfortable in some way, fear of embarrassment.

I was feeling some of this fear while my inner monologue was spinning along, saying who knows what, I think just mostly nonsense and jumbled phrases. I began to meditate on this stream of thought, taking the stream as the object of meditation.  At some point all resistance dropped and I went into some sort of trance-like state with a very subtle consciousness, sort of like a dream, except I wasn’t asleep, I was awake. 

During this trance state, I had the feeling of something very important being revealed to me.  It was like whatever was being revealed to me was the most important thing I could ever learn.  However, my consciousness was not really there during this time, so (again, similarly to a very vivid dream), I had to sort of retroactively piece it back together after I woke up out of the experience.

After some time, perhaps 20 or 30 seconds, I sort of realized what was happening and “came to”.  I came out of this trance state and started to think about what had just happened.  The insight that was revealed to me was essentially something like the following - again, trying to piece together something that I can’t really fully explain, but it sort of felt like it was being ‘explained’ or ‘revealed’ to me, so I’m going to write it out as if it was someone teaching me:

“It is the ‘inner monologue’ that is sort of the root of conscious conceptual thought.  All fears, expectations, emotions, thoughts, obsessions, pain, misery, and everything else, are a response to this monologue (perhaps we could equate the monologue to the mindstream).  

“What if I think or say X, Y, or Z, that’s going to offend someone?”
“What if I have some negative thought, that causes me to inflict harm on someone?”
“What if I do X,Y, or Z which causes me karmic harm?”
"What if, what if, what if?"

But, the mindstream itself is nothing more than a physiological function of the mind - it’s like a babbling brook, belching and bubbling along.  There is no more reason to fear what comes out of the mindstream than there is to fear the ripples and bubbles of the brook.  All one needs to do is observe the mindstream with acceptance and self-trust, and the rest will take care of itself.

This knowledge is of utmost importance when it comes to understanding both the cause of suffering, and the end of suffering.“

So, something like that.  It was pretty incredible at the time when it happened (last week sometime).  I described it to my wife when I came out of this trance.


Cheers all!
JW

Been a while since I posted here, I'll try to update more frequently. Most days it just feels like there's nothing worth writing about.  I usually try to sit at least 20 minutes a day but it's usually less.  When I am sitting, it's kind of a mixture of samatha and vipassana jhana type stuff.  I know that's vague and jhana may refer one of many definitions, as can vipassana I guess.  For me I guess it's just sitting.  The jhanic factors are there and they present themselves differently on different days, and I kind of adapt my practice to however the attention and awareness is on that day.  

Today I had a long meditation that was really nice.  I was rested, attention and concentration were supple, and I spent about 45 minutes switching back and forth what I refer to as samatha jhana and vipassana jhana.  I guess it was a flavor of 4th Jhana, and sort of moving between the 2nd, 3rd and 4th subjhanas within that context.  

In samatha jhana, awareness has a much more buttery, relaxed, smooth flavor to it, visually and in the felt sense of the body.  In the visual sense it's sort of these big blob type formations that move around slowly kind of like a lava lamp.  When I switch to vipassana, it's almost like a balloon is being popped, where the visual field becomes much more flickery and the individual sensations become more apparent kind of like flickering snow, almost like the buttery blob is evaporating into itself.  Switching back again into vipasanna, awareness just sort of solidifies again into a more continous blob structure. 

Did this several times, for a while, then got deeper into the vipassana side of things when I noticed the strobing thing that I have experienced a lot in meditation.  Strobing maybe 3-4 times a second.  It's as if the whole attention is latched onto each frame of the strobe.  
So, for some reason, this time this happened, I felt up and touched my eyes, and realized they were fluttering. So the strobing is actually correlated to an eye movement!  I've never noticed this before, and I'm curious about it -- mostly because... it feels a little bit unhealthy?  Lol.  I mean, would that be bad for your eyesight after doing it for a long time.

Anyway... I might make a post about this later.  It was an interesting sit.

" I was reminded of by something Che said on another thread."



​​​​​​​

Haha! Well not following any advice exactly (though I gotta say, you're not wrong most of the time! ;) )

It's just kinda nice when someone else seems to be thinking about some of the same things, y'know?

Like, it appears that we've both been independently tossing around some of the same concepts in our noggins.

By the way, how the heck are you, Mr. Che? Still making music are ya? 

I was reading more about the eye fluttering thing here on DhO, I think it was Mind Over Easy who equated it somewhere to the second vipassana jhana.  Now I can't find the thread for some reason.

Interesting. I had never really mapped it before, I guess I just thought of it as seeing frames of perception, but not necessarily tied to any specific jhana.  It was also the second and third jhanas that were hardest to recognize for me.

So, last night when meditating, when the eye fluttering started I mentally mapped it to second jhana.  Okay, sat with it a while, didn't worry about the physical weirdness of it.  After a little bit the fluttering just stopped, the center of attention flattened out, and the sides of perception started tingling with that familiar coolness.  Well, shoot.  Third jhana.  So, I guess the eye flickering is indeed a tell tale sign of the second vipassana jhana.  Weird, because it feels way different than the second samatha jhana, which is much more like giddy, blissful, upward reaching feel to it.
So that's cool, probably going to be really helpful for my meditations.

Then just 10 minutes ago I was reading more about eye fluttering being a way to trigger cessation and also a mark of a sotapanna. Very interesting, okay.
So after reading these posts I realized that some people can just trigger the eye flicker by manually starting it up like a lawnmower and then just let it ride, then you look upwards into the eye sockets, follow the ending of the sensation, and that will trigger a cessation.
(https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=7278 and https://www.dharmaoverground.org/fr/discussion/-/message_boards/message/22614845)

So, okay, followed those instructions, did it, looked up, and... yep... something definitely happened... 
This isn't like a 'big deal' drop out entirely cessation.  But seems like something I can replicate every time I do it.
There you have it I guess.



On the 'macro' level, I've also noticed that I've been in a little bit of a manic/A&P state, which isn't really a problem, so long as I stay diligent and aware of it.  The risk is sort of "overdoing" it when in this state, which can cause all sort of issues and karmic debt, making subsequent phases (DN etc) much worse than they need to be.

I certainly know my patterns to some extent, and the next week or so will be a good test for me in maintaining mindfulness and self-awareness.  The macro A&P can be actually quite nice and enjoyable and you can get a lot of good stuff done with that increased energy.



.
.

While I'm at it.  One thing I was thinking about today specifically around the rupa jhanas, here's a cool little visual - if you think of the Arising and Passing of all phenomena as a transient wave, like a sine wave.  Each dot along the wave would represent where attention is placed with regard to the rising or passing of that specific object (if in samatha) or those specific sensations (if in vipassana).

1st Jhana - the rising of the wave. Concentration just starting out, slow and gradual increase
2nd Jhana - the peak, where you are viewing the very top of the sensation, and from either side the sensation is either rising or falling
3rd Jhana - the falling of the wave, where the sensations are becoming exhausted (I guess that is the 'coolness' of J3).  Interesting to note this is felt more in the peripheral.  

Then, for 4th and the formless ... I guess in the metaphor you would be somewhere in between / outside of the rising and falling ... ?


Anyway... that's enough for now, if not way too much

Not bad! No music except daily noodling on me Telecasters!  

​​​​​​​At the moment I'm into air rifles and about to get into air soft rifles! My boys are stoked about it so ... why not! 

Starting to explore the transition between samatha j2 and vipassana j2 - and it's clicking a little bit for me.

The rising upward sort of blissful motion of sj2, has actually got this frenetic energy to it, that when you investigate it really does sort of break into movie frames.  Like literally the upward rising just breaks into frames and then your in vj2.  I'm not finding the words to describe it beyond that at the moment, that's pretty much it though.

Also, the impermanance characteristic has been very apparent the last few days, and I started to think about how dependent origination is kind of like the positive/constructive version of the three characteristics approach, which is a more negative/deconstructive approach.

It's really kind of a two sides situation though -- dependent origination (emptiness, interdependency, interconnectedness), quite similar to the three characteristics (no-self, unsatisfactoryness, impermanence)

(Change my view!)

Emptiness, interdependency, and interconnectedness are Mahayana emphases. Dependent origination predates the Mahayana, and I think points to something distinct — namely,

1. the sequential, observable process of sense-consciousness → positive/negative/neutral vedana → craving → clinging → existence,
2. the way in which each step on this chain depends on a prior step, a la necessary conditionality, and 
3. that this whole process is dependent upon a fundamental perceptual ignorance. 

I agree that 'emptiness' overlaps significantly with the three characteristics; you can say that each characteristic is an aspect of emptiness.

​​​​​​​Dependent origination focuses on process, while the three characteristics focus on nature. 

(The usual disclaimers apply — not sure if this is helpful or relevant, and I may be wrong.) 

Hey John L, thanks for your response

Okay, I was being imprecise.  Not to say that "emptiness, interdependency, interconnectedness" are the three aspects of dependent origination, which it sort of implies reading it back.  I was just using three words to describe what I'm referring to as 'dependent origination'.   I'm also just probably using the wrong definition of "dependent origination".

What I'm referring to as 'dependent origination' is maybe the later version of that concept, what you refer to as 'emptiness'.  I guess I'm not aware of the history of that term.  

The twelve links is mostly new to me and I'm fascinated by it- that is, I've heard of it, but never studied it deeply.  This part I know is also taught in the Mahayana, maybe not as heavily emphasized.  It is in the Tibetan wheel of becoming paintings as the innermost part of the circle.  But the 2nd and 3rd points you define below,

2. the way in which each step on this chain depends on a prior step, a la necessary conditionality, and 
3. that this whole process is dependent upon a fundamental perceptual ignorance. 

To me this is kind of the same thing as what you would define as 'emptiness' -- emptiness is the lack of inherent, independent existence of any phenomena, and this limited existence is born out of / a result of what was called in my Tibetan classes "ignorant self-grasping".  So in other words, I'm not sure there's a huge difference between my definition and yours.

Studying the 12 links and internally experiencing them I think would simply give me more detailed insight into the nature of the transient, illogical, interdependent, and chaotic nature of both the internal and the external experience/worlds-- more insight into the 'why' and the 'how', .but I don't think it would really fundamentally change the higher level insights that 'sit on top of' it, so to speak.  Not to say it's not worth doing!

(Oh, and actually, yes this was helpful!)

Me neither! You might be right.

I'm not sure how Mahayanists regard dependent origination, but I know that, in the Tripitaka, dependent origination is, in essence, about how all things exist in a necessary conditionality relationship. Maybe the Mahayanists expand it from necessary conditionality into interdependence, but in my mind those are distinct. 

Ah, well put. For this sort of thing, I always think of Michael Taft's words (paraphrased): "When you lose the subject, you also lose the objects." 

I agree. 

To your point, Mr. Nagarjuna equates (or, if I'm being snarky, conflates) dependent origination with emptiness. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18: "It is dependent origination that we term emptiness."

JMHO, but I view dependent origination as a process - steps the mind takes on the way to object consciousness. Emptiness, to me, is a view - a way to perceive the world in which everything is conditioned and impermanent.

YMMV, of course.

@chrismarti well put, in fact I saw thinking along these lines today but couldn't quite put it into words like you have here.  

To expand,

Dependent origination (with the emphasis on the 12 links) is talking about the internal mental processes, as you say - it's focused inwards since, obviously, the only mind we have access to and visibility into is our own.

Emptiness is exactly that, it's a view, and while I generally thinkg of it as more external-facing (you've got the cycle of rebirth and the various realms and all of that), it's not necessarily so. One can also view the internal experiences, sensations, etc, as empty, and in fact the 12 links themselves are empty.

Actually when I was first taught about emptiness the objects that were used were the body and the self.  Which aren't really 'external' objects.  

Conversely, while the 12 links are more obviously inward facing, I think they could also be relevant towards the external as it's the 12 links which explains the karmic patterns and cycle that shape both the internal and externals worlds - samsara.  They perhaps can't be seen as clearly in the external, but they (or evidence of them) still can be seen.

Clunky response, sorry, no time, no sleep, crazy week  

Yep - but if it were up to me, I'd drop the "inside" and "outside" references.

+1

Yes, I mean, really what we have are our senses and what comes into contact with them.  Everything we 'know' about the 'outside world', so to speak, is known through this contact.  So there's really no internal or external, there is just the senses as part of the 12 links, clinging, craving, feeling, etc etc.

But, that's not to say that nothing exists outside of my own experience.  There is what happens within the boundaries of my own physical body - which is, well everything, from a phenomonological perspective, and there is what happens outside the boundaries of my own bodymind - which we can glimpse but not fully directly experience - hence the use of the words 'internal' and 'external'.

When you say:

"a way to perceive the world in which everything is conditioned and impermanent"

I think of this as "external-facing", as when you say "world", I equate that to "samsara", meaning, the entire cyclical universe, not just what happens within my own mind.  Which of course includes what happens within my own mind - again, it's not really just external-facing, as I mentioned, it's more just sort of a tendency as to where this view is focused, if you will.

I'll be scandalous: dependent origination isn't a process. 

​​​​​​​

Very interesting. Maybe because, pre-4th, we're always living in the ambient craving of the self-view? There's always some sense-consciousness, always some vedana, always some craving, always some clinging… And when ignorance drops, so does that way of life.

Even pre-4th path there are times when the inherent emptiness of a dependency is known and there is no continuity of causation. Sometimes we can contact a pleasent sensation without being greedy, sometimes we can contact an upleasant sensation without being averse. We all have moments of being an arhat, so to speak. 

The trick is that the dependencies are necessary, because they co-arise. Other needs subject, background needs foreground, "feeling tone" needs contact.... but subject doesn't create other, foreground doesn't create background, contact doesn't create feeling tone. 

(This really good be its own yearlong conversation/thread, probably.)

So basically you can’t see the problem without the contrast?

"(This really good be its own yearlong conversation/thread, probably.)"

I hope so, it's gonna take me a couple of months just to grok these last 3 comments!

Or maybe a way to say it is, to the extent you do see the full construction you don't have greed, aversion, or indifference and the suffering (?)

The challenge in talking about meditation related insights is that we're talking about the nature of experience/the nature of mind. Too often the conversation starts slipping into a philosophical conversation with normal nouns and verbs. Meditation related insights are about how reality gets bifurcated right at the moment of even non-verbal perception. 

Thanissaro uses "dependent co-arising" in his translation https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

Leigh Brasington has an interesting framing of it https://leighb.com/sodapi/ and uses the expression "dependently arising phenomena".

Burbea probably has the most detailed discussion in the Seeing that Frees, but his writing style is sometimes laborous, at least it was for me. Very complete discussion however, including stages of presenting simplistic DO and ultimately the emptiness of DO itself. 

It might be good to ponder how this applies to emotion. A full experience of a non-verbal emotion doesn't cause suffering. The full information of the emotion gets fully conveyed and there is nothing to suffer about. A partial emotion with a bunch of aversion with a bunch of discursive thinking is how we normally experience emotions. But emotions can't really be experienced by pushing them away and thinking about them. When emotions are fully experienced as emotions, both as form and emptiness, then their wisdom nature becomes evident. (This might be a good read: https://www.aroterlineage.org/en/teachings/embracing-emotions-as-the-path/)

Somewhat poetically.... Fundamentally mind objects don't collide with each other.

But anyway... really this stuff only becomes clear through practice, these insights happens when there is interest and investigation about the dynamic of the mind. 

​​​​​​​My god, that is absolutely scandalous!

My only comment would be to ask what we both define as "dependendent origination." I was referring to object creation in the mind, which is subject to a dependency between signal, recognition, and interpretation. You seem to be referring to interaction between objects. Do I have that right?

Well said, this is how emotions are experienced here and their becoming wisdom when fully lived through is an ever amazing rediscovery for me. Then the challenging emotions can be seen as treasures. Do I detect a pinge of muscle flexing following pixel cloud's recent critique? Well I like the shape of this bicep !  ;) 

Ah, so this is like a literal explanation of how “progress” on the path happens, without the metaphors and poetry. It explains that uncertain period where one continuously wonders if they are “enlightened” yet. 

I think we're both talking about aspects of interpretation...

I'm pointing out how framing is inherent in mind objects. Calling it a process implies an aspect of duration and time that doesn't necessarily exist I think.

One way to say is perception is a construct but not necessarily constructed (in time), which probably sounds stupid. Oh well.

This is a pretty good summary of Burbea on Dependent Origination

https://hermesamara.org/resources/talk/2010-02-13-the-subtlety-of-dependent-origination  

he builds to a discussion of the emptiness of now and time and... 

If time is empty, [then] production, abiding, ceasing are empty. Arising, staying, ending are empty. In the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, one of the very famous Mahāyāna sūtras, it says:
Phenomena do not arise. They do not abide. They do not cease.
​​​​​​​
And you get that kind of statement many times in Prajñāpāramitā texts. It means, ultimately speaking, time is empty, so you can't really say that really, things abide, arise, and cease.

I think I've lost my Kyosaku somewhere around here ... don't bother I'll find my way out ... my bad! 

"Do I detect a pinge of muscle flexing following pixel cloud's recent critique? Well I like the shape of this bicep !  ;) "

I'll keep flexing if it means Olivier will keep showing up!

 Welcome, noble youth, that comest to my abode on the car
that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers ! It is no ill 
chance, but justice and right that has sent thee forth to travel 
on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten track of 
men ! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things, as well 
the unshaken heart of persuasive truth, as the opinions of
mortals in which is no true belief at all.

One path only is left for us to 
speak of, namely, that It is. In it are very many tokens that 
what is, is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete,
immovable and without end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for 

5 now it is, all at once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin 
for it will you look for ? In what way and from what source
could it have drawn its increase ? I shall not let thee say nor 
think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be
thought nor uttered that what is not is. And, if it came from 

10 nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than 
sooner ? Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at 
all. Nor will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides 
itself from that which in any way is. Wherefore, Justice does
not loose her fetters and let anything come into being or pass 

15 away, but holds it fast. 
" Is it or is it not ? " Surely it is adjudged, as it needs must 
be, that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and 
nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path is real
and true. How, then, can what is be going to be in the 

20 future ? Or how could it come into being ? If it came into 
being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is 
becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of. 
Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more 
of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding
together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is. 

25 Wherefore all holds together; for what is, is in contact with what is.
Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, without 
beginning and without end; since coming into being 
and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has cast them away.
It is the same, and it rests in the self-same place, abiding in itself. 

30 And thus it remaineth constant in its place; for hard necessity
keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side. 
Wherefore it is not permitted to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of nothing ; while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything. It is the
same thing that can be thought and for the sake of which the thought exists ; 

35 for you cannot find thought without something that is, to which it is 
betrothed. And there is not, and never shall be, any time other, than that which 
is present, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable.
Wherefore all these things are but the names which mortals 
have given, believing them, to be true – 

40 coming into being and passing away, being and not being,
change of place and alteration of bright colour. 
Where, then, it has its farthest boundary, it is complete on 
every side, equally poised from the centre in every direction, 
like the mass of a rounded sphere; for it cannot be greater or 

45 smaller in one place than in another. For there is nothing 
which is not that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor 
is it possible that there should be more of what is in this place 
and less in that, since it is all inviolable. For, since it is equal 
in all directions, it is equally confined within limits. 

50 Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought about the truth. 
Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals, 
giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words. 
Mortals have settled in their minds to speak of two forms, one of which 
they should have left out, and that is where they go astray from the truth. 

55 They have assigned an opposite 
substance to each, and marks distinct from one another. To the 
one they allot the fire of heaven, light, thin, in every direction 
the same as itself, but not the same as the other. The other is 
opposite to it, dark night, a compact and heavy body. 

Parmenides, On nature (translation is kind of weird with the King James style, could probably be better)
 

Very good reference, seems completely consistent with DO yet from another tradition entirely (unless you go down the road of greek folks talking with indian and asiatic folks in egypt, alexandria, etc.) 

I feel like the two things that are kind of haunting me these days is: why do people speak so certainly about the "the one" or "source" or "ground" of reality (used a lot in Wilber's Integral/transpersonal stuff) given your passage and DO and buddha saying things like:

 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html  

???

And conversely, what to make of wild stuff like guardian angels and ancestors advisors and multiple lives and NDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCWZGZAJJUc and the view that people incarnate for a purpose which is so prevalent in aspects of egyptian metaphysics, magick, and pantheism/shamanism. Some of this seems grounded in experience/personal evidence, while some of this comes off as simple and somewhat childish "just world hypothesis/fallacy". 

Despite all the friction, Dzogchen seems to hold up still. Daoism, too. But they survive by virtue of their lack of requiring definitive definitions for the most part. Alan Chapman's "One Problem" also seems very explainative of most of human drama and is kinda genius: “the One Problem… is an assumed absence of ideal participation and a false strategy for escaping the absence."

I guess Shakespeare was right when he said..."There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Of course, Shakespeare just created the original plays and the dark lady Bassino that actually rewrote them into scholarly masterpieces: https://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Dark-Lady-Amelia-Bassano-ebook/dp/B00IO86B4O 

Fun! I think I fit all my favorite conspiracies into a single post.

No, not stupid at all. I get you.

I think these issues get most confusing when we interweave views, which may be what you meant by"framing." So yes, there is a view of reality (accessible to some)  in which time and space are constructs, totally relative, totally empty. There is another view of time and space (available to everyone, habitual), in which causality and dependency play out in time and space and determine how reality plays out. Neither is right, neither is wrong. They're just different and exist alongside, symbiotic in a way.

​​​​​​​The Diamond Sutra meets MCTB  
​​​​​​​

Thanks all for the insightful conversation here.  Lots for me to think about and research...

So, shargrol, if I understand what you are getting at, when you say that DO is not a process - you're focusing on the "co-arising" aspect of it - 

I'm reminded of the sheaves of reeds parable. 
Or the house-builder:
"Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained."

Or maybe to use a more modern metaphor - Jenga.
When fundamental ignorance (the first link) is cut off (or perhaps, "seen through"), the tower of ignorant self-grasping collapses.

Still, I would say DO does describe a process, a linear, cyclical process, although each step in that process is co-dependent and empty.  And, the moment of fruition, the 'goal', the breaking of the chain, (the "co-arising" part) you may not really describe as prodecural, it's more of an 'event' or an insight, or more simply, just the nature of reality, just the way things are (?).  

So yes, to echo earlier comments, I think it can be seen as both a process and not a process, depending on what aspects of DO you are focusing on.

I'm gonna tattoo this onto my forehead. 

FWIW, I don't think of the unconditioned as a unitary, interconnected, 'root consciousness ' type thing, which I think you are referring to as the One Problem. To me that would imply a single 'source' from which all phenomena arise, it also implies sort of a shared or interconnected consciousness, which I normally map to more 6th jhana territory.

I think of it simply as a mode of experience that is unfiltered by the clinging ignorant self-view. A direct, unresistant experience rather than the muddied, overly complex hall of mirrors that is our 'normal experience'.

Complex in its own way, but crystal clear at the same time. If that makes any sense...

​​​​​​​( you could make the argument that each link is dependent on the previous link- craving and clinging require a feeling tone, which requires a sensation, which requires contact and consciousness, etc -- and as such, each is the 'root' of the next, but I don't think that's what we're really talking about here)


Edit :

In fact, I dare say it (the unconditioned experience) is incongruent with this felt sense of 'the one' - 'the one' type view is a form of selfing - or more like "super-selfing" you might say.  It's still a 'me-centric' view, even if that "me" seems to include multiple consciousnesses, seems to strech beyond the typical boundaries of the bodymind, across time and space, etc.  Or in the less refined versions, a sense of a 'watcher', an omnipresent big brother.  In this less refined state, it's quite obviously a mental / archetypal projection, not at all necessary and in fact can be quite a hinderance.

Parmenides was a contemporary of Gotama, so it seems very unlikely. What blew my mind when I first read Parmenides, is that he is considered as one of the first greek philosophers at the root of our european civilization. And what he is saying is consistent with the deepest insights of emptiness in madhyamaka buddhism. At the same time, I was into Dzogchen, and discovering Michel Henry, a philosopher who says about the same things but based on his own explorations and christian mysticism (Eckhart). It all clicked to gether in a way that... well I still live in the aftermath of these supernovas 

Edit: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/826512.In_the_Dark_Places_of_Wisdom, interesting historical information, though it doesn't add to the actual Parmenides text
​​​​​​​
I don't know, and it's probably also a language problem, i.e., someone might be saying "the one" in a way that some would dismiss as reifying a unitive principle when in their mind, the meaning they associate with that word is different. But what I find most interesting about this sutta is how the Buddha stresses that a Worthy One does not delight in Unbinding. It's right there for everyone to see. And funny how those listening to his speech are displeased with it. I don't see a contradiction between non duality and the possibility of phenomena like you describe, and angels, etc. It's a via negativa, only negating something about the mode of being of reality, but doesn't say much about the way forms manifest or what forms can manifest... Humans are also negated as existing in the way we would naively think as mortals, but still here we are. Why not angels etc.? Incidentally the buddhist texts are as full of that as the ancient greek texts (read Plato's Phaedrus...), and of course our whole christian tradition that grew partially out of the latter, and things like https://emergewiki.org/index.php/Synthesis:Neoplatonism

To me what remains after going through the insights of the madhyamika or the eleatics (the school of Parmenides in the ancient city of Elea, whence the famous Zeno paradox of achilles and the tortoise originated — it is very much like a madhyamika reasoning when you think about it, isn't it? We get told at school that this is the origin of the mathematical notion of limit, but actually it's much deeper, it is a negation of what appears as substantial movement through time) is very much a mystery, even the simple daily life things... This all kind of leads to a deep humility about what one can know or not, doesn't it. 

edit: A few months ago I attended a lecture by a scholar of early buddhism who I would highly recommend here. It talked about how specific figures in the Pali canon were actually real people with their own specificc inlinations (ie one guy into powers and supernatural experiences having a discussion with the buddha about it in one sutta, and then another who is into logical analysis and emptiness) later going on to actually found their own traditions through oral transmission. https://www.academia.edu/126450040/Proto_madhyamaka_in_the_Pāli_canon_revisited_Early_Buddhism_Gandhāra_and_the_Origin_of_the_Prajñāpāramitā 

Row row row your boat, gently down the stream,
Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream...
​​​​​​​Do you know the one about lyme's disease being engineered on a certain plum island lab? ;)

Even in modern times, Western literature and philosophy is full of what seem to me pseudo-Buddhist concepts, whether that be descriptions of interconnectedness, interdependency (emptiness), or descriptions of the impermanence of the self, descriptions of grasping, cessation, etc.  I'm not much of a literary scholar myself, but my wife is so we frequently discuss this stuff, I've become aware of these references through her. 

Two examples that come to mind are Jacques Lacan (no doubt Freud as well) and Virginia Woolf.  I'm going to be lazy and not direct quote, and instead paste a summary from Google AI mainly because I don't have time at the moment to go through - but these are both short stories from Woolf, easy to read the whole thing:

Virginia Woolf - A Sketch of the Past, 
Street Haunting: A London Adventure

Lacan's writing on the Mirror Stage - and his lectures on the Self -  Ecrits

From Google:
When I first 'discovered' this connection/synchronicity a few years ago, it was pretty mindblowing.  Now, not as much - after all, why wouldn't contemplatives interested in the internal experience, in the nature of consciousness and the nature of thought, in the nature of being human, arrive at some of the same or similar conclusions even if coming from vastly different backgrounds and using different language?  It makes perfect sense that they would.

What is more mindblowing to me today is how these Western modernists and postmoderists, writing from the 1920's through the 50's and 60's, or as late as the 70's and 80's - and I'm sure I could find you many more from even later - seem (as far as I can tell) more or less completely oblivious to the entire body of Buddhist literature, which one would think would be at least mildly interesting to them.  It's more excusable for the earlier writers like Woolf, who may not yet have had access to that literature (although many texts had been translated for over 50 years by the time of her writing).

But for someone like Lacan, I think it's fair to state that if he was not aware of Buddhist ideas around the self, while writing about the mirror stage in the late 1950's, that would be a pretty huge gap in his research.

Too many words

Kyosaku

 

Haven't had much time to sit lately but I wanted to post a quick update.

One question that has really stuck with me is Malcolm's comment from the other very helpful thread (Thanks, Chris and Malcolm, if you're reading this!)
:

"Can you think without using language?"


This question has been sort of driving my practice lately.  On cushion, and off.  
The answer is, definitely yes - all kinds of thoughts happen without language. Thought can have a visual or other sensory element, and/or feeling tone, without any language being applied.  Even 'noting' or labelling does not necessarily involve language.  Rapid-style noting, at least that I am used to, does not involve actually naming the sensations, it's more just a recognition of each frame of experience.

Depending on the scenario, it may be more difficult to avoid using language.  Like, for example, writing out this post, or any other activity that requires the use of language.  But in other scenarios it is much easier to not use language.  The first thing that came to mind when Malcolm asked that question was music.  When I'm playing, improvising, whatever, I'm clearly thinking- how else would I be performing?  But there is no linguistic structure.  

Also, in meditation -there is lots of thought that does not involve language, a lot of the time.  This is where the really juicy stuff is!  The more subtle levels of consciousness.  I've started to think of language as sort of a layer of complexity above thought.  In practice, what that means is, if I find myself 'narrating', or using language, that's a sign that I'm getting distracted and lost in narrative.  All the good stuff is below the level of language. 

I guess 'abstract' thought might be a way to describe that layer below language, and in my experience, that abstract layer is much more ... (hmmm... well let's see, how do you describe something that is felt but not logically and linguistically dependent...)
Well, here's some words:
-full, rich
-sensitive
-subtle (i know i use that word a lot... )


So, yeah, Malcolm, I'm beginning to think there is a lot of truth to what you say about language being one of the main causes of suffering

I think of thoughts as manifesting as audio, visuals, or textures. I used to have a running inner monologue, but these days, auditory thoughts typically only pop up if I'm imagining or rehearsing a conversation. If someone lacks an internal monologue by nature, they might lean more heavily on visual thoughts; I've seen an example of that. 

Texture thoughts are a great medium. They can be faster, less linear, and less explicit than auditory thoughts, since they don't depend on language. Mysteriously, the textures themselves are intrinsically meaningful; it's like they are inherently expressive.

If you're not 'trying' to solve a problem, then oftentimes linear auditory thoughts won't arise, and a solution will bubble up non-linearly from the void. Real-world problems are typically not about linear reasoning anyway, so this sort of non-linearity proves useful. 

I come to LOVE thoughts! I'm not joking or being silly! I love emotions and love thoughts! I love the way the mind creates stories out of nothing! It's just so awesome! 

Yes, me too! It's why I'm interested in em.

What are 'thoughts'? Where do they come from? Where do they go? Who thinks em? 

What is it that arises and passes? Where does it arise from, where does it pass to? If all sensations are transient, does anything actually ever rise or pass?  If not, why does it seem to?

What about just enjoying it all as, without the questions of where and how this or that arises and passes, and where to, and so on? (This to me looks a bit like mind narrowing down into a trance tunnel (which is ok if seen as such of course).

Or why not also enjoy the very questioning as that too is thinking?  

However, this enjoyment is not born out of rational will but out of clear-direct seeing of how thisness is manufactured and insight into none of this/non-this is I, me or mine, hence devoid of any claim or possession really. Its a screen(play)

I'm not sure if I can think of any sort of enjoyment that is based out of 'rational will'.  I would describe enjoyment as more of an emotion than a rational response to anything.  

And, I apologize if I gave the impression that I don't enjoy questioning - that's not at all what I meant to imply.

I would love to be able to just sit and meditate and make music and ponder the nature of the mind all day

Hey, I guess I can a lot of the time...


"(This to me looks a bit like mind narrowing down into a trance tunnel (which is ok if seen as such of course)."

To me, it's these types of questions that sort of get me into a state that is beyond (or below?) words, below what I think of as 'thought' and language. Not to say this is any sort of ultimate goal but it feels like where I need to be right now. I guess I'm following my intiuition.
I'm not really sure what you mean by trance tunnel.  Are you talking about the focus of attention being very narrow?  

What I'm describing is vipassana...
​​​​​​​
Sorry, it feels like I'm not really getting my points across...



Those questions were semi-rhetorical, but I was also asking them in response to your comment.  So, Mr. Che, how would you describe 'thoughts'?   Can you think without using language?

It feels like I'm coming to enjoy the rollercoaster ride more than I used to.  At the moment I just find it fascinating and wonderous that experience can be so varied, and so colored by whatever it is that is going on in your life at that time, by the causes and conditions.  For me these cycles mostly revolve around the work week, I'm in the trenches most of the week and my job, a lot of the time, is pretty hellish.  To be honest though, I've come to rather enjoy the hell realms.  There is sort of this solitude in the narrowness of focus, in the one-tracked-ness of mind, in the grinding of the gears, that's actually rather pleasant.  And then after all, what is heaven without hell?  

There's really nothing like experience opening up after a long trek in the trenches as well.  It's nothing short of miraculous.  I mean, look at those street corners that were so dirty, smelly, gross, and dimly lit yesterday, and look how they've transformed into these glowing, peaceful storybook street corners.  How is that possible that the mind can do that?  So, I've come to really enjoy and appreciate this variety, and I'm recognizing how the diving into and trudging through the trenches is a necessary part of this mind-dance.  

That's not to say things can't go wrong.  If ever I'm struggling, it's at the biological level that I need to keep a very close eye.  Sleep is my absolute #1 priority during these times.  Everything revolves around getting enough sleep.  7-8 hours preferred, 6 hours at a minimum.  There's also exercise, meditation, art, intimacy, all of these things I find really important all the time but especially if going through a particularly bad slog.

Anyway.  

I'm interested in the concept of sankhara and how this relates to what we might call karma or 'causes and conditions'.  The 'stuff' that colors our experience, probably for reasons beyond our comprehension.  How exactly do these causes and conditions color our experience?  Where do they color them?  Is this something we can observe?
(questions asked in a cordial Ted-talk like manner)

This sounds really good! Noticing how things are. And appreciating how things are. So nice! In many ways, the nicest.

I find it useful to think about sankharas, when referring to them in relation to the mind, as "programming." That was a term used by the former DhO mod, Poly Ester, which was a coin-drop for me. It's easy to see their edges by noticing that every time x happens, y happens. 

Thanks Martin!
Hey, DhO is back online again.  Was it down for everyone else for a good while?
I'm still experiencing a lot of performance issues though.
​​​​​​​I wonder if there's something going on?

Yes, the DhO (Liferay) platform is acting up again. It's being investigated, and hopefully things will improve soon. It's frustrating, having taken a good 20 minutes for me just to post this one short message.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

Chris M
DhO Moderator

EDIT: And just like that, response times are quick and easy again!

Hey Chris, thanks for the update.  It is running faster now for me as well.  My hunch would be database query response time - indexing.

​​​​​​​If I recall correctly from several years back that Simon had some processes around this that would help remediate this type of stuff. I've just sent you all an email in case I can be of any assistance.

I miss Linda / Poly Ester! Hope she's doing well wherever she is.

Last thing I've heard from her is that she is in love!  

"So, Mr. Che, how would you describe 'thoughts'?   Can you think without using language?"

I experience both verbal and imaginary thoughts! At times one or the other, and at times both roles together.

Experiencing such is very natural. What is curious is "who knows all this?" And why is this "knowing" always a step behind? So what is this knowing/knower? 

Well that sounds nice!  Good for her