I'm curious to hear people's experiences or understanding of the three doors in this case the impermanence door. Daniel does a lovely job describing them.

He wrote of the impermanence door:

There are many parts of this tradition, I grok. This may or may not be one of them; I just don't know. Just for my part here, my aim is to connect (which can be tricky (hence all the more rewarding) sometimes between traditions) rather than speculate. That being said, if the spirit moves you, look forward to responses or your reflections on the impermanence door.

Dan

.

This forum is fairly practically oriented. You'll probably get more responses to questions about how to put the teachings into practice yourself.

Well, a recent one: was driving down the road, things were pretty chill, then suddenly the whole universe: car, scene, body, mind, space, everything, shudders totally 3 times really fast, say in about 1/4 of a second for all three pulses, then the whole thing vanishes and reappears, all taking less than 1/2 a second. Driving continues normally.

Just an example.

Helpful?

Daniel

It is helpful - Thanks. It isn't the same, but from the descriptions the thing that comes to mind is seeing consciousness existence refreshing/renewing itself in waves (thin ebbs, but not - - - - - out) happening all the time which ultimately is a practical re-minder of what the true situation is. From your descriptive experience (again just talking experientially in appearance for any theorists), the description is not of *waves* (analog), rather a *strobe light* (digital or binary) experience of existence full stop.

Even if this is totally different good to see where this tradition leads as I begin to learn more about it. Best, Dan.

Thanks Fivebells - appreciate the perspective. I'm coming in from a different teaching and reading Daniel Ingram's book. So currently oriented towards a lot of translation and grocking of specialized terms, etc.

If you know someone with robust insight, great communication skills, and a good experiential knowledge of the theravada, I'd love to find a new friend to Borg on this with.

Based on your response you seem to be coming at this with some experience in Adivaita /Self-enquiry type practice, is that correct ?

Hi DZ, self inquiry, yes. I'd heard the word, Adivaita, for a few years here and there and recently I've run into it a bit. A teacher named Jean Klein on youtube seems (to me) v. clear. I don't know how common Adivaita is, but (and this is just my felt sense) some adivaitist students and teachers I've seen/listened to on youtube seem to be referencing the mind heavily for the way in which they are able to speak (again just my impression from the "stiffness"). I've not studied Adivaita, but I do recall their vocabulary wasn't as specialized as I've seen in here on this site or in Daniel Ingress's book.

This is an interesting place and tradition. I found this site today (below) which appears to be the same tradition as here (to me). The descriptive language of which I found very clear. It may be from ingesting/groking a good portion of Daniel's book over the last few days.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#fn-41

How about you? From where do you come at this?

Dan

Cool. The reason I am asking is that it makes it a bit easier to explain how the MCTB stuff relates to your realization. My background is mostly in pragmatic dharma / whatever works. But lately I am finding value in traditional Buddhist stuff.

Some thoughts...

Self-enquiry: Results in a realization of a sort of ultimate Subject, or Self, or Pure Consciousness. It is vivid and pure, abiding in this base removes all the suffering of what we would normally call the unenlightened self. This becomes a sort of pure experiential base of all things. An analogy would be an empty page on which the picture of impermanent picture of reality is painted

MCTB: Center-less, Agency-less, no-Self. There is no experiential base only experience. But the way that this realization is attained, is by manipulating the flow of attention in a way that it is periodically interrupted (noting / refreshing awareness). This allows quite a bit of insight, but the noting pattern interrupts, do not promote consistent abiding. So people practicing in this way do not experience vividness or sensory clarity, and in the MCTB tradition this is 'impermanence'.

At this point they seem pretty disparate, and they are is why there will be al lot of confusion when you try to understand the other in terms of your own realization.

It is however possible to reconcile the two.

Coming from the MCTB side, the solution for me was stabilize attention, by paying attention to the sense doors. And then later deconstructing the sensory perceptions themselves.

Coming from the self-realization, one might follow a path that looks something like this. Bascially further breaking down duality by examining the 'Self'. And then later deconstructing sensory reality (which is also really breaking down duality).

An analogy for this reconciled realization might be a futuristic hologram drawn on thin air, vivid and insubstantial at the same time.

Thanks DZ - very interesting. I think I understand the untrained aspect of (inquiry vs MCT not leaving the *habit of noting* (which is itself another object.)

I get what you're saying on Self-enquiry, the "What is I?" question as well as the probing and dissolution of emotional/energetic/felt sense of identity anywhere it is found. Doesn't it also result in "no experiential base", though the sense-notion of the "empty page" (the thought/feeling that this is a "real reality" behind "the only reality we've ever known and will likely every know" can take a while to drop. Part of that every subtler process (including vibratory energetics "in" the body) of everything as it is realized as an object and as it is, reciprocally "we" are realized to be what's left, nothing.

When you say "paying attention to the sense doors", could you explicitly describe the sense doors experientially? Is this identical to "the sensory perceptions themselves" that you deconstructed?

Thanks, Dan