Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

thumbnail
Dada Kind, modified 9 Years ago at 8/25/14 8:52 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/25/14 7:40 PM

Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 633 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
In Daniel's essay on the Brahmaviharas he lists several aspects of 'Ultimate Reality'
  • Complete Interdependence
  • Perfect Lawful Causality
  • Total Agencylessness
  • Total Centerpointlessness
  • Total Subjectlessness
  • That Manifestation=Awareness both ontologically and geo-spacially.
  • Atemporality
  • Total Boundarylessness
'Atemporality' makes little sense to me. I do realize that time is abstracted from changing events. For example, on marijuana time seems to go slow because (at least in part) phenomena seem to be changing more rapidly (especially thoughts) so our ability to gauge changes in 'objective time' is stunted. But I get the feeling that this atemporality point is more subtle than that. Does the aforementioned 'time abstraction' process stop at 'arahatship'?

I have a minor quibble with 5. Isn't Total Objectlessness equally true? It seems to me that Total Subjectlessness corresponds to a Noself perspective and Total Objectlessness corresponds to a True Self perspective.

And, Manifestation=Awareness geospacially refers to the fact that awareness can be considered an extraneous concept because sensations are simply manifest and 'aware where they are'. Or, in other words, there are just sensations; sensations and awareness can't be separated. And, Manifestation=Awareness ontologically is a more 'mystical' statement along the lines of ideas like Primordial Awareness, panpsychism, and/or pantheism. That right?

If anyone can clear up these points, especially the atemporality it'd be helpful. Or, even, if anyone else is confused on any of these points feel free to post too.

EDIT:
Oh, and I'm not sure to what 'intrinsic luminosity' refers. Related to 'Clear Light'?
thumbnail
Richard Zen, modified 9 Years ago at 8/25/14 9:57 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/25/14 9:57 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 1665 Join Date: 5/18/10 Recent Posts
Try this talk:

http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/210/talk/11929/
Time and emptiness of time

The brain is clumping a highly detailed and complex universe into simplified objects.  Inherent existence is how we look at objects, which is to treat them as if they don't break down into smaller parts and that they have no causes.  We want to cling to them to get permanent happiness. To not believe in inherent existence is to believe that all objects can be broken down into smaller parts and are all made of cause and effect. This applies to dependent arising (us).  The concepts in dependent arising point to an ultimate but the 12 links themselves do not inherently exist. They are just useful pointers.

It would be good to read some Nagarjuna and brush up on the middle path
http://www.amazon.com/Nagarjuna-Richard-H-Jones/dp/1451539797/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1409021352&sr=8-3&keywords=Nagarjuna
Time does not inherently exist, because the past, the present, and the future are dependent on each other (verse 29). Phenomena which are time-dependent, in their beginning, continuing, and ending in relation to each other, are thus not inherently existent.
thumbnail
Dada Kind, modified 9 Years ago at 8/26/14 4:04 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/26/14 4:04 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 633 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
Thanks. I've neglected tuning into this aspect in my practice.

Now I wonder, how does atemporality manifest experientially upon 'arahatship'?
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 7:26 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 7:26 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Droll Dedekind:
Thanks. I've neglected tuning into this aspect in my practice.

Now I wonder, how does atemporality manifest experientially upon 'arahatship'?
From my experience yes the realization of anatta which daniel described in mctb 4th path does lead to atemporality. Wrote this two years ago: 

Time is just a construct like self. The notion that it takes time for me to walk from point A to B, which implies distance, space and time, deconstructs when we realize there is no atemporal abiding entity or self that is the traveller (this implies I am a truly existing atemporal self that is separate from time/the stream of transient phenomenality, which is not the case). In fact there is not even 'traveling' or 'movement' when Point A is only point A or being-time-A, point B is only point B being-time-B, each instant is whole and complete - there is nothing subjective or objective that is separate from each time-instant that abides and travels from A to B. Where time is being and being is time (things do not occur 'in' or 'pass through' time - they ARE time, as everything is irremediably temporal), there is Only being-time which is the sun and the moon and the stars, wherein there is neither an atemporal object passing through time nor an atemporal subject witnessing or passing through the passage of time and space from one point to another, and neither is it the case of one thing becoming another thing (winter is winter, spring is spring, winter does not turn into spring). Each instance of sight, sound, etc, is an entire and whole being-time independent of past and future (it occupies or IS a unique manifestation-position), yet inclusive of all causes and conditions spanning all time-space in a single moment that transcends the structures of time-object-self dichotomy. Each instant is a happening without movement. Time stops in the midst of temporality but Not by transcending to some unmoved backdrop.
thumbnail
Dada Kind, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 8:57 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 8:57 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 633 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
That clears things up in an intellectual way, though it's difficult to imagine for me. Your quote reminds me of http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Uji_Welch.htm

I see why Shinzen Young draws analogies between flow and differential calculus. 'Perceiving impermanence' is some kind of quirky differential operator on the 'Field'

Thanks for taking the time to dig that out
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 9:49 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 9:48 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Droll Dedekind:
That clears things up in an intellectual way, though it's difficult to imagine for me. Your quote reminds me of http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Uji_Welch.htm

I see why Shinzen Young draws analogies between flow and differential calculus. 'Perceiving impermanence' is some kind of quirky differential operator on the 'Field'

Thanks for taking the time to dig that out
Yes. It will only be very clear experientially when anatta is realized. But that's as close as it gets to explaining it emoticon

Also, Zen Master Seung Sahn said:
"Everyone
thinks that this is extremely difficult teaching, something
beyond their reach or experience. How can things appear and
disappear, and yet there is, originally, even in this constantly
moving world, no appearing and disappearing? A student once
asked me, 'The Mahaparinirvana-sutra seems very confusing.
Everything is always moving. And yet everything is not moving?
I don't understand this Buddhism . . .' But there is a very
easy way to understand this: Sometime you go to a movie. You
see an action movie about a good man and a bad man--lots of
fighting, cars moving very fast, and explosions all over the
place. Everything is always moving very quickly. Our daily
lives have this quality: everything is constantly moving,
coming and going, nonstop. It seems like there is no stillness-place.
But this movie is really only a very long strip of film. In
one second, there are something like fourteen frames. Each
frame is a separate piece of action. But in each frame, nothing
is moving. Everything is completely still. Each frame, one
by one, is a complete picture. In each frame, nothing ever
comes or goes, or appears or disappears. Each frame is complete
stillness. The film projector moves the frames very quickly,
and all of these frames run past the lens very fast, so the
action on-screen seems to happen nonstop. There is no break
in the movement of things. But actually when you take this
strip of film and hold it up to the light with your hands,
there is nothing moving at all. Each frame is complete. Each
moment is completely not-moving action.

"Our minds and the whole universe are like that. This world is
impermanent. Everything is always changing, changing, changing,
moving, moving, moving, nonstop. Even one second of our
lives seems full of so much movement and change in this
world that we see. But your mind--right now--is like
a lens whose shutter speed is one divided by infinite time.
We call that moment-mind. If you attain that mind, then
this whole world's movement stops. From moment to moment
you can see this world completely stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.
Stop. Stop. Like the film, you perceive every frame--this
moment--which is infinitely still and complete. In the frame,
nothing is moving. There is no time, and nothing appears
or disappears in that box. But this movie projector--your
thinking mind--is always moving, around and around
and around, so you experience this world as constantly moving
and you constantly experience change, which is impermanence.
You lose moment-mind by following your conceptual thinking,
believing that it is real."
thumbnail
Dada Kind, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:07 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 633 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
"one divided by infinite time" Man Buddhists are made for calculus I swear.

Recently while practicing Shinzen style noting gones and 'do nothing' I had an experience within a subset of my experience that fit the bill of 'emptiness'. Coincidentally, I explained it like this -- that if each moment was a frame of a movie, if you laid the frames out I felt like I was the infinitely thin blackness between frames that could perceive each frame clearly. I'm not sure if this experience was a genuine taste of 'emptiness' or if I was just hypnotizing myself into an interesting state.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:26 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:26 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Droll Dedekind:
"one divided by infinite time" Man Buddhists are made for calculus I swear.

Recently while practicing Shinzen style noting gones and 'do nothing' I had an experience within a subset of my experience that fit the bill of 'emptiness'. Coincidentally, I explained it like this -- that if each moment was a frame of a movie, if you laid the frames out I felt like I was the infinitely thin blackness between frames that could perceive each frame clearly. I'm not sure if this experience was a genuine taste of 'emptiness' or if I was just hypnotizing myself into an interesting state.

Are you saying that there was a void that was self-aware?
thumbnail
Dada Kind, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:39 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:39 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 633 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
No that doesn't fit the experience and I don't know how to restate your question so that it does fit... "Self-aware" didn't apply to it
thumbnail
Dream Walker, modified 9 Years ago at 8/26/14 6:08 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/26/14 5:39 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 1657 Join Date: 1/18/12 Recent Posts
Droll Dedekind:
'Atemporality' makes little sense to me. I do realize that time is abstracted from changing events. For example, on marijuana time seems to go slow because (at least in part) phenomena seem to be changing more rapidly (especially thoughts) so our ability to gauge changes in 'objective time' is stunted. But I get the feeling that this atemporality point is more subtle than that. Does the aforementioned 'time abstraction' process stop at 'arahatship'?
If anyone can clear up these points, especially the atemporality it'd be helpful.
EDIT:
Oh, and I'm not sure to what 'intrinsic luminosity' refers. Related to 'Clear Light'?


Chronoception - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception
From thread - RE: Post 4th Path Practices
sourced from Daniels website - My Experiments in Actualism
Daniel M. Ingram:
It felt like some part of things directly related to time and some perception of time synchronized in some way that I found totally surprising. The analogy that always comes most readily to mind is that of an engine with its timing belt off one notch: it will run, but it will shake just a bit, or perhaps a lot, depending on the engine. Yet, strangely, this was a shaking I never really noticed until suddenly it was as if the timing belt of the mind jumped back into the right alignment and suddenly the subtle shaking stopped. The entrance to this was not during a Fruition, making this the first of two major shifts that would involve some seemingly somewhat permanent (who though who knows, really) transition into an alternate and better way of perceiving reality that didn't involve that entrance into it.
After that, time pressure was suddenly really different and seemed nearly totally eliminated. Further, the perception of time itself was totally different. Whereas before I could clearly see that time was constructed of thoughts of past and future happening now, and that was something that I could notice when attention turned that way it had taken that sort of attention to that specific aspect of things to receive that benefit of seeing through time creation itself. Now it seemed that those benefits were now hard-wired into my baseline way of being, and those benefits were immediately obvious.
I felt better, clearer, more easy. The Dark Night of my Actualism phase seemed to have vanished. Suddenly I felt that I had gotten what I was looking for, that some new window had been opened, that something was now activated and working through old structures again, a feeling I hadn't had since April, 2003. What was interesting is that this was not at all what my friends were talking about, though they had mentioned things about time effects that were similar, and yet it seemed to be where those practices lead for me. I must assume that some aspect of this is idiosyncratic, though I have a few friends who have described the elimination of time pressure also, just at a totally different phase of their practice and by slightly different methods.
My stab at describing 'intrinsic luminosity' is that it is similar to how realty gets when on a slight amount of mushrooms. (way before any hallucinations) Nature gets crisp and clear and a little more 3d. Things are more beautiful without being able to say exactly why. Does that help?
thumbnail
Eric M W, modified 9 Years ago at 8/26/14 7:49 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/26/14 7:49 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 288 Join Date: 3/19/14 Recent Posts
I can offer you my perspective on atemporality. Things really clicked when I made a brief pass through EQ last year as far as "time" goes.

Poorly perceived, it seems that there is a past, a present, and a future. But if you drop to the level of bare sensations, you see that there is no "past" or "future." There are just mental images, thoughts, and feelings occurring now. All sensations are occurring now, never at any other time than now. At the level of bare sensate experience, there are just flickering, fluxing sensations that are occurring in the present moment. To sound a bit more poetic, what we think of as "time" is nothing more than changes in space occurring in the eternal present moment.

As for intrinsic luminosity, I don't think it has anything to do with clear light or how reality looks, at least not the way that Daniel talks about it. When we say that all phenomena are luminous, this means that they are self-manifesting and self-aware... if that makes sense.

Again, at the level of bare sensations, it makes no sense to say that "I" am aware of a mosquito buzzing. Rather, there are a bunch of sensations of a body, mental processes, hearing the buzzing, all interspersed with one another, and all these sensations are aware of themselves.

Maybe if I get drunk I will be better able to articulate this...
thumbnail
Dada Kind, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 6:34 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 6:34 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 633 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
@DW

Hm.. I wonder if that time synch was in addition to arahatship or if he lost it when he started practicing actualism and then regained it later.

And, colors were only slightly more bright on shrooms, for me emoticon

@MW
Your explanation of atemporality is close to my understanding. And, I still wonder why light in particular is so often involved in metaphors about enLIGHTenment.
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:15 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:00 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
And, Manifestation=Awareness geospacially refers to the fact that awareness can be considered an extraneous concept because sensations are simply manifest and 'aware where they are'. Or, in other words, there are just sensations; sensations and awareness can't be separated. And, Manifestation=Awareness ontologically is a more 'mystical' statement along the lines of ideas like Primordial Awareness, panpsychism, and/or pantheism. That right?

If anyone can clear up these points, especially the atemporality it'd be helpful. Or, even, if anyone else is confused on any of these points feel free to post too.

EDIT:
Oh, and I'm not sure to what 'intrinsic luminosity' refers. Related to 'Clear Light'?


There is no single definition on 'Primordial Awareness', and different people use that term differently. Some people conceive of Primordial Awareness as a changeless source of phenomena, but the view of a 'Source' (behind phenomena and giving rise to it)/'Self'/'changeless' is seen through via insight into anatta. Therefore views such as pantheism does not apply. Especially when one's view about anatta is clear and furthermore extends into realizing dependent origination.

Pantheism conceives of Awareness as having an inherent, changeless existence, like an ocean that emanates waves (phenomena), like a primordial changeless substance that modifies itself into everything, yet remains unchanged by all its modifications. It is like viewing Awareness as an inherent changeless mirror, and all the reflections are the mirror's modifications and are thus the mirror, yet the mirror is not its reflections and persists unaffected by them as their changeless source. Therefore it is not seen as a two-way equation. Awareness is seen as a bigger context of phenomena -- the ocean that transcends and pervades the waves, is larger than everything and inseparable from everything. This I call 'substantial nondualism' or 'One Mind'. When insight into the anatta and emptiness of awareness manifest, one no longer conceives of a larger source behind phenomena. One realizes that 'Awareness' is not a source behind phenomena or manifestation, but is simply manifestation without anything behind (or even inseparable) from it, nothing hidden.

Daniel Ingram's definition of primordial awareness:


Dear Mark,

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

I
think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of
view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

Assume
something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are
exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations,
and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image,
body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are
experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

In this very
simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle
attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we
want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You
mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is
not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that
the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality
of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are
tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate
field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

Thus,
be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is
larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate
at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that
it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an
extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first
and final basis of reality.

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
I
really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also
very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions
converge.

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates,
including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less
concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just
perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this
from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from
sensations, as these are golden chains.


Where manifestation are intensely vivid and clear in and of itself (without any observer behind), or as you say 'aware where they are', that is intrinsic luminosity.


Daniel: "So you have these two extremes -
both of which I find pretty annoying (laughs) - and uhm, not that they
are not making interesting points that counterbalance each other. And
then, from an experiential point of view, the whole field seems to be
happening on its own in a luminous way, the intelligence or awareness
seems to be intrinsic in the phenomena, the phenomena do appear to be
totally transient, totally ephemeral. So I would reject from an
experiential point of view, something in the harshness of the dogma of
the rigid no-selfists that can't recognise the intrinsic nature of
awareness that is the field. If that makes sense. Cos they tend to feel
there's something about that's sort of (cut off?)..."

Interviewer: "And not only awareness..."

Daniel:
"Intelligence. Right, and I also reject from an experiential point of
view the people who would make this permanent, something separate from,
something different from just the manifestation itself. I don't like the
permanence aspect because from a Buddhist technical point of view I do
not find anything that stands up as permanent in experience. I find that
quality always there *while there is experience.* Because it's
something in the nature of experience. But it's not quite the same thing
as permanence, if that makes sense. So while there is experience, there
is experience. So that means there is awareness, from a certain point
of view, manifestation - awareness being intrinsically the same thing,
intrinsic to each other. So while there is experience, I would claim
that element (awareness) is there - it has to be for there to be
experience. And I would claim that the system seems to function very
lawfully and it's very easy to feel that there's a sort of intelligence,
ok, cool... ...the feeling of profundity, the feeling of
miraculousness, the wondrous component. So as the Tibetans would say,
amazing! It all happens by itself! So, there is intrinsically amazing
about this. It's very refreshingly amazing that the thing happens, and
that things cognize themselves or are aware where they are,
manifestation is truly amazing and tuning into that amazingness has
something valuable about it from a pragmatic point of view."-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNg-gps9O0w


I wrote:

"We think that the wheels are mere manifestations
or extensions or attributes of an unmanifest core of a 'car'. But no
matter how we disect the car into its parts, what we find are all
manifestations, and no intrinsic unmanifest core essence is there. The
manifestations are conventionally called 'car', they are not
manifestations 'of a car', those appearance are precisely what's
conventionally called 'car' and no 'car' stands behind/apart from those
appearances -- empty of a hidden/inherent/intrinsic core.

This is
the case for 'Awareness'/'Self'.. and can be directly realized. But due
to strongly rooted view of inherency, Self/Awareness/etc seem to be have
an intrinsic core essence that is enduring beyond all appearances.
There is nothing besides those appearances. There is no
unmanifest/manifest side of awareness, to even speak of their
inseparability. Even formless presence in the gap between thoughts or
when five senses are shut, a pure Mind presence-awareness, that too is
fully manifest and empty of intrinsic existence.

As the cook told Dogen that made a lasting impression on him, there is nothing hidden in the universe... fully manifest.

...

If you understand what I just wrote above, then
you'll also see why 'what it is made of' does not apply since there is
nothing besides/behind/within/apart from the very manifestation. For
example, the apple is not 'made up of sweetness' or the apple is not
'made up of redness' -- the redness, sweetness, just that is
conventionally labelled apple, there is no intrinsic apple apart from
the basis of designation that is the mere-appearance.Therefore directly tasting that appearance reveals its characteristics, but there is nothing intrinsic in it.

its not "sweetness
of the apple" or "redness of the apple", the apple is only that
sweetness, that redness, and apart (or within, or in-between) those
appearance, no apple-ness can be obtained. this is the same insight as
anatta but applying the view to other objects. likewise for awareness,
there is no 'forms of awareness' or 'manifestations of awareness' --
just that manifestation of various forms intensely self-luminous are
'awareness' and there is no 'awareness'
apart/behind/within/in-between/besides them. you can say the
characteristic of manifestation is that they are self-luminous, in the
same way as you can say water is wet or sugar is sweet, yet there is no
wetness apart from that instantiation of water or sweetness apart from
the instantiation of sugar, nor sugar apart from the appearance of
sweetness. in short: the very idea that there is something hidden
within an appearance which the appearance (an apple, sugar, etc) is
made of doesnt apply."

...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the
myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms
themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of
Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all
Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are
enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature
or mind." -- Ted Biringer

therefore,
you can only directly taste that luminosity (i can't tell you what
sugar is like until you tasted it), but forming views about it is what
twofold emptiness will do away with"

Also:

http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/dharmajim/DharmaView.html

2.2 Pantheism
A widely held view of ultimate nature is often referred to as pantheism.
This view comprehends ultimate nature as some kind of primal substance
out of which all things emerge. The most common metaphor for this view
is waves and water. The phenomena that we perceive are the wvaes, but their
true nature is water, which all phenomena share. From this perspective,
the appearances of this world are considered to exist as modifications
of this primal substance. The transcendent substance unites all existing
things, constitutes what all existing things have in common, and is in
a profound sense more real than appearances because appearances seem to
exist in a way that things have differentiating natures whereas in reality,
from the perspective of pantheism, the ultimate nature of things is this
primal substance. The two great elucidations of this view are the Upanishads
of Indian philosophy and Spinoza in the west.
Interdependent Transformation, in contrast, is a non-substantial view of
ultimate nature. The metaphor for Interdependent Transformation most widely
used within the Buddhist tradition is Indra’s Net. In this metaphor the
places where the threads of the net cross are occupied by jewels. The facets
of the jewels reflect all the other jewels in the net. Now, drop the threads.
Now drop the jewels: or rather the jewels are nothing more than the endless
reflections and refractions off of all the other jewels.
The common nature, from the point of view of Interdependent Transformation,
that nature which all things share, is their dependency, their reliance
upon conditions for their existence, not their substance. The dependent
nature of all existing things manifests as a quality of those things, but
does not imply an underlying substance or essential nature. Just as a green
chair and a green table share the color green without implying that they
have a common substance, so the qualities that emerge from Interdependent
Transformation, such as dependence, interdependence, process, contingency,
etc., mark all existing things, but do not imply a substantial presence
or essential nature. This, in part, is what Buddhism means when it says
that things are “empty”; they are empty of substance, empty of essence,
An Eternal Now, modified 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:41 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 8/27/14 10:24 PM

RE: Atemporality(?) and Ultimate Reality

Posts: 638 Join Date: 9/15/09 Recent Posts
Droll Dedekind:

I have a minor quibble with 5. Isn't Total Objectlessness equally true? It seems to me that Total Subjectlessness corresponds to a Noself perspective and Total Objectlessness corresponds to a True Self perspective.

Many people conceive of nonduality in terms of subsuming -- either Subject into Object, or Object into Subject. Such people will subsume everything into Subject and say 'Only the Subject exist, there is no other' or into Object, 'Only the Object exist, there is no other'. But there is a nonsubstantialist insight of nonduality.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/the-pathologies-of-insights.html

Some conversations with Thusness back in 2012 are quite illuminating on this subject:

10/22/2012 9:09 AM: John: To me is just is "AEN" an eternal being...that's all. No denial of AEN as a conventional self

10/27/2012 2:48 PM: John: All is just him is an inference too. There is no other is also an assumption
10/27/2012 2:48 PM: AEN: That's what I said lol
10/27/2012 2:48 PM: AEN: He didn't see it
10/27/2012 2:49 PM: John: But other mindstreams is a more valid assumption. Don't u think so?
10/27/2012 2:50 PM: John: And verifiable
10/27/2012 2:50 PM: AEN: Yeah

10/27/2012 6:21 PM: John: Whatever in conventional reality still remain, only that reification is seen through. Get it?
10/27/2012 6:23 PM: John: The centre is seen through be it "subject" or "object", they r imputed mental constructs.
10/27/2012 6:24 PM: John: Only the additional "ghostly something" is seen through
10/27/2012 6:26 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:26 PM: John: Not construing and reifying. Nothing that "subject" does not exist.
10/27/2012 6:26 PM: John: Get it?
10/27/2012 6:28 PM: John: This seeing through itself led to implicit non-dual experience
10/27/2012 6:28 PM: AEN: "Nothing that "subject" does not exist." - what u mean?
10/27/2012 6:29 PM: John: Not "subject" or "object" does not exist.
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: John: Or dissolving object into subject or subject into object...etc
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: John: That "extra" imputation is seen through.
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: AEN: Oic
10/27/2012 6:31 PM: John: R u clear? Conventional reality still remain as it is.
10/27/2012 6:34 PM: John: Btw focus more on practice in releasing any holdings....do not keep engaging on all these.
10/27/2012 6:35 PM: AEN: Ic.. Conventional reality are just names imposed on non-inherent aggregates right
10/27/2012 6:35 PM: John: Yes
10/27/2012 6:37 PM: John: That led to releasing of the mind from holding...no subsuming of anything
10/27/2012 6:39 PM: John: What u wrote is unclear
10/27/2012 6:40 PM: John: Do u get what I mean?
10/27/2012 6:42 PM: AEN: Yeah
10/27/2012 6:43 PM: John: Doesn't mean AEN does not exist...lol
10/27/2012 6:43 PM: John: Or I m u or u r me
10/27/2012 6:44 PM: John: Just not construing and reifying
10/27/2012 6:44 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: AEN: Nondual is collapsing objects to self, thus I am you
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: AEN: Anatta simply sees through reification, but conventionally I am I, you are you
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: John: Or collapsing subject into object
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: John: Yes
10/27/2012 6:46 PM: John: U r still unclear abt this and mixed up
10/27/2012 6:47 PM: John: Seeing through the reification of "subject", "object", "self", "now", "here"
10/27/2012 6:48 PM: John: Get it?
10/27/2012 6:48 PM: AEN: Oic..
10/27/2012 6:48 PM: John: Seeing through "self" led to implicit non-dual experience
10/27/2012 6:49 PM: John: Coz experience turns direct without reification
10/27/2012 6:49 PM: John: In seeing, just scenery
10/27/2012 6:50 PM: John: Like u see through the word "weather"
10/27/2012 6:51 PM: John: That weather-ness
10/27/2012 6:51 PM: John: Be it subject/object/weather/...etc
10/27/2012 6:52 PM: AEN: ic..
10/27/2012 6:53 PM: John: That is mind free of seeing "things" existing inherently
10/27/2012 6:53 PM: John: Experience turns vivid direct and releasing
10/27/2012 6:55 PM: John: But I don't want u to keep participating idle talk and neglect practice...always over emphasizing unnecessarily
10/27/2012 6:57 PM: AEN: Oic..
10/27/2012 7:06 PM: John: What happens to experience?
10/27/2012 7:10 PM: John: I hv very important deal that should take place within this month hopefully they go through smoothly...we meet after that
10/27/2012 7:13 PM: AEN: Oic.. Ok..
10/27/2012 7:13 PM: AEN: U mean after anatta? Direct, luminous, but no ground of abiding (like some inherent awareness)
10/27/2012 7:15 PM: John: And what do u mean by that?
10/27/2012 7:20 PM: AEN: Means there are only transient six sense streams experience, in seen just seen, etc
10/27/2012 7:20 PM: AEN: Nothing extra
10/27/2012 7:21 PM: John: Six stream experiences is just a convenient raft
10/27/2012 7:21 PM: John: Nothing ultimate
10/27/2012 7:23 PM: John: Not only must u see that there is no Seer + seeing + seen...u must see the immerse connectedness
10/27/2012 7:26 PM: John: Implicit Non-dual in experience in anatta to u means what?

Breadcrumb