So, I've investigated my reality and found that it is permanent (timeless and still), satisfying (complete and perfect), and meaningful (a validation of existance without a need for cause or condition).  I must be doing something wrong.

Cool. Did you do this while in jhana? 
Btw, knowing and seeing seems to be an iddhi in the suttas. So I guess you should now focus on learning to develope iddhis if you want nibbana and an ending to the defilements. 

If it was timeless, how did you write the above piece 36 minutes ago?
How did you write it without the condition of the keyboard?
If it is completely satisfying are you still going to eat when you get hungry?

Just pokin' fun with you...

Now,  that's timeless... 

Psi

According to those archaic & dusty scriptures, Nirvana is permanent, satisfactory but not-self. What you are doing wrong is both intellectually and meditatively not comprehending that the three characteristics apply to conditioned phenomena (sankhata dhamma) rather than to the unconditioned phenomena (unsankhata dhamma). That said, I doubt your reality is permanent. 

Not Tao,

When you close your eyes to meditate, do you find that your mind is glued to jhana?

What is the substance of that glue?

-Kyle

I am currently working with the idea of the three dharma seals. Suffering, in my new approach, does not need to be supported (because where is this support coming from, when did it start)?. So if I feel like I do something wrong (like watching TV or posting on the dho), I can in fact keep doing what I am doing.

Pretty sure I know what you mean, and same here.

Only that which is delineated is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-me/not-mine/not-self. The totality -- by whatever name -- never is. (And there's no place from which to evaluate it as such, nothing to compare it against).

I think if 3Cs / 1C are not treated as metaphysics but ways of looking/seeing, they're both interesting and useful.

Only that which is delineated is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-me/not-mine/not-self. The totality -- by whatever name -- never is. (And there's no place from which to evaluate it as such, nothing to compare it against).


The delineation is the totality. Thinking that it is somehow different, or apart from, separate, is uneccesary confusion and the result of separating the two and creating borders where there need not be any. Even this separating is only experience manifest. Look closer into the looker who is able to perceive the perfection of the totality, as well as the experience of the totality itself. That or just spend a lot of time resting attention on the direct experience of the body, which is really just a fancy way of saying the immediacy of experience.

Not Tao: Why make bold proclamations that refute the understanding of others and then ignore any criticism when others try to engage you on the post you created. I believe you won't respond to this as criticism of others, and avoidance of their responses seems to be the name of the game, but it's a pretty slimey way to operate.

I think you think I was saying that 'the delineated' is impermanent / unsatisfactory while 'the whole' is permanent / satisfactory. If so, that's not quite where I was coming from. What I meant was that, once you partition anything off and reify it as an object, that which is partitioned off is thereby subject to the 3Cs... as an artefact of the partitioning. Which is to say, the language of limitation (in time, space, knowledge, etc) then becomes applicable to 'it'. (Which is never the case regarding the totality, by definition, because it can't be objectified).


Why? I'm not sure what you want me to notice, or quite how it relates...

I think you think I was saying that 'the delineated' is impermanent / unsatisfactory while 'the whole' is permanent / satisfactory. If so, that's not quite where I was coming from. What I meant was that, once you partition anything off and reify it as an object, that which is partitioned off is thereby subject to the 3Cs... as an artefact of the partitioning.Which is to say, the language of limitation (in time, space, knowledge, etc) then becomes applicable to 'it'. (Which is never the case regarding the totality, by definition, because it can't be objectified).

Yes, I did read you that way, which I guess you are saying was a misinterpreatation. I like what you wrote here. Well put.
How are you defining the totality that can't be objectified, and are you saying that it itself is neither pemanent nor impermanent? How do you know that you are accurately reading it, and it is not just your subjective interpretation?

Why? I'm not sure what you want me to notice, or quite how it relates...

I guess I'd need you to clarify the question above, but if you believe that the totality stands apart from conditioned experience like thoughts, and feelings, then this itself is a misperception caused by the believe that there is a separate observer or that thoughts/feelings are somehow an experience separate from the totality. A closer look would reveal that they are not two separate things. Even the thought that they are is just the thought that they are. I'm not being clever. I mean that exactly. The thought or perception of separation is only and totally the thought or perception of separation. In seeing this more clearly the attachment to perfection as separate from one's subjective experience evaporates, and the load is lessened signifigantly.

Okay, I think we're barking up the same tree now, but let's find out.

I'm not defining the totality, because any definition -- by definition -- would be a delineation, a partitioning of 'it' from something else, which in the case of the totality just doesn't apply. It'd be self-contradictory. There's nothing specific/limited that it is, and there's nothing specific/limited that it is separate from.


I don't (knowingly) hold to any convictions of metaphysical knowledge, and I don't even find the notion of absolute fidelity to an independent Reality coherent. It would fail to account for the limitations and influences of the knower -- the unknown unknowns -- and I'm very much aware of mine. (Aware that they are, if not what they are).



Yeah, we're indeed barking up the same tree. I see what you thought I might be missing, and thanks for the intention to help.

All good. Thank you. I respect your experience, and clarity with language.

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB+No-self+vs.+True+Self/en

Awareness is effortless. When there is no awareness, there is no me. I am not awareness, but I am aware, and being aware of this moment, there is existance. This moment never began and it won't end, so there is permanence. Abiding with this knowledge, there is nothing but self-fulfillment (self-contained self-awareness - self with nothing but itself).

This is just reality, not a state of mind.  Knowing - the act of knowing - is the satchitananda.

Awareness requires some energy, just like the phyical body requires food. So awareness is not entirely effortless.

There can be awareness without a "me" so the absence of the "me" is not dependent on no awareness.

The mind is aware rather than "I am" aware. The "I" is extra. There can be awareness without the sense of "I am".

Existence is unrelated to awareness. "Existence" is created by "becoming", which is thought created. The Buddha in those archaic dusty old scriptures is reported to have said the world, the arising of the world, the cessation of the world & the path to the cessation of the world is found (created) within this fathom long body with (by) perception & thought.

A moment has a beginning & an end. The moment I began typing the 1st sentence of my reply has gone, forever.

Sounds like everything you write is contrary to the Buddha's awakening.

Hari Krisha baby