Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 2:09 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Bill F. 3/29/15 3:01 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Mark 3/29/15 3:24 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 3:31 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Mark 3/29/15 3:58 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 4:29 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Mark 3/29/15 5:28 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 7:09 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Mark 3/30/15 2:45 AM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Alin Mathews 3/29/15 3:48 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 3:39 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Alin Mathews 3/29/15 4:39 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 4:29 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Alin Mathews 3/29/15 5:25 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 6:52 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Alin Mathews 3/29/15 11:00 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 11:04 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Alin Mathews 3/29/15 11:35 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Nikolai . 3/29/15 3:35 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 3:52 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation . Jake . 3/29/15 8:23 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 11:00 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Bill F. 3/29/15 11:11 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 11:33 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Bill F. 3/29/15 11:39 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/30/15 12:06 AM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Bill F. 3/30/15 12:21 AM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/30/15 2:09 AM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Bill F. 3/29/15 4:04 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Nikolai . 3/30/15 6:44 AM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Bill F. 3/30/15 7:03 AM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Nikolai . 3/30/15 7:50 AM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation Stian Gudmundsen Høiland 3/29/15 11:22 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation J Ahn 3/29/15 11:01 PM
RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation svmonk 3/29/15 10:58 PM
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 2:09 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 2:09 PM

Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
All assertions of true existents is based on the claim that space, time, and quantity are real.  The three dependencies traditionally taught can be understood as follows: 

Emptiness of cause and condition is emptiness of time
Emptiness of imputation is emptiness of space 
Emptiness of part and whole is emptiness of quantity

We break them down using dependent origination.  It is important in this inquiry not to point out to what is observed to counter these explanations, because the very purpose of these explanations are to show that the contents of experience is illusory as misperceived:
What is space? Space is conceived by extension of location.  From here to there (not-here). And the conception of here is via not-here.  Not-here via here.  

So it is established like this: the conception of here is dependent on not-here.  And not-here is dependent on here.  This is a contradiction since here and not-here cannot be conceived at the same time.  So the conception of space is an illusion based on an impossibility. 
What is time? Time is conceived by before and after (not before).  So the conception and definition of before is via not-before.  Not-before is also dependent on before.  But to conceive them together is a contradiction.  So the conception of time cannot not real.  It is an imagination based on conflicting polarities.

Same thing with quantity.  One via many (not-one).  Many via one. 

So is everything denied? No.  There is one factor that cannot be denied, and that is experiencing.  Because it is the foundation of conception (we can also breakdown conception into conception dependent on conceived.  Conceived dependent on conception.).  If you say conception precedes experience, then that means conceptions happens outside or before experience.  Which we proved to be impossible based on the refutation of both space and time. If they co-arise simultaneously, we’d have how they mutually entail one another.  But non-conception does not mean experience.  Both conception and non-conception are experiencing.   

So the foundation of everything is experiencing (this is unbounded, meaning there is no such thing as individual units of experience, since that would make space real).  

The foundation is not conceiving or knowing (this is "individual" and unreal).  Conceiving occurs only through dependent origination, because that is how anything can ever be conceived: via contrasting polarities.  So if you conceive the nature of conceiving (dependent origination/illusoriness), then that is good.  If you don't, then you are pretty screwed and think the myriad contradictory illusions are reality.  
Seeing illusions as illusions thoroughly, being able to create and destroy it freely, then the illusion is a blissful play.  If you don't, and take the dream to be real, then you are caught in a hellish play of contradictions, cyclical ideas, and impossibilities.  

The dependencies of mutually defining polarities extend to most mundane relationships.  So they are easier to see in those: big/small, good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc.


The more fundamental dependencies are harder to see but nonetheless function the same way: language (This/not this), identity (me/other), and as we have done, space, time, and quantity.


All the way through are nonsense creations and cannot be true.  For if they were true, then it is via a contradiction of A, not A. 
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:01 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:01 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Thank you for posting on Dho John. I do hope you will contribute more in whatever way works for you.
Mark, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:24 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:24 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 550 Join Date: 7/24/14 Recent Posts
How do you define "real" ?

Are you assuming that everything that cannot be expressed in rational language is an illusion ? 

You seem to demonstrate that the concept of here and not-here can be conceptualized at the same time. You are doing that when perceiving different objects in different locations.

My experience always involves causality which requires space and creates time. Cessation is no experience while time carries on so experience does not seem fundamental.

If your explanation demonstrates that it does not explain something is it a demonstration of a poor explanation or an illusion ?

Can you describe the color blue ? What does it mean if you can't do that ?

If your concept of time proves time does not exist then can you be sure your concept of time is a good one ?

Another concept of time is that it is a result of impermanence. 

Are are you assuming that everything is comprehendable by a human mind ? 

Are are you assuming that the laws of physics are always the same ? 

I think you are confusing confusion for insight. It is ok to be confused emoticon
Alin Mathews, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:48 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:27 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 177 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
J Ahn:
All assertions of true existents is based on the claim that space, time, and quantity are real.  The three dependencies traditionally taught can be understood as follows: 

Emptiness of cause and condition is emptiness of time
Emptiness of imputation is emptiness of space 
Emptiness of part and whole is emptiness of quantity

We break them down using dependent origination.  It is important in this inquiry not to point out to what is observed to counter these explanations, because the very purpose of these explanations are to show that the contents of experience is illusory as misperceived:
What is space? Space is conceived by extension of location.  From here to there (not-here). And the conception of here is via not-here.  Not-here via here.  

So it is established like this: the conception of here is dependent on not-here.  And not-here is dependent on here.  This is a contradiction since here and not-here cannot be conceived at the same time.  So the conception of space is an illusion based on an impossibility. 
What is time? Time is conceived by before and after (not before).  So the conception and definition of before is via not-before.  Not-before is also dependent on before.  But to conceive them together is a contradiction.  So the conception of time cannot not real.  It is an imagination based on conflicting polarities.

Same thing with quantity.  One via many (not-one).  Many via one. 

So is everything denied? No.  There is one factor that cannot be denied, and that is experiencing.  Because it is the foundation of conception (we can also breakdown conception into conception dependent on conceived.  Conceived dependent on conception.).  If you say conception precedes experience, then that means conceptions happens outside or before experience.  Which we proved to be impossible based on the refutation of both space and time. If they co-arise simultaneously, we’d have how they mutually entail one another.  But non-conception does not mean experience.  Both conception and non-conception are experiencing.   

So the foundation of everything is experiencing (this is unbounded, meaning there is no such thing as individual units of experience, since that would make space real).  

The foundation is not conceiving or knowing (this is "individual" and unreal).  Conceiving occurs only through dependent origination, because that is how anything can ever be conceived: via contrasting polarities.  So if you conceive the nature of conceiving (dependent origination/illusoriness), then that is good.  If you don't, then you are pretty screwed and think the myriad contradictory illusions are reality.  
Seeing illusions as illusions thoroughly, being able to create and destroy it freely, then the illusion is a blissful play.  If you don't, and take the dream to be real, then you are caught in a hellish play of contradictions, cyclical ideas, and impossibilities.  

The dependencies of mutually defining polarities extend to most mundane relationships.  So they are easier to see in those: big/small, good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc.


The more fundamental dependencies are harder to see but nonetheless function the same way: language (This/not this), identity (me/other), and as we have done, space, time, and quantity.


All the way through are nonsense creations and cannot be true.  For if they were true, then it is via a contradiction of A, not A. 

could motion exists without time? no new energy arising or passing away, just eternal motion in a still now moment. and our particular conscious experiential perception is only a phase in the unlimited configurations of motion which, unlike the mineral phase, can now percieve itself neurally as forms.    
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:31 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:31 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Mark:
How do you define "real" ?

Are you assuming that everything that cannot be expressed in rational language is an illusion ? 

You seem to demonstrate that the concept of here and not-here can be conceptualized at the same time. You are doing that when perceiving different objects in different locations.

My experience always involves causality which requires space and creates time. Cessation is no experience while time carries on so experience does not seem fundamental.

If your explanation demonstrates that it does not explain something is it a demonstration of a poor explanation or an illusion ?

Can you describe the color blue ? What does it mean if you can't do that ?

If your concept of time proves time does not exist then can you be sure your concept of time is a good one ?

Another concept of time is that it is a result of impermanence. 

Are are you assuming that everything is comprehendable by a human mind ? 

Are are you assuming that the laws of physics are always the same ? 

I think you are confusing confusion for insight. It is ok to be confused emoticon

I'm showing that the use of language only pertains to its own rules.  Hence it is a self contained illusion.  

Same with time, space, quantity.  

Here and not-here is conceptualized at the same time and must be.  One cannot merely conceptualize here.  It is like this with everything else.  Hence we conceive via mutal negatives.  

We can just draw a circle on a piece of paper.  In drawin a circle we think we have just made a circle.  But actually the outside has also been drawn.  Have we truly created an inside or an outside? No.  We can just erase the circle.  

If we believe the inside and outside of the circle are real, then there is a problem.  That means we can't ever erase the circle.  

Hope that makes sense.  
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:35 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:34 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
J Ahn:
All assertions of true existents is based on the claim that space, time, and quantity are real.  The three dependencies traditionally taught can be understood as follows: 

Emptiness of cause and condition is emptiness of time
Emptiness of imputation is emptiness of space 
Emptiness of part and whole is emptiness of quantity

We break them down using dependent origination.  It is important in this inquiry not to point out to what is observed to counter these explanations, because the very purpose of these explanations are to show that the contents of experience is illusory as misperceived:
What is space? Space is conceived by extension of location.  From here to there (not-here). And the conception of here is via not-here.  Not-here via here.  

So it is established like this: the conception of here is dependent on not-here.  And not-here is dependent on here.  This is a contradiction since here and not-here cannot be conceived at the same time.  So the conception of space is an illusion based on an impossibility. 
What is time? Time is conceived by before and after (not before).  So the conception and definition of before is via not-before.  Not-before is also dependent on before.  But to conceive them together is a contradiction.  So the conception of time cannot not real.  It is an imagination based on conflicting polarities.

Same thing with quantity.  One via many (not-one).  Many via one. 

So is everything denied? No.  There is one factor that cannot be denied, and that is experiencing.  Because it is the foundation of conception (we can also breakdown conception into conception dependent on conceived.  Conceived dependent on conception.).  If you say conception precedes experience, then that means conceptions happens outside or before experience.  Which we proved to be impossible based on the refutation of both space and time. If they co-arise simultaneously, we’d have how they mutually entail one another.  But non-conception does not mean experience.  Both conception and non-conception are experiencing.   

So the foundation of everything is experiencing (this is unbounded, meaning there is no such thing as individual units of experience, since that would make space real).  

The foundation is not conceiving or knowing (this is "individual" and unreal).  Conceiving occurs only through dependent origination, because that is how anything can ever be conceived: via contrasting polarities.  So if you conceive the nature of conceiving (dependent origination/illusoriness), then that is good.  If you don't, then you are pretty screwed and think the myriad contradictory illusions are reality.  
Seeing illusions as illusions thoroughly, being able to create and destroy it freely, then the illusion is a blissful play.  If you don't, and take the dream to be real, then you are caught in a hellish play of contradictions, cyclical ideas, and impossibilities.  

The dependencies of mutually defining polarities extend to most mundane relationships.  So they are easier to see in those: big/small, good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc.


The more fundamental dependencies are harder to see but nonetheless function the same way: language (This/not this), identity (me/other), and as we have done, space, time, and quantity.


All the way through are nonsense creations and cannot be true.  For if they were true, then it is via a contradiction of A, not A. 
Hi John

As we have no idea who you are unless we have frequented the facebook page Dharma Connection, you have simply posted a bunch of text that could be found in a Dharma Book. Since this place is a practice orientated site and not one to simply preach one's views, please share your actual experience/s, how you experienced what you are talking about, what you did or didn't do etc.

Regards

Nick
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:39 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:39 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
"could motion exists without time? no new energy arising or passing away, just eternal motion in a still now moment? and our conscious experiential perception is a configuration of motion [just as minerals are] in a particular phase where motion can percieve itself as forms."   

Motion cannot exist without time, let alone space. 

Buddha said no coming, no going.  Nagarjuna said there is no motion perceptible at all.  Motion is just a dependently arisen sense of movement based on prior position and after position.  
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:52 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:47 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Hey Nick, 

This is the contemplation I did. 

It uprooted all false dualties and cut the root of suffering resulting from them.  Such as, if I am enamored with the idea of rich, I notice that it comes from the ideea of poor.  And poor comes from rich.  So they are just dependently arisen ideas like monkey because skies, skies because monkeys. Totally unreal, yet perfectly functional.

What I wrote can indeed be found in a lot of dharma books, but I haven't read anywhere that explains it in simple terms or talk about how to go about applying it. Actually I found that some people apply it very wrongly and believe dependent origination is the ultimate reality.

If we deconstruct all falsities this way, and especially the duality of me, not me, awareness will enter state of clear nondual bliss.  This doesn't come via mere contemplation.  We have to practice, especially concentration.  When concentration meets emptiness it will enter nondual.  And from there on, it's necessary to go through this contemplation to abandon all ideas of any truly existents.  Or else progress will be hindered by mind's firm belief in the reality of external world, time, and space.  

Hope that clears where I'm coming from.   
Mark, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:58 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 3:58 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 550 Join Date: 7/24/14 Recent Posts
J Ahn:
Mark:
How do you define "real" ?

Are you assuming that everything that cannot be expressed in rational language is an illusion ? 

You seem to demonstrate that the concept of here and not-here can be conceptualized at the same time. You are doing that when perceiving different objects in different locations.

My experience always involves causality which requires space and creates time. Cessation is no experience while time carries on so experience does not seem fundamental.

If your explanation demonstrates that it does not explain something is it a demonstration of a poor explanation or an illusion ?

Can you describe the color blue ? What does it mean if you can't do that ?

If your concept of time proves time does not exist then can you be sure your concept of time is a good one ?

Another concept of time is that it is a result of impermanence. 

Are are you assuming that everything is comprehendable by a human mind ? 

Are are you assuming that the laws of physics are always the same ? 

I think you are confusing confusion for insight. It is ok to be confused emoticon

I'm showing that the use of language only pertains to its own rules.  Hence it is a self contained illusion.  

Same with time, space, quantity.  

Here and not-here is conceptualized at the same time and must be.  One cannot merely conceptualize here.  It is like this with everything else.  Hence we conceive via mutal negatives.  

We can just draw a circle on a piece of paper.  In drawin a circle we think we have just made a circle.  But actually the outside has also been drawn.  Have we truly created an inside or an outside? No.  We can just erase the circle.  

If we believe the inside and outside of the circle are real, then there is a problem.  That means we can't ever erase the circle.  

Hope that makes sense.  
Hi John,

I think you are demonstrating the limitations of language, then jumping to conclusions. The concept of an illusion is that there is a reality and a way of seeing how the illusion is constructed. You only have subjective experience with which to understand the illusion of subjective experience. Subjective experience is not going to perceive a reality "behind" the illusion of subjective experience. Maybe some of what you believe to be an illusion is not an illusion - without access to some alternative instrument than your subjective consciousness "don't know" seems a more reasonable position. An illusion is perhaps never 100% illusion. 

Because language is limited it does not follow that all knowledge is certainly false or lies. 

I see what you mean with the conceptualization of here requiring not-here. But space does not disappear if you don't have a language. Plenty of animals seem to get by fine and I assume have conscious experience without these langauge issues.

Rather than taking the relative nature of the world as a proof that there is an absolute you might take it as a proof that there is no absolute. Both conclusions are equally valid it seems and we can also add that it is more likely to be a 3rd option we can't imagine.

The circle example seems to confuse impermanence with illusion. Things change that does not mean that things that change are by definition illusions. If you believe something needs to be permanent and not describable with language to be real then we have a problem emoticon Because the concept of real is then also an illusion and the point seems to be lost.

Pointing out the limitations of knowledge and language is great but that should not lead to conclusions about what is beyond those limitations.
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:04 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:03 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Hi John

As we have no idea who you are unless we have frequented the facebook page Dharma Connection, you have simply posted a bunch of text that could be found in a Dharma Book. Since this place is a practice orientated site and not one to simply preach one's views, please share your actual experience/s, how you experienced what you are talking about, what you did or didn't do etc. 

Regards

Nick

Nikolai,

       There are lots of posts here where people are sharing their insights without a practice log. Why are you singling John out? The word "preach" has negative connotations as well. It's enough to point out the purpose of the site. Don't be a bully, bruh. 

Bill
Alin Mathews, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:39 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:10 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 177 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
J Ahn:
"could motion exists without time? no new energy arising or passing away, just eternal motion in a still now moment? and our conscious experiential perception is a configuration of motion [just as minerals are] in a particular phase where motion can percieve itself as forms."   

Motion cannot exist without time, let alone space. 

Buddha said no coming, no going.  Nagarjuna said there is no motion perceptible at all.  Motion is just a dependently arisen sense of movement based on prior position and after position.  

googled 'can matter exist without time' but only got the reverse

'can space exist without matter' 
'can time exist without matter'
then found 'can matter and/or motion exist without time' 
seems a few can consider the possibility that time doesn't move only matter (as motion?)
as for whether space does not exist, no 'over there'? dunno. 

my experience is always 'here' even though the eyes can perceive 'over there'. on the journey to get 'over there' and be 'there' its always still 'here'. space is never 'experientially' other than 'here'.  

both mystics and science are treating subjective perceptions as facts. 'here' may also be purely subjective emoticon  
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:29 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:25 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Mark:
J Ahn:
Mark:
How do you define "real" ?

Are you assuming that everything that cannot be expressed in rational language is an illusion ? 

You seem to demonstrate that the concept of here and not-here can be conceptualized at the same time. You are doing that when perceiving different objects in different locations.

My experience always involves causality which requires space and creates time. Cessation is no experience while time carries on so experience does not seem fundamental.

If your explanation demonstrates that it does not explain something is it a demonstration of a poor explanation or an illusion ?

Can you describe the color blue ? What does it mean if you can't do that ?

If your concept of time proves time does not exist then can you be sure your concept of time is a good one ?

Another concept of time is that it is a result of impermanence. 

Are are you assuming that everything is comprehendable by a human mind ? 

Are are you assuming that the laws of physics are always the same ? 

I think you are confusing confusion for insight. It is ok to be confused emoticon

I'm showing that the use of language only pertains to its own rules.  Hence it is a self contained illusion.  

Same with time, space, quantity.  

Here and not-here is conceptualized at the same time and must be.  One cannot merely conceptualize here.  It is like this with everything else.  Hence we conceive via mutal negatives.  

We can just draw a circle on a piece of paper.  In drawin a circle we think we have just made a circle.  But actually the outside has also been drawn.  Have we truly created an inside or an outside? No.  We can just erase the circle.  

If we believe the inside and outside of the circle are real, then there is a problem.  That means we can't ever erase the circle.  

Hope that makes sense.  
Hi John,

I think you are demonstrating the limitations of language, then jumping to conclusions. The concept of an illusion is that there is a reality and a way of seeing how the illusion is constructed. You only have subjective experience with which to understand the illusion of subjective experience. Subjective experience is not going to perceive a reality "behind" the illusion of subjective experience. Maybe some of what you believe to be an illusion is not an illusion - without access to some alternative instrument than your subjective consciousness "don't know" seems a more reasonable position. An illusion is perhaps never 100% illusion. 

Because language is limited it does not follow that all knowledge is certainly false or lies. 

I see what you mean with the conceptualization of here requiring not-here. But space does not disappear if you don't have a language. Plenty of animals seem to get by fine and I assume have conscious experience without these langauge issues.

Rather than taking the relative nature of the world as a proof that there is an absolute you might take it as a proof that there is no absolute. Both conclusions are equally valid it seems and we can also add that it is more likely to be a 3rd option we can't imagine.

The circle example seems to confuse impermanence with illusion. Things change that does not mean that things that change are by definition illusions. If you believe something needs to be permanent and not describable with language to be real then we have a problem emoticon Because the concept of real is then also an illusion and the point seems to be lost.

Pointing out the limitations of knowledge and language is great but that should not lead to conclusions about what is beyond those limitations.

This can just be seen as pointing to language, but it can also be seen to pointing out how relativities function.  The purpose of the inquiry is to show how everything for it to occur the way it does must be an illusion.  Not 90 percent illusion, but 100 percent illusion.  So is there something real? Yes.  There must be, because an illusion by its definition cannot actually happen.  But it's happening...we are experiencing it now.  

The real is only within the realm of direct experience.  And that is the aim of spirituality.  To touch what is real.  

Space and spatial limitations do indeed disappear for some yogis.  That's how they fly lol.  All miracles are just displays of having broken down the illusory world to the degree of materiality and energies.  But you don't even need to see miracles to understand how space cannot be real.  We continue to suffer from delusions because we point to delusions for their justification.  For instance the "me"-ness is an illusion created on an idea.  But whenever you ask someone where the "I" is or who it is, they just point to their normal experience and say, Here! Me! I'm right here!

The example of the cricle has more to do with conditionality.  
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:29 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 4:29 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Alin Mathews:
J Ahn:
"could motion exists without time? no new energy arising or passing away, just eternal motion in a still now moment? and our conscious experiential perception is a configuration of motion [just as minerals are] in a particular phase where motion can percieve itself as forms."   

Motion cannot exist without time, let alone space. 

Buddha said no coming, no going.  Nagarjuna said there is no motion perceptible at all.  Motion is just a dependently arisen sense of movement based on prior position and after position.  

googled 'can matter exist without time' but only got the reverse

'can space exist without matter' 
'can time exist without matter'
then found 'can matter and/or motion exist without time' 
seems a few can consider the possibility that time doesn't move only matter (as motion?)
as for whether space does not exist, no 'over there'? dunno. 

my experience is always 'here' even though the eyes can perceive 'over there' the journey to get 'there' and being 'there' its always 'here'. space is never 'experientially' other than 'here'.   
We have to remember that space is not just location, but an extension of two locations.  The sense of 'here' co-arises with 'there' (not-here).  

It's also fabricated on a dependently originated relationship.  
Alin Mathews, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 5:25 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 5:17 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 177 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
J Ahn:
Alin Mathews:
J Ahn:
"could motion exists without time? no new energy arising or passing away, just eternal motion in a still now moment? and our conscious experiential perception is a configuration of motion [just as minerals are] in a particular phase where motion can percieve itself as forms."   

Motion cannot exist without time, let alone space. 

Buddha said no coming, no going.  Nagarjuna said there is no motion perceptible at all.  Motion is just a dependently arisen sense of movement based on prior position and after position.  

googled 'can matter exist without time' but only got the reverse

'can space exist without matter' 
'can time exist without matter'
then found 'can matter and/or motion exist without time' 
seems a few can consider the possibility that time doesn't move only matter (as motion?)
as for whether space does not exist, no 'over there'? dunno. 

my experience is always 'here' even though the eyes can perceive 'over there' the journey to get 'there' and being 'there' its always 'here'. space is never 'experientially' other than 'here'.   
We have to remember that space is not just location, but an extension of two locations.  The sense of 'here' co-arises with 'there' (not-here).  

not necessarily. eyes can see what 'appears' to be over there whilst remaining 'here'. 

your brain may have a sense of location (as in 'here' co-arises with a sense of 'over there') but this brain doesn't ..unless.. fun discussions about fabricated dependently originated relationships arise to play conceptual games with. other than that this awareness is focussed on sensate matters and even the subjective sense of here as a location (dual or nondual) doesn't exist.    
It's also fabricated on a dependently originated relationship.  
Mark, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 5:28 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 5:28 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 550 Join Date: 7/24/14 Recent Posts
J Ahn:
Mark:
J Ahn:
Mark:
How do you define "real" ?

Are you assuming that everything that cannot be expressed in rational language is an illusion ? 

You seem to demonstrate that the concept of here and not-here can be conceptualized at the same time. You are doing that when perceiving different objects in different locations.

My experience always involves causality which requires space and creates time. Cessation is no experience while time carries on so experience does not seem fundamental.

If your explanation demonstrates that it does not explain something is it a demonstration of a poor explanation or an illusion ?

Can you describe the color blue ? What does it mean if you can't do that ?

If your concept of time proves time does not exist then can you be sure your concept of time is a good one ?

Another concept of time is that it is a result of impermanence. 

Are are you assuming that everything is comprehendable by a human mind ? 

Are are you assuming that the laws of physics are always the same ? 

I think you are confusing confusion for insight. It is ok to be confused emoticon

I'm showing that the use of language only pertains to its own rules.  Hence it is a self contained illusion.  

Same with time, space, quantity.  

Here and not-here is conceptualized at the same time and must be.  One cannot merely conceptualize here.  It is like this with everything else.  Hence we conceive via mutal negatives.  

We can just draw a circle on a piece of paper.  In drawin a circle we think we have just made a circle.  But actually the outside has also been drawn.  Have we truly created an inside or an outside? No.  We can just erase the circle.  

If we believe the inside and outside of the circle are real, then there is a problem.  That means we can't ever erase the circle.  

Hope that makes sense.  
Hi John,

I think you are demonstrating the limitations of language, then jumping to conclusions. The concept of an illusion is that there is a reality and a way of seeing how the illusion is constructed. You only have subjective experience with which to understand the illusion of subjective experience. Subjective experience is not going to perceive a reality "behind" the illusion of subjective experience. Maybe some of what you believe to be an illusion is not an illusion - without access to some alternative instrument than your subjective consciousness "don't know" seems a more reasonable position. An illusion is perhaps never 100% illusion. 

Because language is limited it does not follow that all knowledge is certainly false or lies. 

I see what you mean with the conceptualization of here requiring not-here. But space does not disappear if you don't have a language. Plenty of animals seem to get by fine and I assume have conscious experience without these langauge issues.

Rather than taking the relative nature of the world as a proof that there is an absolute you might take it as a proof that there is no absolute. Both conclusions are equally valid it seems and we can also add that it is more likely to be a 3rd option we can't imagine.

The circle example seems to confuse impermanence with illusion. Things change that does not mean that things that change are by definition illusions. If you believe something needs to be permanent and not describable with language to be real then we have a problem emoticon Because the concept of real is then also an illusion and the point seems to be lost.

Pointing out the limitations of knowledge and language is great but that should not lead to conclusions about what is beyond those limitations.

This can just be seen as pointing to language, but it can also be seen to pointing out how relativities function.  The purpose of the inquiry is to show how everything for it to occur the way it does must be an illusion.  Not 90 percent illusion, but 100 percent illusion.  So is there something real? Yes.  There must be, because an illusion by its definition cannot actually happen.  But it's happening...we are experiencing it now.  

The real is only within the realm of direct experience.  And that is the aim of spirituality.  To touch what is real.  

Space and spatial limitations do indeed disappear for some yogis.  That's how they fly lol.  All miracles are just displays of having broken down the illusory world to the degree of materiality and energies.  But you don't even need to see miracles to understand how space cannot be real.  We continue to suffer from delusions because we point to delusions for their justification.  For instance the "me"-ness is an illusion created on an idea.  But whenever you ask someone where the "I" is or who it is, they just point to their normal experience and say, Here! Me! I'm right here!

The example of the cricle has more to do with conditionality.  
John, if you can demonstrate flying I'll certainly be convinced. There is a strong case for subjective experience itself being an illusion - consider cessation as one demonstration. You are assuming "direct experience" is not an illusion. 

Breaking down an illusion of "me"-ness does not require believing you are touching the "real". Simply explore the subjective experience and you will see there is no unchanging self. This just requires an understanding of impermanence. Further investigation into the self process leads to a realization that the "sensation of self" is built on an illusion (but that does not require everything to be an illusion).

The risk of the type of freedom you are describing is weak connection to morality. I think it tends to reinforce the sensation of self (experience) and create an "experience centric" view. Basically the priority becomes the sensation of self and I think that shows in what you write.

There is no good reason in your presentation so far to think of experience as primary. One example is cessation. Another is a more realistic understanding of the process of self - much of it is influenced by things that are outside of your subjective experience (e.g. things that happen while you are not aware of them)

The concept of "reality" you are presenting is pretty much the same as the concept of emptiness that Rob is presenting. You are both using the same linguistic techniques then jumping to slightly different words (after proving words are meaningless...)

Freedom from rumination does not require a belief in the absolute - that is a key message of the Buddha I think. You will have more options if you let that go and an easier time integrating morality.

I reserve the right to value this advice at how much you are paying for it emoticon
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 6:52 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 6:52 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Alin Mathews:
J Ahn:
Alin Mathews:
J Ahn:
"could motion exists without time? no new energy arising or passing away, just eternal motion in a still now moment? and our conscious experiential perception is a configuration of motion [just as minerals are] in a particular phase where motion can percieve itself as forms."   

Motion cannot exist without time, let alone space. 

Buddha said no coming, no going.  Nagarjuna said there is no motion perceptible at all.  Motion is just a dependently arisen sense of movement based on prior position and after position.  

googled 'can matter exist without time' but only got the reverse

'can space exist without matter' 
'can time exist without matter'
then found 'can matter and/or motion exist without time' 
seems a few can consider the possibility that time doesn't move only matter (as motion?)
as for whether space does not exist, no 'over there'? dunno. 

my experience is always 'here' even though the eyes can perceive 'over there' the journey to get 'there' and being 'there' its always 'here'. space is never 'experientially' other than 'here'.   
We have to remember that space is not just location, but an extension of two locations.  The sense of 'here' co-arises with 'there' (not-here).  

not necessarily. eyes can see what 'appears' to be over there whilst remaining 'here'. 

your brain may have a sense of location (as in 'here' co-arises with a sense of 'over there') but this brain doesn't ..unless.. fun discussions about fabricated dependently originated relationships arise to play conceptual games with. other than that this awareness is focussed on sensate matters and even the subjective sense of here as a location (dual or nondual) doesn't exist.    
It's also fabricated on a dependently originated relationship.  

You are pointing at delusion to say look, it's how I am experiencing it, therefore it has to be true.  If you are looking at a rope and think it is a snake, and to prove your point say "look, I see a snake!" then that does not say much. 

So when I say space is a delusion, you shouldn't point to the experience of space and say "look, it's like this!" Rather it's more useful to look at the mechanism of what space is.  

As for the brain, you keep thinking brain is interpreting experience.  If the brain is within your experience.  The very fact that you know where your brain is and can feel it's location shows that the brain cannot process or view or fabricate experience.  If it did, it must be separate or outside of experience somehow and would be unknownable.

Nondual is without location.  That is why it is nondual.  No here, no there.  
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 7:09 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 7:06 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Mark:
J Ahn:
Mark:
J Ahn:
Mark:
How do you define "real" ?

Are you assuming that everything that cannot be expressed in rational language is an illusion ? 

You seem to demonstrate that the concept of here and not-here can be conceptualized at the same time. You are doing that when perceiving different objects in different locations.

My experience always involves causality which requires space and creates time. Cessation is no experience while time carries on so experience does not seem fundamental.

If your explanation demonstrates that it does not explain something is it a demonstration of a poor explanation or an illusion ?

Can you describe the color blue ? What does it mean if you can't do that ?

If your concept of time proves time does not exist then can you be sure your concept of time is a good one ?

Another concept of time is that it is a result of impermanence. 

Are are you assuming that everything is comprehendable by a human mind ? 

Are are you assuming that the laws of physics are always the same ? 

I think you are confusing confusion for insight. It is ok to be confused emoticon

I'm showing that the use of language only pertains to its own rules.  Hence it is a self contained illusion.  

Same with time, space, quantity.  

Here and not-here is conceptualized at the same time and must be.  One cannot merely conceptualize here.  It is like this with everything else.  Hence we conceive via mutal negatives.  

We can just draw a circle on a piece of paper.  In drawin a circle we think we have just made a circle.  But actually the outside has also been drawn.  Have we truly created an inside or an outside? No.  We can just erase the circle.  

If we believe the inside and outside of the circle are real, then there is a problem.  That means we can't ever erase the circle.  

Hope that makes sense.  
Hi John,

I think you are demonstrating the limitations of language, then jumping to conclusions. The concept of an illusion is that there is a reality and a way of seeing how the illusion is constructed. You only have subjective experience with which to understand the illusion of subjective experience. Subjective experience is not going to perceive a reality "behind" the illusion of subjective experience. Maybe some of what you believe to be an illusion is not an illusion - without access to some alternative instrument than your subjective consciousness "don't know" seems a more reasonable position. An illusion is perhaps never 100% illusion. 

Because language is limited it does not follow that all knowledge is certainly false or lies. 

I see what you mean with the conceptualization of here requiring not-here. But space does not disappear if you don't have a language. Plenty of animals seem to get by fine and I assume have conscious experience without these langauge issues.

Rather than taking the relative nature of the world as a proof that there is an absolute you might take it as a proof that there is no absolute. Both conclusions are equally valid it seems and we can also add that it is more likely to be a 3rd option we can't imagine.

The circle example seems to confuse impermanence with illusion. Things change that does not mean that things that change are by definition illusions. If you believe something needs to be permanent and not describable with language to be real then we have a problem emoticon Because the concept of real is then also an illusion and the point seems to be lost.

Pointing out the limitations of knowledge and language is great but that should not lead to conclusions about what is beyond those limitations.

This can just be seen as pointing to language, but it can also be seen to pointing out how relativities function.  The purpose of the inquiry is to show how everything for it to occur the way it does must be an illusion.  Not 90 percent illusion, but 100 percent illusion.  So is there something real? Yes.  There must be, because an illusion by its definition cannot actually happen.  But it's happening...we are experiencing it now.  

The real is only within the realm of direct experience.  And that is the aim of spirituality.  To touch what is real.  

Space and spatial limitations do indeed disappear for some yogis.  That's how they fly lol.  All miracles are just displays of having broken down the illusory world to the degree of materiality and energies.  But you don't even need to see miracles to understand how space cannot be real.  We continue to suffer from delusions because we point to delusions for their justification.  For instance the "me"-ness is an illusion created on an idea.  But whenever you ask someone where the "I" is or who it is, they just point to their normal experience and say, Here! Me! I'm right here!

The example of the cricle has more to do with conditionality.  
John, if you can demonstrate flying I'll certainly be convinced. There is a strong case for subjective experience itself being an illusion - consider cessation as one demonstration. You are assuming "direct experience" is not an illusion. 

Breaking down an illusion of "me"-ness does not require believing you are touching the "real". Simply explore the subjective experience and you will see there is no unchanging self. This just requires an understanding of impermanence. Further investigation into the self process leads to a realization that the "sensation of self" is built on an illusion (but that does not require everything to be an illusion).

The risk of the type of freedom you are describing is weak connection to morality. I think it tends to reinforce the sensation of self (experience) and create an "experience centric" view. Basically the priority becomes the sensation of self and I think that shows in what you write.

There is no good reason in your presentation so far to think of experience as primary. One example is cessation. Another is a more realistic understanding of the process of self - much of it is influenced by things that are outside of your subjective experience (e.g. things that happen while you are not aware of them)

The concept of "reality" you are presenting is pretty much the same as the concept of emptiness that Rob is presenting. You are both using the same linguistic techniques then jumping to slightly different words (after proving words are meaningless...)

Freedom from rumination does not require a belief in the absolute - that is a key message of the Buddha I think. You will have more options if you let that go and an easier time integrating morality.

I reserve the right to value this advice at how much you are paying for it emoticon
Subjective experience means..that it is a partial experience.  It is a relative experience.  Relative experience known as relative experience is seeing it correctly.  If you see relative experience as real and objective, it is an error.  But we can look into it further.  Is there such thing as an objective experience of appearance? The answer is no.  To experience appearances means to experience from a vantage point.  And all vantage points are equally partial and untrue.  The only objective experience is that of no-things, no-locality.  This is nonduality. 

Direct experience cannot be an illusion.  Why? because if everything including direct experience was an illusion, it could not ever be experienced.  But we experience.  This very fact shows that there is such thing as a direct non-illusory experience.  This is shown in the MMK. 

Impermanence does not show no-self.  Because we can still posit a self that changes through time.  To  truly uproot a self, we must break down time as well. I listed the self as an illusion as one example.  This is easy to accept for dhamma practitioners.  But the sense of space and time can also be seen through in the same fashion. 

Cessation is still experienced.  Just like deep sleep.  If cessation was not experienced that means somehow you went from experience to no-experience.  And from no-experience back to experience.  Does that make sense for some experience to just pop back out of no-experience spontaneously? No.  Certain actions led to the experience of cessation to happen and then you came back to yourself.  You didn't lose continuity, lose memory or whatevr.  So although awareness was not there, indeed it was experienced, just like states of absolute drunkenness, anesthesia, sleep walking, etc.

What I am saying is totally different from what Rob is saying. Please check the thread on Rob's book.  My comments are there.

It seems like morality is a big issue for you.  Morality is a totally stupid idea.  It's very easy to break down...good dependent on bad.  Bad dependent on good.  It is rather arbitrary social conditions that decide what is good and what is bad.  Does this mean my deconstruction leads to abominable behavior? No.  Because what we consider harmful behaviors come from other dualities.  So until varying dualities have been resolved, especially desire and the desired, morality should not be deconstructed.  When the dualities of possessor and possesed are settled, the awareness of peace, joy and completion will arise.  I can attest to this in my own experience.  You will feel as if you have the whole world as and in you and you as and in the whole world, until the distinction becomes moot.  All in one, one in all.  Then morality or virtue is a none issue.  

The absolute is not a belief.  All this conventional deconstruction is only so that it will lead the practitioner to the absolute.

Instead of debating, maybe you can implement what I wrote in the OP not with such fundamental structures like space or time, but like I don't know, maybe you have strong desires for women.  Or to become rich.  Or maybe you have aversion to being disliked by others. etc.  What I posted here isn't some abstract philosophy.  It really works. 
thumbnail
Jake , modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 8:23 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 8:23 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
So to be clear, John, you are claiming to be completely free of suffering and the causes of suffering? 
Alin Mathews, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:00 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 10:03 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 177 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts

not necessarily. eyes can see what 'appears' to be over there whilst remaining 'here'. 

your brain may have a sense of location (as in 'here' co-arises with a sense of 'over there') but this brain doesn't ..unless.. fun discussions about fabricated dependently originated relationships arise to play conceptual games with. other than that this awareness is focussed on sensate matters and even the subjective sense of here as a location (dual or nondual) doesn't exist.    


You are pointing at delusion to say look, it's how I am experiencing it, therefore it has to be true.  If you are looking at a rope and think it is a snake, and to prove your point say "look, I see a snake!" then that does not say much. 

So when I say space is a delusion, you shouldn't point to the experience of space and say "look, it's like this!" Rather it's more useful to look at the mechanism of what space is.  

what you and i consider useful obviously differs. i find it useful to 'ask questions' (incase you didn't notice) and share my own experiential awareness (incase you didn't notice) rather than imagine i'm saying "look, it's like this" for EVERYONE and then dictate that only "the mechanisms of what space is" SHOULD be looked at.

where do i say, or even hint that the way i experience must be a 'fact' for you too? (altho you use the more conceptual subjective word "true") 
  
As for the brain, you keep thinking brain is interpreting experience.  If the brain is within your experience.  The very fact that you know where your brain is and can feel it's location shows that the brain cannot process or view or fabricate experience.  If it did, it must be separate or outside of experience somehow and would be unknownable.

Nondual is without location.  That is why it is nondual.  No here, no there.  

i cannot even begin to make sense of your reasoning nor why at this nats-brain-stage of human awareness you expect me to. and to stop asking questions, stop sharing my own experiential awareness - no matter how controvertial - and start looking at things 'your way'!

who are you to dictate whats here and whats not. take your "flying monks" to Stephen Hawkings. no doubt he too has questions youre incapable of asking because youve already determined 'for us' what existence is.

interesting how people "fly", like right past words like 'may, maybe, could be, perhaps and ?s' emoticon in other peoples posts. other priorities perhaps?   



 
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:22 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 10:42 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Well hello there, John!

John and I have recently been discussing these insights of John's on Soh's Facebook group called Dharma Connection. If you are a member there, you can check out those discussions on the links below. If you are not a member there and are interested, you can apply for membership and will be granted within hours, no questions asked.

For me, John has got things backwards to quite an extreme degree, and I was not surprised to see that the initial responses here pretty much mirror mine, but we go much, much deeper in the links below. This rabbit hole goes deep, indeed.

Rob Burbea
Emptiness of emptiness
Deconstructions
Causality & subject-object

Though it's a little bit to read (deep the rabbit hole goes), I nevertheless highly recommend reading that before engaging here (consider this a warning, hehe emoticon).
thumbnail
svmonk, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 10:58 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 10:58 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 396 Join Date: 8/23/14 Recent Posts
Regarding the emptiness of space and time, some work by Marina Cortes and Lee Smolin at the Permeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario has recast the physics of quantum particle interaction into the framework of causality. You can find it here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.2206.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6167.pdf

Causality only requires the notion of before and after, cause and effect, there's no explicit space-time continuum. Cortes and Smolin use that to construct an energy function in the space of momentum which they then minimize and the space-time continuum falls out.

There's a lot of math involved, but it's a kind of neat result. They have two more papers on the way. Normally, I'd be the first one to advise exercising caution when talking about physics and Dharma in the same thread (remember "The Tao of Physics"?) but I couldn't resist posting this.
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:00 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:00 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
. Jake .:
So to be clear, John, you are claiming to be completely free of suffering and the causes of suffering? 


As long as I have a body I will suffer. 

But in terms of experience, I am in equanimous bliss clarity.  
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:01 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:01 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:
Well hello there, John!

Me and John have recently been discussing these insights of John's on Soh's Facebook group called Dharma Connection. If you are a member there, you can check out those discussions on the links below. If you are not a member there and are interested, you can apply for membership and will be granted within hours, no questions asked.

For me, John has got things backwards to quite an extreme degree, and I was not surprised to see that the responses here pretty much mirror mine, but we go much, much deeper in the links below. This rabbit hole goes deep, indeed.

Rob Burbea
Emptiness of emptiness
Deconstructions
Causality & subject-object

Though it's a little bit to read (deep the rabbit hole goes), I nevertheless highly recommend reading that before engaging here.


Ah..more words..

referencing..

themselves..words..

So, what are you saying?

More words.  Lol.
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:04 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:04 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Alin Mathews:

not necessarily. eyes can see what 'appears' to be over there whilst remaining 'here'. 

your brain may have a sense of location (as in 'here' co-arises with a sense of 'over there') but this brain doesn't ..unless.. fun discussions about fabricated dependently originated relationships arise to play conceptual games with. other than that this awareness is focussed on sensate matters and even the subjective sense of here as a location (dual or nondual) doesn't exist.    


You are pointing at delusion to say look, it's how I am experiencing it, therefore it has to be true.  If you are looking at a rope and think it is a snake, and to prove your point say "look, I see a snake!" then that does not say much. 

So when I say space is a delusion, you shouldn't point to the experience of space and say "look, it's like this!" Rather it's more useful to look at the mechanism of what space is.  

what you and i consider useful obviously differs. i find it useful to 'ask questions' (incase you didn't notice) and share my own experiential awareness (incase you didn't notice) rather than imagine i'm saying "look, it's like this" for EVERYONE and then dictate that only "the mechanisms of what space is" SHOULD be looked at.

where do i say, or even hint that the way i experience must be a 'fact' for you too? (altho you use the more conceptual subjective word "true") 
  
As for the brain, you keep thinking brain is interpreting experience.  If the brain is within your experience.  The very fact that you know where your brain is and can feel it's location shows that the brain cannot process or view or fabricate experience.  If it did, it must be separate or outside of experience somehow and would be unknownable.

Nondual is without location.  That is why it is nondual.  No here, no there.  

i cannot even begin to make sense of your reasoning nor why at this nats-brain-stage of human awareness you expect me to. and to stop asking questions, stop sharing my own experiential awareness - no matter how controvertial - and start looking at things 'your way'!

who are you to dictate whats here and whats not. take your "flying monks" to Stephen Hawkings. no doubt he too has questions youre incapable of asking because youve already determined 'for us' what existence is.

interesting how people "fly", like right past words like 'may, maybe, could be, perhaps and ?s' emoticon in other peoples posts. other priorities perhaps?   



 
Uh, I'm not telling you to do anything. No need to make discussions so personal.  It was not my intention to do so.  Let's keep it relevant to the topic at hand.  
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:11 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:10 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
But in terms of experience, I am in equanimous bliss clarity.  

John,

      Could you talk a little about your history as a practitioner, methods of practice, any signfigant insights or shifts, etc.?
       I am finding your sharing very useful and inspiring, even if I don't comprehend, or resonate with  all of it. Thank you, and I hope you continue to contribute.

Bill
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:33 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:31 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Bill F.:
But in terms of experience, I am in equanimous bliss clarity.  

John,

      Could you talk a little about your history as a practitioner, methods of practice, any signfigant insights or shifts, etc.?
       I am finding your sharing very useful and inspiring, even if I don't comprehend, or resonate with  all of it. Thank you, and I hope you continue to contribute.

Bill
Hey Bill, 

I practiced kunlun neigong for 8 years http://www.primordialalchemist.com/.  This practice helped open the subtle energies..and I am still learning a lot from it.  The practice led to very strong clarity experiences but I could never maintain them because I would have no idea what was going on during the days or weeks it would occur.  It essentially brings the dual energies of the body together.

I also practiced Isha Yoga under Sadhguru for a little over 3 years now.  Sadhguru helped clear my mental baggage with..I don't know how.  Just his presence.  I learned to meditate and was initiated into various practices with Isha that helped me develop stable concentration.  The progress I made under Sadhguru is really incredible.  A 3 day program with him left me stunned and I dropped everything I was doing in life to go to his ashram.  A following ten day program completely changed the way I was. I couldn't recognize myself when I walked out of that program.  He said that it will break one's deeper karmas to hasten spiritual progress, and it did.  So much of "myself" disappeared afterwards.

And there is Buddhism...I mainly follow Thusness and Wei Yu's advice and pointers.  I always had faith in the insights of Buddhist practice rather than energy practices because I learned the experiences would come but I could crash down if my mind became chief again.  I've been talking to Wei Yu for...7, 8 years..and they've always kept me in line as to right view and right understanding.  But studying Buddhism has been frustrating.  You just don't know if someone is speaking out of their ass from just reading a bunch of books.  They could say very sound things..but I realized had no real application to practice.  Thusness' sharings have been so valuable to me in terms of showing right "taste."  

Although I say I am in clariy/bliss, this is still a complete beginner's step for me.  I don't know where it goes from here, but very cool things are happening to my body.  I feel as if I have just now stepped into practice, and until now I'd just been going back and forth in my mind's made up structures.  I hate writing that I am like this, I am like that.  It spawns unnecessary and negative feelings in others.  But I also want to show that the contemplations I shared truly make a difference and they are not just theoretical mind games.   
Alin Mathews, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:35 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:33 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 177 Join Date: 1/25/13 Recent Posts
J Ahn:
Alin Mathews:

not necessarily. eyes can see what 'appears' to be over there whilst remaining 'here'. 

your brain may have a sense of location (as in 'here' co-arises with a sense of 'over there') but this brain doesn't ..unless.. fun discussions about fabricated dependently originated relationships arise to play conceptual games with. other than that this awareness is focussed on sensate matters and even the subjective sense of here as a location (dual or nondual) doesn't exist.    


You are pointing at delusion to say look, it's how I am experiencing it, therefore it has to be true.  If you are looking at a rope and think it is a snake, and to prove your point say "look, I see a snake!" then that does not say much. 

So when I say space is a delusion, you shouldn't point to the experience of space and say "look, it's like this!" Rather it's more useful to look at the mechanism of what space is.  

what you and i consider useful obviously differs. i find it useful to 'ask questions' (incase you didn't notice) and share my own experiential awareness (incase you didn't notice) rather than imagine i'm saying "look, it's like this" for EVERYONE and then dictate that only "the mechanisms of what space is" SHOULD be looked at.

where do i say, or even hint that the way i experience must be a 'fact' for you too? (altho you use the more conceptual subjective word "true") 
  
As for the brain, you keep thinking brain is interpreting experience.  If the brain is within your experience.  The very fact that you know where your brain is and can feel it's location shows that the brain cannot process or view or fabricate experience.  If it did, it must be separate or outside of experience somehow and would be unknownable.

Nondual is without location.  That is why it is nondual.  No here, no there.  

i cannot even begin to make sense of your reasoning nor why at this nats-brain-stage of human awareness you expect me to. and to stop asking questions, stop sharing my own experiential awareness - no matter how controvertial - and start looking at things 'your way'!

who are you to dictate whats here and whats not. take your "flying monks" to Stephen Hawkings. no doubt he too has questions youre incapable of asking because youve already determined 'for us' what existence is.

interesting how people "fly", like right past words like 'may, maybe, could be, perhaps and ?s' emoticon in other peoples posts. other priorities perhaps?   



 
Uh, I'm not telling you to do anything. No need to make discussions so personal.  It was not my intention to do so.  Let's keep it relevant to the topic at hand.  

says he who seemly prefers to remain in denial and unaware of the part his own experiential behaviour plays in the mechanisms involved in observing emptiness, dependent origination and contemplation and thus calls such inclusions "so personal" irrelevant and off topic? 
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:39 PM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/29/15 11:39 PM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Although I say I am in clariy/bliss, this is still a complete beginner's step for me.  I don't know where it goes from here, but very cool things are happening to my body.  I feel as if I have just now stepped into practice, and until now I'd just been going back and forth in my mind's made up structures.  I hate writing that I am like this, I am like that.  It spawns unnecessary and negative feelings in others.  But I also want to show that the contemplations I shared truly make a difference and they are not just theoretical mind games.   

Cool. Thanks for sharing that. In terms of practice, do you focus mainly on contemplating inisght or a more structured silent/seated practice?
J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 12:06 AM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 12:06 AM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Bill F.:
Although I say I am in clariy/bliss, this is still a complete beginner's step for me.  I don't know where it goes from here, but very cool things are happening to my body.  I feel as if I have just now stepped into practice, and until now I'd just been going back and forth in my mind's made up structures.  I hate writing that I am like this, I am like that.  It spawns unnecessary and negative feelings in others.  But I also want to show that the contemplations I shared truly make a difference and they are not just theoretical mind games.   

Cool. Thanks for sharing that. In terms of practice, do you focus mainly on contemplating inisght or a more structured silent/seated practice?


Right now I practice my sadhanas I learned from Isha and Kunlun.  I contemplate throughout the day and read here and there.  I find that trying to sit down and just contemplate is pretty stressful and ineffective.  Sitting practice I maintain the taste of clarity and see what blocks and dualities come up and dissolve them relying on MMK analysis or just via non-dual taste.  So I am focused more on maintianing stability and deepening taste via letting go.  But this can happen just being mindful in how I react to things daily.  For instance I see a very beautiful woman with possessive desire and I notice it is because of deep seated duality of man/woman, desirer/desired and then the duality dissolves and I expereince union.    
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 12:21 AM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 12:21 AM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
Sitting practice I maintain the taste of clarity and see what blocks and dualities come up and dissolve them relying on MMK analysis or just via non-dual taste.  

Cool. Say more about what you mean by "taste of clarity" or "non-dual taste" if you don't mind. How would you describe the experience of them? Think it may be useful for people here who are not as familiar with that terminology. Thank you.

Bill

J Ahn, modified 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 2:09 AM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 2:01 AM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 19 Join Date: 3/29/15 Recent Posts
Bill F.:
Sitting practice I maintain the taste of clarity and see what blocks and dualities come up and dissolve them relying on MMK analysis or just via non-dual taste.  

Cool. Say more about what you mean by "taste of clarity" or "non-dual taste" if you don't mind. How would you describe the experience of them? Think it may be useful for people here who are not as familiar with that terminology. Thank you.

Bill


Clarity is a heightened sense of awakend-ness and borderless spaciousness.  It's not a mental alertness or knowing or a state of absorption or a subsumed observer.  It's beyond and prior to the mind as a sense of being.  It occurs when the duality of self-objects begins to dissolve, and heightens when space and locality is deconstructed.    

When clarity extends to the subtle energies, there is continual release and a sense of total integration with whatever that is occuring.  The sense of action or doer isn't there anymore.  It feels as if whatever is happening is releasing.

What thusness described as maha becomes the norm.  Means, when breathing it is as if the whole universe is fully expressed in the breath, or like the whole univese is in and as one's own body.  So it is this spaciousness clarity mixed with a sense of total integration whenever and whereever phenomena is.  The sense of "seeing" is also gone (this was a crucial step for me when the point of focus or sight just disappeared.  It is like going "blind."  It's full dissolution of seer-seeing-seen bind), but rather a sense of freely manifesting becomes ordinary experience.  There is further a feeling of implosion and no longer any externality.  Like energies are imploding into themselves rather than going anywhere.  

But to me I still think this is just an entering phase.  Although there is temptation to think this is some ultimate or natural state, rather there is also a strong yearning to untangle and let go more and more. When the clarity-release picks up its momentum, it feels like my entire being is just unravelling to inconceivable boundless freedom...

 
Mark, modified 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 2:45 AM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 2:45 AM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 550 Join Date: 7/24/14 Recent Posts
Subjective experience means..that it is a partial experience.  It is a relative experience.  Relative experience known as relative experience is seeing it correctly.  If you see relative experience as real and objective, it is an error.  But we can look into it further.  Is there such thing as an objective experience of appearance? The answer is no.  To experience appearances means to experience from a vantage point.  And all vantage points are equally partial and untrue.  The only objective experience is that of no-things, no-locality.  This is nonduality. 

Direct experience cannot be an illusion.  Why? because if everything including direct experience was an illusion, it could not ever be experienced.  But we experience.  This very fact shows that there is such thing as a direct non-illusory experience.  This is shown in the MMK. 

Impermanence does not show no-self.  Because we can still posit a self that changes through time.  To  truly uproot a self, we must break down time as well. I listed the self as an illusion as one example.  This is easy to accept for dhamma practitioners.  But the sense of space and time can also be seen through in the same fashion. 

Cessation is still experienced.  Just like deep sleep.  If cessation was not experienced that means somehow you went from experience to no-experience.  And from no-experience back to experience.  Does that make sense for some experience to just pop back out of no-experience spontaneously? No.  Certain actions led to the experience of cessation to happen and then you came back to yourself.  You didn't lose continuity, lose memory or whatevr.  So although awareness was not there, indeed it was experienced, just like states of absolute drunkenness, anesthesia, sleep walking, etc.

What I am saying is totally different from what Rob is saying. Please check the thread on Rob's book.  My comments are there.

It seems like morality is a big issue for you.  Morality is a totally stupid idea.  It's very easy to break down...good dependent on bad.  Bad dependent on good.  It is rather arbitrary social conditions that decide what is good and what is bad.  Does this mean my deconstruction leads to abominable behavior? No.  Because what we consider harmful behaviors come from other dualities.  So until varying dualities have been resolved, especially desire and the desired, morality should not be deconstructed.  When the dualities of possessor and possesed are settled, the awareness of peace, joy and completion will arise.  I can attest to this in my own experience.  You will feel as if you have the whole world as and in you and you as and in the whole world, until the distinction becomes moot.  All in one, one in all.  Then morality or virtue is a none issue.  

The absolute is not a belief.  All this conventional deconstruction is only so that it will lead the practitioner to the absolute.

Instead of debating, maybe you can implement what I wrote in the OP not with such fundamental structures like space or time, but like I don't know, maybe you have strong desires for women.  Or to become rich.  Or maybe you have aversion to being disliked by others. etc.  What I posted here isn't some abstract philosophy.  It really works. 
Hi John,

This is interesting, thanks. I agree that experience is relative. I also agree that what you are calling direct experience is different from normal experience. But I think it remains a relative experience. For example non-dual experience still has properties like sound that are differentiated from vision, within vision there are different colors etc there is relative experience going on.

Your experience is intermediated by your senses, the nature of your experience is a "map" of reality. You are limited by the human condition and there is no reason to think that you have access to fundamental aspects of reality. There are very good reasons to think that we don't have access to that - physics just keeps getting wierder as we measure it more accurately. Neuroscience seems to be demonstrating that brain can impact every aspect of mind (of course it is far from definitive) . Evolution is another good reason to think that there is more to things that what humans can experience. Give things a few more million years and I'm sure the debate will have moved on.
 
You wrote "Does that make sense for some experience to just pop back out of no-experience spontaneously? No." Whether it makes sense is an indication of whether we understand something that is not an indication of whehter it happens or not. You keep making this leap that not being able to understand something makes it disappear. Cessation is not remembered, it is not like deep sleep, you would loose memory and continuity. These are commonly reported yet you ignore this, it is a strong indicator you are creating an illusion for yourself.

Morality is important to me, it is one way of keeping a check on what people are claiming. So when someone says morality is a "stupid idea" it raises a lot of doubts. The experience of everything in you and you in everything is a good demonstration of how that "non-dual" experience is holding on to dualities - "everything" requires a projection of experience and that projection is coming from somewhere. Morality was not a non-issue for the Buddha and is not a non-issue for those who are very far down the path. Even the Buddha got things wrong and learnt to act more effectively in the world. If you are trying to skip that bit it is not going to end well emoticon

I agree with you that seeing the relative nature of experience is valuable, it can help stop rumination etc. But you don't need to think that morality is stupid or that you can fly or that you have absolute knowledge to get those benefits. I am putting what you suggest into practise but not within the same framework of an absolute direct experience. I'm trying to get comfortable with don't know emoticon The advantage I see of a don't know position is that it can break down beliefs without needing to drop in substitutes.

One of the big issues I see with any "absolute" concept is that it is an inherently limiting position. People like Kenneth Folk seem to have gotten over it and my take is that the Buddha was well over it too. 

That you had benefits from a view of absolute experience and the ability to control time & space it great. But benefiting from a view is not a proof that it is true. There are a bunch of religions with a selection of absolute truths and some people benefit from all of them. I think you would have a lot more to gain by letting go of the absolutism now that you've got those benefits under your belt. 
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 6:44 AM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 6:44 AM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Bill F.:
Don't be a bully, bruh. 

Bill
A bully,  not a bully.  Conceiving makes the 'world' go round. 
thumbnail
Bill F, modified 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 7:03 AM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 7:03 AM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 556 Join Date: 11/17/13 Recent Posts
A bully,  not a bully.  Conceiving makes the 'world' go round. 

A valuable point. Hopefully it does not signal you are inapable of self-reflection.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 7:50 AM
Created 7 Years ago at 3/30/15 7:50 AM

RE: Emptiness, Dependent Origination, Contemplation

Posts: 1648 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Capable, incapable. Defense, no defen....meh! 

Breadcrumb