Author: zumacraig
Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

Concerning the attainment of enlightment, how can the internalized realization of nonduality be unchanging if everything is impermanent?

Hi zumacraig,
I cannot speak from my own experience yet but I think it´s just that enlightenment is not something that is part of the mind-body-processes since all just stops for an instant. I cannot speak of anybody else but in my experience thinking about this logically is doomed to fail so it´s very difficult to talk about it.
I guess we just have to attain it for ourselves,
best wishes,
Martin

First of all, who said the "internalized realization of nonduality" is unchanging? Being one with, and as, everything arising is the dynamic part, while being simultaneously already free from constriction as anything is the unchanging part. And yet, it is not impermanent. Ludicrous, right?

In another way, see for yourself: the part in you which is always witnessing everything arising is the unmoving, unchanging part (don't be too literal about "unchanging", it's just that whatever is changing is definitely being witnessed and is therefore not the witnessing aspect); the part in you which moves and flows, arises and fades as anything arising is the changing part. The nonduality of these can be, and has been by many realized individuals, argued either way, without actually losing sight of its paradoxical nature.

But finally, when all is said and done, "attainment of enlightenment", namely awakening, is not something that is either "internalized" or "unchanging" or "impermanent", being itself beyond binary categories, even when boldly presented as neither/nor or both/and. Its expression is unavoidably poetic and perplexing, inspiring and puzzling - depending on your perspective and affinity - and intended to stir and provoke direct recognition. Analysis is fine as long we don't confound the object of consideration.

Nice points, Hokai.

All is transient, thus not a self, there is no observer/subject, thus there is no self, there is no controller that is separate, thus there is no self, there is nothing that manifests that is not causal, thus there is no self. There never was. The illusion is a mis-perception, a habitual ignoring of these glaringly obvious points. The obvious points, meaning the universal characteristics of sensate phenomena, were always true, true before realization, true after. Thus, it is not that something is changed in these, but that they are finally perceived as they are. It is not that something is added, but instead the habit of ignoring the truth has stopped. It is easy for something to stop forever.

If one posits that enlightenment is a state or a thing or a place or a quality or an addition, then it is easy and natural to apply the impermanence argument. It instead one realizes that the qualities understood were always true and that the understanding actually has a habitual, active component to it, then it is very easy to imagine that habit finally ending when things are clearly perceived.

I hope that helps,

Daniel

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

I can’t help thinking ‘enlightenment’ is some sort of self-deception; I cannot make any sense out of the literature & understand what people are talking about. It drives me nuts, and to keep my sanity I have occasionally to withdraw from discussions.

As soon as I make a decisive thinking effort, I either find claims / explanations like in Daniel’s and Hokai’s posts above either trivial or non-sensical. I am sure both give their best, and I am not faulting them for my difficulties like, for example, the following one:

Hokai says: “the part in you which is always witnessing everything arising is the unmoving, unchanging part,” yet Daniel says: “all is transient” and “there is no observer/subject.”

I am finding these statements contradictory / unreconcilable.

I take also issue with the claim that an enlightened person perceives things “as they are”, which is impossible, because every sentient being’s perception is mediated by a nervous system! Granted there are changes within the nervous system prior to enlightenment, but this would still not qualify for ‘direct’ perceptions.

If it is true that the unenlightened person suffers from a mis-perception, and perception is mediated by the nervous system, then it stands to reason if the removal of the mis-perception (= enlightenment) is not ultimately linked to and dependent on changes within the nervous system; and if this is the case --- can we then not discard of metaphysical belief systems (incl. Buddhism)?!

I remember that U.G. Krishnamurti said something along these lines in: ‘Mystique of Enlightenment’: “Psychological mutation is impossible. The natural state can happen only through biological mutation.”

Finally, I cannot see how 'enlightenment' [= the removal of the (neurologicall derived) mis-perception of an independent agent] can qualify to make metaphysical, epistomological, ontological and cosmological claims as the Buddha did.

I will let Hokai answer for what he said.

As to contradictions regarding descriptions: this is par for the course, unfortunately. All descriptions, if dissected by the existential, reductionistic mind, come these problems. Welcome to the club.

As for perceiving things as they are, there are many possible standards for how things are, with one among many being sensate reality. Since this is the first foundation from which all else is extrapolated, all physics, all physiology, all theory, all speculation, all philosophy, it is actually not so crazy to adopt, for the sake of this discussion, the notion that bare sensate phenomena should be the gold standard of insight practice. It also just happens to be good, practical advice for attaining to the understanding we label enlightenment, regardless of any issues of whether or not you consider sensate phenomena to be an acceptable standard of judging reality based on whatever criteria.

As to trying to use neurological or biological models to describe enlightenment, the science on that front is insufficiently advanced at this point in terms of explanation, and on the front of making it happen is largely non-existent.

Luckily, good old simple techniques, basic instructions, retreats and the like tend work just fine those who bother to simply follow the instructions. As to the other models that can get somewhat fantastic, consider reading my take on the thing, found at www.interactivebuddha.com, either in blook or .pdf format, in the chapter called Models of the Stages of Enlightenment, and many other places.

Helpful?

Hey Abe -- do you practice often? My guess is that you don't or that you do but when you do you aren't focusing on what's going on right now but on all these concepts. In my humble and limited experience there is simply no way a human being can practice correctly for too awfully long a time and not discover that concepts are not experience. This will sound exceptionally simple minded but this is how I see it: have you noticed how words fall short of being able to describe the simplest experience? That's a mighty hint about how effective they will be in describing awakening.

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Yes, I am working through your 'Models of the Stages of Enlightenment', which is very dis-illusioning; especially the chapter on 'The Psychological Model' did it for me, because I lived under the impression that 'Enlightenment' was largely about 'Psychological Perfection'. In Sufi Islam, the enlightened man is actually called 'Perfect Man'.

*

Contradictions in descriptions is fine with me as long as there is a remote possibility the knower-teachers talk about the same experience and that experience is valid (not psychopathological); yet there are times when I throw in the towel.

*

I do not take any offense to "the notion that bare sensate phenomena should be the gold standard of insight practice." What other standard could there be?! What I have issues with is the claim that an enlightened person perceives things “as they are.”

It is as if there is a continuous confusion in the literature b/w ‘experience’, ‘description’ and ‘interpretation’. The experiences of sensate phenomena is one thing; their descriptions another, and the interpretations as to what these experiences and their descriptions mean in terms of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, cosmology, biology, physics, neurology etc. yet another!

For example, no experience in the world can qualify to make a universal statement like “all is transient,” or to make a categorical claim like “there is no observer/subject”. Such claims (or at least the way they are stated) reach far beyond experiences of sensate phenomena / mere description of experiences of sensate phenomena. That’s why I wrote that I cannot see how 'enlightenment' (= the removal of a mis-perception) can qualify to make all sorts of dogmatic assertions as the Buddha did.

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Strictly speaking, there is no a way whatever of arriving at even a probabilistic weighing that “all is transient.” A person may say ‘all is transient’ in the sense that ‘every experience is finite’, but this is trivial (stating the obvious). A statement like ‘there is no observer/subject’ is non-sensical to me, because it directly contradicts my personal experience. A person may say ‘there is no observer/subject’ in the sense that the observer/subject is not knowable like other objects of knowledge, because the observer is a pure presence (metaphorically a ‘light’), which may be equivalent to what Hokai describes as “the [unmoving, unchanging] part in you which is always witnessing everything arising.”

And to the extent that statements made by enlightened persons are descriptive rather than analytical, they do not prove things in the way it is supposed to do, for example, that ‘everything is causal’ [“there is nothing that manifests that is not causal” (Daniel)].

*

“Luckily, good old simple techniques, basic instructions, retreats and the like tend work just fine those who bother to simply follow the instructions.” (Daniel)

This is a bold statement; whether things work just fine for a person largely depends on the validity of the instructions, not just that s/he follows the instructions! There are many people who end in the mad-house by following instructions; others do not go anywhere at best; the literature is full of disenchanted laymen and monks alike!

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Fortunately, all your guesses are wrong ,-)))

I have been practicing every day for up to 4 hours for some time now (3 - 4 months); with good results so far. / I do not focus on any concepts during meditation, but followed Dan’s recommendation to stay at the level of bare sensations. / I am aware that experiences are not concepts!

I am slowly getting used to the possibility that I may come across like a moron; but what I primarily bemoan (see previous two posts) is the confusion of ‘experience’, ‘description’ and ‘interpretation’ within the literature & discussions.

Or to put it differently, do statements like ‘all is transient’ / “there is no observer” / “everything is causal” sound to you like descriptions of experiences, or rather like concepts / dogmatic assertions?!

Best,

Abe



Best,

Abe

"... do statements like ‘all is transient’ / “there is no observer” / “everything is causal” sound to you like descriptions of experiences, or rather like concepts / dogmatic assertions?!"


Glad to see my guesses were way off base, Abe. Hang in there and follow Daniel's prescription.

They sound to me like statements that only direct experience can clarify.

A confusion seems to persist concerning "experience vs. concept" or, in other words, perception vs. conceptual, in which case by "perception" only that which is nonconceptual seems to be understood. Mental activity, thought, concept etc. are also experiential processes, whether voluntary or automatic, and in themselves are also subsumed in the "sensate reality" category, the twelve doors (nidana), the eighteen elements (dhatu) of the classical Buddhist phenomenology. While I'm not a fan of how this classical phenomenology is being used most of the time, i.e. to claim there's no self whatsoever while only its separateness should be put under scrutiny, concepts as such were never seen as a big problem, or as deserving a special, "non-experiential" status. It would seem bare-sensation of touch is more real for some then the bare-sensation of thought. The four applications of mindfulness MUST encompass mental phenomena by definition. The critique against concepts that claims to put them opposite to experience as such is not valid. What the nondual model proposes is collapsing the self-contraction and separation between experiencer and the experienced, and some of that experiencer, especially his reality-status, is indeed conceptual (stealthily when not investigated). Now that does not mean that concepts are less real then anything else, for that matter, they are as relatively real as the pain in your ass. Further, concepts may lead to something and its that potential that needs to be unpacked carefully, instead of letting them conceal their own nature. Any thoughts anyone?

I'm the person who posted that critique, Hokai, but you aren't quite restating my comments accurately, probably because I'm not very accomplished at making the distinction I'm trying to make. If all one does is spend time pondering the Buddhist concepts one reads in books, analyzing the logical and metaphysical contradictions, worrying about obtaining just the right formulation of enlightenment, then it will be a long long time before one sees what you are referring to because it will be shrouded in a murky mist.

So yes, the critical distinction is the separateness, not the absence, of self, but you have to have that insight before that distinction makes any sense, especially for a beginner. I can recall vividly the kind of mental gymnastics I see Abe attempting here (sorry, Abe) and how murky and ridiculous sounding all the various words and concepts were to me at the time. It wasn't until I just sat down and payed attention, quit reading all the books, quit worrying about and anticipating what I was trying to discover, that any insight came. Yes, it can come from the investigation of any phenomena - touch, taste, hearing, seeing, thinking - but I find touch and hearing to be the most direct methods and I find thinking to be the most confusing and difficult.

So I was hoping to help Abe by making the distinction between experience and concepts that would have made sense to me - and still does - in regard to what to pay attention to in practice in order to get some effective results. I can recall very clearly being in the position Abe is in and getting very frustrated by the - bear with me here - pretty much incomprehensible distinctions thrown my way. Sometimes it helps for another practitioner to give advice that is a bit more cludgy and direct. If it's improper, I apologize, but I certainly had good intentions ;-)

Peace.

Alright, :-), I didn't have in mind anyone in particular but the unspoken points of view that, as I said, seemed to persist through the exchange of statements.

So the distinction is first, concepts based on mere speculation that never arrives to the point of actual recognition, versus actual investigation coupled with practice of directly observing and/or investigating the nature of the matter in question. Basically, it's the question whether one practices diligently or not. And the second distinction, i.e. concerning the existence or not of self or anything else, is the dichotomy of relative characteristics and ultimate meaning, that ideally ends dissolved in awakening to the nondual suchness, itself only disclosed by going beyond both myths, concept AND experience. Yes, peace.;-)

"So the distinction is first, concepts based on mere speculation that never arrives to the point of actual recognition..."

Yes! Until I was capable of actually seeing these distinctions through practice certain language would fly right over my head, serving only to confuse and possibly frustrate me. I read Abe's comments and recognize - and sympathize - with what he is saying and "where" he is.

Thanks, Hokai.

To zumacraig: do you find any of this useful? Since you started this thread, it'd be good to know your take on the whole issue of whether everything impermanent, what exactly is "everything", what is "impermanent", and how that relates to a stabilized realization. Please chip in.

Abe, sorry for the confusion. It was the last thing intended. I could have expressed myself differently, if I wasn't reconciling the "impermanent" and "unchanging" from the opening question. Truly, impermanence is the only unchanging observable phenomenon. Everything else is either simply impermanent, or not observable in this dualistic sense, or not real. So, basically, it's much more simple. Though, trying to wrap our minds about it may indeed lead to becoming some sort of self-deception, as you say. Direct meditative experience in observing impermanence of everything and changelessness of nothing (the rest) is therefore necessary to probe these claims and establish (or abolish) their truth. Elaborating on the role of the nervous system in "every sentient being's perception" won't help at all in this case. Hope this addresses your complaint, if that's what it was.:-)

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Truly, impermanence is the only unchanging observable phenomenon. Everything else is either simply impermanent, or not observable in this dualistic sense, or not real. So, basically, it's much more simple. Though, trying to wrap our minds about it may indeed lead to becoming some sort of self-deception, as you say. Direct meditative experience in observing impermanence of everything and changelessness of nothing (the rest) is therefore necessary to probe these claims and establish (or abolish) their truth. (Hokai)

*

Hokai,

that’s excellent!

Am I right then in my assumption that the assertion ‘there is no observer’ means ‘the observer is not observable’ (in the dualistic sense, meaning objects of observations can only be thoughts, feelings, colors etc., and all of these objects of observations are ‘impermanent’); it is this claim the meditator verifies (‘realizes’) experimentally?!

Yet even if the ‘observer’ is not observable in the dualistic sense the assertion ‘there is no observer’ is philosophically problematic, because unity of perception is there in the non-dualistic mode; what would the unity be or what / who would do the unification of the observed objects, if not – an observer (only that we do not call it an observer anymore, but Buddha Mind, or the One, or Formless Awareness, etc.)?!

I may miss something here, because the verification of the assertion that the observer is not observable (in the dualistic sense) takes me 5 – 10 minutes of deep thinking & introspection; why then meditate for years upon it; why then write about it at enormous length, in all but unreadable books?! There must be more to it, I’d think, but what would it be?!

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Chris & Hokai,

first of all thank you very much for your time & effort; it is very encouraging that such a discussion we are having can actually take place; all you are saying is valid; yet I feel somewhat misunderstood resp. I try to make a subtler point, which I am not sure has been picked up yet.

*

“So the distinction is first, concepts based on mere speculation that never arrives to the point of actual recognition, versus actual investigation coupled with practice of directly observing and/or investigating the nature of the matter in question.” (Hokai)

I understand (and agree) to this distinction;

although there is the possibility of achieving Arahantship not by meditation (serenity / insight) but by “agitation about the teaching” (see AN 4:170; II 156-57).

It is also possible to become a sotapanna by “understanding the deep meaning of the Dhamma” without any meditative practice; see 1:24:30 - 1:25:30 here:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-2848866552295121017

So, I like to emphasize I am not talking about ‘speculation’ or ‘intellectualization’! I never got to the point of speculation, because I simply cannot imagine the meaning of terms like ‘there is no observer’ or ‘everything is causal’, ‘all is transient’ etc.

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Now, if ‘joriki’ (see entry above) is right and these statements can only be clarified by direct experience, then they are not analytical thoughts (which I held them to be); yet if these statements are not analytical thoughts what are they?! Poetical & mystical language?! Or non-sensical & trivial utterances?! Or a ‘private language’?! [‘The words of this language are to refer to what can be known only to the speaker; to his immediate, private, sensations. So another cannot understand the language.’ (Wittgenstein)]

To me, it seems, there is a real problem of communication here! If you have an insight, and that insight cannot be expressed non-ambiguously in a linguistic structure (language), why call it an insight (rather than a mystical experience)?! If you have an insight and that insight is ‘everything is causal’, but ‘everything is causal’ is not an analytical thought, do you actually have an insight?!

You could, of course, say what it is all about is 'non-verbal wisdom', 'direct perception', 'intuitive perception', in case of which Wittgenstein applies again:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Yet the words of the Buddha are sheer endless... the Pali canon alone fills several 1000 of pages, and the commentaries are several 1,000 pages more, and so it goes on...

>Am I right then in my assumption that the assertion ‘there is no observer’ means ‘the observer is
>not observable’ (in the dualistic sense, meaning objects of observations can only be thoughts,
>feelings, colors etc., and all of these objects of observations are ‘impermanent’); it is this
>claim the meditator verifies (‘realizes’) experimentally?!

Often the Ego-Concept we normally know is more an recursive process of knowing. "I know, that I know that I know..." And it is easily broken down via awareness by everybody.

If you experience Impermanence there is an observer first. Then if the awareness is better the seeming stable observer itself is vibrating (then the fear begins :-). In the Theravada-Abhidhamma they told, that the consciousness vibrates round about 15 times more quickly than other objects (e. g. sounds). This means, there is then experience but no continuing observer but conditioned moments of knowing.

I don't agree with people who tell, that all this things are not explainable. Most it means that they cannot do it by themselves. It is difficult only. Not everyone is a philosoph. If you explain something you have to artificially separate parts of the whole. With the separation you will misrepresent the whole. Only if you forget that (unfortunately that is what happens often) you get problems.

ciao
Paticca

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

“Often the Ego-Concept we normally know is more an recursive process of knowing. "I know, that I know that I know..." And it is easily broken down via awareness by everybody.” (Paticca)

Yes, I agree. On the other hand, there are many people who seem to have a different ego-concept, whereby the ‘ego’ is demonized as something bad; this kind of ego-concept predominant in New Age circles is what a psychoanalyst would call the ‘id’ or the will of the body (sexual drive, instinctual passions); the biological compulsive forces are seen as bad by the individual because they are experienced as counter-will, with which the individual will [seen as ‘higher self’] is in conflict, which constitutes the essentially human problem.

*

“If you experience Impermanence there is an observer first. Then if the awareness is better the seeming stable observer itself is vibrating (then the fear begins :-). This means, there is then experience but no continuing observer but conditioned moments of knowing.” (Paticca)

Very interesting; it stands to reason whether the ‘observer’ [read: my sense of identity, I-ness] is, ultimately, nothing but a feeling. It may well be that the sense of I-ness is structurally held in place by affective energy, and the dissolution of the boundaries of the I-sense is experienced as a release of affective energy (fear).

One could also say that somebody is considered to be himself to the extent that his emotional responses are what they are; a person would be different (up to unrecognizable different) from what he used to be if his emotional responses undergo a shift, or disappear completely.

[I-sense = sum of my emotional responses = feeling being]

‘Selflessness’ is often understood as meaning ‘without passions’.

In fact, a de-conditioning from the usual fear responses seems to be an essential part of the awakening process.

Author: SANTTHOSH

it is foolish to seek the non-duality y on the base of false identity within the experience of duality. it dual and non-dual is state of mind. discovering and realizing the fact that the nature of the mind or duality is non-dual spirit or Atman . since every non-dual teaching in the world are misinterpreted and mixed and messed with religion and yoga the essence of non-duality has been lost..it is not the man who has get enlightenment. it is the mind that has to get enlightened of the fact that it is not a man. then only the mind will be able to abide in tis no-dual nature and become one with it. to realize that non-dual truth In lesser time and effort one has t o adopt FORMLESS SPIRITUALITY[F.S]. Without the yard stick to know and judge what is permanent and what is impermanent how and why? non-duality is impossible . F.S provides that yard stick.

> .. there are many people who seem to have a different ego-concept...

Unfortunately there are many different concepts and we have no special well defined language here (as in chemistry or medicine). To me to identify the ego with e. g. lust is not very correct. Lust is like all things selfless. But when an object arise in the consciousness and the object is very interesting and lust arises too, the normally following recursive mind-processes will create the ego-feeling. If the object is not interesting the sense door process is cancelled.

A book (Mahasi Saydaw) describes it:
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Dependent/dependent.html
Chapter: Follow-Up Active-consciousness


> Very interesting; it stands to reason ...

To me it is more an concept (or konglomerat) that is built of (or recognized by) many artificial separated conditioned sensations of the stream of impermanence (A&P-Stream).


> It may well be that the sense of I-ness is structurally held ...

May be to me only. The fear is because there is no base, no ground to hold myself. If I went into impermanence (A&P-Event) I have had the fear that it could be that I never come back to normal reality. Daniel said in his book "Mastering...", it is like a spiritual roller coaster and to me is it the best way to describe it.


> ‘Selflessness ...

Yes it is. But I am not sure whether the ego-feeling is really a problem. If someone has no desire and all his drive is based on compassion may be he has an ego-feeling too or something similarly (this depends on definition of ego). A clear understanding of the ego-process is IMHO sufficient.


> In fact, a de-conditioning from the usual fear responses seems ...

I agree with it but this is only one thing. The other big thing is to handle the disappointment when you begin to realize by experience what this spiritual roller coaster implies.

Author: SANTTHOSH

HI PATTICCA,
I am going to start a non religious non duality forum very shortly . And I am sure all your doubts and confusion will be cleared .you need not struggle to overcome the ego but you you only have to understand the ego is not limited to the physical entity alone but to the whole human experience which includes the world. I also went through all confusion and doubts and I struggled to know non-duality through many masters nuke and corners but I did not find any one. I practiced many so-called spiritual teachings but none gave any results. but i did my own home work and i recorded every bit of spiritual pursuit. i have written about 35 books on this subject yet to be published.
do not be disappointed with non-duality you will become aware with lesser time and effort , F.S TEACHINGS FIRST CONVINCES YOU WHAT IS TRUTH , THUS ITS SAVES YOUR TIME AND ENERGY TO DISCOVER THE NON DUAL TRUTH..
AFTER KNOWING THE NON-DUAL TRUTH INTELLECTUALLY YOU ONLY REQUIRE TO REFLECT ON IT THROUGH INQUIRY AND REASONING AND ANALYSIS TO HAVE THE CONVICTION. IN NON-DUALITY THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION ALL YOUR DOUBTS AND CONFUSION WILL BE CLEARED. YOUR MIND WILL BECOME RECEPTIVE TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH.

WITH REGARDS
SANTTHOSH

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Santthosh,

you seem 'imbalanced', but who is not?!

*

Jesus: "I am come to bear witness unto the Truth."

Pilates: "What is 'Truth'?"

*

grammar of life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXKTAYmxXOI

That sums it up for me!

Best,

Abe

Hi Santthosh,

> I am going to start a non religious non duality forum very shortly ...

Thank you for your offer. But I don't "struggle to overcome the ego" my ego is overcome by my tired mind every night :-). It seems that the ego is more an extension of the mind than that the ego is the boss.

> And I am sure all your doubts and confusion will be cleared.

I feel not confused (but may be I am) and may be I am wrong but in my mind are no doubts that I have to master the fear and disappointment with the A&P-Event if I want to go on.

>... you only have to understand the ego is not limited to the physical entity
> alone but to the whole human experience which includes the world.

I agree more or less that the whole world is a construction of the mind. But that do not imply that e. g the brain construct (which is a model of the mind from itself) and its limitations has no reality. If I drink a beer my mind states are altered. Normally the brain construct works good to predict events of the experience of the mind. That means the ego is IMHO limited by "physical" mind models.

I can understand that the mind extension the ego is sometimes overwhelmed by the power of the mind. May be a Christian will say "Jesus is in my heart", a Muslim "Allah is with me" or a Hindu "I am That". I think it is a nice Idea and can help a lot for a stable life. But only if the common sense will be at the front. In other cases it could be dangerous. To me I feel a deep friendship between me and my mind. And if I am honest I have to say that this comes along with spiritual feelings. But the declaration "Atman is Brahman" has many philosophical problems that require a solution.

> ... TO DISCOVER THE NON DUAL TRUTH..
> ... IN NON DUALITY THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION

Here I disagree. I don't like the term non-duality because in an narrow sense it is contradictory. I can accept it in a wider sense only. Why?

To have an experience means to know something. This means experience implies an object and something that knows and this is duality. It is not possible to experience real non-duality. Often I think this means that the consciousnees has itself as object. Starting 6. Jhana in Buddhism or in Yoga-System a higher state of "samadhi without seed" (seed means effortless samadhi in other words without skrt. vitarka, vicara).

Real non-duality has to be a "black out" without any remembrance.


Good luck
Paticca

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

"In fact, a de-conditioning from the usual fear responses seems ..." (Abe to Paticca)

"I agree with it but this is only one thing. The other big thing is to handle the disappointment when you begin to realize by experience what this spiritual roller coaster implies." (Paticca to Abe)

*

Paticca,

what kind of 'dispappointment' do you have in mind? (I better ask because I am not sure I understand what you excactly mean.)

hi abe,

'Am I right then in my assumption that the assertion ‘there is no observer’ means ‘the observer is not observable’ (in the dualistic sense, meaning objects of observations can only be thoughts, feelings, colors etc., and all of these objects of observations are ‘impermanent’); it is this claim the meditator verifies (‘realizes’) experimentally?! '

in my experience, it's seeing that the very sense of observer itself is also made up of sensations and is interconnected with all the other sensations, in such a way that this hidden assumption about the sense of observer 'really being separate' is revealed and stops making sense, even though the sense of observer itself doesn't stop happening. (except maybe in unitive states like the kind that tend to pop up in high equanimity, but even then i've been told that its actually still there and i'm just missing it).

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

That's excellent! Very helpful! Many thanks!

Hi Abe,

> what kind of 'dispappointment' do you have in mind? ...

In the early 80's I practiced Yoga. In my simple mind I thought that I get unifying the Atman with Brahman or something like this. In any event I looked for a benefit.

But what I got was a not wanted experience of the so called "first noble truth" which means that all conditioned arising dhammas are impermanent, no self and suffering.

At this time I did not know anything about Buddhism. To me this experience was felt restless, out of control, and not nice and seems to be more real than all that what I called the normal reality before. I needed a lot of time to come back to earth :-)

Because I don't believe in reincarnation (may be this is a big mistake), I think I will get "nirvana without residue" with the physical death automatically. But to have a "taste" of nirodha during lifetime it could be good to go on with the practice. I think "at least" the fear of existence will cease with this experience and this will be very useful (here are the benefits I looked for :-).

Unfortunately, to prepare my mind for the cessation (nirodha), I have to overcome this disappointment and to accept the "first noble truth" first.

Paticca

Author: xsurf

Hi Santthosh, first we have to get clear what non dual means. In short, it means there is no observer apart from observed, the observer is the observed.

The Formless Witness is not yet 'non dual'.

Check out Ken Wilber on this (from the formless Witness to Non-dual), http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

And Daniel has also written an article relating 'true self and no self' in terms of non-duality, 'No-Self vs. True Self', http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/43A2B845-873D-499C-A021-25B91A0ABCA0.html

Author: SANTTHOSH

Hi Abe,
Thank you for your compliment. My mind is in a state where there is no gravity. The balance and imbalance are for the people who think duality as reality and are unable to go beyond the experience of duality. It is no use of searching truth on the base of scriptural authorities.
the religious side of scriptures are meant fro common mass. The spiritual insights hidden with in the scriptures cannot be interrupted on the base of physical identity or ego. BIBLE SAY 'I' AND MY FATHER ARE ONE THE SPIRITUAL MEANING OF THAT IS I IS MIND THAT IS THE WHOLE HUMAN EXPERIENCE INCLUDING THE WORLD AND FATHER IS THE SPIRIT THE TRUE SELF BOTH ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. WHEN YOU KNOW THE ESSENCE YOU NEED NOT STRUGGLE TO BALANCE YOU BECOME AWARE THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE OF DIVERSITY BECOMES ONE IN ESSENCE.
THUS BIBLE AND OTHER RELIGIOUS ARE GREAT SCRIPTURES, BUT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ITS SPIRITUAL SIDE WHICH ARE HIDDEN AS INSIGHTS.SINCE MAN VIEWS AND JUDGES ON THE BASE PHYSICAL IDENTITY IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND AND REALIZE IT. WHEN WISDOM DAWNS ALL SPIRITUAL MEANING OF THOSE INSIGHTS WILL START UNFOLDING ITSELF. THUS SEEKER NEEDS TO KNOW HIMSELF TO KNOW THE ULTIMATE TRUTH WHICH IS HIDDEN WITH IN THE MIND AS ITS INVISIBLE SUBSTANCE AND WITNESS. THIS POSSIBLE ONLY THROUGH FORMLESS SPIRITUALITY.
THANK YOU
WITH RESPECT AND REGARDS. KEEP IN TOUCH
HAVE BLISSFUL TIME WITHIN YOUR WAKING EXPERIENCE.

Author: SANTTHOSH

Hi Paticca,
THANK YOU FOR YOU RESPONSE,
You need not overcome the ego. the ego, body ,world whatever you seen,known and believed and experienced as a person of the world are within the Waking experience. the whole Waking experience itself is mind. the mind appears and disappears as waking and dream when there is no experience or ego it is called sleep. since all the paths and spiritual practices of the world are based on ego and seekers fighting to overcome the ego. it is erroneous to seek truth on the ego which is the false self.
since people have accumulated there own idea and they are unable to accept anything else as truth other than their accepted truth. to know the truth one has to bifurcate religion,philosophy, idea of god, scriptural knowledge and yoga from spirituality. then only one will be able to find the non dual truth which cannot be contradicted thus non dual truth is ultimate truth.
WITH LOTS OF RESPECT AND REGARDS
SANTTHOSH
HAVE BLISSFUL TIME WITHIN YOUR WAKING EXPERIENCE.

A few points:

1) Thanks to The Prisoner for his astute comments.
2) Santthosh:
a) Lay off the capitals. They are way too much.
b) The notion that only your path "Formless Spirituality" can demonstrate the truth of what the non-dual kids are talking about is preposterous. Stop this delusional sectarian nonsense. There are a bunch of good paths, and the way each person gets their ends up having its own ingredients, aspects, quirks, and conceptual background, though in the end it all looks basically the same if done well.
c) The question of "ego" needs a little formal definition. There is the id as mentioned above, which in Freudian terms is basically the drives for reproduction and survival. There is the "ego" in the Freudian sense, which is a great and useful thing, being the moderator between the internalized rules of the super-ego and the id. There is the experiential notion that there is a Subject, observer, doer, thinker, etc. that is at the center of all this, subject to this, sometimes split off from things, sometimes as the mercy of reality: all that is more sensation that must be seen as it is, and when this is seen directly and clearly in real-time, that is awakening.
d) The general notion that this is all just unhelpful concept, religion or philosophy concerns me: this is all about simply practicing in a way that reveals the simple truths that many traditions have articulated in various ways, some clear, some not. True, at some point concepts simply need to be seen as they are also, but this doesn't mean that there aren't helpful concepts, as there very much are.

Author: SANTTHOSH


Hi Paticca,
Samadhi based on human effort based on ego. it is an achievement and attainment on based on the false entity. Emptiness means empty of experience of duality or human experience. all your thoughts and experiences are within the experience of duality or mind. the effortless or Nirvikalpa Samdhi of yoga is practiced on the base of physical entity with imaginery chakars only get imgery thoughtless state temperrily. the stilling of the thoughts is not the wisdom. ego based spritual practice canntot trasport the seeking mind towards reality. Seer of ego based pracice thinks he is seprate induvidual apart from the world. thus he limits the mind to physical entity. but mind is whole human experince in which the person and world are present.. the ego is not the self . the true self is within the mind as its invisble substence and it is apart from the mind as its invisble witness.
one has investigate the three states to unfold the mystery of the mind. the one which witness the three states which appear and disappear in succession is formless and non dual. that formless entity is the substance and witness of the mind.your mind will not accept this very easily but when you become aware of the fact that that Samdhi yields no wisdom then think over what i said. until then continue your present practice. remember the Buddha nature or non dual substance of the mind is beyond and cannot be approached or cannot be named with ego or physical based spiritual practice. where no second thing exist other than spirit or Buddha ' nature. Discovering and realizing the the fact that the whole human experience is created and sustained by one single substance and and consciously becoming one with that substance is Nirvana or liberation.
Thank you Paticca , I wish you all the success in your spiritual pursuit..
With respect and regards
Santthosh.

Author: xsurf

An article by another friend of mine: http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-misinfo.html

The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality



This article is related to a common misconception with regards to the Transcendental experience of Nonduality. Within the spiritual circle, the term Non-duality is a very misunderstood or misinterpreted term. It must be understood that the term has more than one meaning and its perceived meaning largely depends on a person's stage of spiritual awareness.

More often than not, a lower stage understanding of the term is misconstrued as the Transcendental experience of Nonduality or non-dualism. This confusion is largely compounded by so-called new age spiritual materials.

The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct.

Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity.


No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping.

OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.

For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

Author: xsurf

Hi Santthosh, these links might be of interest... in case you haven't read the other post/reply I posted in the other thread on determinism seen as reality.

(following writings by 'thusness'/'passerby')

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
(my friend's journey in six stages, from 'I Am/Formless Witness' to Nothingness, to No-Self/Non-duality, to Emptiness/Dependent-Origination)

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html


(the articles below are by another friend, a.k.a 'longchen')

http://www.dreamdatum.com/no-eternalwitness.html

http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-experience.html

http://www.dreamdatum.com/enlightenment-state.html