Author: thittato
Forum: Practical Dharma

Hello,

Lately I've been experimenting with shikantaza/Just Sitting the way Adyashanti is teaching it where one is just sitting and letting everything be as it is. I find that by doing this my mind in a pretty organic way grows calm and awareness becomes clear. I become more sensitive to all the different tensions in my body and mind caused by the type of aversion and attraction that is not letting things be as they are, and this sensitivity allows me to drop these tensions simply by noticing them when I'm sensitive enough to notice that they are uncomfortable and not necessary to feed / hold onto.

My question is if someone can give me some pointers and inspiration to fuel my interest in looking at the tension between the observer and the observed, as that seems to be one of the most subtle ways of not letting things be as they are, and it seems like when I can drop most other tensions, that is the primary one that I'm left with.

What happens with the observer and the observed when the tension between them dissolves? Will this lead to Fruition and stream-entry? Maybe if someone explains how things looks like/ work out without the split between the watcher and phenomena that might help guiding me into that realization as something I can take with me into my meditations?

What about a practical example: How is it to look at a tree when there is no longer any split between the observer and the observed? Does awareness of the tree and the tree merge?

Thank you! :-)

Hi,

This is a really good question but also really tough to answer, at least I'm finding it difficult!

The self(s) seem to sort of muck up the clarity of sensing things clearly, as they are being split into two realities rather than one. The most obvious change (which is a gradual continuum as one fully awakens) is the clarity at which things present themselves. By that I mean that it's a lot like "focusing" the senses to a degree that they weren't at before. If you feel "disconnected" from the world, like it just doesn't seem a clear as it should, that's a good indicator. If you play/have played video-games, imagine going from playing the game in 3rd person to playing it in 1st person.

You may want to try focusing on the "splits" of the senses or the mind/body split. For instance, look at the world-side of a sound, and then look at your-side of the sound. Or try focusing on your vision, and then your hearing. You'll notice something that feels like a "break" or a "soft wall" every time you flip back and forth. That split is absolutely indicative of duality, and is one of the concrete things that will eventually fall away.

To answer your final question, you may want to read the MCTB equanimity chapter where Daniel discusses "formations." He says something like "3d moving picture including all of the senses and a sense of time/space/awareness" or something. But anyway, that's what a non-dually perceived object will look like, although it's a whole lot more down to earth than what I imagined when I read that part for the first time.

Peace,
Trent

Author: thittato

I've read Daniels chapter on Equanimity several times, but I can't really relate my own experience to the experience of formations the way they're described there. Would it be possible to guide someone into experiencing formations in a satsang type of guided meditation form? Anyone want to try in written form? :-)

It may be worth trying, but I very much doubt it being possible. If you recall, a formation occurs when the mind no longer parses/blinks out to segment off a "this" from a "that." That involves a specific mind state/stage and/or level of attainment. With that in mind, I'm not sure if a pointing-out type instruction could get someone to see them.

After writing that paragraph, I realize that it may be worth trying to get into 4th samatha jhana with your eyes open while looking at a 3-dimensional object such as a candle flame. 2nd jhana with a flame also gives some kind of preview of what a clear formation might sort of look like. Important to recognize that formations arent always apparent in the way spoken of in MCTB. Even the arhat has to incline the mind toward seeing a formation as a formation, although that's quite different than it being completely stage dependent as is for below 3rd path or so.

Trent

Author: thittato


Do you mind telling more about this?

My workinghypothesis these days is that I'm in Equanimity.I try to understand what formations are, or if what I'm experiencing is formations, but doesn't seem like it so far, but I could been wrong, and as I've said, it might become easier to comprehend what is going on by understanding what formations are. I've had the experience of reading Daniel's book before, and making my notions of what he means way more fancy than what it actually turned out to be when I experienced it myself, for instance with vibrations, which was pretty simple to tune into when I realized my expectations of what I was looking for was way overblown.

Well, I usually felt most realizations were simultaneously "holy shit how could I have ever guessed this?" And also "wow, duh, how was it any other way." I'm referring to the latter, in that they seem very normal when one sees them clearly.

Honestly, I did not really notice them in the way that Daniel talks about until very late in the game, mid-3rd path or so. Maybe that has to do with one's concentration strength? I'm not sure-- but I wouldn't get hung up about it. If you're in equanimity, follow Dan's advice for it and you'll get through just fine. I swear I read that chapter more than any other, and it always helped me bust it.

Trent