What is awakening/enlightenment? It is the destruction of the false belief that you are a thinking, experiencing, doing person. When this happens, you live in your true nature, which is inexpressible, perfect, stainless, and unchanging. Actually, these last couple of sentences are not quite accurate, since the real truth is beyond words, but they are accurate enough.

If you have a strong, unconflicted desire to awaken, the steps are very simple.

Either self-inquire or ignore all thought.

Self-inquiry means trying to locate the self-evident knowledge that you have that "I am," (that is, the source of awareness) and not accepting any particular sensation, thought, or feeling as it -- because the "I am" is aware of all these things. Simply focus on trying to find the real I am at all times. How do you do that? Every time you think the word "I," a bell chimes somewhere. Follow, as best you can, the sound of that bell. If you think you've found it, you haven't. Keep looking until there is clarity. If you have to ask whether there is clarity, there isn't.

Ignoring all thought (also known as surrender) is exactly what it sounds like. It's the simplest way of all. It's not about stopping or fighting thought. It's about moving your attention away from it. The TV could be on, but you could refuse to pay attention. Refuse to pay attention to thought. All thought. Repeat till clarity.

Either self-inquire or ignore all thought every waking moment as you go about life. If you "lose it," come back to it. Keep doing that until there is clarity. If you do it intensely, clarity will come. Again, if you have to ask whether there is clarity, there isn't.

That is all it takes to awaken.

Now if you do not have an unconflicted desire to awaken (this will become apparent if you have low motivation to do the above practices, or you keep getting seriously distracted by various other things), you can strengthen it by getting an intellectual framework around the awakening process (through asking questions of a teacher, reading books and scriptures, etc.) and by dealing with your emotional baggage (this comes to being more honest about what you want -- psychoanalytic psychotherapy and artistic expression of your feelings can be very helpful).

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Why oh why are such simple things so hard to do?

It's not hard at all. In fact, it's completely effortless. The very thought "it's hard" is the heart of ignorance... so feel free to ignore it as a total lie. 

Thanks for giving me permission  

Sure. I agree. It would be so simple if there were no Impermanence That Anicca is a mother...er not willing to spare anything! Not even Awakening.  

Im off to sleep now. When asleep "I" feel no suffering. Ah Nirvana here I come. 

Good night folks. 

Indeed.

Anicca doesn't even spare nothing, so have both a good night and a happy waking : )

Are you awakened/enlightened, by your own definitions and standards?

If yes, what makes you think so, and what are these standards and definitions?

If no, why would people take your advice on how to do it?

Yes, but that answer must be taken in context, since awakening is precisely the seeing through of any 'person' who could be enlightened. It is a paradoxical 'non-achievement achievement' whose real nature cannot be captured in language.

Can you give it a try?

I did, in the first paragraph of my original post. Is there something you in particular are struggling with? If so, it would be better to start there, since abstract discussions disconnected to one's particular struggles as a seeker tend to be misleading.

I struggle to understand folks who are hell bent on telling others how simple and easy it is to wake up. It tends to make them feel inferior. So many people here are putting in so much time into their practice, and I imagine this has the stink of an insult to them. Maybe that's the motivation?

Well, first off, simple is not the same as easy. Second, I have my opinions about what works and I am sharing them, because I believe them to be true. If someone feels inferior when they hear that, that says something about them, not about me.

I think people who want to make enlightenment out to be long and complicated and hard and many-staged and with hundreds of separate insights in complicated sequences are doing themselves and anyone else they talk to a disservice.

Not in my experience it doesn't.

The direction given seems like an instruction to visualise (auditorialose?) or imagine a bell sounding. Is that not a construct? How does that object lead to the _real_?

I think if you want folks to take you seriously you should explain your credentials. Do you teach? Where? What? What did/do you practice? Do you claim to be awake? Why?

This is taking what I'm saying far too literally. The word "I" points to something. You know that you are. What is the nature of that knowledge? If I put an ice cube in your hand and asked you where the cold was coming from, you'd say, "from my hand." But if I asked you where the "I" is coming from, that is, where the knowledge that "I am aware" is coming from... well, and if you searched for that, then you'd be engaged in self-inquiry.

Because that's the paradox of self-inquiry. That you are is self-evident. In what precisely that knowledge consists becomes elusive as soon as you start searching.

The idea of credentials in this field is largely nonsense. Most people with so-called credentials have no idea what they're talking about. That said, I practiced 20 years before so-called attainment. I teach people freelance in a contemporary advaita vedanta tradition.

Whether people take me seriously or not is not something that I really have a lot of desire to control at this point. If my words resonate with someone, those are the credentials that matter.

Well, thanks - that's more information than we had a few minutes ago.

Awareness is self-evident, but the idea that the construction I is what is aware, that's a joke. 

Well, that's true, it is a kind of cosmic joke.

"I am a cosmic joke. I am a cosmic joke. I am a cosmic joke."

It is very bizarre how many people awaken and then try to teach something completely different than what they went through, based on the assumption that all the actual work they did could just be skipped over. I'm not picking on you specifically nintheye. It seems to happen more often than not.

Well I am actually not preaching anything other than what I practiced... as I start out by saying, the simple methods are available if one has a relatively strong and unconflicted desire for the Truth. If one doesn't, I mention that there is other work to be done -- either in terms of getting a better intellectual grip on the search, or else in dealing with emotional baggage. These three components certainly comprised my own journey. I gave the 'spear tip' spiritual practices first because some people might be ready to simply jump into them. 

Hmmm... maybe that's what all the steps and insights in Buddhism do. 

But who is it that has that strong unconflicted desire to awaken, then?

Maybe, but it gives the misleading impression of a ladder, and is quite unnecessarily confusing. In fact, various purificatory practices are necessary for some people and not others. There is no ladder or set sequence, only specific personal issues that people have to solve themselves.

Anyhow, so many are capable of immediately practicing, or at least attempting, the highest spiritual practices now, and those practices have purificatory effects. And yet they are usually hidden away in so much mumbo-jumbo...

It doesn't have to be perfectly unconflicted, just unconflicted enough to allow a degree of practice. Many people have that.

Opinion noted.

Are you still assuming that it's the construct that is aware? Or are you just giving into the limitations of language out of lack of other options? Because it kind of sounds like you are still assuming that it is a separate and continuous entity with identity that awakens. Then again, I know how frustrating it can be to try to explain in language. 

Also, exactly what ladders are you talking about? I haven't seen any. 

Well the real answer is that there really isn't any such thing as awakening, exactly. What there is can't be spoken of. To the seeker, however, they must search as if there is. It is to the seeker that the instructions regarding desire, etc. are addressed.

As far as ladders, I mean various systems that mention getting to this jhana and then that one in long complicated sequences. Many people talk this way around the Internet.

Let me rephrase that...

I don't think of it as ladders. I did for a while, but that was a mistake, because it made me think that I had dropped back to the same spot where I had been before and that I was stuck. Now I see it as spiraling. Of course, that is also only a view, too, but for now it serves the purpose better. It makes it easier to see that it leads somewhere, although of course ultimately there is nowhere to go and never was. 

Maybe after twenty years I will say something else, but so far I'm mostly enjoying the scenery of the detours as well. And why not? They are all empty but also all Nibbana, right?

The long road can be pretty fast too. 

That's poetic. Well, as long as someone is at peace with their path I have no dispute with that...

Then we agree on something. 

I love my path. The I that loves it is a mere construction but the love is nirmanakaya. Which is also a construction, of course, but constructions are creation itself, the samsara that is also nibbana and the nibbana that is also samsara. I love the journey. I love finding all those clues and putting them together, although I know that there is no finder and nothing to find, and that the doer that doesn't really exist in many cases was what put those clues there for it(not)self to stumble over, that the very act of trying to find was what created the clues. 

https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/chapter06.htm

What you speak of reminds of this guy's experience. There are also blogs like Sifting to the Truth and Awakening to Reality that speak of the use of self-inquiry to wake up without much meditation. Of course that doesn't mean it's easy. Just simple and direct like you said. I'm curious what you were doing for 20 years before settling with your current modality. 

How dare you making a joke about the cosmic joke!? 

 

Hey, stop joking about my joke about the joke, okay?

My cosmic joke is better than your cosmic joke, ok?

Ha, I'm the Sifting to the Truth guy . I started out with more traditional Vedanta, tried to "implement it," ran into lots of psychological knots, came to Ramana Maharshi, didn't understand him, had to untangle those psychological knots, came back to Maharshi, understood him, and then practiced... 

Haha, well that's awesome. Thanks for your blog! Psychological knots yes... so many of those. I sometimes wonder about who I would be without them; what would I spend my time doing? 

How can you tell what is the active ingredient -  untangling the knots or the self-inquiry?

I'm not exactly sure about what you mean by untangling knots but it seems like it might be understanding your own mind, understanding the source of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. This is what Buddha talked about in his first sermon. 

In my opinion, any system will work easily if you have already untangled your knots because untangling your knots is what produces awakening.

So when you say it's simple, all you have to do is self-inquiry -  that is somewhat misleading to the average person. 

I think that is a huge problem in the buddhist community - the bait and switch. I see it in many forms: The end of suffering except it isn't. It's easy except it isn't. You shouldn't have attachments - but you should practice every waking moment. And the biggest con of all: awakening is sudden and unmistakeable - except it isnt.  It's why I am very suspicious of posts like the one  you made at the beginning of this thread - it looks to me like bait to get people to buy books from your amazon affiliate account - or by other teachers to get people to go on retreats etc.

Untangling knots means dealing with the obstacles to concentration on the spiritual. That's all. 

One of the reasons that people have so many knots is because there's a lot of unclarity about what awakening actually involves.

I didn't say it was easy, I said it was simple. There's a difference. Nothing I've said is contradictory.

   It's not that you make people feel inferior, bra. Quite the opposite, in fact. And making people feel superior to you does them no more good than the opposite.

   While enlightenment may be simple and easy (actually, it's neither simple nor complex, neither easy nor hard, being beyond discrimination), it is not doable by any techniques known to humanity. If the "trick" were easily taught, we'd all know it by now.

   I think most of the people here are "enlightened" from time to time and many know the trick. You've been around the block here before and certainly have plenty of insight. You should know anyone with opinions is not enlightened.


terry

   "That you are is self evident." That is what descartes proposes: "I think, therefore I am."

   The buddha teaches the opposite.

t

  Perhaps the sleeper, dreaming that she wants to awake, can only awaken in the dream.

   The path - to the end of suffering - is the goal. The end of suffering is not the goal. It is sufficient to walk the path; this in itself saves beings, without any need for formal instruction.

   The path is one of seeking the liberation of all sentient beings, and not being oneself liberated before all beings are. To claim one is enlightened and to claim others may accomplish the same goal by various methods known to "work" is the work of imitators. Real teachers are approached by students and required by them to teach. Their reputation is not gained by putting themselves forward and making claims.

terry




   

   "The path is one of seeking the liberation of all sentient beings, and not being oneself liberated before all beings are. To claim one is enlightened and to claim others may accomplish the same goal by various methods known to "work" is the work of imitators. Real teachers are approached by students and required by them to teach. Their reputation is not gained by putting themselves forward and making claims.

terry"




   
Daniel Ingram did all what you mentoned here liberated himself, claimed enlightenment, claims that all can do the same if they follow instructions, gained reputation by forwarding himself via his book thats making claims. He must be one of those "imitators" then?


I dont know anything. I often think if it was wise to take the Red Pill. My desire was too strong I guess. I could not resist it. I even forgot to fasten the seatbelt! Damn it!

I came back to this forum community from a sense of service (being of service), sense of gratitude for this knowledge. What knowledge? That things are flickering, that they dont satisfy and that they lack that someone. 
Still realisations of the "truth" schmacks me at times hard into "oh look, this is It, it was here all the way, never went away, how could it" and then my wife tells me to empty the dishwasher and I say "its Empty" and she sais "no, its not, get on with it and afterwards clean the toilet and empty the cat box too".

In an effort to be impartial and open...

I followed a couple of your links, read through a couple of the methods and gave it a whirl. It changed my sense of me-ness, no doubt. It seems like what the videos of... what's his name.... Mooji on Youtube I've seen do. After poking around a bit, it seemed as though my appendages were as impersonal as the table my feet were propped on top of. 

For a few minutes, it felt as though everything were in front of "me" including the sensations of my back, which typically feel behind me from the coordinate system. That lasted on and off about 10 minutes. 

Anyway. 

Am I enlightened? No.

Do his methods work? No idea. I can't say if that's even the shift one is looking for in this "non attainment without striving" that everyone is striving to attain. Something felt different by doing it for a bit. So take that for whatever it's worth. Maharshi taught them. He's just trying to be more specific on what it means to ask "who am I," and I can admit that having tried that initially it didn't make much sense to me. So thanks, man. 

Actually, that's the point. You are -- seemingly -- self-evident. Seemingly. And you are, in fact -- you are. Only you are not what you think you are. You are not even that you think you are.

Nah, there are no blanket generalizations like this. The Buddha went around and made claims, and so did Christ. 

Right, but that's just the very first step. You then ask -- to whom are these sensations occurring? Redirect your attention to the one who is aware of the sensations. The weird sensations aren't the point. Whatever new weird thought or state or feeling occurs, redirect your attention from that to the one who is aware of it... chase that one, attempt to localize that one, being satisfied with no answer (since each answer is actually something which that one is "aware of").

Keep inquiring. Relentlessly. Every waking moment until clarity. It could take you years, decades even. Don't put any timeline on it and don't put any expectation on what "it's supposed" to be like. It will be clear to you when it's clear to you.

"Keep inquiring. Relentlessly. Every waking moment until clarity. It could take you years, decades even. Don't put any timeline on it and don't put any expectation on what "it's supposed" to be like. It will be clear to you when it's clear to you."



Didn't you say "awakening is dead simple" and here you say Keep at it , relentlesly, every waking moment until clarity ... it will take you YEARS, DECADES even Jeez man! How can this be "dead simple" ? 

You know what? Im tired of listening to this kind of teaching; "keep looking that there is no YOU in there" and creating a fu.k up out of one's life. So many go into killing their Ego, the Self, ... what ever and becoming psychotic wrecks.
Maybe some of you need this kind of teaching which to me could only be ok for a single person that is in a protected environment like a monastery, with a very good guidance. 

For those of us living amongst everyday humans, working colegues and family members its of more benefit to See that there is no Self in the very observace of any given sensate experience. In that profound moment of Sati there is nothing other than "in seeing there is only the seen, refering back to no one". Sense of self exist only in the action of self-validation afterwards. Im totally ok with what Buddha is teaching here. Hence he never really went on and on about weather there is a Self or No-Self.

But yes, awakening is very simple if you just keep at having THIS moment enlightened with profound Sati (contact) with the object; seeing, seeing, seeing, itching, itching, itching ... (I cant sense any Self during this Enlightened moment).

Sales and marketing. Maybe evangelism  

Simple isn't the same as easy. Put in intense concentration without expectation of when or how and that very effort is itself awakening. That's the paradox. Be willing to wait decades and you might just see the truth: that what you're looking for is already accomplished. 

As far as this guidance being only suitable for monks, nothing could be farther from the truth. What will be done will be done. What won't be, won't be. You are not the doer... it is this truth that intense concentration on self-inquiry or surrender will reveal. 

This method seems very focused on non self. What about impermanence and dukkha?

Well, I'm not a Buddhist, so I don't necessarily think in those terms, but doing self-inquiry or ignoring thoughts is turning away from the impermanent, and turning away from the thought narrative that fuels dukkha. This is what enables the destruction of the mental habits that keep one seemingly entangled in samsara.

Not exactly what I would call "dead simple", then.

For thousands of years gurus have been using this marketing. People like good news about there bad habits. Follow my teaching, no need for sila. Follow my teaching, you are already enlightened. Follow my teaching, belief trumps work. Follow my teaching, your sins will be forgiven. haha
This is the same as reason why every couple of years the the atkins diet is repackaged. People will pay big $ to eat bacon and lose weight. The problem is that it is not true for *most* people.

Saying your way is a simpler, better, faster way, implied or otherwise, while pointing back to your commercial website is highly suspect.

How about starting a practice log here? Pay attention to the sensations that make up the breathe for a couple hours a day. What do you experience? How does it compare to your inquiry practice? How does it augment it? How do your previous insights hold up? What are your new ones? Plenty of people here do have self inquery experience and have mixed with vipassana. They may be able to help you deepen your practice. I think that would be interesting. 

Good luck with your endeavors

For thousands of years people have been investing in long complicated many-stages spiritual endeavors, because their ego does not like simplicity, and wants the feel of ascetic "accomplishment." Good luck with your endeavors too.

Well I didn't have things broken down for me as simply as I've broken them down here. Though anyhow simple is not the same as easy, regardless. 

Fair enough. May I ask, what is your critique of nihilism under the terms in which you think?

That's your opinion.

Nihilism or not nihilism is not really a choice, is the truth. The body and the mind will do what they do, with or without philosophical justification. Some people will be nihilists, some won't be. It's not really up to them. 

The question is only whether you identify with the the doing and the doer or not. 

   Dan Ingram is a fine host. I'm not aware of any claims. He doesn't put himself forward that I can see. His students must seek him out to get instruction. Of course, I haven't read his books, seen his interviews or heard his podcasts. I don't generally read books, watch interviews, or hear podcasts of any contemporary spiritual teacher. Not wanting to get caught up in the type of controversy you are trying to initiate.

   Nor do I have a problem with imtators. Monkey see, monkey do, it's the nature of our family. 

   You seem to have missed the point, which was about the path. Jim was disappointed that practice didn't seem to actually lead to the cessation of suffering. I was pointing out that it indeed leads to the end of suffering, only millions of lives hence, when all are liberated.

   Applied to the suffering involved in following the wife's orders to do domestic chores, doing the chores and following the orders with the right attitude is the way. Right speech, right livelihood. Saving all beings with every clean dish and folded towel. Living peace and compassion. Or, "live aloha" as we say here. Very easy, very simple.

terry




tao te chng, trans mitchell



70.

My teachings are easy to understand 
and easy to put into practice. 
Yet your intellect will never grasp them, 
and if you try to practice them, you'll fail.
My teachings are older than the world. 
How can you grasp their meaning?
If you want to know me, 
look inside your heart. 

71 
Not-knowing is true knowledge. 
Presuming to know is a disease. 
First realize that you are sick; 
then you can move toward health.
The Master is her own physician. 
She has healed herself of all knowing. 
Thus she is truly whole. 

72 
When they lose their sense of awe, 
people turn to religion. 
When they no longer trust themselves, 
they begin to depend upon authority.
Therefore the Master steps back 
so that people won't be confused. 
He teaches without a teaching, 
so that people will have nothing to learn. 

You are right on the money I always miss the point.

Good night folks. 

   That's two. Call them exceptional.

   The buddha; the christ, think about it. Not gotama and jesus, not individuals. Not two.

   The buddha submitted his claims to reason. The buddha was a real historical figure. He has some credibility. We all want to be like him.

   There may be a christ, but whether there was actually any incarnation I seriously doubt. The christ story appears to have been made up of whole cloth by the flavians to help them defeat the jews in the so-called jewish war. They were aces at inventing religions. Like the sorceror's apprentice, it got away from them.

terry





tao te ching, trans mitchell


22.

If you want to become whole, 
let yourself be partial. 
If you want to become straight, 
let yourself be crooked. 
If you want to become full, 
let yourself be empty. 
If you want to be reborn, 
let yourself die. 
If you want to be given everything, 
give everything up.

The Master, by residing in the Tao, 
sets an example for all beings. 
Because he doesn't display himself, 
people can see his light. 
Because he has nothing to prove, 
people can trust his words. 
Because he doesn't know who he is, 
people recognize themselves in him. 
Because he has no goal in mind, 
everything he does succeeds.

When the ancient Masters said, 
"If you want to be given everything, give everything up," 
they weren't using empty phrases. 
Only in being lived by the Tao can you be truly yourself. 




tran feng



seventy-four


If men are not afraid to die, 
It is no avail to threaten them with death.

If men live in constant fear of dying, 
And if breaking the law means that a man will be killed, 
Who will dare to break the law?

There is always an official executioner. 
If you try to take his place, 
It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. 
If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

   The buddha went on and on about non self, the five skandhas, etc etc etc etc... Are you ok with that?

t



the very first sutta of the majjhima nikaya was not received well by the bhikkhus...it is too long to quote the whole thing, and it barely touches on non self, but it is the heart of the matter... you could read it at the sutta central website...


from MN sutta one, "The Root of All Things":
 

“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say.

“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say.”

That is what the Blessed One said, but those bhikkhus did not delight in the Blessed One’s words.

   How about being willing to wait a million billion lifetimes? Maybe more?

t

   To give the devil his due, the atkins diet works. Eat a lean beef sandwich and throw away everything else but the beef. Eat no carbs. You can eat a lot of meat that way and lose weight. Maybe not bacon. This is not to say it is healthy, but you can look good under low light.

   As a vegetarian since my teens I find it appalling on moral grounds.

t

   This is like batting practice for you, huh. Looking for the high hard one.

   Chief nocahoma.

t

   Yes, and I'm not enlightened, never have been and never will be. So help me god.

t

   you're always going to sleep... (smile)

   you must post just before bed, when your chores are done...


bue'noche'

Buddhism provides a more satisfactory answer than this via impermanence, IMO, as I alluded to above. Nothingness is just a more subtle dharma, is a view, and also lacks permanence. Relying only on non-self, you may sense this insight indirectly, but you cannot articulate it clearly for the benefit of others who may need it.

As well, I agree that direct experience of the state of non-becoming is critical, however you go about that, but just saying you no longer identify with the doing or the doer and that's that, your spiritual journey is complete, is also lacking. It's well documented on this site how dangerous it can be, especially for a teacher, to adopt this limited view of awakening to non self as the be all end all, as it can frequently lead to them absolving themselves of responsibility for moral action toward their own students and others around them and often ends in abuse.

If you are teaching or intend to, I'd urge you to consider you have a special responsibility for not only understanding intuitively for yourself, but also being able to articulate potential pitfalls for others. It looks simple, looking back, but not looking forward. That's why we have these stages and maps and complexities.

I think you're confusing what is part of the search with notions in an ethical context. These are different contexts.

In the spiritual context, the truth is non-doership. This does not absolve anyone of responsibility, since he who is non-doer is also the non-experiencer... that is, whatever consequences that come of his actions will also have to be dealt with.

Non-doership is not a view, a choice, or an action. It is a fact, but a spiritual one. And what creates abusive teachers is not some view of non-doership, it's unresolved psychological baggage. 

Some schools of Buddhism don't talk much about enlightenment, stages etc, just how to practice. Maybe there is an advantage to that style.

Otherwise students may develop an attachment to (obsession with) enlightenment, or this stage, or that experience, and it becomes more of a hinderance than an inducement. Instead of investigating the origination and cessation of dukkha they look for something else.

And the common misunderstanding of overestimating what awakening really is, only adds to their confusion.

I think Shinzen Young's views on gradual enlightenment are helpful because if you have everyone on a continuum it is more egalitarian than if you have some people who get it and some who don't (which is not really true if Young is correct). Sometimes people place too much importance on an experience and not enough on actual changes caused by practice. If people would undersand Shinzen's views I think it would be beneficial.

Nice, I like it.
Obviously inspired by Ramana Maharishi but that is not a bad thing

I just hope you do not get conceited about your path and start arguing which side you should open an egg... ;)

Huh? You just stated previously that in your view an awakened person would have no control over whether they have a nihilistic worldview and act accordingly, they just have the insight to dissociate from those actions and presumably the consequences.

I'm not debating the ultimate truth of no-self, merely arguing that that insight alone is insufficient to be deemed the end of the spiritual path, mission acomplished.

And I do think that an insight of non-doership that isn't tempered enough by other insights about dukkha and impermanence and a healthy dose of compassion and morality does contribute to abusive teachers.

It's not that the "awakened person" dissociates themselves; it's not an action they take. Dissociation simply is the case. Always and already. To the extent there's a person, there's moral responsibility, and therefore arguments about what should be done.  Therefore, nondoership is not an "insight" that can be "tempered" by anything; it's not an insight in that sense at all.

It's sort of like arguing about what a movie character "should" do when you're sitting in the theater. It's a purely academic argument. The one sitting in the theater has no influence over what the character does or doesn't do. And the reality is even more extreme than that, since in reality the "one sitting in the theater" is not a person at all.

To go one step further, there cannot actually be said to be a world or any people in it to have moral decisions about. This is the spiritual truth.

Now if we want to talk morality or lack of morality, we are changing contexts from a "spiritual" to an "ethical" worldview. We are assuming such a thing called agency. And that's fine; it's spiritually false, but we can change contexts like that. But then we will suffer all the problems that philosophy has in figuring out morality. The reality is that that kind of morality doesn't rest much on philosophical views, it rests on genetics, on how one's been raised, on societal mores, on psychological issues, and many other things. But very little on whether we 'should' or 'should not' be nihilistic.

Sorry to be blunt but that comment reflects a limited, one-sided view of the existence we find ourselves in. It's not "wrong," just incomplete. Experience is both dual and non-dual, sometimes expressed as "not two." There are selves but they are not permanent. There are moral choices made by those impermanent selves. There is moral responsibility. Everything is conditioned, integrated and interrelated, and there is cause and effect.

And further, if we were to act like there is none of that, what world would we inherit?

The true reality is that there cannot be said to be anything. It's not quite the same as saying there isn't anything. That's the truth of the spiritual context: effortless perfection. There are no parts, there is no whole. There is simply the unspeakable silence. Not some kind of "integration" of anything.

When we speak of moral choices made by so-called impermanent selves, we are switching contexts. When we speak in that context, we can assume moral responsibility. That's fine; we can speak in that fashion. Just as, if someone asked, "How are you?" I wouldn't respond "How is who? I don't exist." Though that is in fact much closer to the spiritual truth than saying "Fine, thanks, how about you?"

When thought contemplates the "I," the mind stops, and when the mind stops, the world ceases -- or rather, cannot be said ever to have been. Not merely that it is "impermanent," but that it never was in any form or fashion. For who is to say that it was?

Grilled cheese sandwiches  

Well, obviously those exist. 

three pounds of flax!

every piece of meat in this shop is the best!


honestly, my friend, I am a grilled cheese sandwich aficionado...with my home made whole wheat bread and tillamook cheese, I can make you the best grilled cheese sandwich you ever tasted, garans...

sitting here
thought contemplating the I
my mind is still not stopped

~terry

Because you think you can contemplate the I. That's the problem. What you are contemplating is not the I -- it is merely some sort of concept or feeling. Notice what it is that you are contemplating, and ask yourself "am I aware of it?" And you undoubtedly are; and then turn your attention towards what is aware of it. And when you think you have, you will undoubtedly have landed on yet another thought... and turn from that to what is aware of it.

And keep chasing and chasing... Until the chase is ended not by you, but by something else. When that "happens," then my statement about the mind stopping will ring true...

Pretty much the satipathana sutta instructions. Be mindful of absolutely everthing that arises, including grilled cheese sandwiches.

Wanting.
Searching.
Opening.
Cutting.
Assembling.
Cooking.
Smelling.
Biting.
Chewing.
Tasting.
Swallowing.
Bliss.

keep chasing, eh...hard as you can until the whistle blows, and the referee stops the action...it aint over til its over...


thanks, coach...

Nothing is sacred in Buddhism, even grilled cheese sandwiches. Not sure that's true of Advaita.

mine needs more mustard, she said...

sacred and profane are not two...

   Advaita takes the notion of god and individual soul as givens, and proceeds from there to acheve the nondual state through unity.

   Buddhism sees discussions of soul and god unprofitable, speculative. Fantastic, even. Self is denied, and what we are is left undefined.

  Tathagata means "thus come one." Zen asks, "what is it that thus comes?" Much like advaita.


   Love is not much empjhasized in either buddhism or advaita, which fact beomes apparent in discussions like these. Buddhism does emphasize compassion, though, and presents a defined path.

   Sufism is the religion of love. And bhakti.


terry

Thank you, terry.

Yep. When you blow enough bubbles with your head under water, mother comes and picks you up out of the tub... bathtime's over. 

+1

If nintheye is an Advaita practitioner, I'm finding this a pretty odd conversation considering.

Edit: unless the references to anatta are just for the benefit of translating to us buddha folk : ) 

I'm late to the party with this, but I agree with Chris that from the Buddhist perspective, this is a limited view of anatta. Many Buddhist schools of thought have the two truths doctrine or the 'not one' 'not two' of Zen that Terry described dealing with reconciling dual and non-dual reality views. Regardless, it's a foot in both worlds, very roughly, that's required.

I'm still concerned that the view you are describing is going to be a tempting backdoor for ego to sneak through and act in an unrestrained way.

There are indeed two truths. In one of these truths there are two truths (of which this truth is one of them). In the other truth there are not.

Maybe this should be an SAT question - "When is a truth not a truth?"  

Well, no, I think it's a limited view of experience. The world. The universe. Whatever you call just this.

Chop wood, carry water ; )

Maybe if people were to prioritize practice over arguing about which path is fastest and/or most complete, it wouldn't have to take 20 years.

And yet the taxes are still due whether I associate with them or not : )

Do you really think that's a limiting factor?

For the one who thinks that, that may well be true. That one may well have to file taxes.

The question is whether you are that one... that one may well claim to be you, but is that the truth? 

I think that depends on how much territorialism and prestige gets involved. 

ooh, ooh , I have an answer...


when the central intelligence agency has carved in stone on their headquarters building in langley virginia the following:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (john 8:32)


t

Here is my truth I totally forgot this thread exists  ! If there was no Recent Posts option I would have missed all this Azura Realm fun  

Is there you is there me, woohoo hooo wohoo hop. 
there ain't no me there ain't no you, these high taxes we must stop!

I have a much better title suggestion for this topic
 
"If you really want it, Awakening is Dead"

 

When you hit the reply button, you have to make sure you have the 'subscribe me' button checked under your reply, and then it will email you any time anyone posts anything (or even edits their posts!) in the thread... 

Does rapid noting let people get awakened without first untangling their psychological knots?

It seems to me "everybody" claims their system is best and fastest. At least I have heard those claims from may different types of meditation. Are the claims made about rapid noting significantly different than the claims made in the opening post of this thread?

I believe Daniel Ingram is fond of saying things along the lines of: just do the meditation to find out what the practice does for you. He has certainly made similar comments to me in these forums. How is that different from what nintheye is saying?

I think what people found possibly problematic was the "dead simple" phrasing, although it was clarified that simple and easy are different things. 

I don't think advocating one serious method differs from advocating a different serious method, other things being equal. I don't have a problem with people advocating a different method from what is most common on this forum. I don't have a problem with people arguing against it either. Personally, I don't quite get what motivates long and sometimes infected discussions about which path is best (I'm not only referring to this specific thread), as I think it seems pretty obvious that different paths work differently for different people and it seems to me that the energy is better invested in actually doing some practice. On the other hand, I think it is healthy to have critical discussions in order to spread knowledge about possible pitfalls of different traditions so that people can make more informed decisions and add aspects to their practice if it seems to be called for, and compare and critically reflect on taken-for-granted assumptions and group norms if applicable. I also find it very understandable that people wish to spread the word about something that made a breakthrough possible for themselves (and at the same time I can also see risks in that, as there can be a tendency to overlook pitfalls in that newborn enthusiasm).

So as I understand what you're saying, awakening is dead simple with one of two clear, straightforward techniques, and it is not unrealistic to expect that takes twenty years of practice, more or less, to realize it.

Correct. It could conceivably be much shorter or longer, too, of course, depending on the individual and other psychological factors. And thinking of it as a process with a result is also in an important sense false. Awakening is here and now, always, and, paradoxically, that kind of view of the practice will shorten the length of time it takes to 'get there.'