Masks of God - Discussion
Masks of God
Is this obvious at Daniel's Third? And it seems obvious why people associate'enlightenment' with an improvement in morality- because you wouldn't actually do Bad Things to yourself? Please- if you have VERY SOPHISTICATED points to make about Eastern Philosophy and 'Rigpa' can you just agreee with the broad import of what I've said - or not
(edit: to clarify, this is in response to your first question. If it is obvious at 'Daniel's Third', I do not know. I think it can be obvious before Daniel's Third, though.)
Experientally, people that have reified Awareness as a Background experience that is also somehow a SELF can/would be classified as late third path, or so. Middle paths being notoriously difficult to classify as everything is non-linear and super individual.
These two are not the same, although they do get mixed up.
In my own experience, having gone through that "we are all universal consciousness" phase (what I call I AM into impersonality phase, although this view persists into nondual but prior to anatta), but that too deconstructs completely by the time I realise anatta (what I call realise anatta would be MCTB 4th path). Now that view of 'universal consciousness' is seen to be more subtle delusions, a deluded view of inherent existence, that is simply seen through and dropped.
Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm: "Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions." - Universals are Abstractions
Also as Dzogchen practitioner Kyle Dixon (who also realised anatta and emptiness) wrote:
krodha · 13h
It seems this issue always boils down to people struggling with how convention is understood and applied.
The Tendency to Extrapolate a Universal Consciousness
24th May 2010 entry of my e-book:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Your mirror-like awareness has no limitations, has no boundaries and edges. It does not belong to any object that appears on it. It does not belong to the body-mind object that you identify as 'yourself'. It does not belong to anything. But everything arise from that…
…Impersonal/Universal Awareness is animating or ‘powering’ the body and the personality like electricity is powering the TV to show the images on screen. Whatever happens on screen is ‘run’ only by the ‘power’ of the One Mind.
Everything and everyone is the spontaneous functioning of One Mind, there is no individual doers/actors/selves.
Just had a conversation with Thusness about this.
He told me that there is a problem of saying more than what is necessary, and that it comes from a clinging mind. That is, stripping of 'individuality' and 'personality' becoming a 'Universal Mind' is an extrapolation, a deduction. It is not direct experience like "in thinking just thoughts", "in perceptions just perceptions", "in seeing just the seen" - just 'what is'.
Similarly when I experienced 'impersonality', it is just 'impersonality', but it becomes a 'Universal Mind' due to clinging which prevents seeing. And if I further reinforce this idea, it becomes a made belief and appears true and real.
Therefore when I said 'impersonality', I am not being blinded as I am merely describing what I have experienced. This Mind is still an individual mindstream, and though impersonality leads one to have the sort of 'Universal Mind' kind of sensation, one must correctly understand it.
Buddhism never denies this mind stream, it simply denies the self-view. It denies separation, it denies an observer, a thinker. It denies a perfect controller, an independent agent. This is what 'Self' means, otherwise why is it a 'Self'? An individual mindstream remains as an individual mindstream, but it is nothing related to a Self.
Hence it is important to understand liberation from the right understanding, otherwise one gets confused. There is the experience of non-duality, Anatta, 'Tada' (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/tada.html), Stainlessness (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/stainlessness.html), but these have nothing to do with Self. Hence if one wants to understand Presence, then one must clearly and correctly understand Presence.
It is important to refine the understanding of Presence through the four aspects: impersonality, degree of luminosity, dissolving the need to re-confirm and understanding why it is unnecessary, and effortlessness.
These have no extrapolation and are what I am experiencing currently, and these requires improvement so that one can progress from "I AM".
There is the experience of impersonality. It is the stripping off of the personality aspect, and it causes one to link to a higher force, as if a cosmic life is functioning within me, like what Casino_King (a forummer who posted many years ago in both the Christian and Buddhist forums) experienced and described - the impersonal life force, which he called Holy Spirit.
It is as if it is all the functioning of a higher power, that life is itself taking the functioning, so dissolving 'personality' somehow allows me to get 'connected'.
I agreed with Thusness and told him that just yesterday I remembered a Christian quote that is very apt in describing this aspect: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."- Galatians 2:20
Thusness agrees and told me that it is about surrendering to this greater power, that it is not you, but the life in you that is doing the work. It is the key of getting 'connected' to a higher power, to a divine life, to a sacred power - and one wants to lose oneself for this divinity to work through us. And this is what Thusness meant by Thusness Stage 3 experience, the 'I' is the block, because of 'holding' one is unable to 'surrender' completely. When one completely surrenders, the divine will will become your 'will'.
This is not the non-dual sort of experience, nor is it about I AM or the Certainty of Being, nor is it about Anatta.
For example, "I AM" allows you to directly experience 'your' very own existence, the beingness, the inner most essence of 'You'.
A true and genuine practitioner must give rise to all these insights, and understand the causes and conditions that give rise to the experiences and not get mixed up. Many people get mixed up over different 'types' of 'no self'.
For example, no-self of non-dual, no-self of anatta, non-inherent existence and impersonality, are all not refering to the same experience - but rather they are different results of dissolving certain aspect of the tendencies.
Hence a practitioner must be sincere in his practice to clearly see, and not pretend that one knows. Otherwise practice is simply more mix-up, confusion, and nonsense. It is not that it cannot be known, it is just that the mind isn't clear enough to see the causes and conditions of arising.
Labels: Impersonality |
Haha- absolute classic 'oneupmanship' DHO answer. I really just wish the antidepressants had worked and I never got involved in any of this
He's not one-upping you, he simply doesn't know any better way to respond. It's not his fault but it kind of is I guess. May our arhats do better.
Be well, don't take it personally.
(edit: FWIW, Dan I. is a saint in my book)
(I don't mean to hijack this thread, happy to have a separate conversation on it, or not at all)
Besides sense of self is not to removed. Sense of self doesn't cause dukkha. It is there to impress ladies just like what you are impressed the most in them is their sense of self. Doesn't mean you should use it to eg. open can of beer. Wrong use case, wrong way it is used, etc. will inevitably lead to it getting tired and causing dukkha.
Obscurations which are to be removed are invisible. You can only see them once you understand them and you can understand them when they do not hold you hostage.
Not experiencing sense of self if that becomes condition for your well-being is just like being taken hostage by this ridiculous situation. And I know many people are really believing they did something incredible because they do not experience one thing. They do not even try to understand what they did or how and how what they replaced it with (like some THIS) works and why it works. That is no insight. It is something, maybe even technically some of the things people manage to accomplish are pretty impressive (especially when it is brute forcing things...) but they would be more impressive if there was understanding behind it.
So I ask you again: what does it means that in seen there be only what is seen?
The more general meaning of in the seen just the seen is “seeing things directly as they are”, i.e. without conceptual overlays (universal consciousness being one such conceptual overlay). It’s hard to describe because language/thought is the system of conceptual overlays, but basically it means direct sense experience without objectification. It’s the same thing I experienced as a kid when I would stare at familiar objects until I didn’t know what they were, or repeat words to myself until they lost their meaning. I suppose I was transitioning from the undifferentiated awareness of a baby/toddler to the system of conceptual processing which is the source of our problems (as well as “progress”). In a way it’s reversing that process, or at least stopping overusing the system.
I don’t think I’ve done anything special. Why the need to accomplish something impressive?