This is a continuation of the first "This Moment" topic started by Daniel Ingram thusly:
​​​​​​​

Please carry on with the "This Moment" conversation here. The last series of posts on the original topic spoke to the notion that everything in our experience happens in the here and now. Memories, time, space, and awareness included.

I am personally VERY glad to see this discussion happening here. The characteristics Daniel mentions in his initial post won't be unfamiliar to those who came ashore here on Mahamudra/Vajrayana rafts as these characteristics are always mentioned, and seem to prevalently be the later, or "arhat level" realizations that eventually come to pass.

Hearing Daniel talk on the "Monk on a Motorbike" podcast was interesting - his day to day experience seemingly fitting perfectly well with Vajrayana "post-meditation" of Rigpa.

Memory - Only consists of thoughts happening now.

Time - Only exists in memory, or an imagined future. Always happening now.

Space - Surprisingly flat! A Dzogchen teacher years ago gave me the exercise to imagine the world as a flat screen on the bridge of my nose. It wasn't an exercise.

Awareness - Dice the language how you like, this "presence" of being is all there is.

"Awareness - Dice the language how you like, this "presence" of being is all there is."
 
Until cessation maybe  

p.s. don't mind my comment I'm just posting to support the idea of starting a new thread. Thanks Chris! 

Yes. There are many roads but they all lead to the top of the same mountain.

I very rarely see people here describe the sense of centerlessness that Daniel describes, with no doer, no agency, and with sensations knowing themselves rather than by a subject. When I have described my experiences of it, which are not yet locked in, I don't get much relevant feedback. I'm thankful that I can talk to Daniel and Michael about it at least. 

Isn't that what "This is it" describes? It does for me. "This" is centerless. "This" is whatever has arisen. "This" arises with no location, by itself, and only now.

Yes, I believe it describes that, but even you very often seem to imply that there has to be a lingering subject that does the experiencing. "My" experience is that it doesn't have to always. 

This is great:
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/02/angelo-gerangelos-writings-on-anatta.html

Thanks Edward! 

That's a great comment and it allows me to introduce some nuance - to have any experience we need to have a subject and an object. That's just a fact. But that doesn't mean we can't see the "this is it" nature of our experiences. (Which experiences arise independently, are not "me" and are happening now.) Both seem to me to be how this human mind thing works.

Let's keep talking if this isn't yet clear.

​​​​​​​

This Moment can become a fixation. This is one of the “enlightenment” sicknesses that have been pointed out historically. There is such a thing as attentional flexibility. This flexibility is what is lacking in those that do not have a practice. They are stuck in the mode which sees everything as objects including themselves. Practice is aimed at broadening this view until eventually the mode in which all objectivity disappears is learned. When this mode is recognized and integrated there is a shift where it becomes the preferred mode but it doesn't invalidate all possible modes or their necessity. Being stuck in This Moment can be just as bad as being stuck on objects. And trying to construct an understanding of This Moment, that can be applied to achieving it, is futile. Watching for its appearance is like chasing a ghost. But poets will continue to compose odes to it and people will sing them thinking that now they know.

​​​​​​​I like that phrase!

It is clear but I don’t agree. I think experiences are perfectly capable of being aware on their own without a subject-object duality, and when I have been talking to Daniel about this, so does he. And Michael Taft too, for that matter.

​​​​​​​


But what is a subject, or the subject?
How can we find it?
All I can find is just some sights, sounds and somatic sensations and their mental impressions as a mental image or mental talk sensation, and they just happen. Seeing these characters here on the screen is happening now, and I don't know what is the subject here.
There is touch sensations on the "eyes" and their mental images.
Why should we assume that there should be someone, something, or some entity that experiences them?
They just happen.

Am I missing something very simple or obvious here? Please be blunt if that's the case.
 

Good questions, Siavash. Realizing that there was no such subject was what got me stream entry. There is no entity experiencing it. I thought that was the whole point. In the seeing just seeing, and so on. 

We can construct the experence of being a seer, of course, but we don't have to. (And yeah, that's a wacko sentence because of the built-in duality of language.) There are people who have stopped experiencing that duality altogether and yet function just fine. Daniel is one of them. 

Edited to add: I don't think Chris means that there's a continuous and separate entity there, though, because obviously he knows how impermanent it all is. An experienced subject-object duality can arise very temporarily. The experience of eyes seeing something is such a duality. And such experiences can arise for sure. But they don't have to. The seeing can be aware in itself, and the experience of eyes focusing on something can be aware in itself, and there is no need to from that assume that the eyes are doing the seeing of an object. Daniel writes very clearly about this in MCTB2. I don't remember if he talks about it as tags too, as I find it helpful to do, or if he uses other wordings. I do know that we have shared the same experience: sensate experiences have built-in interpretations -tags if you will - that lump them together and position them in different ways, such as belonging to a subject as an object, or as knowing themselves. He also told me that he had been talking to another arahant about it, a woman whose name I didn't catch. She hadn't been able to see beyond those tags either. So of course it isn't possible to know for sure which ontological assumption is ultimately more true. However, the duality mode involves more dukkha. 

I should find that passage in the book so that I can quote it. 

An experience appears without any help, on its own, right here and right now. Awareness is an experience. It's an object, as we've discussed before. So what is aware of awareness? It's sometimes easy to overstate the case and infer non-existence from not-self. That's not what not-self means, right? Not-self. Self as not a permanent object, or a permanent subject. A permanent experiencer doesn't exist, but does that mean there is no experiencer at all?

This is the nuance, the mystery and honestly, the beauty of being human.

In my experience, a cessation is the total absence of subject and object. It's what happens when experience, as generated by the human sense/mind process, dissolves completely. That's not the same as being aware, or the same as recognizing "this is it." Could it be that being human, having human senses and a human mind that process whatever we see, hear, feel, taste, touch, think, create experiences not easily defined with bright, clear lines and certainty? Could it be there's a mystery behind experience that evades even our best efforts at pinning it down?

"Could it be there's a mystery behind experience that evades even our best efforts at pinning it down?"

Thank you! That is beautiful! 

And of course, if there is something there that assumes having an experience, then duality has been costructed and thus is there.

I just don't find that experience requires ownership.

No it's not my experience but experience without ownership that has tagged itself in such a way that makes it available in my mindstream, just like is the case for experiences in your mindstream. So the way our language is constructed, it counts as my experience. I can't help that language is wrong.

Edited to add: Did you just change your post? I replied to what I had read, namely you saying that I was referring to authority and that it was not my experience. Now your post reads entirely differently.

I have not said anything about ownership. Control, ownership, agency - none of those apply. We agree!

Yes, I think there remains mystery that can't be pinned down. I'm glad to see you say that, because you sometimes seem very determined on what's the correct way of pinning it down.

I have a group meditation now. Need to go. Can't phrase myself any more elaborately at the moment. Please don't assume hostility, because there is none.

It seems that you two, Chris and Linda, are talking about two different things, or better to say, you each have a different understanding of the nature of the experience.

Chris seems to be saying that experience is intrinsically dualistic, and there is no way to not have a subject, except in a cessation which is a non-experience, even if we can't find clearly what that subject is (I don't mean that he says that subject is permanent or continuous).
So, what you say Linda that one can have an experience without having sense of ownership, is still dualistic for Chris, because it's an experience and should have a subject (But the subject is not the owner).

Not sure about that. Will explain later. 

Experience is not something we can pin down explicitly - at least as I see it. We can do our best, but will always come up short. We can better explain what experience isn't than we can explain what it is. I suspect this is one reason the Buddha, supposedly, refused to be pinned down on these esoteric, semi-philosophical, and mystical points

​​​​​​​I'd rather be accused of being determined on what's the correct way of not pinning it down. As I've said on several occasions, I'd love to have a dollar for every time I've had a similar discussion on a meditation message board. Usually, someone is claiming ascendancy/superiority of non-duality. I don't think we're down that path in this case, and I think we're actually are having a discussion caused by terminology.

And you can always wave me off as just a cranky old man. Many do!
​​​​​​​

At best we get the sense of an echo from the arise-passed experience. I mean these flicker so fast who would be able to "know it" in such fast form. We see this in Vipassana Noting clearly. 

At the moment watching some tv show with my partner (nothing that interests me) and This Is It. Also me self validating This is also It. 
 Me sensing being here and TV over there is also It  

Im not buying that This can only be It if it aligns with Taft's and Daniel's experience. 

This Is whatever the experience is; an itch on my left arm (meaning I'm in the center and the arm is on the left side) All these thoughts and perspectives are also This Is It  

Can one work on morality, more insight, work on habitual patterns, concentration depths/states/magic etc ... Sure. Why not. 

I sure get what Chris is saying. I see Daniel, Linda and shargrol actually focusing on "It" as a state/stage/realisation. 

While Chris, Angel and I see it as "this just IS" (whatever that It is in This moment, and there is no subject there as such, maybe a story or sense might arise of some self but that too just IS it.  

I don't dispute folks being on maybe different levels of realisation and have different yogi abilities but that has nothing to do with This Is It.

oops I could not stay out of "This"  

Actually Im taking back the opinion I had about Daniel/Linda/shargrol. 

I can assume that they too see This Is It as an experience, whatever it is. However they seem to imply that It Is Only This IF it's without that sense of self. Which it is but can also be It even if there is a story of self arise-passing now. 

I don't remember any time in my life when I naturally thought in terms of subject -object or me-that. I don't think anybody originally thinks like that. This is learned language. When it is used to explain what is happening in our lives then it creeps into the language and people start talking about it. Behavior is the true indicator of duality, of our identification with objects, because we feel compelled to act on whatever we perceive. We are moved by the contents of our perceptions. The experience of THAT (for me any attempt to break it down into concepts is doomed), the mystery, breaks the compulsion because we access something that is beyond the perceiving function. It stands alone. The continuous surrender into THAT we know is in the background gives us the freedom to disregard or regard, as necessary, the free flowing experiences we perceive. What need is there to classify our experiences except as a game? No matter what we want to call things, THIS IS IT.

What? Please assume less. Experience can manifest in a multitude of ways. I'm saying that it doesn't ALWAYS require subject-object duality. 

And if we are in denial or in delusion about what's going on, then "this is it" is a misleading wording, don't you agree? Daniel was talking about the experience at the end of the insight path. Does everybody have access to such experience? Nah. 

Let's use the two fingers touching exercise as an example. I find that there are two basic "modes" availabe. In one mode, there is always one finger sensing the other one and the two can't meet. In the other mode, the meeting itself manifests as knowing itself, and it doesn't belong to any finger. It's like a floating sphere of touch sensation knowing itself where it is. Both modes exist. If concentration and clarity are strong enough, the shift inbetween these modes manifests like reality turning itself inside out. One mode has a subject-object duality. The other doesn't. My guess would be that everyone here have experienced the subject-object duality. All I'm saying is that the other one arises as well. Both of them just arise in the moment. Both of them are just what is. I'm not the one saying that it has to be just one way. I'm the one suggesting that it doesn't. 

Seriously? Subject-object discussions abound, in many meditation circles, including among Mahayana teachers and practitioners. One of the very best discussions of this area that I've ever heard was by Ken McLeod, a renowned Mahayana teacher. Widen your horizons! Maybe you're missing something, Angel. You won't know until you pay attention to it.

Have you heard of Nagarjuna?

I said naturally. Of course that's the way they talk in meditation circles. Especially Buddhist ones. It's not the common way non meditators think about the occurances in their life." I'm really worried about the subject- object riff with my kids" is not something you'll hear in living rooms around the country.  There's a big horizon that extends beyond East.

Angel,
Non-meditators don't talk about subject-object, not because they don't perceive it that way, but because it's so obvious for them, that the experience is always "a subject here, experiencing something over there". It's taken for granted, why should they talk about it!?

When you start talking about it, then that's when you start qustioning the basic assumptions, and the meditation thing begins!
Don't you agree?!

When people say: "I decided x", they don't perceive it as a fleeting vibration in the image space that arose and pass. They perceive it as "I as the subject, decided, a decision as an object, in a world full of other objects and subjects".

That is precisely what I was trying to point out. That the real measure of the subject-object split is in the way we act.  Like you said it's the everyday experience of people. When we get entangled in arguments about definitions we miss the point. When Daniel describes what IT is he speaks of an unfolding in the present EXPERIENCE. Something that cuts through theories and explanations and I would say renders them unnecessary. Just like non-meditators find obvious the subject-object split.

Thanks Angel for the clarification.

Definitions are useful sometimes!

I am not awakened so I don’t know the deeper truth, but with my limited understanding, the best way that I could think of for describing the experience, it would be to keep my mouth shut, as terry often quotes “The moment you open your mouth, you are lost”.

But to open the mouth and use some one-word descriptions, yeah it would be things like:
unfolding,
happening,
manifesting.

Good descriptions!  Simple is good. 

"It was at that time that Yeshua said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you concealed these things from the sophisticated and educated and revealed them to ordinary folks."

I'm suprised that I haven't seen any reference to the Bahiya Sutta in this discussion. I took Daniel's "This is it." to mean something very like "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard...there's no you in that. When there's no you in that, there's no you there. When there's no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Thanks John! Me too. 

I'm not talking about the wordings but the actual experience. I don't think the argument is in semantics. 

Angel, in the previous thread you said that there must be some subject lingering in the experience because you can remember the experience. That's subject-object duality right there. 

Ok Linda I'm in denial and I have not experienced Daniels experience (or Michael Tafts, or Lama Lenas)  

​​​​​​​Peace  

Linda, in the moment of touching of the two fingers where is the subject-object? 

let me see now touching two fingers ;
touching, touching, imagining (mind image of the fingers and hand), touching, softness, touching, tingling, tingling, pins and needles tingling, touching, cognizing, tingling, ... 

So where is this subject-object in the (This) moment of engaged Satipatthana (which is what Bahiya Sutta is about). 

Subject-object only arises in form of a story unfolding. An absorption if you like. Just like Jhana is an absorption so is that story of self as a subject. 

and no please do not assume I'm writing here as someone who thinks is enlightened. Certain realizations are just that an experience latched onto some story pattern we then wave about. Just like a flag  

I do not think centerlessness with sensations knowing themselves is a good description of 4th path, at least mine.

I would rather say no distance. No distance to literally anything.
This no distance thing is not very in my face and I didn't even bring it up at the time I got it and rather talked about other stuff, more related with what this path allowed me to do. I always however talked about no spaciousness when such topic arose. Though obviously there is no agency of any kind also, but also no no-agency like some of my previous paths had. There is also nothing I could point as some "THIS" either.

When I wondered about remembering I was referring to after having experienced a cessation. There is no duality during cessation as it has been described in this thread. I've read of known people asking this same question. As far as I'm concerned it's just a curiosity that doesn't need an answer.

Yes, I missed that one word - "naturally." 

​​​​​​​Sigh.

This applies to everything, and the "you" is but one more thing.

​​​​​​​

I see what you mean. I think we're using different definitions of "duality." In the way I experience your scenario, there is always some entity experiencing, seeing, feeling, imagining, remembering, either the touch sensations or the mental experience of the knowing itself - which is also an object. One can't have knowing without thoughts (object) and mind's awareness of thoughts (subject). 

I see Bahiya Sutta as Buddha teaching Satipatthana as the very action that is awakened. Known in Zen as "the practice-realisation". He does say "train yourself" so it is a practice. We also know from Doing Satipatthana (Noting all the sense doors and arise-passings within each) that during such action of paying attention on , say, an itch, there is no selfing going on in that moment. Only after the noticed itch can I start a story of "me having an itch over there". However if I'm doing Satipatthana (train yourself) then this story scenario will be seen as "thinking" and no me being in that moment doing the thinking  

Also it's good to note that Bahiya could see Devas walking about. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu say, only those well trained in samadhi can see and converse with Devas. So Bahiya didn't just realize "in seeing there is only the seen referring back to no one" but he likely came to Buddha already well baked in Concentration practice, likely have seen that Concentration didn't lead to the end of suffering and the last puzzle he needed to see was Satipatthana, which he got from mr Buddha. 

That's how I see the story of Bahiya. However im
yet to figure out how come the Cow didn't realize Bahiya was an Arahat before killing him?  

"One can't have knowing without thoughts (object) and mind's awareness of thoughts (subject)."

Hm, for some reason Krishnamurti's "freedom from the known" come to mind! Wonder if that has something to do with all this subject-object falling away. 

Daniel refers to this sutta in describing hs favorite model, the nonduality model, as was mentioned in the previous thread. That's the model I find describe my experience too, when I'm not stressed up and contracted. Interestingly, I have found that even though sensations manifest differently in the different modes I described above, the mechanisms through which they manifest are the same.

You cranky old man!  

p.s. sorry couldn't resist the urge  

Papa Che, I don't know whether you experience the touch sensations within a subject-object mode (as I define it) or within a nondual mode. How do the sensations manifest when experienced with great clarity? Where? Do they jump around between the two fingers? Are the sensations in the fingers? Or are they elsewhere? Does one finger sense the other one? How would you describe the touch sensations phenomenologically? 

If I examine any object closely, I can't ever identify it as having a specific location. All sensations are in some weird netherland of mind - they all seem to be in "This is it" land.

It's how Daniel describes fourth path somewhere on the forum (I'm sorry I don't have a link, but I'm pretty sire it can easily be found in the complication of his posts which was posted by Pepe). I'm trying to make sense of paths in accordance with that. It may not be how others would map it, but it's good enough for me. According to his mapping, this is something that should occur on its own most of the time already in third path. I wouldn't say that it happens on its own most of the time for me yet, but I'm gradually getting there. Another criteria for fourth path according to Daniel is having figured out how these two modes relate to each other and how there is no separation between them with regard to how phenomena get organized into experience. I have done that and had my description validated by Daniel. Apparently this grocking is something that usually happens before the practicioner has dwelled in third path for a while, often with great frustration developing, although it was quick for Daniel. It seems that the order manifested differently in my case. The grocking came before third path. 

The no distance is much simpler, depending on how you define it exactly. That's accessible for me anytime with regard to the surroundings if there's such an intention (whereas things going on far away is out of reach or at least limited to fantasy/dreams/visualizations - skills that I haven't developed that much yet). In Michael Taft's model that still doesn't count as the highest degree of nondual awareness if there's still any trace of being caught by emotions or anything that is associated with buying into personality, or if there's still a sense of time left. I don't know where he would place fourth path as defines by Daniel, though. 

Time might be my weakest link, which is ironic. It took me decades to learn to experience time as passing. I still can't quite do it fully. I can't seem to grasp (beyond intellectually) that time passes even if I don't do anything and that there can come a new morning before I have gone to sleep. This seems to be incredibly important to most people, so I have struggled so hard to get it right. Because of that, it's hard to suddenly just let go of it at will. Therefore I often need to do some amount of investigation before it clicks (and when it clicks, the sense of doing falls away too, together with cravings and aversions - for a while). 

Was there experience during the cessation? Or do you mean the moments before and after it?

Linda what is this "with great clarity" thing? I mean imagine (for the argument sake) an 8th Dimensional Being laughing at us and stating that 10 to 40 sensations a second is hardly scratching the surface of all this They notice myriad sensations per second Now that is great clarity. 

A sensation/experience right now just IS what is. And I don't know yours. I can only know my own experience. (We can't cease to use words I me mine). 

As you know sensations can/will change depending on the stage. This tells us nothing about This because only This is what Is and we never know what it will be as it's flickering fast to know it in great clarity during chop wood carry water of our daily working by the sweat of our brow hours. 

We need to sit, develop good concentration etc ... however This Is also off cushion during no clarity, during confusion, hardship, etc ... it can be contracted or very spaceous and receptive. 

This Is It (in whatever shape or form). 

Does this mean I'm to stop practicing? Nope. Does this realisation mean I'm done? Nope. 
Does this mean I'm stil a dick? Likely  


Best wishes! 

(I hope you take my words with a bit of humor)  

Daniel Ingram describes 4th path.

I wouldn't say that there's an entity there, but I suspect that we define that differently too. And we clearly use the word object differently. 

I use the words subject and object as relative to each other. Nothing is an object in itself. Subject and object arise together (just like in parsong the clause elements in grammar). When there's a sense of one finger touching something else, the finger arises as a subject in that moment whereas the touched something arises as an object in that moment. (And such experiences always arise within a time framework, even though we know that time is but a construct too.)

I agree that there are cognition and construction going on whenever there's experience, but I don't agree that there is some entity there doing it apart from the mere construct of one that arises in the moment together with the experience. 

I think we have at last found out why it has been so hard for us to communicate about this. Yay!

So now I'm curious: does it shift into that mode for you too, and exactly how would you describe the sensations that appear? Do you ever have the sense of the world turning inside out when it shifts? It's so fascinating to hear different descriptions of this. Or would you rather not turn it into words? I can understand that. It boxes it in too much. 

I can relate to that description. Thankyou! This is what I have been trying to get you to be explicit about for a long time now. It definitely is NOT single bips arising in one specific location at a time as regular attention constructs the experience when in subject-object duality mode (as I use the words). Words are inadequate, but this is definitely one way to describe it. Finally we manage to talk about the same thing! I feel like celebrating. I KNEW I wasn't crazy. 

You already replied to that question at least partly elsewhere while I was typing this. Much appreciated! 

I get what you mean. You are talking about something different from what I have been talking about, and I imagine that it has been a bit frustrating to not be heard. The point you are making is a good one. I totally agree that in our practice (which includes daily life) we need to be honest to ourselves about how reality actually manifests, and that it is what it is. Trying to make reality manifest differently than it actually manifests is really bad insight practice (although it could hypothetically be a good magickal practice, I suppose, if it succeeds. But if it does, that's just what is too.) And clarity is what it is too. We can have great clarity about some other sense of clarity being less than great. "Great clarity" is a very simplified and fuzzy wording. I was lazy there. But at least I got the answer from Chris that I have been trying to solicit for months now I think, so it filled some function. Always just stay with what is! That's awesome practice. 

Thanks! I appreciate it. I'll look at it later to see if it was what I had in mind or if I got that description from somewhere else. 

To clarify, the timelessness I'm talking about above as my possibly weakest link is not the kind of timelessness that is beyond time. It's a number of different nonduality experiences that occur while time is still passing according to our clocks. If I generalize, I think it's fair to say that I have experienced at least four different types. That does not include cessation, during which there is no experience at all in this mindstream. I didn't choose the name. 

THIS 

I said what's quoted below up-thread, which is just a different wording of what I said this morning:


That's why I think language is the critical factor - words just have to land the right way to be heard sometimes. I'm happy to keep trying.

Mind. None of this is possible without mind. That is the cognition/constriction engine we have. It was confusing of me to use the word "entity."

"That does not include cessation, during which there is no experience at all in this mindstream."

I think your mind was likely in Davy Jones' Locker at that time  

(Ok, ok, sorry for fooling around I will show myself out) 

"You are talking about something different from what I have been talking about, and I imagine that it has been a bit frustrating to not be heard."

I'm so frustrated  

     I think I've experienced a mild psychotic break from trying to follow this thread. In the jump between Control Panel and Messages, I suddenly felt myself being swallowed into a cosmic wormhole. Which brought me back to a topic. I'll use the words of Ron Crouch, I really like his writing. “
As you reflect on it you see that there was something truly amazing about that moment. In that instant, everything disappeared, including you. It was a moment of complete non-occurrence, the absolute opposite of everything that has ever happened in your life up to this moment because it could not really be said to have happened to you. No doubt, it is a weird realization, but there it is.”“
During the moment of cessation you were utterly gone, and yet there was an awareness there to witness it happen. What does that mean? In Buddhism, as well as other contemplative traditions, the interpretation of this has been an issue of deep debate among the great mystics and masters.” “
What is important for you to know as the person on the cushion is that for an instant you were there, then you “went out”, and yet you have a memory of it happening.”    
​​​​​​​ I've said it before, and it's come up in this thread. If there's no common language you end up arguing semantics. Making up language as you go is not the best option. I have no horse in this race. In the world I inhabit these discussions are very interesting but inconsequential. If THIS IS IT depended on how well you can articulate what you've learned or how sophisticated your arguments and observations are only academics and very intelligent people could aspire to achieve it. But trying to understand is pleasant, anybody can enjoy the “creative play”, Lila.

Has someone claimed "this is it" requires any kind of language? Maybe I missed that. I do find it fun to talk about the happenings along the path. To compare, to try to explain or understand experiences and insights. I suspect anyone who hangs out on DhO for any length of time feels the same way or they'd have disappeared themselves. I do think we can come to common understandings, too. Conversations like this one are not futile and they are definitely entertaining.

No harm has come to the participants of this conversation.

In re Ron Crouch: the first time I met Ron face to face had just seen 1st path. Ron is a friend who used to live about a half-mile from me and about ten miles from shargrol. The three of us used to get together quite often and talk Buddhist shop. Then Ron abandoned us and moved to Hawaii for a job with the Army as a psychologist. Then Eastonia, and then god only knows where.

"If THIS IS IT depended on how well you can articulate what you've learned or how sophisticated your arguments and observations are only academics and very intelligent people could aspire to achieve it. "

Ha! nicely put! Love how this sounds! 

Chris, you mean that mind's awareness of a thought, is different or separate from the thought?
If so, then for any given sensation in the experience, there is two components for it, the content of that sensation (object-- by your definition), and the awareness of that sensation (subject-- by your definition). Correct?

So, do these two components always arise together?
Or it can be that there is awareness without any object?
Or an object without awareness of it? I guess this should not be possible, or at least we won't experience it.
 

I do agree in part with the whole "nothing to say" school of realisation. Language is such a poor vehicle for our phenomenological experiences. Not only that, humans are generally poor at defining language but very good at using language. Not just for abstract terms. One great thought experiment back from my philosophy of language days was to ask people to define what a chair is. The simple fact is that there's never a complete set of statements to capture all the possible chairs. All ideas are simply fuzzy sets. And meditation, in part, is realising that the concept of "me" (along with some others) is just another fuzzy set too (temporally and spatially). 

My personal way of thinking about "this moment" and "this is it":

• No Self but the Now. No Now but the Self.

Happy to unpack it if people are interested or to have it roasted by the advanced members of the board. 

stirling said:


Awareness - Dice the language how you like, this "presence" of being is all there is.


-------------------

   I don't think this way, brother.

   All awareness is delusion. Freedom, nirvana, is being free of consciousess.

   Similarly, chris' contention that "all experience happens in the here and now" amounts to saying that all delusion happens in delusion land.

   
   If you are "aware" of "experience" you are not here and now, you are participating in the delusionary dream which is human individual egoic consciousness, aka awareness or ego.

   Being here and now is not aware of itself. The stream enterer knows she is a stream enterer but is not aware of that fact in the sense of experience. The sufis say, "If I told you I was enlightened, you would know it wasn't true, but if I denied it, I would be lying." This is emphatically not a claim of attainment, as there is no one to make the claim: it is attainment itself.

   When the experiencer disappears, experience itself is extinguished. Then there is only immediate apprehension and everything happens if itself. Past and future converge but there is no present either, no presence, only a lingering, traceless sense of absence, like one hand clapping, or the sound of the wind in the pines when it is perfectly still.

terry



Diamond Sutra: Chapter 09

lBuddha then asked, “What do you think, Subhuti, does one who has entered the stream which flows to Enlightenment, say ‘I have entered the stream’?”

“No, Buddha”, Subhuti replied. “A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything. Only that disciple who does not differentiate themselves from others, who has no regard for name, shape, sound, odor, taste, touch or for any quality can truly be called a disciple who has entered the stream.”

Buddha continued, “Does a disciple who is subject to only one more rebirth say to himself, ‘I am entitled to the honors and rewards of a Once-to-be-reborn.’?”

“No, Lord. ‘Once-to-be-reborn’ is only a name. There is no passing away, or coming into, existence. Only one who realizes this can really be called a disciple.”

“Subhuti, does a venerable One who will never more be reborn as a mortal say to himself, ‘I am entitled to the honor and rewards of a Non-returner.’?”

“No, Perfectly Enlightened One. A ‘Non-returner’ is merely a name. There is actually no one returning and no one not-returning.”

“Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, ‘I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.’?”

“No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, ‘I am enlightened’ he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha.”

Subhuti then said, “Most Honored One! You have said that I, Subhuti, excel amongst thy disciples in knowing the bliss of Enlightenment, in being perfectly content in seclusion, and in being free from all passions. Yet I do not say to myself that I am so, for if I ever thought of myself as such then it would not be true that I escaped ego delusion. I know that in truth there is no Subhuti and therefore Subhuti abides nowhere, that he neither knows nor does he not know bliss, and that he is neither free from nor enslaved by his passions.”

​​​​​​​nirvana is not an experience

from "the sonnets to orpheus" by rainer maria rilke, trans stephen mitchell:


XXIII

Not till the day when flight
no longer for its own sake ascends
into the silent heavens
propelled by its self-conceit,

so that, in luminous outlines,
as the tool that has come to power,
it can float, caressed by the winds,
streamlined, agile, and sure—

not till a pure destination
outweighs the boyish boast
of how much machines can do
​​​​​​​
will, overwhelmed with gain,
one to whom distance is close
be what alone he flew.

 +1

Saying 'I am a stream enterer' is literally saying 'I am free from self-identity view'!
 

Siavash Non-meditators don't talk about subject-object, not because they don't perceive it that way, but because it's so obvious for them, that the experience is always "a subject here, experiencing something over there". It's taken for granted, why should they talk about it!?
Terry
If you are "aware" of "experience" you are not here and now, you are participating in the delusionary dream which is human individual egoic consciousness, aka awareness or ego.
​​​​​​​“What did you bring back from China to Japan?”He said, “I came back empty-handed.”“What did you learn?”“Not much, except gentle-heartedness.” He responded.“And,” he added, “I learned that eyes are horizontal, nose is vertical.” - Dogen
So much ado about nothing. (The word 'nothing' in Shakespearean times was pronounced 'noting' ) Now, ain't that something!

I think I'm too autistic to interpret that. Sorry.

I don't think there is a separate mind of mine on hold anywhere during a cessation. 

(I do get the joke. I'm just feel just a tiny bit too unsolid to joke about it right now. I don't mind if others joke, though.) 

Awesome, Chris! Thanks! Yeah, that's some solid criteria. No bullshit there. That's how I like it. I wouldn't want that watered down by a bunch of spiritual wannabes. Not referring to Ni Nurta here, just to the common tendency. NN seems to have quite the list of his own, and I respect that. The whole "well, I can't imagine that there's any insight beyond mine so I must be 4th path" on the other hand... not so much. 

angel said:


This Moment can become a fixation. This is one of the “enlightenment” sicknesses that have been pointed out historically. There is such a thing as attentional flexibility. This flexibility is what is lacking in those that do not have a practice. They are stuck in the mode which sees everything as objects including themselves. Practice is aimed at broadening this view until eventually the mode in which all objectivity disappears is learned. When this mode is recognized and integrated there is a shift where it becomes the preferred mode but it doesn't invalidate all possible modes or their necessity. Being stuck in This Moment can be just as bad as being stuck on objects. And trying to construct an understanding of This Moment, that can be applied to achieving it, is futile. Watching for its appearance is like chasing a ghost. But poets will continue to compose odes to it and people will sing them thinking that now they know.

--------------------------------

   Very good point. As long as "enlightenment" is desirable, there is a tendency to cling to it. Dogen called the "experience" of enlightenment "the jeweled palace and the vermillion tower."

   He chewed it up and spat it out.

terry



dogen, shobogenzo, uji fascicle:

It is not that simple. At the time the mountains were climbed and the rivers were crossed, you were present. Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away. As time is not marked by coming and going, the moment you climbed the mountain is the time-being right now.

This is the meaning of the time-being.

Does this time-being not swallow up the moment when you climbed the mountain and the moment when you resided in the jeweled palace and vermillion tower? Does it not spit them out?

linda said and I chopped up and took out of context:

 There are people who have stopped experiencing that duality altogether and yet function just fine. Daniel is one of them. 

I don't think Chris means that there's a continuous and separate entity there, though, because obviously he knows how impermanent it all is.

I do know that we have shared the same experience

he had been talking to another arahant about it,


------------------------------------


the church of latter day arahants....

LOL

THE IN CROWD
(the mamas and the papas)

[Chorus]
I'm in with the in crowd
I go where the in crowd goes
I'm in with the in crowd
And I know what the in crowd knows

[Verse 1]
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
Dressing fine, making time
We breeze up and down the street
We get respect from the people we meet
They make way day or night
They know the in crowd is out of sight

[Chorus]
I'm in with the in crowd
I know every latest dance
When you're in with the in crowd
It's so easy to find romance

[Verse 2]
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
If it's square, we ain't there
We make every minute count
Our share is always the biggest amount
Other guys imitate us, but the original
Is still the greatest in crowd
​​​​​​​
[Outro]
Any time of the year, don't you hear?
Spending cash, talking trash
I'll show you a real good time
Come on with me and leave your troubles behind
I don't care where you've been
You ain't been no where 'til you been in with the in crowd
With the in crowd, in crowd, in crowd

ARTIFICIAL PARADISE
(j j cale)

​​​​​​​Many loves in a lifetime, they seem to go astray
Many people come and go, they never seem to stay
Sometimes I kid myself, then I realise
I'm just living in an artificial paradise

A hundred times, my hopes and dreams are blown into the air
A thousand times, it always seems no one is really there
Then I know I'm fooling myself, I'm not so wise
I'm just living in an artificial paradise

Plastic state of mind, superficial clothes
Living in a vacuum, close to zero
Sometimes I kid myself, then I realise
I'm just living in an artificial paradise

angel!

quote:


I don't remember any time in my life when I naturally thought in terms of subject -object or me-that. I don't think anybody originally thinks like that. This is learned language. When it is used to explain what is happening in our lives then it creeps into the language and people start talking about it. Behavior is the true indicator of duality, of our identification with objects, because we feel compelled to act on whatever we perceive. We are moved by the contents of our perceptions. The experience of THAT (for me any attempt to break it down into concepts is doomed), the mystery, breaks the compulsion because we access something that is beyond the perceiving function. It stands alone. The continuous surrender into THAT we know is in the background gives us the freedom to disregard or regard, as necessary, the free flowing experiences we perceive. What need is there to classify our experiences except as a game? No matter what we want to call things, THIS IS IT.

unquote


-----------------------



​​​​​​​tag, you're IT!!!

angel again (how do you say "bff" in espanol?):


quote:

Good descriptions!  Simple is good. 

"It was at that time that Yeshua said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you concealed these things from the sophisticated and educated and revealed them to ordinary folks."

unquote




from “studies in pessimism” by arthur schopenuer:
 

Men of very great capacity, will as a rule, find the company of very stupid people preferable to that of the common run; for the same reason that the tyrant and the mob, the grandfather and the grandchildren, are natural allies.

angel said:

"During the moment of cessation you were utterly gone, and yet there was an awareness there to witness it happen. What does that mean?"


By definition, there was no witness in cessation. No awareness that left a conscious trace.

In actual fact, there was no witness.

In my experience, there was a gap of several weeks of which I have no memory whatever but I went to work, ate, slept and was taken for semi-normal by most people. Came out of it a changed person but human after all.

terry

stefan said:

quote

My personal way of thinking about "this moment" and "this is it":
No Self but the Now. No Now but the Self.
Happy to unpack it if people are interested or to have it roasted by the advanced members of the board. 

unquote




sure, unpack, bra: got the roaster all warmed up...


self and now being the same sounds a lot like dogen's idea of time-being...

the co-arising of phenomena...

eh?


​​​​​​​t

Its all good. Jokes are overrated and one can seem too insecure or even fool-like if joking too much. This realisation stuff is very serious afterall and should be dealt with all due respect.


  :/

Aloha Compadre Terry, this question of, how do you know you just disappeared? is interesting but probably unanswerable. The mention of “witness” is from Ron Crouch. I don't know. This is from St. Teresa:"Let us now speak of the sign which proves the prayer of union to have been genuine. As you have seen, God then deprives the soul of all its senses that He may the better imprint in it true wisdom: it neither sees, hears, nor understands anything while this state lasts, which is never more than a very brief time; it appears to the soul to be much shorter than it really is. God visits the soul in a manner which prevents its doubting, on returning to itself, that it dwelt in Him and that He was within it, and so firmly is it convinced of this truth that, although years may pass before this favor recurs, the soul can never forget it nor doubt the fact, setting aside the effects left by this prayer, to which I will refer later on. The conviction felt by the soul is the main point. But, you may ask, how can a person who is incapable of sight and hearing see or know these things? I do not say that she saw it at the time, but that she perceives it clearly afterwards, not by any vision but by a certitude which remains in the heart which God alone could give."[url=http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1515-1582,_Teresa_d'Avila,_The_Interior_Castle_Of_The_Mansions,_EN.pdf
​​​​​​​
You said, “In my experience, there was a gap of several weeks of which I have no memory whatever but I went to work, ate, slept and was taken for semi-normal by most people. Came out of it a changed person but human after all.” Having this same experience has always puzzled me. I never thought much about these things, the DhO has been a very bad influence in this regard. My practice has always centered around the breath, I just kept on focusing on the breath fervently without any frame except the martial arts. What you describe happened to me for long periods. I can't remember how I got through the days, of how I calculated what to do. I have my theories now, but they are only playthings.

Wait a minute… Do you really think that there’s something that is aware of the thoughts apart from the thoughts themselves? That's not my experience. The thoughts are already aware. However, they sort of have tags in them that lump them together. And some experiences have tags in them that make them seem to be about the thoughts. But they are really just self-referring. So maybe we don't agree after all. 

I'm happy to keep trying too.

I see it as the inherent aliveness that can't be separated from emptiness. It does seem to organize itself into relatively separate mindstreams, though, and human mindstreams differ from the mindstreams of other beings in how experience manifests. That's more of a patterning than a subject, I'd say. 

I wouldn't question it with regard to someone who didn't engage in arguments about having achieved it. 

And exactly what do you literally say when you say that you are fourth path?

Feeling left out? You sure do a lot of positioning for someone who holds unconsciousness as the ideal. 

from "the complete works of chuang tzu" trans burton watson:


​​​​​​​In the Great Beginning, there was nonbeing; there was no being, no name. Out of it arose One; there was One, but it had no form. Things got hold of it and came to life, and it was called Virtue. Before things had forms, they had their allotments; these were of many kinds, but not cut off from one another, and they were called fates. Out of the flow and flux, things were born, and as they grew they developed distinctive shapes; these were called forms. The forms and bodies held within them spirits, each with its own characteristics and limitations, and this was called the inborn nature. If the nature is trained, you may return to Virtue, and Virtue at its highest peak is identical with the Beginning. Being identical, you will be empty; being empty, you will be great. You may join in the cheeping and chirping and, when you have joined in the cheeping and chirping, you may join with Heaven and earth. Your joining is wild and confused, as though you were stupid, as though you were demented. This is called Dark Virtue. Rude and unwitting, you take part in the Great Submission.

Wonderful, wonderful !

linda said:

"Feeling left out? emoticon You sure do a lot of positioning for someone who holds unconsciousness as the ideal."
-----------------------

You can leave me out, dear.

Have no idea what you are talking about re: "positioning." 

 Don't think you have gotten my drift. I object to "consciousness" being regarded as "everything." I think there is a vast leap between the assumption that one's consciousness and "the universe" are coterminous, and the reality that every one of the ten to the gazillionth power consciousnesses is so miniscule in itself as to be insiginificant. The sentience of sentient beings is something to be "dropped off" as one's true nature is realized. It won't be missed.

It doesn't matter in the slightest if what I say does or does not validate anyone's beliefs. Probably best if it does not.

If you care whether others agree with you or not you might want to examine your self for independence and objectivity.

Or, you could ask yourself, WWtT? (lol). But I am afraid, we will never agree. I will make a point of it. No two enlightened people ever agree. And yet they are identically unique.

t


from "the spiritual couplets of rumi":
​​​​​​​

The Lion who Hunted with the Wolf and the Fox.

A lion took a wolf and a fox with him on a hunting excursion, and succeeded in catching a wild ox, an ibex, and a hare. He then directed the wolf to divide the prey. The wolf proposed to award the ox to the lion, the ibex to himself, and the hare to the fox. The lion was enraged with the wolf because he had presumed to talk of "I" and "Thou," and "My share" and "Thy share" when it all belonged of right to the lion, and he slew the wolf with one blow of his paw. Then, turning to the fox, he ordered him to make the division. The fox, rendered wary by the fate of the wolf, replied that the whole should be the portion of the lion. The lion, pleased with his self-abnegation, gave it all up to him, saying, "Thou art no longer a fox, but myself."

Interesting. What led up to that? 

I don't believe in individual consciousness being a thing, so the concept "one's consciousness" is irrelevant. Fairly separate mindstreams have gaps "all the time" without taking away the universe. 

​​​​​​​Making a point is positioning.

For some reason, the lion was not okay with being the wolf or the fox. Being identical with still had to be called lion. That seems to nail your arguing down pretty well, lol. 

 Rumi often describes God as a powerful lion that you can't do anything in front of it, and it has total power and dominance over you, and the only thing you could do is to surrender. Awe and surrender, and total forgetting of yourself, and the union with God, or the lion.
Although that's one of the images that he uses for God, not all of them.
 

Re-reading this topic after being busy with work yesterday has left me with a question:

Why do you think there is an innate tension among Mahayana and Theravada practices? I mean, it seems odd to me given that each set of practices leads to the same eventual realizations. When the MCTB adherents talk about Theravada-style analytical mediation methods it seems to set the Mahayana practitioners aback. The same applies in reverse. It's funky.

Anyone?

Do individual practitioners really think in those terms? ; I am Mahayana or Theravada. Some teachers probably do and academics also. I see a move to a broad inclusive way of practice that includes input from many traditions. Precisely because, as you say, they all lead to the same place through diferent routes. Examples of this type of teachers are Michael Taft and Tina Rasmussen. Students may argue about their experiences and explanations,  but to try to pin them to one camp or another is not a sign of maturity. Being attracted to one or the other is just a question of personality.

 Thoughts and awareness are two separate phenomena but which works similar enough that as far as nervous system is concerned and how you 'drive' it they are the same (so for brevity I will refer to everything as thoughts later on). Still awareness is supposed to be continuous (by which I mean it is definitely not and more like moment to moment...) whereas thoughts should be one-time propagating action potential which then creates pointers in awareness to these thoughts so when awareness moves on such pointer the thought is re-experienced (if it is driven correctly) or re-triggered which is not good, especially if it is the same thought (I bet you know this effect of having the same thought over and over again like it didn't register correctly...) and especially not good when it is exactly the same part of nervous system which generated the same thought which is completely pointless and only leads to dukkha. Unfortunately this can happen and is basis for some more serious mental issues.

The re-triggering can happen in different place of mind which is more useful but how much useful depends on if next part will get something previous didn't and you have more chances for that if the previous thought is driven in such a way that after it arose it stays and can influence outcome of next thought. You do it the same way always, not let parts of nervous system which you feel are being activated during some action (be it awareness, thoughts, perceptions, etc.) go completely to the same state as they had before but you need to kinda hold them in some sort of half activation state. There are different types of this type of driving and here my advice is to just try to feel it and experiment. The 4th path type is the one which allows for the best re-use of content but by itself doesn't make experience appear in consciousness. It takes a lot of trial and error I will tell you that

It is also possible to make thoughts not arise in the same place by driving thoughts to go to deep sleep after they arose. This has different pleasure type and while not as good for cognition it is useful to use in some cases eg. when you feel parts of nervous system are in some sense very tired or even broken it can help repair them. IT is not good for cognition because information are not retained but for practice purposes it is great as using it trains nervous system to schedule its parts in such a way no to rely too much on exactly the same things I said are good for cognition in previous paragraph.

As for tags and them lumping together. This seems to be common phenomena. I had exactly the same thing and even described it the same. It might not be easy to tell how these perceptions come to be but generally dukkha is good indicator you are driving nervous system incorrectly in a way that the same stuff is re-triggered in the same places and this just need to be changed to some more skillful way.

When it comes to what observes what... who cares anyway?
The universe itself is the ultimate watcher/doer so let it figure it out
I mean it for real ;)

BTW. I said the description Daniel gave about self-perceiving sensations is not good because it is not the most efficient way to drive nervous system. Sure it is possible to have one-sided field of self perceiving perceptions and much easier than careful way mind needs to be controlled to have 4th path perception but when you start to make descriptions easier then you get people who think they made it and they claim 4th path and stop putting effort. This is counter productive no matter how you look at it. One should not stress about not having 4th path to begin with as long as experience is okay and it will be okay when one focus on how mind is driven and not on what path one has which is just a convention people adapted because this was India and in India you always have four levels in everything, even society.

Also it is best not to pay too much attention to description of perceptions because there are many ways you can have perception that match phenomenological descriptions. I matched Daniel's descriptions at 2nd path. It was maybe not fully cooked for what it was but I could have use it and because I can still do it I can also do it using some of the better ways to drive neurons and literally preview how I could have developed myself. Would it be better/worse? Certain things do not matter, others do. You do not see Chris using certain constructs like self knowing sensations so it is one of the things which are not important. Or to put it differently as long as you make neurons not tired you will be feeling great no matter what exactly you will end up having. It is entirely possible to have sense of self and feel great, though then driving mind is very hard because this perspective is very taxing on your nervous system (note: all this assume no identification - the moment you actually believe you are what you perceive you will hesitate and do something unskillful when it comes to nervous system and cause dukkha) and on other side of things you have using least system resources possible which I meant with 'no distance' description. Perception of space, distances to the center, all that stuff is the same as sense of self: useful for something but taxing and pointless to have in the experience all the time. Like having things with tags, does it feel useful feature? If it feels tiring to experience it then it is probably possible to have such tags in more skillful way without them feeling tired but at the end of the day if mind needs such information rarely and for a moment then it can optimize this to be generated in as much quantity as needed and in as much presentation as needed, which for cognition means the most optimal way is not to perceive thoughts at all.

I only recommend optimizing experience of sensual perception because experience is fun. Even awareness and cognition of what is in sensual perception is better off happening outside what you experience. That way you can make your experience as ridiculously awesome as you want without affecting your cognitive performance.

BTW2. This is the type of message I have for DhO. Neurons FTW
Supermundane stuff I dwell in to a lot, especially lately but as you suggested in the other post it is for spiritual wannabees and not DhO. I will still from time to time post something about it just for fun ;)

Now given we agree on this: what type would you say, mundane or supermundane, is the question: Is there a self?
Dwelling in idea of existence or not existence of self and/or using any of such conclusions to solve issues in nervous system caused by mind identifying or not is imho not very skillful. If you know identification is not good then you vipassanize your brain and find the cause for identification and solve it. Then it doesn't happen regardless of conclusion about self and then you are free to have it and not have it at the same time. This is freedom and it is skillful

BTW3. I never ever told there is nothing above my attainment hence I am 4th path. If anything I said I know enough, experienced enough and trained my mind enough for not claiming it given current criteria would be absolutely ridiculous.

In any case if someone disagrees and has better idea how to drive neurons they would tell me, wouldn't they?
Maybe someone thinks 4th path should not even be about how to drive neurons and this perspective being waaaay too coarse and the real 4th path is in eg. driving color charge in atoms (well, probably I am the only one who cares ;)) or some things like untangling threads from which space is woven (sounds more like it!)... I case there was such case I am open for discussion  

No, I don't think anyone uses the lens of Mahayana/Theravada overtly very often. I used the word "innate" because I think it's more reflexive. It's most prevalent in topics that go deeper into the details of MCTB style of meditation. I'm really just curious if anyone else perceives this. It's not a big deal, just something that occurred to me while re-reading this topic.

I have been wondering the very same thing. I prefer not to choose. I consider myself eclectic. I don't think I have ever practiced any of it in its pure form, if that even exists. Theravadan Vipassana has always had the tendency to break apart the subject-object duality for me rather quickly when I just surrender to the process of it, and I find that nondual practices are great for seeing the three characteristics and deconstructing things - as well as the vice versa. Combining different approaches is optimal for me, as it gives me a more flexible toolbox.

It seems to me that most arguments adressing conflicts between them come up as defensiveness due to experiences of being attacked by "the other camp" or some implications of "the other camp" taken to an extreme in some sense. The logics don't hold up. I haven't seen any single argument about limitations of one approach that can't be said about the other approach too, albeit from a different angle. Anything taken to an extreme can have horrific consequences, so I guess it's the usual pending movement that we humans tend to do historically because most people seem to have trouble keeping more than one variable in their mind at the same time. 

aloha angel,

you said:
​​​​​​​
You said, “In my experience, there was a gap of several weeks of which I have no memory whatever but I went to work, ate, slept and was taken for semi-normal by most people. Came out of it a changed person but human after all.” Having this same experience has always puzzled me. I never thought much about these things, the DhO has been a very bad influence in this regard.  My practice has always centered around the breath, I just kept on focusing on the breath fervently without any frame except the martial arts. What you describe happened to me for long periods. I can't remember how I got through the days, of how I calculated what to do. I have my theories now, but they are only playthings.

--------------

kind of like being continually intoxicated
and periodically
passing
 out

t





from jami, diwan:


All that exists in the created universe is illusion, fantasy, reflections in mirrors, or shadows.

But the Sun of Guidance has dawned in the shadow of “Other than God”, so be not perplexed in the desert of error!

Who is man? The reflection of the Eternal Light. What is the world? A wave on the Everlasting Sea.

How could the reflection be cut off from the Light? How could the wave be separate from the Sea?

Know that this reflection and this wave are that very Light and Sea, for here duality is impossible, impossible.

Look at the travelers on the Path of Love, how each has a different spiritual state.

The one sees in each atom of the world a Sun radiant and imperishable,

Another directly witnesses in the mirror of existence the beauty of the hidden archetypes,

And a third sees each one in the other, without veiling or defect.

I know.


I see you are thinking of awareness as something pertaining to a specific individual. That’s not the only way t m s used, which is important to bear in mind.


Still awareness is supposed to be continuous (by which I mean it is definitely not and more like moment to moment...)

Well, of course it isn’t. It only operates within time. And if you refer to individual mindstreams, they have lots of gaps. There is no entity there that has an overview of it all. What it really means is that there can be no ecoerience whatsoever without it being aware. The point of emphasizing that is to get practicioners to relax from trying to controlthe process in such a way that it creates the kind of echoing that you are describing further down in your post.


It seems to me that you are leaving out some steps in your logic here and talking about several different albeit related things. They are all interesting but without precision about what you are referring to and how you are slicing and dicing your terms, I can’t be sure that we are talking about the same thing. I do know the effect of having the same thought coming up, though. That’s when I get caught up in being the thinker of thoughts that are already aware. It’s that what you meant?


This is something we have talked about a lot, and sometimes you seem to interpret something I say as if I’m stuck doing it the same way always. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case most of those times. There are other times, which we have never talked about, where I still am, I’ll admit, as there is so much to work with. I have my own ways of working with that. I use other conceptualizations than you, and there might be other differences to our approaches besides that. Still, I think there are also great similarities. Maybe eventually we’ll find eays to compare notes without language getting so much in our way. I would find that very interesting. Having said that, I’m not sure why you bring this up here. How is it relevant to my question to Chris? Some meta-communication might be needed here.


I think you might be misunderstanding what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about any specific mode here. I’m talking about the mechanisms that make any sensory experience accessible, regardless of whether or not it comes through as nondual or as a subject-object duality. In both cases, I find that the sensations as they manifest are already prepacked with tags. What the tags say differs inbetweent the modes, but the tags are already there. That mechanism is consistent. It doesn’t take an independent observer to be aware of the cognition. That’s my point (psitioning noted).


If you are talking about what I think you are talking about,this is something I do very regularly to clear my pathways from habitual patterns getting back online.


I think we are in total agreement here.


I think that’s basically the point Daniel put forward the last time Chris and I were discussing this, lol. Yeah, ontologically, there’s no way of knowing what is ultimately true. However, for some reason, both Chris and I are phenomenology nerds and enjoy trying to make sense of our experiences. A major part of the reason for me is that I wish to explore different frameworks in order to empty them all rather than taking one for granted as I think is a common human tendency. Another reason is normalizing experiences that I have had which don’t fit the most common assumptions of consensual reality, both for my sake and for the sake of others who might have similar experiences. Balancing those two reasons can be tricky, but that’s why it’s excellent to have the opportunity to debate with Chris.


Are you sure you understand what Daniel means here? It might be the case that you are using words very differently.


What makes you think Daniel is talking about a one-sided field of self etc? I’m curious, as that’s not how I interpret it at all. And when I talked to him about this, he was very open about different modes being available. I think you might be more in agreement than you think.


This seems like a different aspect entirely. Here I might agree, depending on what you mean exactly. The description starting these two threads is very easy to misunderstand before you have had the experience, and people overcalling (non-)attainments seems to be a plague. As soon as I read it, I knew that there would be people taking it as a sign that they are fourth path. Yet, there are some pretty good arguments there if one isn’t too busy seeing what one wants to see.


Your grammar here is a bit unclear so I’m not sure I understand you correctly but I agree that it’s far more helpful to talk about how the mind works and how it can be liberated and what nuances of liberation are available than debating number of path. I get annoyed when people insist on telling me and others to abandon the search when liberation is still very partial. I also get annoyed when people imply rank for that purpose, and hiding their implying rank behind cosmetic humbleness doesn’t help. It only makes their influence more dangerous. If the implied rank is questionable, that definitely doesn’t help either, and the combination of implying rank without proper foundations for it and at the same time hiding it behind cosmetic humbleness is even more dangerous.


Please do not assume that what doesn’t matter for you doesn’t matter for someone else. People are different, and different axes of slicing and dicing fit people differently. I find Daniel’s framework so helpful not only because of the great work he has put into it, but also because his slicing and dicing axes are unusually often relevant for how I function, which is rare. If it doesn’t fit you, don’t use it.


That’s pretty judgemental of you. Why would Chris be the rawmodel for everyone? Chris comes from a certain direction. Daniel may come from a slightly different direction. It is important to me, because being autistic people have been telling me throughout my life that my ways of perceiving reality must be wrong because they don’t fit the experience of the majority. I have seen Chris mention the opposite of self-knowing sensations so many times that it seemed like it anything but subject-object duality would be absurd. In this thread he mentioned having the experience of no duality being emphasized as superior. I have the opposite experience. Both Cnris and I seek to provide nuances. What nuances are needed depends on where you are coming from.


Okay, here we go again. Neurons. A model cenetered around the individual brain that has the experiences. You are making ontological assumptions here. You are actually taking for granted one of the stances that you argued above that you didn’t care about engaging with. This is one of the major reasons that I find this topic so important. All the taken-for-grantedness.


Exactly my points! We are in agreement.


I get that. I know what you are talking about.


Here you are completely misunderstanding me. I don’t know how to describe it so that you understand. Please don’t assume that I know less about something because you can’t relate to my description. It’s not an added feature. It’s just a different model than neurons.


Not relevant, as it’s based on misinterpretations of what I said. The tags are a mechanism that can probably be described in different ways, but not some added programming. They aren’t optional. Are your neurons optional? Lol! Does it feel tiring to experience neurons? Maybe it would be more skillful not to have neurons? Same kind of argument.


And that is why I try to provide nuances both when people water down the dharma and when people give one-sided descriptions of how sensory experience works…


… such as that. Lol! But I wasn’t referring to you.


By spiritual wannabees I mean people who set the bars of the dharma to fit their level rather than opening up tp the possibility that there’s more to learn. Supermundane stuff has nothing to do with my argument. In fact, the more people insist on keeping the discourse clean from it, the more I will bring it up. Multiple models of reality for the win! Too much consensus on how reality works makes people narrowminded. That’s not good flr insight.


We don’t agree here. I have no problem with supermundane stuff being discussed, and I don’t think it’s fpr anyone to decide what is helpful for others.


I know you didn’t. I wasn’t referring to you at all.


I’m not debating your skills (i know that I did earlier on, when you made claims that led to debate, but I’m done with that). I explicitly said that I respect them. I actually don’t care what path you’re on.
I’m more interested in talking phenomenonoly and methods with you, because regardless of numbers, it’s interesting and substantial enough. I haven’t even opposed against your saying that you claim Buddhahood. Not that I’m buying it (I can’t even tell if you are serious or just joking). It’s not relevant for me to debate. Buddhahood is way above my paygrade, lol. And I don’t think that your claiming Buddhahood is going to mislead people in the case of you being wrong, because it’s not something people are prone to take seriously anyway. Not a problem.


I welcome such discussions with open arms.

aloha linda,

   you said:

I don't believe in individual consciousness being a thing, so the concept "one's consciousness" is irrelevant. Fairly separate mindstreams have gaps "all the time" without taking away the universe. 

​​​​​​​Making a point is positioning.


------------------

I wonder what my position is when I constantly quote sources who express what I want to say better than I can? Not even mentioning inconsistency and contradiction, my fortes.

Saying "I don't believe in individual consciousness being a thing" begs the question, what do you think individual consciousness is? Even asking the question posits thingness, so how can you answer? Incoherently, in your own terms.

Nonethless, a discussion about what individual consciousness is vs collective consciousness or so-called non-dual consciousness (an oxymoron in my view) would probably be clarifying. There is a great deal of underlying confusion when we discuss the nature of reality in terms of individual consciousnesses Lots of hidden assumptions, not always the same ones..

Perhaps we would all learn something and cheep and chirp harmoniously and lovingly.

In a long life what I have learned as a distillate is this: do what you love with people you love.

In practice, it is easier to love the familiar, even when prickly.


love, terry

linda said:


For some reason, the lion was not okay with being the wolf or the fox. Being identical with still had to be called lion. That seems to nail your arguing down pretty well, lol. 


------------------------


I was born august 12

​​​​​​​t

from "thus spake zarathustra"by friedrich nietzsche



ZARATHUSTRA’S DISCOURSES.


I. THE THREE METAMORPHOSES.
​​​​​​​
Three metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.

What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one’s pride? To exhibit one’s folly in order to mock at one’s wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one’s hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.

But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.

Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.

What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? “Thou-shalt,” is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, “I will.”

“Thou-shalt,” lieth in its path, sparkling with gold—a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, “Thou shalt!”

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: “All the values of things—glitter on me.

All values have already been created, and all created values—do I represent. Verily, there shall be no ‘I will’ any more. Thus speaketh the dragon.

My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?

To create new values—that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating—that can the might of the lion do.

To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.

To assume the right to new values—that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

As its holiest, it once loved “Thou-shalt”: now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.

But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?

Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.

Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: ITS OWN will, willeth now the spirit; HIS OWN world winneth the world’s outcast.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.—

Thus spake Zarathustra. And at that time he abode in the town which is called The Pied Cow.

Trouble Child
Song by Joni Mitchell

Up in a sterilized room
Where they let you be lazy
Knowing your attitude's all wrong
And you got to change
And that's not easy
Dragon shining with all values known
Dazzling you, keeping you from your own
Where is the lion in you to defy him
When you're this weak
And this spacey
So what are you going to do about it
You can't live life and you can't leave it
Advice and religion, you can't take it
You can't seem to believe it
The peacock is afraid to parade
You're under the thumb of the maid
You really can't give love in this condition
Still you know how you need it
They open and close you
Then they talk like they know you
They don't know you
They're friends and they're foes, too
Trouble child
Breaking like the waves at Malibu
So why does it come as such a shock?
To know you really have no one
Only a river of changing faces
Looking for an ocean
They trickle through your leaky plans
Another dream over the dam
And you're lying in some room
Feeling like your right to be human
Is going over too
Well, some are going to knock you
And some'll try to clock you
You know it's really hard
To talk sense to you
Trouble child
Breaking like the waves at Malibu

​​​​​​​That's my wedding anniversary, my brother's birthday, and the day we moved into our current house.

Coincidence? Cosmic serendipity? There's no telling.

Hahaha! Oh, I see, lol.

Hi there!

Didn't say that positioning was a bad thing. It just is.

Thinking of positioning as something statical misses the whole point (! See, I'm doing it too) of using that wording in the first place. It's a concept that was coined to avoid the trap of buying into statical roles, as that's much too simplified. Positioning is dynamic and temporary and situated in the moment for a specific purpose. It can be very playful. Some people use it to assert power, but that's far from the only way it's used. It's not a normative word, but a descriptive one, referring to a flexible mechanism of how human interaction works. It does preuppose some extent of being conscious, though. *wink* 

nn said:


In any case if someone disagrees and has better idea how to drive neurons they would tell me, wouldn't they?


--------------------------

​​​​​​​neurons are self assembling, bra...

aloha chris,


I was born august 12

----------

chris said:

​​​​​​​That's my wedding anniversary, my brother's birthday, and the day we moved into our current house.

Coincidence? Cosmic serendipity? There's no telling.


---------------


mebbe time for you to come back to the big island, eh?

you have my number...
​​​​​​​

uncle terry

I don’t think we use the word thing in the same way. And I think you know better than assuming that when I use language the way language is constructed, that means that I buy into its duality. It’s just hopeless trying to avoid all duality-based phrasings. You know that. You have said it yourself. So yes, it is impossible to say this in any coherent way. Language just isn’t built for it.

I prefer to talk about mindstreams, because the word consciousness with regard to an individual mindstream tends to make people think of some separate and continuous entity, a soul or something that could be stored in a brain and perhaps transferred to a hard drive in future if we have a vivid imagination, or a least something that is put on hold while we have a cessation.

Mindstreams seem to be fairly separate (but not entirely; for instance I once dreamed the continuation of the dream that my husband at the time was having at the same time). They aren’t continuous, though. You’d know, since your mindstream left out entire weeks.

Of course I do believe that people can pass out and be in comas and wake up from it, and so on, and that it makes a difference. However I’n not convinced that boxing those phenomena into the distinc categories ”conscious” and ”unconscious” is very hepful if we want clarity as to what these states are. The simplifications are useful for casual conversation, though.


I totally agree about the need for metacommunication. (I get to do that, because I’m not an enlightened being.)

It isn’t relevant to talk about individual or collective consciousness, because there is no entity there at all. Just occurrings/experiences that are somehow aware, not continously but anytime they exist. They get lumped together in fairly separate streams, and that tends to be mistaken for a solid identity by way of a big oops.

We probably don’t use those words the same way either. Please just don’t assume the worst.

Love right back at ya

for my friend siavash,
​​​​​​​and for me...



"Tattooing in Qazwin"
(rumi, trans. Coleman Barks)


In Qazwin, they have a custom of tattooing themselves
for good luck, with a blue ink, on the back
of the hand, the shoulder, wherever.

A certain man goes to his barber
and asks to be given a powerful, heroic, blue lion
on his shoulder blade. "And do it with flair!
I've got Leo ascending. I want plenty of blue!"

But as soon as the needle starts pricking,
he howls,
"What are you doing?"

"The lion."

"Which limb did you start with?"

"I began with the tail."

"Well, leave out the tail. That lion's rump
is in a bad place for me. It cuts off my wind."

The barber continues, and immediately
the man yells out,
"Ooooooooo! Which part now?"

"The ear."

"Doc, let's do a lion with no ears this time."

The barber shakes his head, and once more the needle,
and once more the wailing,
"Where are you now?"

"The belly."

"I like a lion without a belly."

The master lion-maker
stands for a long time with his fingers in his teeth.
Finally he throws the needle down.
"No one has ever
been asked to do such a thing! To create a lion
without a tail or a head or a stomach.
God himself could not do it!"

Brother, stand the pain.
Escape the poison of your impulses.
The sky will bow to your beauty, if you do.
Learn to light the candle. Rise with the sun.
Turn away from the cave of your sleeping.
That way a thorn expands to a rose.
A particular glows with the universal.

What is it to praise?
Make yourself particles.
What is it to know something of God?
Burn inside that presence. Burn up.
Copper melts in the healing elixir.
So melt yourself in the mixture
that sustains existence.

You tighten your two hands together,
determined not to give up saying "I" and "we."
This tightening blocks you.

terry, in case navigating this interface is as exhausting for you as it is for me, I replied to you above in connection to one of your posts.

I'll be back one day. That's a certainty. Then we'll meet up. The Big Island is one of my favorite places on all the earth.

linda said:


I totally agree about the need for metacommunication. (I get to do that, because I’m not an enlightened being.)

It isn’t relevant to talk about individual or collective consciousness, because there is no entity there at all. Just occurrings/experiences that are somehow aware, not continously but anytime they exist. They get lumped together in fairly separate streams, and that tends to be mistaken for a solid identity by way of a big oops.

We probably don’t use those words the same way either. Please just don’t assume the worst.

Love right back at ya

--------------------

perhaps an "entity like object"... elo... or just call it a dharma...

To say it isn't relevant to speak of the duality of individual vs collective consciousness keeps our assumptions hidden, but doesn't remove them. 

Remember all those discussions about the map and the territory? Our individual maps are xeroxed from collective originals, by and large. The god of the unreflective is the almighty "they," as in "what will the neighbors think."

What I love best about buddhism is that we constantly talk about "sentient beings" as opposed to dealing only with human consciousness. Animals have millions of years of evolution behind them, plants even more. Our reflection (in rilke's idioms) in the eyes of a black cat or that of a young girl in the diffused light of a forest pool give us an inkling of the alienness of strictly human consciousness, its utter peculiarity.

Even putting human consciousness in its proper place in the scheme of entity like objects - a drop of oil on the buddha's foot - trying to understand the polarity of individual and collective consciousness seems fruitful. "We" can be as big an attachment as "I" or even more so. Identity politics. Such a trap I always try to avoid joining clubs. Or clubbing.

Wittengenstein pointed out (positioned himself?): "There are no private languages." Obviously this means that we speak common tongues, and all that implies. One may go farther and try to imagine a human who had no common language, ever. The creature would not be human in our sense, but a wild animal, as numerous case studies have demonstrated.

Without repeating tedious arguments, any "relevant" consciousness has both individual and collective elements. Both of these elements have limitations, neither can exist on its own (you can't drop out of the human race). Like (individual) body and (collective) mind.

I don't think all this stuff can be dismissed as irrelevant. Resolving confusion is the way. Let the mud settle.

First stir it up.

terry

August 13 for me. Fu...........k am I late for the party?

Ni Nurta, did you really think that I was accusing you, of all people, of watering down the dharma?! I was talking about a general trend that I find saddening. Part of it is the mushroom culture Daniel criticizes. Another part is some kind of inflation or devaluating that seems to be developing with regard to the criteria and phenomenology developed for the purpose of providing an alternative to the mushroom culture, which results in a weird mix of prestige-seeking and claims of non-striving. It reminds me of those students that claimed to never study because they didn't need to or didn't care, while at the same time secretly copying the notes from honestly and openly hardworking students. And none of this pertains to you. I was presenting you as a contrast to that. Sorry that wasn't sufficiently clear.

Irrelevant was a bad wording, sure. I was stirring up the mud. 

The kind of people who were about non-striving I know from esoteric forums I participated in the past. I was there to talk about stuff like visualizing all-sense experiences and chakras, to discuss what were those things are and what is possible, etc. but a lot of people were playing perfect moral beings. Enlightenment of course was something you could not possibly claim let alone try to explain and yet they all considered themselves even beyond enlightened and talked in a way to clearly highlight that without ever saying it directly. All that was about language and thanks to this exposure I can not only recognize it in others but also in myself should any such thought arise.

These things however begin slowly. First there is some this, then it is This, then THIS and as a next step people find themselves not needing any practice any insight, nothing to understand because they are already perfect and besides everyone know what this is... except maybe when someone start being too specific about it then that person is definitely nowhere near Thislightened

BTW. Linda, when it comes to my response please do not worry. I like you.
Also regarding one topic of your answer to my lengthy post about doing the same things all the time: I think you are doing very good. Doing things your own way is also the way you express ourselves. I think it would be even more great if you described your practices directly more, and less by referring to teachers. Not only it is great practice in itself but regardless of if someone does practice you describe I strongly believe there is value in that.

mushroom culture?

(I've been looking for someone to teach me that)

got spores?

I'm just a fun guy...

heraclitus said:

"Man is called a baby by God, even as a child [is called a baby] by a man."


more directly translated: 

man:god::child:man


it is a sufi truism and well known by meister eckhart that the soul is to god as a (hu)man is to the soul...

soul:god::man:soul

"August 13 for me. Fu...........k am I late for the party?"
~angel


RRRROOOOOAAAAARRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!
​​​​​​​~buddha

nn said:

The kind of people who were about non-striving I know from esoteric forums I participated in the past. I was there to talk about stuff like visualizing all-sense experiences and chakras, to discuss what were those things are and what is possible, etc. but a lot of people were playing perfect moral beings. Enlightenment of course was something you could not possibly claim let alone try to explain and yet they all considered themselves even beyond enlightened and talked in a way to clearly highlight that without ever saying it directly.

------------------

   On some forums, people actually explicitly claim to be stream enteres and arahants. 

   The ability to visualize all sense experience involves the ego paradox of infinite regression, an observer observing an observer and so on. 

  But don't worry. I like you. When you are good. (wink)

terry

Modules of cortical neurons and their "self-assembly"
A S Batuev 1, V P Babmindra, G V Kolla
​​​​​​​
Abstract
The data we have by now accumulated on the cytoarchitectonics of the cerebral cortex, as well as published data, suggest that some of the neurons are structurally combined into compact clusters (ensembles, blocks), and that the majority of them participate in the construction of these clusters by directing the terminal branches of their axons to them. The collaterals of projection, associative, and callosal nerve cells, as well as the axons of interneurons which accomplish local interneuronal closures, can combine individual elements of the ensembles into a unified morphofunctional system. The collaterals of the axons of a block of neurons spread divergently to neurons disposed along the perimeter, while the axons of the latter converge reciprocally to the neurons of the cluster, forming a maximum (focus) of the arborization of the axonal terminals there; this makes it possible actively to isolate modules of nerve cells by accomplishing their self-assembly.

Similar articles
[Cortical neuronal modules and their "self-assembly"].
Batuev AS, Babmindra VP, Kolla GV.
Zh Vyssh Nerv Deiat Im I P Pavlova. 1991 Mar-Apr;41(2):221-30.
PMID: 1651612 Review. Russian.
Axon collaterals of mossy fibers from the pontine nucleus in the cerebellar dentate nucleus.
Shinoda Y, Sugiuchi Y, Futami T, Izawa R.
J Neurophysiol. 1992 Mar;67(3):547-60. doi: 10.1152/jn.1992.67.3.547.
PMID: 1578244
Connectional distinction between callosal and subcortically projecting cortical neurons is determined prior to axon extension.
Koester SE, O'Leary DD.
Dev Biol. 1993 Nov;160(1):1-14. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1993.1281.
PMID: 8224528
Synapses made by axons of callosal projection neurons in mouse somatosensory cortex: emphasis on intrinsic connections.
White EL, Czeiger D.
J Comp Neurol. 1991 Jan 8;303(2):233-44. doi: 10.1002/cne.903030206.
PMID: 2013638
Development, specification, and diversity of callosal projection neurons.
Fame RM, MacDonald JL, Macklis JD.
Trends Neurosci. 2011 Jan;34(1):41-50. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2010.10.002. Epub 2010 Dec 2.
PMID: 21129791 Free PMC article. Review.

I hear ya. It would be horrible to have this forum turn into such a culture. There are enough of those places already. Thislightened - giggle!

I would want to describe my practices more thoroughly, but lately I have been doing a lot of practices that I'm not allowed to describe, some for traditional reasons and some probably for financial reasons. Both those reasons feel weird to me, as I have more of an open source model of the dharma, but keeping my mouth shut was part of the deal when I received those teachings (all of them free of charge) and I'll honor that. In my log I refer to the teachers to keep track of what practices I'm talking about, and in threads like this one I sometimes do it because the overall discourse on this forum can make me feel that I would have to be one of the senior dudes or at least enough of an alpha male to ever be taken seriously. Often when I offer descriptions based on my own observations, people like to explain to me How It Really Is and where I'm mistaken before even bothering to check if they have understood what I'm saying. That's why I had that talk with Daniel about "this is it" in the first place. He actually does listen before going into explaining mode. Some of the references are a reminder to myself on bad days that when someone qualified hears me out, they usually find that I know what I'm talking about. And it's tough sometimes, going through the ups and downs of the path, and lonely, so I need some encouragement now and then. I'm definitively not beyond the very human need of validation. So, well, thanks! 

On some forums, people are upfront with what aspects of liberation they have found to be available for normal people rather than turning it into a myth that nobody could ever live up to even the slightest while at the same time implying that they know exactly what it's like.