My reply to someone in another forum... welcome any comments.

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

It depends on what you are practicing.

Shamatha basically focuses/concentrates and solidifies a single point or object, resulting in states of absorption/jhanas, whereas insight practice is aimed at deconstructing the apparent solidity of an object (and Subject) into impermanent/flickering sensations, empty (of self and phenomena), and of suffering/unsatisfactory nature -- that is the nature of all our reality, i.e. our sensate reality, or all phenomena (which includes thoughts).

In insight practice, it is also seen that the notion of a Subject, observer, doer, thinker, etc. that is at the center of all this, subject to this, sometimes split off from things, sometimes as the mercy of reality: all that is more sensation that must be seen as it is, and when this is seen directly and clearly in real-time, that is awakening.

In other words, all of our reality are only pure sensate reality (includes thoughts), i.e. there is only Experience, without a separate 'passive observer' or 'experiencer'. The feeling of being a 'passive observer' is simply more transient, empty sensations. These sensations do not make up a Subject, nor are they an object, are just pure sensations.

There is actually no split between observer and observed. The split is simply an impression, a persisting illusion that is the cause of samsara. Awareness is not an observer, is not localized and is inseparable from the diversity of conditions, hence empty. Awareness is a point of luminous clarity, e.g. the breathing-sensation is a point of luminous clarity. All experience are 'points of clarity', are awareness. All along, everything is already the play of luminous clarity, but being obsessed with our 'I, me, mine' stories, we miss it, we filter them out.

So, when breathing, there is no need to stand back as a passive observer, simply experience (without standing back as an observer) moment-to-moment, the minutest detail of the sensation of the air, whether it is cold or hot, hard or soft, etc, the entire texture of Awareness as the breathing-sensation is naturally revealed in clarity in its entirety.

This clarity can also be extended to all of our 6 senses, and the four foundations of mindfulness can be practiced in our daily living as well. But, it is still important to do sitting meditations. Both sitting + daily living practice are important. You can start with Mindfulness of Breathing, and then eventually the other foundations of mindfulness are perfected as well, and liberation attained. It can also be experienced that distractions are not as 'solid' as it seem but are just more flickering sensations/experiences, not-self, not-other-than-self. The evaluations, likewise, can also be experienced in its true nature as flickering, empty sensations, if we stop giving our thoughts an excessive sense of solidity/realness and observe its true nature. Anything that comes up into your field of experience, simply experience them in their true nature. Then the grasping, being seen for what it is, subsides in its own accord effortlessly.

Consciousness is always in the state of everchangingness according to the various conditions, never stays for a moment. Simply effortlessly/choicelessly experience them as-it-is with no abidance. No watcher needed, the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga.


Buddha on Mindfulness of Breathing:

“Monks. If mindfulness of respiration is cultivated and made much of, the four foundations of mindfulness are fulfilled and perfected. If the four foundations of mindfulness are cultivated and made much of, the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjhaṅga) are fulfilled and perfected. If the seven factors of enlightenment are cultivated and made much of, knowledge (vijjā) and liberation (vimutti) are fulfilled and perfected.”


Happy meditating.


p.s. As a wise friend of mine said, "...The key point about mindful awareness is there is no keeping of the mind on anything and by not resting on anything, it fuses into everything; therefore it cannot be concentrated; rather it is to relax into nothingness empty of self, empty of any artificial doing so that the natural luminosity can take its own course. There is no focusing, there is only allowing the mirror bright clarity to shine with it natural radiance. In essence there is no one there, only the phenomenon arising and ceasing telling their stories."

(1:52 PM) Thusness: all practices are directed to this moment of experiencing (1:52 PM) Thusness: in terms of intensity of the luminosity and emptiness nature. (1:52 PM) Thusness: there is nothing else.

 

 

Last year, Thusness:

Here the highlight must not only be the empty nature of ‘sound’ alone, that luminosity as ‘sound’ must similarly be emphasized. When we stripped-off the symbolic representation of ‘bird’, ‘chirping’, ‘outside’, ‘eyes-organ’, ‘ears-organs’, ‘senate reality’ and merely experience in bare, this is the meditative state of intuitively knowing that quality of being luminous in oneness. Oneness as there is nothing to divide when devoid of these symbolic layering. The depth of the crystal clarity of that pure experience – ‘chirping’ is not what language can convey. The point here is not to bring about a scientific study on the topic of qualia but to have a direct feel of the full absorption in the delight of that clear-luminosity of ‘sound’. It is the ‘depth and degree’ of absorptive-clarity yet non-staying that is most important; not the symbolic understand of meanings.

who the hell thinks there is a split??

Originally posted by extra one:

who the hell thinks there is a split??

When I say 'split', it means a very subtle and yet always arising momentum that goes undetected, that momentum which causes us to contract into a separate space-time bound self trapped in this body. It is a constriction into a sense of an individual separate entity, to a body-mind.

The evidence of this is the obsession and attachment and identification with our mind, our thoughts. We think our thoughts are real, and by believing in our thoughts and our story, that itself is believing in the false 'self'. That is identification with a separate identity. The 'self' lives in the thoughts, the identification, the bond. And because over countless life we have picked up this habit of identification and also what we have learnt since day 1 in this present life, the sense of self is acting most of the time yet gone unnoticed.

We are in a spell-like state, like a dream. We cannot know that we are in a spell until we are outside the spell, just like we cannot know we are dreaming unless we are already awake. We cannot know that we are imagining something unless we have woken out of the imagination. Lucid dreaming is another matter, and I just spoke recently of my experience of having a lucid nightmare. In lucid dream you are aware that the symbols you experience are your mental projection and you can even manipulate them. But for most of us we mistook our symbols as real entities, but with awareness, we can see through this illusion.

(This is why in all the traditions enlightenment is known as 'Waking Up', 'Awakening', 'Awakening from the Dream'. It's the hypnotic spell-like dream of separation. 'Enlightenment' wasn't even the word used by Buddha, the word 'enlightenment' is a modern western invention. 'Awakening' was the word used by Buddha.)

Therefore it is important to meditate, to remain aware and non-symbolic, non-conceptual and let the momentum die down. When we reach that state we can then contrast with our usual dualistic mode of perception. Then we will know what exactly is the sense of self. When we let go of this identification with our dream-like, spell-like imagination, that the thoughts are real and 'mine', that the body is 'mine', that I am so and so and this is my history, a change in perception may occur.

There can then be an energetic expansion... an oceanic experience and the true face of awareness is revealed and experienced directly. And when the hypnotic bond/identification of our body/mind is dissolved, and the inner-outer division does not take place, awareness is experienced as everything.

It is a distinct recognition that you are not this body/mind, you are everything, including the text appearing on the screen, the sound of bird chirping, everything in your room is shimmering as consciousness. You will see yourself as everything, instead of perceiving from a separate body/mind. This is NOT (and I stress this because it becomes very dangerous when it becomes another mental conceptual identification) a theoretical understanding, NOT a concept. If you take it as a concept, it is as bad or even worse than identifying with your body/mind.

Rather, non-dual experience is an experiential, feeling-recognition that there is no separation... it is a recognition that is intensely alive... you know you are everything because there is only everything shimmering without the sense of a separate perceiver. That illusion is gone, either temporarily due to absorption, or due to the awakening of insight (but NOT to be misunderstood as theoretical understanding, but an intuitive seeing)

Also, you can perfectly understand No-Self, Emptiness conceptually, and yet there is no energetic expansion occuring. For example, like me. I had a rather good conceptual grasping of this subject since some years back, but the understanding doesn't mean I have dissolved my illusion. Also, I had experiences of this non-dual expansion, but duality is still my main predominant mode of perception most of the time. This is also different from the realisation of Anatta as an everpresent characteristic of reality, i.e. dharma seal, experientially.

When we have this oceanic experience, it is a glimpse of your Buddha Nature. But then again, such experiences may be misunderstood (as I AM)... hence a correct understanding of Anatta and Emptiness is important as an antidote.

I think Thusness and Longchen can better comment on this.

Sorry for the late reply also, these days have been so busy for me and I didn't even catch any sleep for a period of time.

This is a very old conversation with Thusness, that time I was 14 years old. That conversation took place in January 2005. It shows how deep the belief in symbols, and self, can cause so much suffering.

My understanding was still amateurish at that time. Now looking back, I can understand a little better.

[20:01] <^john^> 'self' lives in labels, words, names..etc
[20:01] <^john^> this layer
[20:01] <^john^> this is what is meant by 'I'.

 

[19:44] <^john^> i heard u mentioned the sentation of pain is diff from pain?
[19:45] <^john^> why?
[19:45] <ZeN`n1th> huh?
[19:45] <ZeN`n1th> oh u mean pain different from sufferings or what?
[19:45] <^john^> yeah..
[19:45] <^john^> why?
[19:46] <ZeN`n1th> because pure awareness alone doesnt create sufferings.. its the mind which creates it
[19:47] <^john^> now let us go deeper
[19:47] <^john^> take out suffering
[19:47] <^john^> and let's look at 'pain'
[19:47] <^john^> what is it?
[19:47] <ZeN`n1th> a type of sensation?
[19:47] <^john^> okie
[19:48] <^john^> now 'pain' as a type of sensation, if there is no 'suffering', is there any meaning?
[19:48] <ZeN`n1th> no meaning
[19:49] <^john^> then merely experiencing the sensation is for what purpose?
[19:51] <ZeN`n1th> purpose? no need purpose rite... just the senses feel it lor
[19:51] <^john^> there is no purpose, no meaning, no suffering, just the mere sense of feeling
[19:52] <^john^> now where is the 'I'?
[19:52] <ZeN`n1th> just a creation of the mind
[19:53] <^john^> there is always the sensation, but there is never necessary for an 'I' to exist
[19:54] <ZeN`n1th> ya...
[19:54] <^john^> experiencing without an 'I' is the first step of understanding emptiness and the nature of all things including urself. :)
[19:55] <^john^> it is never necessary for such an invention.
[19:55] <ZeN`n1th> by practising meditation, the illusion of "I" will naturally be gone rite?
[19:55] <^john^> not necessary
[19:55] <^john^> the layer that bonds is not easy to see. :)
[19:55] <^john^> now what is this sensation?
[19:56] <^john^> it need not be 'pain' right?
[19:56] <ZeN`n1th> which?
[19:56] <ZeN`n1th> ya
[19:56] <^john^> what else?
[19:56] <ZeN`n1th> ok
[19:56] <ZeN`n1th> ic
[19:57] <^john^> understand the 5 aggregates and 18 dhatus
[19:57] <^john^> then u will be able to losen the bond of the 'self'
[19:57] <ZeN`n1th> how to understand it?
[19:58] <^john^> pain is a sort of sentation
[19:58] <^john^> then we tok about a 'sensation'
[19:58] <^john^> what is it?
[19:58] <^john^> look at its arising
[19:59] <ZeN`n1th> the word sesation refers to just an image?
[19:59] <^john^> even sensation is still an 'image' that does not tell u anything.
[19:59] <ZeN`n1th> ic
[19:59] <^john^> it is still a form of 'self'
[20:00] <^john^> then u go deeper into meditation
[20:00] <ZeN`n1th> what has the thinking of sensation got to do with the illusion of the "self"
[20:00] <^john^> u 'feel' directly without 'words', 'labels', 'names'
[20:01] <^john^> coz it is a more subtle sense of 'self' that is escape u. :)
[20:01] <ZeN`n1th> icic
[20:01] <^john^> 'self' lives in labels, words, names..etc
[20:01] <^john^> this layer
[20:01] <^john^> this is what is meant by 'I'.
[20:02] <ZeN`n1th> oic
[20:02] <^john^> prajna wisdom is a form of direct perception
[20:02] <^john^> even b4 the arising of perception
[20:02] <^john^> seeing in nakedness the wordless world.
[20:03] <^john^> what is this 'sensation' without image

The evidence of this is the obsession and attachment and identification with our mind, our thoughts. We think our thoughts are real, and by believing in our thoughts and our story, that itself is believing in the false 'self'. That is identification with a separate identity. The 'self' lives in the thoughts, the identification, the bond. And because over countless life we have picked up this habit of identification and also what we have learnt since day 1 in this present life, the sense of self is acting most of the time yet gone unnoticed. - Quoted

I don't think my mindfulness is sharp enough to spot many things and in time during my sitting meditation. At this particular sitting meditation, I have a hard time noting the wandering thought, especially the pleasant ones. The mind just love to gravitate towards pleasant thinking, like some sort of addiction. I also have the tendency to  discern and analysis some of the things that arises. It has become kind of hard for me to "directly experience" things as they are. Most of my thinkings are really rubbish.. some conceptual/symbolical and most of the time fantasies. Think maybe becos i love to daydream alot when i was young. :lol: I tend to create alot of thinking and it is kind of tiring to note them during sitting meditation. So i'm wandering should i got into shamatha to purify my consciousness first ? 

i'm also wandering, how about "intention", for instance, the intention to open my eyes and ending my sitting meditation ? hmm is this intention a thought or an impulse ?

 

 Awareness is not an observer, is not localized and is inseparable from the diversity of conditions, hence empty -quoted

Care to elaborate more on this ?

 

Originally posted by Isis:

The evidence of this is the obsession and attachment and identification with our mind, our thoughts. We think our thoughts are real, and by believing in our thoughts and our story, that itself is believing in the false 'self'. That is identification with a separate identity. The 'self' lives in the thoughts, the identification, the bond. And because over countless life we have picked up this habit of identification and also what we have learnt since day 1 in this present life, the sense of self is acting most of the time yet gone unnoticed. - Quoted

I don't think my mindfulness is sharp enough to spot many things and in time during my sitting meditation. At this particular sitting meditation, I have a hard time noting the wandering thought, especially the pleasant ones. The mind just love to gravitate towards pleasant thinking, like some sort of addiction. I also have the tendency to  discern and analysis some of the things that arises. It has become kind of hard for me to "directly experience" things as they are. Most of my thinkings are really rubbish.. some conceptual/symbolical and most of the time fantasies. Think maybe becos i love to daydream alot when i was young. :lol: I tend to create alot of thinking and it is kind of tiring to note them during sitting meditation. So i'm wandering should i got into shamatha to purify my consciousness first ? 

i'm also wandering, how about "intention", for instance, the intention to open my eyes and ending my sitting meditation ? hmm is this intention a thought or an impulse ?

 

 Awareness is not an observer, is not localized and is inseparable from the diversity of conditions, hence empty -quoted

Care to elaborate more on this ?

 

Just practice dropping everything first... there is no need to focus on a particular point but if it helps you can do so. Otherwise you can just relax and let go of everything yet remaining aware, then after that continue doing your insight practice...

Regarding intention to open eyes or end meditation, that is an impulse and a thought. An impulse is a thought. Just don't follow the thought, don't react to content, to projections of the mind, to symbols. Let them subside in its own accord. Continue dropping and practice strong mindfulness so that every single transitory experience does not go unnoticed. Whether thoughtless or thoughtful, practice the mindful presence.

Originally posted by Isis:

 Awareness is not an observer, is not localized and is inseparable from the diversity of conditions, hence empty -quoted

Care to elaborate more on this ?

Here's some explanations:

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

...Since appearance is all there is and appearance is really the source, what gives rise to the diversities of appearances? “Sweetness” of sugar isn’t the “blueness” color of the sky. Same applies to “AMness”… all are equally pure, no one state is purer than the other, only condition differs. Conditions are factors that give appearances their ‘forms’. In Buddhism, pristine awareness and conditions are inseparable...

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

An elaboration on Emptiness/Dependent Origination:

...Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena.

As you've seen, there is no ‘'The Flowerness'’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). ‘'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attribute-less of our nature....

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

Thusness's Six Stages of Experience:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

6. The nature of Presence is Empty

Not only is there no ‘who’ in pristine awareness, there is no ‘where’ and ‘when’.
Pristine Awareness cannot be contained within a 6-foot body -- neither within nor without. The ‘bond’ makes it so.

All is Presence! But “TONGSss…” is radically different from “the blue sky”….When conditions are, there is. There is no need for a 'who', ‘when’ or ‘where’, only causes and conditions are necessary. This is its nature.

When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.

-- the principle of conditionality

The self-luminous awareness from beginning-less time has never been separated and cannot be separated from its conditions. They are not two -- This is, That is. Along with the conditions, Luminosity shines without a center and arises without a place. No where to be found. This is the emptiness nature of Presence

Updated comments: With the willingness to let go of the ‘I’ and ‘Mine’, the ‘emptiness nature’ is clearly understood. Practice is neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to clearly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection.

To see that there is really no mirror other than the ongoing reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature.

 

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

Longchen's recent article on his realisation of Emptiness:

http://www.dreamdatum.com/non-solidity.html

The non-solidity of existence

 

This article describes a spiritual insight. It may be quite hard to understand.

The things that we experience are registered by all the sense organs. The eye sight registers vision, the ears register sound, the body registers sensations. These perception, sensations and experiences are not happening in some places. They are the experience of the arising of certain conditions. There is no solidity and physicality in the actual experience.

 

What we experienced is not universal and common to all. Here's an example to illustrate that: We know that as human beings, we see in term of colours. Some animals are however colour-blind, thus they see differently from us. But none of us, is really seeing the truth nature directly. The senses of different species of sentient beings experience things differently. So who is seeing the real image of an object? None.

Likewise, the various planes of existence are due to different conditions arising. In certain types of meditation, one is said to be able to access these planes of existence. This is because they are not specific locations. They are mental states and are thus non-localised. In these meditations, our consciousness changes and 'aligned' more with these other states or planes of existence.

All the planes of existence are simultaneously manifesting, but because our senses are human-based conditioned arisings, we only see the human world and other beings that shared 'similar' resonating arising conditions. But nevertheless, the other planes of existences are not elsewhere in some other places.

What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form.

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

For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

 

Originally posted by extra one:

who the hell thinks there is a split??

Bill Harris with Byron Katie:

 

BK: Yes, it was impossible to see anything the same
way because I didn’t know what anything was and
you know, I had no reference for anything and when I
opened my eyes, it was amazing. It was like something
else looking out of these holes and this apparent being
and I would maybe look out the window and my mind
would say, “Sky,” but I couldn’t velcro to it. I couldn’t
believe it. I wasn’t able to hold it. It may as well... It is
like someone looking at the sky and calling it a tree. It
was chaos and none of it real and I began to laugh as I
saw that the mind, the moment that mind hit my head,
a world, absolutely, was produced, but then people
would say, for example, they would say, “Katie, how
are you?” And I’d have to look around to see who they
were talking to and they taught me my name was Katie,
you know, Byron Kathleen Mitchel, now, that’s my
birth certificate, Byron Kathleen Reed and actually, my
family came to get me and they told me my husband
and children were coming and I had no idea that I was
even married or had children. Nothing, but my mind
was such a yes! It was just so in love with everything
that a man and three grown people, you know, came
to get me and that’s how I knew I had a home. They
told me they were taking me home and it was just, it
was marvelous! You know? And learning the name
of everything and referencing, you know, learning
references and it is not as thought I had amnesia,
you know, I can like, talking to you right now, Bill...
If someone said, “What is your name?” I would say,
“Katie.” And I would say, you know, inside of my head,
“Just don’t ask me if I believe it or not.” So, nothing
has changed from that first instant of this amazing,
unlimited, infinite being.

.

.

.

BK: So, if I believe something, I have to see it because
it’s impossible to see what we can’t believe. For
example, if I am a child and my parents continue to
tell me this is a tree, this is a tree, this is a tree, that’s
a tree, this is a tree. It doesn’t make it a tree to me.
I’m not separate, words don’t have meaning. It means
nothing except to them, but it doesn’t affect me until
there is that moment that I attached, you know, I
attach like that word to reality, a false reality, and in
that moment, I am separate. There is the tree and me.

BH: Because, tree is just a noise that represents a tree,
but it isn’t the tree. It’s just a representation.

BK: I can’t see a tree until I believe it. We cannot see
what we don’t believe.

BH: Well, you know what is interesting, you know,
with a little tiny child, they will point at a bunch of
stuff on the wall, a bunch of just, a mess on the wall
and say, “What’s that mommy?” Or, “What’s that
daddy?” And it isn’t anything that an adult has a name
for. It is just a bunch of marks on the wall and it’s
a disconcerting moment for the adult because they
are looking at that and the child is trying to attach a
name to it and there is no name for it. I heard Alan
Watts talking about this once and I thought that was a
perceptive thing for him to have brought up that there
are many things in the world that have no name and a
child already at two-years-old or three-years-old has
bought into this idea that they have got to attach a
label to this and then start mistaking the labels for the
things themselves.

BK: Yeah, or we buy in that we have to name
everything for the children and of course, it does have a
name. It’s a mark on the wall. So, we have two names
there. We have mark and then wall and, you know,
names for things. So that’s separating out of the whole
and it’s how the mind, it is how the mind... It mirrors a
reality that is false.

BH: Right...

My comments:

The moment you believe that what you see in front is a tree, an object, you have unconsicously separated yourself, and deadened something tremendously alive into an image... a symbol, and we believe and grasp on it. This is the split. The mind's power at categorising what belongs to me and what doesn't, and objectifying and solidifying what is seen and experienced, it's all the spell-like mind conditioning... and hence we miss the actuality that is everpresent and a seamless whole.

But if you can drop the symbol there can be the amazing realisation that everything is expression of you, i.e. consciousness. There is no separation.