Enlightenment
-
Enlightenment doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as enlightenment.
The term enlightenment is just a pointer used to describe the state in which you no longer believe anything your mind is telling you, you no longer believe your thoughts.
Because you see clearly that your thoughts are not "it".
No thought will ever get you there.
So enlightenment which does not truly exist, also is not an event.
It could more correctly be called a non event.
Because it is just the dropping away of identification with thought.
And all that is left is "this".
The beautiful simplicity that is this present moment, that I am, that you are.
So, for me to post about enlightenment is rather paradoxical since there is no more belief in the term enlightenment, there is the clarity that accompanies non identification with thought.
Here I am using thought trying to tell you that all thought is not it.
But if you're really interested in your true nature.
Don't pay attention to the words.
Pay attention to the spaceousness in which the words are arising. -
Still don't get it?
Still looking for it?
Here's something that may help:
"You don't need time to be what you already are". -
There is the interpretation by the mind, that I am posting on an internet forum and this forum exists somewhere in cyberspace.
There is also the interpretation that I am posting to separate individuals "out there" somewhere.
There is even the interpretation that these people need guidance with regard to enlightenment.
Isn't that whole heap of interpretation???
The mind truly is amazing.
-
Clarity in point of view
Above is my understanding
Welcome corrections
-
The cracking sound of the door, engine starting, the movement of the air when it touches the skin…where is the spaceousness and what is ‘I’ before interpretation.Originally posted by JonLS:There is the interpretation by the mind, that I am posting on an internet forum and this forum exists somewhere in cyberspace.
There is also the interpretation that I am posting to separate individuals "out there" somewhere.
There is even the interpretation that these people need guidance with regard to enlightenment.
Isn't that whole heap of interpretation???
The mind truly is amazing.
‘Experience experience’
From subtle fear to interpret due to prior intense confusion to joy in getting grounded in Isness.
Isness spreads and is experienced as transients. One dirties his hand and dwell back into the world of interpretations without identification.
whole heap of disjoint thoughts! -
Yes thought is not it...Originally posted by JonLS:Enlightenment doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as enlightenment.
The term enlightenment is just a pointer used to describe the state in which you no longer believe anything your mind is telling you, you no longer believe your thoughts.
Because you see clearly that your thoughts are not "it".
No thought will ever get you there.
So enlightenment which does not truly exist, also is not an event.
It could more correctly be called a non event.
Because it is just the dropping away of identification with thought.
And all that is left is "this".
The beautiful simplicity that is this present moment, that I am, that you are.
So, for me to post about enlightenment is rather paradoxical since there is no more belief in the term enlightenment, there is the clarity that accompanies non identification with thought.
Here I am using thought trying to tell you that all thought is not it.
But if you're really interested in your true nature.
Don't pay attention to the words.
Pay attention to the spaceousness in which the words are arising.
But what do you think of this article : Y The Notion That U Can't Bcom What U Already R is Bull@&^% -
Gathas of Wo-lun and Hui-nengOriginally posted by Thusness:The cracking sound of the door, engine starting, the movement of the air when it touches the skin…where is the spaceousness and what is ‘I’ before interpretation.
‘Experience experience’
From subtle fear to interpret due to prior intense confusion to joy in getting grounded in Isness.
Isness spreads and is experienced as transients. One dirties his hand and dwell back into the world of interpretations without identification.
whole heap of disjoint thoughts!
"A monk once made reference to a gâthâ composed by Wo-luan which reads as follows:" (Essays in Zen Buddhism – First Series 225)
"Hearing this, the sixth patriarch remarked: 'That is no enlightenment but leads one into a state of bondage. Listen to my gâthâ:" (Essays in Zen Buddhism – First Series 225)
I, Wo-luan, know a device
Whereby to blot out all my thoughts:
The objective world no more stirs the mind,
And daily matures my Enlightenment!
~ Wo-lun
I, Hui-neng, know no device
My thoughts are not suppressed:
The objective world ever stirs the mind,
And what is the use of maturing Enlightenment?
~ Hui-neng
Gâthâs of Wo-lun (臥輪 Garin) and Hui-neng (慧能 Enõ)
From Hui-neng's T'an-ching (Essays in Zen Buddhism – First Series 225) -
kok ur head until it burst!Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes thought is not it... -
sorryOriginally posted by Thusness:kok ur head until it burst! 
Thought-construct is not it
-
You're asking is clarity in point of view?Originally posted by maggot:Clarity in point of view
Above is my understanding
Welcome corrections
Yes and no. Because clarity does not require any establishment of views. Clarity sees through all conceptual views... and is a.k.a the Viewless View. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes thought is not it...
But what do you think of this article : Y The Notion That U Can't Bcom What U Already R is Bull@&^%The notion that everyone already is someone who can perceive reality this way without effort in real-time is a fantastic falsehood, lie, untruth, and in short, one great load of apathy-creating bull@!@*. Said another say, your notion, namely that one cannot become one of the people who can perceive this because everyone already is a clear perceiver of highest caliber, is a profound delusion and simply does not hold up to reality testing.
This is a misinterpretation of what I am saying. I am not saying that everyone can and does experience clarity right now. What I am saying is that since I see clearly now, I realize that this clarity has always been there. And what is true for me is true for all others because there really are no others and also because all others are like me and all others are me.
But more importantly what I really said is that "you don't need time to be what you already are". That is not the same thing as the article you quoted. This saying in fact acts like a koan on the mind, stopping it dead in its' tracks. But you have to really want the truth if it is to act that way for you. -
I see...Originally posted by JonLS:This is a misinterpretation of what I am saying. I am not saying that everyone can and does experience clarity right now. What I am saying is that since I see clearly now, I realize that this clarity has always been there. And what is true for me is true for all others because there really are no others and also because all others are like me and all others are me.
But more importantly what I really said is that "you don't need time to be what you already are". That is not the same thing as the article you quoted. This saying in fact acts like a koan on the mind, stopping it dead in its' tracks. But you have to really want the truth if it is to act that way for you.
-
For those who don't catch what Thusness is talking about here, this is a very very good article: Nondual Thinking and the Mahayana Deconstruction of Time -- check out the Nondual Thinking articleOriginally posted by Thusness:The cracking sound of the door, engine starting, the movement of the air when it touches the skin…where is the spaceousness and what is ‘I’ before interpretation.
‘Experience experience’
From subtle fear to interpret due to prior intense confusion to joy in getting grounded in Isness.
Isness spreads and is experienced as transients. One dirties his hand and dwell back into the world of interpretations without identification.
whole heap of disjoint thoughts! -
This is amazingOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:For those who don't catch what Thusness is talking about here, this is a very very good article: Nondual Thinking and the Mahayana Deconstruction of Time -- check out the Nondual Thinking article
-
Here are some quotations from Nondual Thinking and the Mahayana Deconstruction of Time, please read the entire article of 'non-dual thinking' to understand more deeply.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:For those who don't catch what Thusness is talking about here, this is a very very good article: Nondual Thinking and the Mahayana Deconstruction of Time -- check out the Nondual Thinking article
...In Ch'an, the fifth of Kuo-an Shih-yuan's Ten Oxherding Pictures describes a stage of enlightenment in which thoughts too are not to be rejected: "Enlightenment brings the realization that thoughts are not unreal since even they arise from our True-nature. It is only because delusion still remains that they are imagined to be unreal". [2]
The problem is not thoughts per se but more specifically a certain type of thinking, variously called "reasoning", "conceptualizing", "dualistic thinking", etc....
...The etymologies of vijnana and prajna are revealing. Both have the same root jna, "to know". The vi- prefix of vijnana (also in vi-kalpa and vi-tarka) signifies "separation or differentiation"; hence it refers to that type of knowing which functions by discriminating one thing from another--the most fundamental discrimination being that of the knower from the known. In contrast, the pra-prefix of prajna means "being born or springing up" [8] -- presumably by itself, evidently referring to a more spontaneous type of knowing in which the thought no longer seems to be the product of a subject, but is experienced as arising from a deeper nondual source. In such knowing the thought and that which is conscious of the thought are one. One important implication of this is that it is impossible to observe one's thoughts objectively. The Siksasamuccaya of Santideva contains a meditation on thought which dwells on this point:
...For thought, Kasyapa, cannot be apprehended, inside or outside, or in between both. For thought is immaterial, invisible,, non-resisting, inconceivable, unsupported and homeless. Thought has never been seen by any of the Buddhas, nor do they see it, nor will they see it. . . . A thought is like the stream of a river, without any staying power; as soon as it is produced it breaks up and disappears. ... A thought is like lightning, it breaks up in a moment and does not stay on....
Searching for thought all round, he does not see it within or without... Can then thought review thought? No, thought cannot review thought. As the blade of a sword cannot cut itself, as a finger-tip cannot touch itself, so a thought cannot see itself. [9]
But this seems contradicted by our experience. Surely thought can review itself; doesn't this happen often, whenever we ponder the logical implications of some thought as part of a sequence of reasoning? The point of the passage must be that the various thought-elements of such a sequence do not co-exist in the mind at the same time. At any moment there can be only one thought; a "review" of that thought, or any other thought that arises, is a completely new thought. The next section will explore the implications of this....
...The intentionality of "dualistic" consciousness is essential to the nondualist, for this is implied by the claim that there is no self apart from its experience. John Levy has elaborated this concept into what is perhaps the classic argument against subject-object duality:
When I am conscious of an object, that is, of a notion or a precept, that object alone is present. When I am conscious of my perceiving, what alone presents itself to consciousness is the notion that I perceive the object: and therefore the notion of my being the perceiver also constitutes an object of consciousness. From this, a most important fact emerges: the so-called subject who thinks. and its apparent object, have no immediate relation.
... the notion, I am reading, does not occur while we are thus absorbed in reading a book: it occurs only when our attention wavers. . . .a little reflection will show that even when we are not thus absorbed for any appreciable lapse of time, the subject who afterwards lays claim to the action was not present to consciousness when the action was taking place. The idea of our being the agent occurs to us as a separate thought, which is to say that it forms an entirely fresh object of consciousness'. And since, at the time of the occurrence, we were present as neither the thinker, the agent, the percipient, nor the enjoyer, no subsequent claim on our part could alter the position...
If the notions of subject and object are both the separate objects of consciousness, neither term has any real significance. An object, in the absence of a subject, cannot be what is normally called an object; and the subject, in the absence of an object, cannot be what is normally called the subject. It is in memory that the two notions seem to combine to form an entirely new notion, I am the perceiver or the thinker. [14] -
...The significance of the Śiksāsamuccaya passage, quoted at the end of Section I, becomes evident: If memory "wrongly interpreted" is "synonymous" with individual existence because it is a case of "thought reviewing thought", then the experience of each thought as autonomous will eliminate that sense of individual existence--that is, the sense of subject-object duality...
...But the question that arises first is in what way one can ever be attached to thoughts if, as the Śiksāsamuccaya says, a thought has no staying power, that like lightning it breaks up in a moment and disappears. Hui Neng answers this later in the Platform Sutra when he says more about "how to think":
In the exercise of our thinking faculty, let the past be dead. If we allow our thoughts, past, present and future, to link up in a series, we put ourselves under restraint. On the other hand, if we never let our mind attach to anything, we shall gain liberation.
(my emphasis [21])
One clings to a thought by allowing the thoughts to link up in a series, which means having one's next thought "caused", as it were, by the previous thoughts, rather than letting each thought arise spontaneously and nondually.
According to the autobiographical first part of the Platform Sutra, Hui Neng became deeply enlightened and realized that all things in the universe are his self-nature, upon hearing a line from the Diamond Sutra: "Let your thought arise without fixing it anywhere". [22] The passage just prior to this one-which Hui Neng must also have heard-puts this in context. Edward Conze translates it as follows:
Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva should produce an unsupported thought, a thought which is nowhere supported, which is not supported (apratisthiti) by forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or objects of mind. [23]
A thought is "Unsupported" because it does not arise in dependence upon anything else, not "caused" by another thought ("mind-objects") and of course not "produced" by a thinker, which the Bodhisattva realizes does, not exist. Such an "unsupported thought", then, is prajña, arising by itself nondually...
Ok, this is the part Thusness just mentioned to me again just now:
...The image of a worm hesitant to leave its hold was used in a personal conversation I had in 1981 with a Theravada monk from Thailand, a meditation master named Phra Khemananda. This was before I discovered the passage from Ramana Maharshi; what Khemananda said was not prompted by any remark of mine, but was taught to him by his own teacher in Thailand. He began by drawing the following diagram:
Each oval represents a thought, he said; normally, we leave one thought only when we have another one to go to (as the arrows indicate), but to think in this way constitutes ignorance. Instead, we should realize that thinking is actually like this:
Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts do not arise from each other but by themselves.
This understanding of thoughts-not-linking-up-in-a-series but springing up nondually is consistent with D. T. Suzuki's conception of prajna:
It is important to note here that prajna wants to see its diction "quickly" apprehended, giving us no intervening moment for reflection or analysis or interpretation. Prajna for this reason is frequently likened to a flash of lightning or to a spark from two striking pieces of flint. "Quickness" does not refer to progress of time; it means immediacy, absence of deliberation, no allowance for an intervening proposition, no passing from premises to conclusion. [28]... -
Yes. When we practice, it is not about making meaningful sense of anything. There is no chaining of a moment of thought to the next moment, that chaining, linking and assocating is interpretation. When we do that, immediately we are involved in a story of becoming and the birth of time.
Only the 'I' chains and interprets, when we are free from interpretation and identification, there is no chaining effect, there is only spontaneity and clarity. Presence is seen as it is. -
This is a very important passage, it is not about sounding nice but what actually happens when we are directly experiencing thought.
When we say ‘we are not thought’, we are not directly experiencing thought. The luminous and emptiness nature of thought is lost. When we say ‘I am not thought’, we are abstracting moment to moment of thought-luminosity and personifying these momentary self-luminosities into an entity, this is the birth of separation. Not only we missed the essence of what thought is, we identify with a background that does not exist. By so doing we are reacting according to momentum rather than seeing thought as it is.
There is nothing scary about impermanence; it is only the mind that wrongly misinterprets ‘permanence’ and ‘changelessness’ as pivotal attributes of liberation and peace. In actual fact, it is the emptiness nature that liberates. Luminosity must be allowed to renew itself, must be allowed to arise and subside in spontaneity for liberation to take place. A practitioner can experience Presence yet still misinterpret Presence. Seeing what thought really is, the transients are not discarded but correctly understood. Without rejecting thoughts, energy is not spent on fighting against itself and one becomes effortless and spontaneous. This is the entry into pathless.
My 2 cents. -
Hi, thanks for sharingOriginally posted by Thusness:This is a very important passage, it is not about sounding nice but what actually happens when we are directly experiencing thought.
When we say ‘we are not thought’, we are not directly experiencing thought. The luminous and emptiness nature of thought is lost. When we say ‘I am not thought’, we are abstracting moment to moment of thought-luminosity and personifying these momentary self-luminosities into an entity, this is the birth of separation. Not only we missed the essence of what thought is, we identify with a background that does not exist. By so doing we are reacting according to momentum rather than seeing thought as it is.
There is nothing scary about impermanence; it is only the mind that wrongly misinterprets ‘permanence’ and ‘changelessness’ as pivotal attributes of liberation and peace. In actual fact, it is the emptiness nature that liberates. Luminosity must be allowed to renew itself, must be allowed to arise and subside in spontaneity for liberation to take place. A practitioner can experience Presence yet still misinterpret Presence. Seeing what thought really is, the transients are not discarded but correctly understood. Without rejecting thoughts, energy is not spent on fighting against itself and one becomes effortless and spontaneous. This is the entry into pathless.
My 2 cents. There is nothing wrong with thoughts, it's only when we 'review' past thoughts and experiences, objectify them and sees them as entities, and forms a dualistic relation that is the problem.. -
I quoted this from longchen yesterday from his forum:Originally posted by Thusness:This is a very important passage, it is not about sounding nice but what actually happens when we are directly experiencing thought.
When we say ‘we are not thought’, we are not directly experiencing thought. The luminous and emptiness nature of thought is lost. When we say ‘I am not thought’, we are abstracting moment to moment of thought-luminosity and personifying these momentary self-luminosities into an entity, this is the birth of separation. Not only we missed the essence of what thought is, we identify with a background that does not exist. By so doing we are reacting according to momentum rather than seeing thought as it is.
There is nothing scary about impermanence; it is only the mind that wrongly misinterprets ‘permanence’ and ‘changelessness’ as pivotal attributes of liberation and peace. In actual fact, it is the emptiness nature that liberates. Luminosity must be allowed to renew itself, must be allowed to arise and subside in spontaneity for liberation to take place. A practitioner can experience Presence yet still misinterpret Presence. Seeing what thought really is, the transients are not discarded but correctly understood. Without rejecting thoughts, energy is not spent on fighting against itself and one becomes effortless and spontaneous. This is the entry into pathless.
My 2 cents.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
This is by our forummer, Longchen:
Dear Friends,
If you want to experience non-duality, you must completely let go. That means you must not argue with yourself and you must not run away from any sensation, thoughts or feeling that is being felt at that moment.
You must not give yourself excuse to be not what you are at that moment. You must not reason yourself away from the situation that you are in at that particular moment.
If this persist long enough, something 'magical' will be percieved...