First is ‘someone’ is dropping…
Second is dropping appears as a mirror reflecting…
Third is there is only endless dropping without footing and mental reasoning…
Fourth is dropping as vivid wide opening…
Fifth is vivid wide opening as everything…
Sixth is only Dharma spontaneously manifesting…
(by Thusness/PasserBy)
Fixated Consciousness and Spacious Awareness
-
Please read the previous page first.
Originally posted by djhampa:It is well to talk about dropping of concepts and "direct experience" will arise. But pristine awareness is not about having "direct experience" of the sense objects and phenomenon but rather a detachment from sense objects, feelings, perception and volition (the 4 skandha).
A totally aware person can have a lot of thoughts flowing by but the person will not be caught up by it.
How does one detach one's consciousness from all these skandhic objects ?
Thusness have said before, there are six stages of dropping that developes according to the level of practice and insight the person has.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Dropping
----------------------------------------------Only when we see Consciousness as something distinct from all other phenomena, watching it, do we see the need to distant ourselves from all phenomena. That distancing is in fact the very strong yet subtle sense of a 'self' as the 'watcher'. This is the second stage of dropping that Thusness wrote.Otherwise, everything simply manifests in its own accord according to conditions and self-liberates choicelessly without the need of a separate self intervening. After nondual insight there is no 'efforting' and no attempt to dissociate oneself from all phenomena. It is seen that there is no self (including a watcher) apart from all manifestation, no one who can distant himself from or seek manifestation because manifestation is all there is.Awareness, consciousness, is in fact everywhere in all manifestation.Longchen also wrote before:I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.
To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.
However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.
-
BTW this is very clear... please read very carefully.
Naropa - The Summary of Mahamudra
Homage to the state of great bliss!
Concerning what is called Mahamudra
All things are your own mind.
Seeing objects as external is a mistaken concept;
Like a dream, they are empty of concreteness.
This mind, as well, is a mere movement of attention
That has no self-nature, being merely a gust of wind.
Empty of identity, like space.
All things, like space, are equal.
When speaking of 'Mahamudra'
It is not an entity that can be shown.
There the mind's suchness
Is itself the state of Mahamudra.
It is neither something to be corrected nor transformed,
But when anyone sees and realizes its nature
All that appears and exists is Mahamudra,
The great all-encompassing Dharmakaya.
Naturally and without contriving, allowed simply to be,
This unimagined Dharmakaya,
Letting it be without seeking is the meditation training.
But to meditate while seeking is deluded mind.
Just as with space and a magical display,
While neither cultivating nor not cultivating
How can you be separate and not separate!
This is a yogi's understanding.
All good deeds and harmful actions
Dissolve by simply knowing this nature.
The emotions are the great wisdom.
Like a jungle fire, they are the yogi's helpers.
How can there be staying or going?
What meditation is there by fleeing to a hermitage?
Without understanding this, all possible means
Never bring more than temporary liberation.
When understanding this nature, what is there to bind you?
While being undistracted from its continuity,
There is neither a composed nor an uncomposed state
To be cultivated or corrected with a remedy.
It is not made out of anything
Experience self-liberated is dharmadhatu.
Thinking self-liberated is great wisdom,
Non-dual equality is dharmakaya.
Like the continuous flow of a great river,
Whatever you do is meaningful,
This is the eternal awakened state,
The great bliss, leaving no place for samsara.
All things are empty of their own identities.
This concept fixed on emptiness has dissolved in itself.
Free of concept, holding nothing in mind,
Is in itself the path of the Buddhas.
For the most fortunate ones,
I have made these concise words of heartfelt advice.
Through this, may every single sentient being
Be established in Mahamudra.
This was given orally by the great pandita Naropa to Marpa at Pullahari.
(Translated by Erik Pema Kunsang.
Published in Songs of Naropa: Commentaries on Songs of Realization, by Thrangu Rinpoche (Rangjung Yeshe Publications, 1997).
Extracted from:http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/
The blog owner has given some insightful comments. Do visit. -
Just came back from a talk and somewhere in there my taiwanese teacher said in the talk that all six sense faculties are buddha-nature.
This is also what Thusness have always said - 5 Skhandas, 18 Dhatus is Buddha-Nature.)
So actually... the five skhandas are all buddha-nature. We should not see any distinctions.
Buddha in the Shurangama Sutra also states so:
"Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral phenomena, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. Who would have thought that production and extinction, coming and going are fundamentally the eternal wonderful light of the Tathagata, the unmoving, all-pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of True Suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, one will never find them."
.
.
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb itaccording to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words."
-
Updated my post in the previous page.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Originally I wrote a long post but I have shortened it to a few points based on what Thusness said, which makes it much clearer. (but there are further posts next page)
In short: there is no false self nor true self, there is only 5 aggregates.
Do not think that that there is a problem in the five aggregates. There is no problem with the aggregates, the 'problem' lies only in the illusion that there is a self. The 5 aggregates when experienced without the agent (watcher, thinker, doer, etc) is a completely new dimension. They are the Buddha Nature. (see next page for references)
However, when experienced with a sense/illusion of self, whatever arises (all the aggregates and 18 dhatus) appears to be problematic. In truth there are no problems whatsoever, only the wrong understanding that self exist.
It should be noted furthermore, that even while the sense of self is present, there is still in truth no-self/perceiver apart from perceived. No-self is a dharma seal, an ever-present nature of reality.
On the most direct path, there is no one to let go and no-thing to be let go of and hence no 'how to let go'. Reality is 'letting go' at all moments. There is only what arises and subsides (self-liberates) every moment according to conditions, luminous-empty phenomena roll on with no one at the center that can seek nor distant himself (since there is no 'self') from the self-knowing transience.
However if we are unable to arise this insight and with the tendencies still strong, then we have no choice but resort to the gradual path of practice. Resorting to watching the arising and ceasing of the 5 aggregates as if there is a separate watcher but with the right view that there is no self apart from the aggregates. By practicing this way, insight into Anatta can still arise eventually.
But if the path consists of practice without the right view, almost without fail it will result in Advaita sort of experience.
Thanks AEN,
Well written and very appropriate quotes from Shurangama Sutra. Arouse my interest into Shurangama Sutra again.
Thanks.
-
Rupert Spira:
If our attention were now to be drawn to the screen on which these words are written, we would experience the uncanny sensation of suddenly becoming aware of something that we simultaneously realise is so obvious as to require no mention. And yet at the moment when the screen is indicated, we seem to experience something new.
We have the strangely familiar experience of becoming aware of something which we were if fact already aware of. We become aware of being aware of the screen.
The screen is not a new experience that is created by this indication. However, our awareness of the screen seems to be a new experience.
Now what about the awareness itself, which is aware of the screen? Is it not always present behind and within every experience, just as the screen is present behind and within the words on this page?
And when our attention is drawn to it, do we not have the same strange feeling of having been made aware of something that we were in fact always aware of, but had not noticed?
Is this awareness not the most intimate and obvious fact of our experience, essential to and yet independent of the particular qualities of each experience itself, in the same way that the screen is the most obvious fact of this page, essential to and yet independent of each word?
Is this awareness itself not the support and the substance of every experience in the same way that the screen is the support and the substance of every word?
Does anything new need to be added to this page in order to see the screen? Does anything new need to be added to this current experience in order to become aware of the awareness that is its support and substance?
When we return to the words, having noticed the screen, do we lose sight of the screen? Do we not now see the two, the apparent two, simultaneously as one? And did we not always, already experience them as one, without realising it?
Likewise, having noticed the awareness behind and within each experience, do we lose sight of that awareness when we return the focus of our attention to the objective aspect of experience? Do we not now see the two, the apparent two, Awareness and its object, simultaneously as one? And has it not always been so?
Do the words themselves affect the screen? Does it matter to the screen what is said in the words? Does the content of each experience affect the awareness in which it appears?
Every word on this page is in fact only made of screen. It only expresses the nature of the screen, although it may describe the moon.
Every experience only expresses Awareness or Consciousness, although experience itself is infinitely varied.
Awareness or Consciousness is the open Unknowingness on which every experience is written.
It is so obvious that it is not noticed. -
"By virtue of its all-penetrating freedom this Awareness that has no centre or circumference, no inside or outside, is innocent of all partiality and knows no blocks or barriers. This all-penetrating intrinsic Awareness is a vast expanse of space. All experience of samsara and nirvana arises in it like rainbows in the sky. In all its diverse manifestation it is but a play of mind."
You need only look out from the motionless space of intrinsic Awareness at all experience, illusory like the reflection of the moon in water, to know the impossibility of dividing appearances from emptiness.
"In a state of Awareness there is no separation of samsara and nirvana." Look out from the motionless space of intrinsic Awareness at all experience, illusory like the reflection in a mirror, and no matter what manifests it can never be tasted, its existence can never be proved. In this dimension samsara and nirvana do not exist and everything is the dharmakaya.
~ Shabkar Tsodruk Rangdrol
-
The 'space' of the mirror, the capacity to reflect, its reflections, are one.
Spacious awareness and forms are one.
It's reflections, though apparent, is empty of any inherent existence.
-
Peter Wilberg:
Awareness as Field Consciousness
If people get lost in
Any form of activity or experiencing,
Whether thinking or talking, watching TV,
Engaging in their work or in everyday chores,
Worrying about their life, or just feeling particular
Emotions, sensations, pains or pleasures,
Then though they are ‘conscious’,
They are not Aware.
Thus you may be ‘conscious’
Of making yourself a cup of coffee.
Yet how aware are you of your whole body and of
Your breathing as you do so, of your every accompanying
Thought and feeling, and of the feel of each object you handle?
And how aware are you of the other things and people in the
Space around you as you ‘consciously’
Make your cup of coffee?
Similarly, you may be
‘Conscious’ of what you are seeing on TV
Or what you are hearing another person say.
Yet how aware are you of your own body
As you do so, of other objects in the
Room besides the TV, and of the
Whole body of the person
As they speak?
22
Whenever our attention gets
Focussed or fixated on any one thing
We are experiencing or ‘conscious’ of,
We lose Awareness.
Unlike ordinary ‘consciousness’,
Awareness is not focussed on any
One thing that we happen to be aware OF.
Awareness is more like the clear space
Surrounding us and all things
We experience within it;
Inseparable and yet
Distinct from them.
‘Consciousness’ is merely
‘Ego-awareness’ or ‘focal awareness’,
Focussed on or identified with some
Element of our experience.
Awareness is more than ordinary consciousness,
More than just ‘ego awareness’ or ‘focal awareness’.
Instead it is a vast, universal Consciousness Field,
A Field Consciousness that embraces and pervades
Each and every thing we are aware of within it, whilst
Remaining absolutely distinct from them all -
A Divine-Universal Consciousness Field.
23
Awareness as Perception
Where do you actually experience
The things you perceive in the world around you?
Do you ever experience these perceptions
‘In’ your eyes or ears, head or brain?
Do you ever experience your brain
Making images of things from signals
Sent through nerves by your sense organs,
In the way that science describes?
Or do you experience perceptions
Of things in the world there, where they are -
‘Out there’ in the space around them, and not
‘In here’ - in your body or brain?
If so, has it ever occurred to you
That AWARENESS of objects ‘out there’
In the very the space surrounding your body,
Cannot be something locked up ‘in’ your body,
‘In’ your eyes or ears, head or brain?
In reality that Awareness
Pervades the entire world-space around your body,
Which is nothing but a spacious field
OF Awareness.
24 -
AEN,
Though what u posted is expressing non-dual experience, u should not practice or understand this way. Rather spend all ur effort and time on 'anatta' and experience the truth of it then move into dependent origination. It is important not to deviate.
-
Originally posted by Thusness:
AEN,
Though what u posted is expressing non-dual experience, u should not practice or understand this way. Rather spend all ur effort and time on 'anatta' and experience the truth of it then move into dependent origination. It is important not to deviate.
I see... thanks for pointing out..
-
Thusness have said before, there are six stages of dropping that developes according to the level of practice and insight the person has.
Only 6 ? 8-). A single thought give rise to a thousand delusions - HuiNeng.
Dropping of a single thought, release eons of delusions.
I had only asked a rhetorical question and the answer that came was certainly overwhelming 8-). Thanks anyway.
Naropa said :
All things are your own mind.
Our entire existence center around our mind. The mind takes in all the sense impressions, impressed upon it our delusions and voila our reality. This reality arise from causes and conditions. We can't control the causes but it is within our spiritual practice to influence the condition. Due to different conditions we create different reality. Many spiritual practices encourage this - particularly the mahayana practice of 6 paramitas. All these are still within the domain of our delusions.
When I asked the "how" I was merely throwing the spanner into the works. Many writers wrote about what emptiness is or what the state of mahamudra is. A thousand poems and a few thousand words can be written about it but how do you convince someone what is sweetness when the person have never tasted sweet in his entire life.
So we arrive at methods. Those in the mahamudra camp or zennist group will argue and even quote and cite countless teachers talking about the methodless method. And yet we are no where closer to understanding the mechanics of this methodless method.
Essentially, to my mind, there are 2 approaches. One uses concentration to exclude everything else to arrest the general flow of "reality formation." The second approach is what the mahamudra and the zennist called the "gateless gate" or "methodless method" or some inane and confused labelling 8-). The approach is basically to create more and more space within our conscious being. The progressive relaxation from the mind created reality that we held on for dear life. The reality that is totally shattered by the shimmering within the matrix(you have to watch the movie to understand this 8-)).
In order for the second approach to be used one has to taste what is "awareness". No amount of words can substitute for it. This is why the "pointing out" in mahamudra practice is so important. Buddha gave a very good way for us to "know" what is "awareness" or "mindfulness" in the absence of such "pointing out". Get a glimpse of it and the whole song of mahamudra would come alive.
No words needed.
-
A direct glimpse is precious and yet dangerous, hence it's important to have the right view of anatta and emptiness and practice accordingly.
As Thusness said in Personal Buddhist wishes:
....Of all teachings, no teaching is more important then a direct ‘touch’ of our Buddha essence; but of all dangers, none is more dangerous than misinterpreting our essence after the ‘touch’.The ‘touch’ of the pure sense of existence is often wrongly understood due to our karmic tendencies. Use the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness as antidote....
...The experience for 3.2 and 3.3 are transcendental and are precious. However these experiences are commonly misinterpreted and distorted by objectifying these experiences into an entity that is “ultimate, changeless and independent”. The objectified experience is known as Atman, God or Buddha Nature by the speaker in the videos. It is known as the experience of “I AM” with differing degree of intensity of non-conceptuality. Usually practitioners that have experienced 3.2 and 3.3 find it difficult to accept the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness. The experiences are too clear, real and blissful to discard. They are overwhelmed....
-
Profound Dharma book and masterpiece of clarity using the term "basic state" instead of "Buddha nature".
Free download at: http://www.greatfreedom.org/The_Basic_State.pdf
-
Originally posted by Chebsum:
Profound Dharma book and masterpiece of clarity using the term "basic state" instead of "Buddha nature".
Free download at: http://www.greatfreedom.org/The_Basic_State.pdf
Thank you for sharing
The first thing that came to mind when I saw your post is... what a coincidence!! I was just discussing that exact same book with Thusness just one day before you posted. (17th) :)
-
Ah! How marvelous that you are discussing Basic State. When it comes to methods and practices, the result is all. The transmission power of Basic State is stunning. Have you seen the other books on the Great Freedom site:
Elegant and simple pointing out instructions: http://www.greatfreedom.org/peace.pdf
Transcriptions of India talks by Candice O'Denver, Great Freedom founder: http://www.greatfreedom.org/Gallery/Articles/OneSimpleChange.pdf
-
Originally posted by Chebsum:
Ah! How marvelous that you are discussing Basic State. When it comes to methods and practices, the result is all. The transmission power of Basic State is stunning. Have you seen the other books on the Great Freedom site:
Elegant and simple pointing out instructions: http://www.greatfreedom.org/peace.pdf
Transcriptions of India talks by Candice O'Denver, Great Freedom founder: http://www.greatfreedom.org/Gallery/Articles/OneSimpleChange.pdf
Thank you... will look into them :)
-
....Of all teachings, no teaching is more important then a direct ‘touch’ of our Buddha essence; but of all dangers, none is more dangerous than misinterpreting our essence after the ‘touch’.
The ‘touch’ of the pure sense of existence is often wrongly understood due to our karmic tendencies. Use the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness as antidote....
In order to interpret/misinterpret one has to superimpose a set of learning, belief system, training etc. Basically we work ourselves into a state of excitement and frenzy.
What if the person has no knowledge or belief system and yet had a "direct touch" of the Buddha ? There is no knowledge or conceptual framework for such misinterpreting - there is only clarity beyond knowledge. Krisnamurthi's experience is best understood as such.
The use of techniques of meditating on anatta and emptiness are another superficial superimposition on "an experience" which without proper guidance and understanding will lead to harm and damage to the person having such an experience. In the days of old when many had such spontaneous opening and expansion of consciousness they were considered as nut-cases and many were thrown into institutions for the mentally deranged. Even today we could find numerous cases of people, particularly in the west, with huge ego superimposing their will upon something that they themselves had no experience nor understanding.
Perhaps and I think far more important is to first acknowledge, if we ourselves do not have the experience, that we do not know or cannot make a proper judgement if someone's experience is valid or not. In this way we suspend judgement - neither rationalising if it is valid or if it is not. With such space in our heart and mind then there is a capacity to understand. If not then what we are doing is merely to sweep it aside as "something else."
It seems quite strange that in recent years, the hindus would call it the age of aquarius or something, where there is an explosion of spiritual awakening, that many had reported such spontaneous kundalini awakening. Some very mild to very intense and many really didn't know what they had experienced until they met a teacher who could explain to them and guide them.
Non-duality is NOT the same as a state of Witnessing Presence observing Phenomenality. An Eternal Witnessing Presence that is apart from Phenomena cannot be said to be non dual as there are two components here (witness and phenomena). This experience is characterised by a non-judging watcher observing the world and mind. I had this experience before. And now, I must say that true non-duality is distinctively different from this. The witness/watcher is really not separated from the rest of the world . It (this witness) is not unchanging, but is simply a knowingness that is not apart from the flow of phenomenality.
In a non-dual presence the phenomenal world do not exist however will remains. Within such a presence focus could be brought, by will, to bear on phenomenon. The level of engagement could be determined by will. One could remain watching but detached or one could penetrate phenomena wherein insights, deep penetrating insights would arise. A buddha's omniscience is only upon focus, unlike the omniscience of theistic religion such christianity.
When you said that "the witness/watcher is really not separated from the rest of the world" is the witness/watcher in the world or the world is within the witness/watcher ? 8-).....
-
Thusness wrote :
Diect experience does not imply consciousness being detached from whatever arises. Experiences are "direct" because the common misunderstanding of an agent that can be attached or detached from whatever arises is thoroughly seen through; thefore nothing to divide to begin with, thus, direct. That is why it is an "insight" and it is this arising of anatta insight that leads a practitioner to direct seeing. Even the complete cessation of thoughts or perceptions do not make experience direct without the arising of this anatta insight.
Anatta realisation is the "sudden" detachment of consciousness from the rest of the skandhas. Whatever sense impressions no longer have the framework of false self to interpret and pigeon-hole it with. When it first occurs it can be quite disconcerting with the disconnection and then a new found freedom. With this realisation direct perception - by-passing sense impressions, perception and volition become possible. Not before.
Anatta insight is when sense impressions, perception and emotions is seen to be separate from one's awareness...a kind of detached meta-cognition....where one is not moved to engage whatever that flows by. But one do have the choice to engage or disengage.Phenomenal world continue to reside in the mind. Direct perception is still not possible.
-
Originally posted by djhampa:
Thusness wrote :
Anatta realisation is the "sudden" detachment of consciousness from the rest of the skandhas. Whatever sense impressions no longer have the framework of false self to interpret and pigeon-hole it with. When it first occurs it can be quite disconcerting with the disconnection and then a new found freedom. With this realisation direct perception - by-passing sense impressions, perception and volition become possible. Not before.
Anatta insight is when sense impressions, perception and emotions is seen to be separate from one's awareness...a kind of detached meta-cognition....where one is not moved to engage whatever that flows by. But one do have the choice to engage or disengage.Phenomenal world continue to reside in the mind. Direct perception is still not possible.
Perhaps you have not read the following post carefully... very relevant and addresses your post.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Just came back from a talk and somewhere in there my taiwanese teacher said in the talk that all six sense faculties are buddha-nature.
This is also what Thusness have always said - 5 Skhandas, 18 Dhatus is Buddha-Nature.)
So actually... the five skhandas are all buddha-nature. We should not see any distinctions.
Buddha in the Shurangama Sutra also states so:
"Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral phenomena, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. Who would have thought that production and extinction, coming and going are fundamentally the eternal wonderful light of the Tathagata, the unmoving, all-pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of True Suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, one will never find them."
.
.
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb itaccording to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words."
Originally posted by Thusness:
Thanks AEN,
Well written and very appropriate quotes from Shurangama Sutra. Arouse my interest into Shurangama Sutra again.
Thanks.
..........
What you wrote is the I AM stage experience/understanding, where one dissociates from all phenomena (As Not Self) and experiences pure consciousness as separate from phenomena (As True Self, ultimately real, permanent, etc). This is dualistic and is not what Anatta is.
Anatta means: in the seen only the seen, no seer. In the heard only sound, no hearer. Thought is, no thinker. See Bahiya Sutta (very good article on this: The Buddha on Non-Duality) or Kalaka Sutta.
Anatta should not be seen as a Self (i.e. Consciousness) detaching from the Non-self.
Tuvataka Sutta (Sn 4.14):
[W]hen a person is inwardly quiet there is nowhere a "self" (atta) can be found. Where then, could a "non-self" (niratta) possibly be found?Please note -- that when Buddha talk about 5 Skhandas, every skhanda is by nature Anatta, Anicca, and Dukkha -- if you're say Consciousness detach from the other skhandas then are you saying Consciousness here is ultimately real, permanent etc? If you are, then you are contradicting what Buddha taught regarding all the skhandas including consciousness -- as arising dependent on conditions, as impermanent, as not making up a self.
Reprimanding the Bhikkhu Sati who held the false view of Consciousness as the Witness, Buddha replied:
Full sutra available in:
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/320007?amp%3Bpage=2&page=2
....Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"
"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."
"Sati, what is that consciousness?"
"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."
"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."
Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."
When this was said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Sati had become silent, unable to reply back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned down, told him: "Foolish man, you will be known on account of this pernicious view; now I will question the bhikkhus on this."
Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"
"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."
"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.
"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."...
When you talk about Buddha-Nature, you cannot talk about it as the 5th Skhanda. This doesn't make sense in Buddhist context. There is no transcendent element in the skhandas: skhandas means heaps, and what Buddha is saying is that what 'we' are -- our life, our entire experience is only made up of heaps and combinations of conditioned experiences which are categorised into the 5 skhandas... out of which no self could be found within nor apart from the skhandas. i.e. Our 'existence' (not a good word) is only a bunch of transient sensations which are aware where they are, without a separate watcher.
If you want to treat 5th Skhanda as Buddha-Nature, please take note how Buddha treated the 5th skhanda: just like any other skhandas -- conditioned, impermanent, empty.
There is another problem when you are trying to reify the 5th skhanda of consciousness into a transcendental element untouched by phenomena, the eternal witness etc (and anyway consciousness is a conditioned phenomena in Buddhism). The Buddha taught that our experience is made up of 18 dhatus (elements), which are the 6 sense doors, 6 sense dust, and 6 sense consciousness. When Buddha spoke of 'consciousness', he is directly refering to the 6 sense consciousnesses: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousnesses. That is all! Notice that none of these consciousness is reified into a transcendental Witness, Atman, etc -- they are just conditioned, transient phenomena. And then the Buddha, having taught about the 18 dhatus, said that this is the totality of life, and there is no other totality apart from what he has just explained.
Note that each moment consciousness is taught in Buddhism as a distinct manifestation when causes and conditions combine. Consciousness is not a watcher, an untouched agent, or even a mirror reflecting -- it is a manifestation due to aggregation of causes and conditions. This is the meaning of the central teachings of Buddhism: Dependent Origination. (See Thusness's Stage Six experience)
As Mahasi Sayadaw said:
Before a drum is beaten, its sound does not exist in the drum itself, the drumstick, or anywhere in between. Even though a sound occurs when the drum is beat, the sound does not originate from the drum or the drumstick. The physical phenomena of drum and drumstick are not transformed into a sound nor does the sound originate from anywhere in between drum and drumstick. In dependence on the drum, the drumstick, and the hitting of the drum, the sound is a completely new phenomenon each time the drum is hit. The drum and the stick are different from the sound.
In the same way, before you see something or someone, seeing does not exist in the eye, in the visible form, or anywhere in between. The seeing that takes place neither originates in the eye nor in the visible form. The seeing consciousness neither originates in the eye nor in the visible forms, which are physical phenomena. It also does not originate from anywhere in between. Seeing is actually a new phenomenon that arises due to the combination of the eye, the visible form, light, and your attention. Thus, the eye and the visible form are different from the seeing. The same is true for the other senses.
Then what about Buddha Nature or True Self or whatever you want to call it?
Buddha Nature is either all (like in Mahayana/Vajrayana teachings of Buddha-Nature) or nothing (i.e. nothing as in, in Theravada they do not talk about Buddha-Nature directly, yet they talk about non-duality). Both are actually talking about the same insight in different perspectives. In Shurangama Sutra, Buddha Nature is being presented as being ALL -- 5 Skhandas, 18 Dhatus, 6 Entrances, 12 Places..... it is not distinct and separated from transient, arising and subsiding phenomena.
As Daniel Ingram puts it well:
23. No-Self vs. True SelfTuesday, March 20, 2007One teaching that comes out of the Theravada that can be helpful is that there are Three Ultimate Dharmas or ultimate aspects of reality: materiality (the sensations of the first five sense doors), mentality (all mental sensations) and Nirvana (though they would call it “Nibbana,” which is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit). In short, this is actually it, and “that” which is beyond this is also it. Notice that “awareness” is definitely not on this list. It might be conceptualized as being all three (from a True Self point of view), or quickly discarded as being a useless concept that solidifies a sense of a separate or localized “watcher” (from the no-self point of view).-----------------
And this is in contrast to the Hindu traditions which see Consciousness as a transcendent 4th element, Turiya, that is the Witness or Atman.
What you described above is what Longchen wrote:
I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.
To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.
However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.
-
Hope Thusness and Longchen can also reply... I think it's not so good for me to reply posts which are meant for others to reply, every time.. haha
-
Originally posted by djhampa:
In order to interpret/misinterpret one has to superimpose a set of learning, belief system, training etc. Basically we work ourselves into a state of excitement and frenzy.
What if the person has no knowledge or belief system and yet had a "direct touch" of the Buddha ? There is no knowledge or conceptual framework for such misinterpreting - there is only clarity beyond knowledge.
Lots of people who have no spiritual background, like Ramana Maharshi and Eckhart Tolle (and I'm sure many others), have a direct glimpse and yet stays at the I AM stage. (Stage 1 and 2 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience)
It's not just a matter of belief system or training -- whether you have a background belief, or system of spiritual thought, or no system of spiritual thought... (unless one has a strong understanding of Anatta and Emptiness) the experience will most likely be misinterpreted due to the deep dualistic and inherent view that is planted deeply in our minds, not just over the years of conditioning in this lifetime, but for countless lifetimes. The bond of the 'Self' is subtle, and almost 100% of the waking and dreaming time affecting the way we perceive reality (in terms of subject/object, perceiver/perceived relationship). We are unable to perceive the truth of 'in the seen only the seen, in the heard only the heard, never a seer/hearer'. We always relate to experience dualistically. And after certain glimpses we will still always sink back, relate back, to a Self, a Source, a 'center', 'witness', 'purest state' or a background reality not knowing there is no observer apart from observed and all appearances are equally the Source/Witness and there's nothing to choose. You should read this article to understand how Karmic Propensities work: The Spell of Karmic Propensities
The way everyone (before deep non-dual and emptiness insight) perceive is dualistically and inherently -- whether spiritual or non spiritual people, whether they have previous spiritual training or not. And when someone without the right views and understanding and practice and gains an initial glimpse of awareness, it will almost certainly be distorted.
It also depends on how one glimpses awareness. For Eckhart Tolle and Ramana they experienced their pure sense of existence - I AM, through dissociating from all thoughts and the body as 'not me' and then realising the remaining consciousness as being the 'purest' and the 'most ME'. Because of this, they experience Consciousness as being dissociated from all phenomena. And as Longchen said at this stage there is an erroneous concept that 'there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it' and that The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'. whereas However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.
They do not know that what they experienced is only an aspect of consciousness and not the entirety of it... and when they reify it into an Ultimate Subject, Witness, Atman, that's the problem. When Non-Dual realisation dawns, its seen there is no 'purest' consciousness because ALL phenomena are equally consciousness, and hence the "I AM" is not more "ME" than a passing thought, a passing sound, a moment of sensation when the feet touches the ground. There is no Self apart from phenomena arising and passing. As Zen Master Hui-Neng and Zen Master Dogen said: Impermanence is Buddha-Nature.
People like J Krishnamurti, Byron Katie, Douglas Harding and some others are different -- though these people mentioned have no previous spiritual background or training prior to their awakening (actually JK had years of spiritual background with the Theosophists though I don't think Theosophy taught nondual and also JK could not find his experience compatible with Theosophy teachings) they have nondual experience and does not see Consciousness as a background reality, a watcher or I AM apart from phenomena.
For example Byron Katie, who also have no previous spiritual background, wrote of her awakening experience which is nondual (as in stage 5 kind of nondual) and hence she does not see separation:
Less than two weeks after I entered the halfway house, my life changed completely. What follows is a very approximate account.
One morning I woke up. I had been sleeping on the floor as usual. Nothing special had happened the night before; I just opened my eyes. But I was seeing without concepts, without thoughts or an internal story. There was no me. It was as if something else had woken up. It opened its eyes. It was looking through Katie's eyes. And it was crisp, it was clear, it was new, it had never been here before. Everything was unrecognizable. And it was so delighted! Laughter welled up from the depths and just poured out. It breathed and was ecstasy. It was intoxicated with joy: totally greedy for everything. There was nothing separate, nothing unacceptable to it. Everything was its very own self. For the first time I — it — experienced the love of its own life. I — it —was amazed!
In trying to be as accurate as possible, I am using the word “it” for this delighted, loving awareness, in which there was no me or world, and in which everything was included. There just isn't another way to say how completely new and fresh the awareness was. There was no I observing the “it.” There was nothing but the “it.” And even the realization of an “it” came later.
Let me say this in a different way. A foot appeared; there was a cockroach crawling over it. It opened its eyes, and there was something on the foot; or there was something on the foot, and then it opened its eyes — I don't know the sequence, because there was no time in any of this. So, to put it in slow motion: it opened its eyes, looked down at the foot, a cockroach was crawling across the ankle, and … it was awake! It was born. And from then on, it's been observing. But there wasn't a subject or an object. It was — is — everything it saw. There's no separation in it, anywhere.
All my rage, all the thoughts that had been troubling me, my whole world, the whole world, was gone. The only thing that existed was awareness. The foot and the cockroach weren't outside me; there was no outside or inside. It was all me. And I felt delight — absolute delight! There was nothing, and there was a whole world: walls and floor and ceiling and light and body, everything, in such fullness. But only what it could see: no more, no less.
Then it stood up, and that was amazing. There was no thinking, no plan. It just stood up and walked to the bathroom. It walked straight to a mirror, and it locked onto the eyes of its own reflection, and it understood. And that was even deeper than the delight it had known before. It fell in love with that being in the mirror. It was as if the woman and the awareness of the woman had permanently merged. There were only the eyes, and a sense of absolute vastness, with no knowledge in it. It was as if I — she — had been shot through with electricity. It was like God giving itself life through the body of the woman — God so loving and bright, so vast — and yet she knew that it was herself. It made such a deep connection with her eyes. There was no meaning to it, just a nameless recognition that consumed her.
Love is the best word I can find for it. It had been split apart, and now it was joined. There was it moving, and then it in the mirror, and then it joined as quickly as it had separated — it was all eyes. The eyes in the mirror were the eyes of it. And it gave itself back again , as it met again. And that gave it its identity, which I call love. As it it what it is. People name things a wall, a ceiling, a foot, a hand. But it had no name for these things, because it's indivisible. And it's invisible. Until the eyes. Until the eyes. I remember tears of gratitude pouring down the cheeks as it looked at its own reflection. It stood there staring for I don't know how long. looked in the mirror, the eyes — the depth of them— were all that was real, all that existed — prior to that, nothing. No eyes, no anything; even standing there, there was nothing. And then the eyes come out to give
These were the first moments after I was born as it, or it as me. There was nothing left of Katie. There was literally not even a shred of memory of her — no past, no future, not even a present. And in that openness, such joy. “There's nothing sweeter than this,” I felt; “there is nothing but this. If you loved yourself more than anything you could imagine, you would give yourself this. A face. A hand. Breath. But that's not enough. A wall. A ceiling. A window. A bed. Light bulbs. Ooh! And this too! And this too! And this too!”
All this took place beyond time. But when I put it into language, I have to backtrack and fill in. While I was lying on the floor, I understood that when I was asleep, prior to cockroach or foot, prior to any thoughts, prior to any world, there is nothing. In that instant, the four questions of The Work were born. I understood that no thought is true. The whole of inquiry was already present in that understanding. It was like closing a gate and hearing it click shut. It wasn't I who woke up: inquiry woke up. The two polarities, the left and right of things, the something/nothing of it all, woke up. Both sides were equal. I understood this in that first instant of no-time .
So to say it again: As I was lying there in the awareness, as the awareness, the thought arose: It's a foot. And immediately I saw that it wasn't true, and that was the delight of it. I saw that it was all backward. It's not a foot; it's not a cockroach. It wasn't true, and yet there was a foot, there was a cockroach. It opened its eyes and saw a foot, and a cockroach crawling over the foot. But there was no name for these things. There were no separate words for foot or cockroach or wall or any of it. So it was looking at its entire body, looking at itself, with no name. Nothing was separate from it, nothing was outside it, it was all pulsing with life and delight, and it was all one unbroken experience. To separate that wholeness and see anything as outside itself, wasn't true. The foot existed, yet it wasn't a separate thing, and to call it a “foot,” or an anything, felt like a lie. It was absurd. And the laughter kept pouring out of me. I saw that cockroach foot are names for joy, that there are no names for what appears as real now. This was the birth of awareness: thought reflecting back as itself, seeing itself as everything, surrounded by the vast ocean of its own laughter. and
When I try to explain how The Work was born in that instant of realization, I can analyze the instant, slow it down, and tell it so that it takes on time. But this is giving time to an instant that wasn't even an instant. In that no-time, everything was known and seen as nothing. It saw a foot, and it knew that it wasn't a foot, and it loved that it was. The first and second of the four questions is like the slow-motion mechanics of the experience. “It's a foot” — is that true? Can I absolutely know that it's true? No. What was it like before the thought of “foot” appeared, before there was the world of “foot”? Nothing.
Then the third question: How do I react when I believe the thought? I was aware that there's always a contraction, that when I believe any thought I create a world separate from myself, an object that is apparently “out there,” and that the contraction is a form of suffering. And the fourth: Who would I be without that thought? I would be prior to thought, I would be — I am — peace, absolute joy. Then the turnaround: It's a foot / it's not a foot. Actually, all four questions were present in the first — Is it true? — and everything was already released in the instant that the first question was asked. The second, third, and fourth questions were embedded in the inquiry that was there in the experience. There were no words for any of the questions — they were not explicit, not thought, not experienced in time, but present as possibilities when I looked at my experience later and tried to make it available for people. With the fourth question the circle is complete. And then the turnaround is the grounding, the re-entry. There's nothing / there's something. And in that way people can be held without the terror of being nothing, without identity. The turnaround holds them until it's a comfortable place. And they realize that nowhere to go is really where they already are.
That said even though there is nondual insight, without the View of Dependent Origination or Emptiness to give rise to the further insight of non-inherency, the mind is still not able to sync nondual experience with right views. When insight of non-inherency/emptiness arises, that is Thusness's Stage 6.
The view of D.O./Emptiness is important and most people think 'resting as awareness' 'being naked in awareness' and nondual experience is enough -- it is not enough to dissolve our dualistic and inherent view, see The Link Between Non-Duality and Emptiness. Hence the View of Dependent Origination is still important even though it is a raft and ultimately is dissolved (along with all dualistic and inherent views). The teaching of Dependent Origination and Emptiness is peculiar to Buddhism.
Krisnamurthi's experience is best understood as such.
Krishnamurti is good. There are two Krishnmurtis. One is J Krishnamurti, one is U.G.Krishnamurti. Both are good and have deep nondual insight.
But for this post I suppose you're talking about J Krishnmuarti. He wrote extensively on non-dual experience.
JK:
You look at this magnificent tree and you wonder who is watching whom and presently there is no watcher at all. Everything is so intensely alive and there is only life, and the watcher is as dead as that leaf... Utterly still... listening without a moment of action, without recording, without experiencing, only seeing and listening... really the outside is the inside and the inside is the outside, and it is difficult, almost impossible to separate them. (p. 214)
................
So we are asking is there a holistic awareness of all the senses, therefore there is never asking for the 'more'. I wonder if you follow all this ?. Are we together in this even partially? And where there is this total - fully aware - of all the senses, awareness of it - not you are aware of it.... the awareness of the senses in themselves - then there is no centre - in which there is awareness of the wholeness. If you consider it, you will see that to suppress the senses... is contradictory, conflicting, sorrowful.... To understand the truth you must have complete sensitivity. Do you understand Sirs? Reality demands your whole being; you must come to it with your body, mind, and heart as a total human being..... Insight is complete total attention....
When this is a fact not an idea, then dualism and division between observer and observed comes to an end. The observer is the observed - they are not separate states. The observer and the observed are a joint phenomenon and when you experience that directly then you will find that the thing which you have dreaded as emptiness which makes you seek escape into various forms of sensation including religion - ceases and you are able to face it and be it.
- Collection of K teachings from the KFT CDROM.... and many more similar quotes from JK can be found off the net.
The use of techniques of meditating on anatta and emptiness are another superficial superimposition on "an experience" which without proper guidance and understanding will lead to harm and damage to the person having such an experience.
Of course you must know what you are doing, without proper understanding and proper guidance, one is just doing it the wrong way and wouldn't lead to what is intended (insight into anatta and sunyata).
In the days of old when many had such spontaneous opening and expansion of consciousness they were considered as nut-cases and many were thrown into institutions for the mentally deranged. Even today we could find numerous cases of people, particularly in the west, with huge ego superimposing their will upon something that they themselves had no experience nor understanding.
Perhaps and I think far more important is to first acknowledge, if we ourselves do not have the experience, that we do not know or cannot make a proper judgement if someone's experience is valid or not. In this way we suspend judgement - neither rationalising if it is valid or if it is not. With such space in our heart and mind then there is a capacity to understand. If not then what we are doing is merely to sweep it aside as "something else."
What you said is very right. We must acknowledge everyone's experience and not dismiss them without our knowledge. If we have not had transcendental experience, we should not dismiss them as nut-cases. If we already have certain transcendental experiences/insights but have not attained the higher levels of insight, we should not dismiss those that have.
Every transcendental experience is valid in their own ways, and precious in their own ways. Yes, the majority of people have distorted understandings of their experience, and there are depths of insight in everyone's experience which can be correlated to Thusness's Six Stages of Experience , but whatever one's experience and insight is valid, important, in its own ways. Even the initial experience of "I AMness" is important in its own ways and paves the way for further insights if the person is a humble, sincere, diligent practitioner.
When Thusness experienced I AMness, and the conviction in the I AM is very strong, he was still humble enough to enter Buddhism and investigate the Buddha's teachings and that is why he attained further insights into No-Self and Emptiness. Even today he say he says he always keep the mindset that "I have not experienced everything the Buddha experienced" and hence there is always room for further progress.
In a non-dual presence the phenomenal world do not exist
Non-existence is a wrong view. Existence is a wrong view. Both existence and non-existence is a wrong view. Neither existence nor non-existence is a wrong view. These are what Buddha calls the four extremes. One who realises emptiness does not fall into any of these extremes.
In nondual insight one does not see consciousness as real in distinction to the world being unreal. He sees no such distinction at all. The so called maya is in fact Buddha-nature.
As Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche writes in the article Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta:
So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?” is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.
First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.......................
Now let’s examine the Relative Truth (Skt. samvritti satya). In Hinduism, the Relative Truth is the fact that this world is an illusion (Skt. maya), it has no existence. In Buddhism, Samsara is interdependently arising. It has relative existence (Skt. samvritti satta) according to Tsong Khapa or it appears conventionally according to Gorampa Senge and Mipham. It is like an illusion (Skt. mayavat). Like all illusions, it appears interdependently based on various causes and conditions (Skt. hetu-pratyaya). It may be like an illusion but it is the only thing we have, there is nothing behind it or beyond it which can be called an ultimate thing or reality. The Ultimate Reality or Truth or fact in the Buddhist sense is the mode of existence of this illusion like Samsara i.e. (Skt. nihsvabhava) empty of real existence. So here too we find two different parameters to two different paradigms.
This is similar to what Thusness wrote in Stage 6 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.
The Buddha understands that the phenomenal world is merely an appearance -- though vividly appearing, it is like a mirage on the horizon. Like sky flower. Like a rainbow. Like a foam, a bubble. It is like an illusion, but NOT an illusion. Similar analogies have been given in Phena Sutta and Diamond Sutra. The heat shimmering off the road appears to be a pool of water. It appears to be really a pool of water but is really just vibrating energy. Vivid manifestation of luminosity -- yet fundamentally empty, without substance.
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 is 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 attributelessness of our nature.however will remains. Within such a presence focus could be brought, by will, to bear on phenomenon. The level of engagement could be determined by will. One could remain watching but detached or one could penetrate phenomena wherein insights, deep penetrating insights would arise. A buddha's omniscience is only upon focus, unlike the omniscience of theistic religion such christianity.
Focusing does not lead to insights of the nature of reality. Focusing can lead to concentrative states, jhanas, development of psychic powers, etc. But not insights into the nature of reality (of everything as luminous and empty).
All phenomena are already naturally clear but our sense of self obscures our 'vision' of that natural clarity. As I was telling Thusness the other day about some of my experience... that the more the sense of self is relinquished... the more the sense of self disappears, the more clearly everything manifests -- in its clarity, 'fullness', naturalness, and spaciousness. Yet this spaciousness is not like a void -- the more spacious the more clear everything is. This is nondual experience.
Non-dual experience is not contrived, fabricated, it is not a state that can be achieved through efforting and will... it won't come by focusing, but by totally relinquishing all sense of self into natural, effortless clarity/luminosity. As Thusness said:
The key point about the practice of 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 its natural radiance. In essence there is no one there, only the phenomenon arising and ceasing (according to conditions), telling their stories.
As I have written:
Awareness or Buddha-Nature is not the same as focused attention or concentration. Awareness is effortlessly happening right now, whether you like it or not, and whether you are paying attention or not. When causes and conditions is, manifestation is, when manifestation is, Awareness is. Naturally, sounds are effortlessly being heard, smells are effortlessly being smelled, even if the smell or sound is unpleasant and you try to avoid it, it's being awared. While paying attention to the breath, something still hears sounds. That is Buddha-Nature. It is the sum of all our parts, that which sees, hears, feels and tastes all at once as One Reality. Before you think that this awareness is a 'thing' -- a Mirror or a Witness, it's not separate -- it's just sound hearing, scenery seeing, it's not a something tangible (a Mirror or a Witness) yet is vividly manifesting.
So as Toni Packer said, "There is no need for awareness to turn anywhere. It's here! Everything is here in awareness! When there is a waking up from fantasy, there is no one who does it. Awareness and the sound of a plane are here with no one in the middle trying to "do" them or bring them together. They are here together! The only thing that keeps things (and people) apart is the "me"-circuit with its separative thinking. When that is quiet, divisions do not exist."
Joan Tollifson ("student" of Toni), "This open being is not something to be practiced methodically. Toni points out that it takes no effort to hear the sounds in the room; it's all here. There's no "me" (and no problem) until thought comes in and says: "Am I doing it right? Is this 'Awareness'? Am I enlightened?" Suddenly the spaciousness is gone—the mind is occupied with a story and the emotions it generates."Judith Blackstone also nicely puts it:
"Nondual consciousness is not a state of attention. It is experienced without effort of any kind. It is the mind completely at rest. In fact, there is not even a sense that the mind is resting, for that is still an activity of sorts. Rather, one experiences a simple lucid openness in which the phenomena of the world appear, and through which experiences such as thoughts, emotions, and sensations move without obstruction.
There is also a sense that one's consciousness is pervading all of the content of one's experience. Rather than an encounter between one's own head and the objects outside of one's head, as experienced in intentional, dualistic consciousness states, nondual consciousness is experienced globally. It pervades and subsumes one's whole body and everything in one's environment at the same time. "Consciousness is encountered as something more like a field than a localized point, a field that transcends the body and yet somehow interacts with it" (Forman, in Gallagher & Shear, 1999, p. 373).
One of the main characteristics of nondual realization is that it is discovered, rather than created, as rigid subjective organizations are released. Constructivists may insist that nondual consicousness is itself a conceptual construct. Speaking both from my own experience as well as from traditional accounts, I can attest that nondual realization is a process of gradually letting go of one's grip on oneself and one's environment -- as if opening a clenched fist. It does require concentrated effort and time to achieve a certain degree of letting go. But the expanse of nondual consciousness, pervading oneself and one's environment as a unified whole, appears of its own accord as a result of this letting go, and continues to appear, without any effort on one's own part."
~ "The Empathic Ground" by Judith Blackstone (a book that Thusness thinks is very good and recommended me, contains many practical techniques and pointers to nondual awareness)
When you said that "the witness/watcher is really not separated from the rest of the world" is the witness/watcher in the world or the world is within the witness/watcher ? 8-).....
At the I AM stage, Consciousness is seen as a boundless, void witnessing background container wherein phenomena arise from and subside to yet the void background container remains unmoved and unchanged, and Consciousness is distinct from the phenomena. Consciousness is seen as the 'source' or the 'ground reality' for everything yet is not everything. Yet the further (nondual) insight must be that all appearances is already the source -- there is no other witnessing background or source to fall back to. Everything is the ground reality. Ground reality is not a container for everything because everything is the groundless ground.
As Douglas E. Harding said regarding his nondual insight:
Victim of a prolonged fit of madness, of a lifelong hallucination (and by "hallucination" I mean what my dictionary says: apparent perception of an object not actually present), I had invariably seen myself as pretty much like other people, and certainly never as a decapitated but still living biped. I had been blind to the one thing that is always present, and without which I am blind indeed -- to this marvelous substitute-for-a-head, this unbounded clarity, this luminous and absolutely pure void, which nevertheless is -- rather than contains -- all that's on offer. For, however carefully I attend, I fail to find here even so much as a blank screen on which these mountains and sun and sky are projected, or a clear mirror in which they are reflected, or a transparent lens or aperture through which they are viewed -- still less a person to whom they are presented, or a viewer (however shadowy) who is distinguishable from the view. Nothing whatever intervenes, not even that baffling and elusive obstacle called "distance": the visibly boundless blue sky, the pink-edged whiteness of the snows, the sparkling green of the grass -- how can these be remote, when there's nothing to be remote from? The headless void here refuses all definition and location: it is not round, or small, or big, or even here as distinct from there. (And even if there were a head here to measure outwards from, the measuring-rod stretching from it to that mountain peak would, when read end-on -- and there's no other way for me to read it -- reduce to a point, to nothing.) In fact, these coloured shapes present themselves in all its simplicity, without any such complications as near or far, this or that, mine or not mine, seen-by-me or merely given. All twoness -- all duality of subject and object -- has vanished: it is no longer read into a situation which has no room for it.
Quotation from Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am":
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being freed from individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going.
Practitioners should never mistake this as the true Buddha Mind! "I AMness" is the pristine awareness. That is why it is so overwhelming. Just that there is no 'insight' into its emptiness nature. Nothing stays and nothing to hold on to. What is real, is pristine and flows, what stays is illusion. The sinking back to a background or Source is due to being blinded by strong karmic propensities of a 'Self'. It is a layer of ‘bond’ that prevents us from ‘seeing’ something…it is very subtle, very thin, very fine…it goes almost undetected. What this ‘bond’ does is it prevents us from ‘seeing’ what “WITNESS” really is and makes us constantly fall back to the Witness, to the Source, to the Center. Every moment we want to sink back to Witness, to the Center, to this Beingness, this is an illusion. It is habitual and almost hypnotic.
But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.
There is no mirror reflecting
Manifestation alone IS.
There is no invisible witness hiding anywhere. Whenever we attempt to fall back to an invisible transparent image, it is again the mind game of thought. It is the ‘bond’ at work. (See Thusness's Six Stages of Experience)
(For more information on the difference of the Witness and No-Self/Non-Duality (the articles also contain clear descriptions of Stage 5), please also read Some Writings on Non-duality by Ken Wilber.)....continued in the URL
-
Originally posted by djhampa:
When you said that "the witness/watcher is really not separated from the rest of the world" is the witness/watcher in the world or the world is within the witness/watcher ? 8-).....
"In", "out", "under", "over", "within", "without" are all labels that articulate our experiences into constructs for the thinking mind to understand. Such labels obscure the mind from seeing directly'. The subject/object dichotomy blinds us like a magic spell and usually requires decades of practices to break this bond. Since you have already experienced this mirror clarity behind all transience phenomena and this experience is so real and precious to you, it will not be obvious that u have objectified it into a metaphysical essence for grasping. At present just polish diligently the mirror so that no dust can alight.
Anatta realisation is the "sudden" detachment of consciousness from the rest of the skandhas. Whatever sense impressions no longer have the framework of false self to interpret and pigeon-hole it with. When it first occurs it can be quite disconcerting with the disconnection and then a new found freedom. With this realisation direct perception - by-passing sense impressions, perception and volition become possible. Not before.
Anatta insight is when sense impressions, perception and emotions is seen to be separate from one's awareness...a kind of detached meta-cognition....where one is not moved to engage whatever that flows by. But one do have the choice to engage or disengage.Phenomenal world continue to reside in the mind. Direct perception is still not possible.
Although the background mirror is “more free and boundless” than a mind full of chattering thoughts, as much as I would not like to say and sincerely, it is not the experiential insight of anatta. Therefore, it is still too early to say “not possible” at this point in time. Perhaps in the later phase of our practice it may reveal that this “detached meta-cognition” is the ultimate block that ‘dual’ our experiences; it is what that split the experiencer from his experiences and being the 'experiencer, it is not 'anatta'. It is nothing more than a karmic tendency to divide.
I will make this my last post for this thread as at present all words will proof futile and it is not healthy to engage in too many words for now. Just let be.
Nice chat and thanks for the sharing. :)
-
Originally posted by djhampa:
When you said that "the witness/watcher is really not separated from the rest of the world" is the witness/watcher in the world or the world is within the witness/watcher ? 8-).....
an answer to this question would be taking a position with regard to reality, which is what the ego does, the ego is form, is limited, and can and does take a position and have an opinion on things
but enlightenment is about being aware of the ego and it's workings, which includes taking positions, so anwering the above question is impossible for someone who knows that his thoughts and beliefs are just that, thoughts and beliefs, and are not to be taken as absolute truth
absolute truth, it seems to me, cannot be spoken about, because it holds no position, has no opinion, it simply is... and is not... in the conventional sense of existence