Direct or progressive path?
-
Leo Hartong (http://www.awakeningtothedream.com/) was asked about the Direct method which is non dual vs the Progressive Path.
Here is his answer:
Each method is an illusion. It can be fun and it's OK, but who is on the way to what? As long as there is the belief that you are somebody on the way to something, you confirm the existence of a separate individual. Every step you take to reach IT, says that your separation is real and that you have to accomplish something. When this is seen through, then there is no you to do anything. There is no path leading to yourself and there is no way to get any closer. There is no I that - by accumulating merit via a process of becoming more and more spiritual - will finally reach the summit of spirituality... 'spiritual enlightenment.'
-
Makes me recall something I read before... There is no 'other side of the river', this life is nirvana... But all the same, nothing will keep you from living it. :) Whichever way you choose to live it, you are Buddha-nature, you who cannot be anything other than what you are...
-
Well, if there is no I and no YOU then there would be a great big problem in this world. Many things would be very messed up!
-
Originally posted by Emanrohe:
Well, if there is no I and no YOU then there would be a great big problem in this world. Many things would be very messed up!
It's not so much that there is no I or you, these are definitely there as appearance only.
The problems arise when there is complete identification with these.
-
Originally posted by rootie:
Makes me recall something I read before... There is no 'other side of the river', this life is nirvana... But all the same, nothing will keep you from living it. :) Whichever way you choose to live it, you are Buddha-nature, you who cannot be anything other than what you are...
Nice quote.
But i'm not sure there's someone there to choose to live life in a certain way, it simply unfolds as it does. The one who is affected by this unfolding is the one that needs to be inquired into.
-
Originally posted by JonLS:
Nice quote.
But i'm not sure there's someone there to choose to live life in a certain way, it simply unfolds as it does. The one who is affected by this unfolding is the one that needs to be inquired into.
Haha, that's something I can't "break through". Put that way, Buddhism sounds deterministic and flat... And anyway, why investigate the victim of the crime as a suspect? XD
-
Originally posted by rootie:
Haha, that's something I can't "break through". Put that way, Buddhism sounds deterministic and flat... And anyway, why investigate the victim of the crime as a suspect? XD
I dun think the word flat and deterministic is applicable for Buddhism
You are from the Hindu idea ...
Let me ask you , have you done meditation ? how would you determine if who is deterministic or flat?
you are basing on words
and Buddhism is beyonds word , my friend
-
Originally posted by syncopation_music:
I dun think the word flat and deterministic is applicable for Buddhism
You are from the Hindu idea ...
Let me ask you , have you done meditation ? how would you determine if who is deterministic or flat?
you are basing on words
and Buddhism is beyonds word , my friend
Yes, that's exactly what I mean when I say that I can't break through... Can't break through the words, can't intuit. Anyway, all is illusion...
-
Originally posted by rootie:
Yes, that's exactly what I mean when I say that I can't break through... Can't break through the words, can't intuit. Anyway, all is illusion...
interesting ... hope u can share your idea here
-
post removed. see my new post in 22 May 09, 11:51 PM
-
Originally posted by rootie:
Yes, that's exactly what I mean when I say that I can't break through... Can't break through the words, can't intuit. Anyway, all is illusion...
Whatever experiences manifesting, thoughts, feelings, etc... is not an illusion but like an illusion. It's an appearance. There is no denying the appearances as the vivid display of pure awareness. But it is without substance, like a mirage. Only that when we identify with them (thoughts and feelings) as a solid entity or 'me', or 'mine', or there being a separate controller of those thoughts and feelings, or there being a separate perceiver of those thoughts and feelings, that is delusion.
Everything is 'unfolding on its own accord' as JonLS puts it. This will not be very obvious until certain periods (months) of diligent practicing and watching as Galen Sharp (posted a link below) said.
-
Originally posted by rootie:
Haha, that's something I can't "break through". Put that way, Buddhism sounds deterministic and flat... And anyway, why investigate the victim of the crime as a suspect? XD
There are many aspects to insight and practice though they are inseparable. No-doership is one aspect, there are others.
Thusness/Passerby:
A simple summary I use to help my practice:-
When there is simply a pure sense of existence;
When awareness appears mirror like;
When sensations become pristine clear and bright;
This is luminosity.
When all arising appear disconnected;
When appearance springs without a center;
When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller;
This is no doer-ship.
When subject/object division is seen as illusion;
When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts;
When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth;
This is anatta.
When phenomena appears pristinely crystal;
When there is merely one seamless experience;
When all is seen as Presence;
This is non-dual Presence.
When we feel fully the unfindability and unlocatability of phenomena;
When all experiences are seen as ungraspable;
When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve;
This is Emptiness.
When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt;
When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful;
When presence feels universe;
This is Maha.
When arising is not caged in who, where and when;
When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless;
When everything appears right every where, every when;
This is spontaneous perfection.
Seeing these as the ground of all experiences;
always and already so;
This is wisdom.
Experiencing the ground in whatever arises;
This is practice.----------------
And this is also a good in-depth article written on the various aspects of insight by our moderator Thusness based on his experiences:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
There's an article by Galen Sharp that I think elucidates the non-doership aspect pretty well though the non-dual (observer is the observed) aspect is missing.
-
Originally posted by rootie:
Haha, that's something I can't "break through". Put that way, Buddhism sounds deterministic and flat... And anyway, why investigate the victim of the crime as a suspect? XD
Ah ok I see what you mean by 'deterministic and flat' now.
No, what JonLS is saying is not the same as determinism or fatalism. He's talking about no-doership, no-self. No separate self or controller or perceiver, i.e. an agent, can be found apart from the transient flow of phenomenality.
In fact no-doership is not only taught in Buddhism. Hinduism, and the Bhagavad Gita that you mentioned in the other thread is basically teaching the same: "All Actions are performed by the gunas of prakriti. Deluded by his identification with the ego, a person thinks, 'I am the doer.' But the illumined man or woman understands the domain of the gunas and is not attached. Such people know that the gunas interact with each other; they do not claim to be the doer." - Krishna, Bhagavad Gita, 3:27,28
Non-doership is often misunderstood as fatalistic and deterministic. In fact I was just discussing this with someone a few months ago.
Our moderator Thusness commented on Konomonte (an online friend from U.S.) and his conversation with a very enlightened Buddhist teacher Dharma Dan/Daniel Ingram:
Thusness says:
*komomonte cannot understand the question of free will this way.
*he must first experience no-self and understand how subject/object view affect us then when he look at the question of free will, he will be able to understand better.
*because when our mind and experienced are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes.
Thusness says:
*what did u write to him?
Me:
*u mean previously
Thusness says:
*yeah
Me says:
*basically i said what u said, that things do not happen by chance or ramdomly or determined, but due to conditions. so there is no control, but there is influence by intentions and imprints.
(My original e-mail to him: we have to understand that things do not happen by chance or randomly (nor is it pre-determined, nor is there free will or a separate controller), but according to conditions. Our actions are influenced by our intentions and imprints. So there is intentions. And there is imprints -- for example something bad happened to you in the past with a person, and now every time you see the person you have a bad impression of him, and hence affects your behavior. Or certain deep ingrained habits always keeps surfacing -- that is also imprints.)
Thusness says:
*yes
*Dharma Dan's answer i also along that line.
*It is causal. (based on causes and conditions)
Me says:
*icic..
--------------------The E-mail:
I wrote to Dharma Dan and asked the question about Free Will. Below is his reply for your inforamtion:============================================================================Dear Jason,Thanks for your email. I have been working a lot so it took a little while to get back to you.Hello Daniel,
I just read your blook. Your chapter on No-Self vs True Self is very good. I feel it is much better than the chapter on the same topic in the book Path with Heart by Jack Kornfield. Could you allow me to ask you a couple of questions here?According to this chapter, basically you don't agree with Advaita's concept of True Self and Oneness. Is this correct?Second, all Advaita people basically assert that humans have no free will. Here is a sample short article to show what I mean:I think this view is closely connected to their another view which is seeing this world completely as an illusion and dream. I think Buddhism's dependent origination is a better description for perceived reality. As I read some Buddhism books, when they talk about Karma, they all say humans have a choice to change the future course. I interpret this as saying that humans have free will in Buddism's view. Is this correct? If so, how does this reconcile with no-self/ego teaching?Best regards,I am a pragmatist, so I think that concept that help people are key.Tbe Buddha addressed this topic, and I agree with his answer. He said that when training in Morality assume free will, as it helps. Thus, you presume that you can make healthy choices about how to speak and act and think, and so you proceed with the notion that you are in control and can make yourself and your world better.When doing Insight practices, you do the complete opposite as much as possible. You assume that sensations arise on their own in a causal, natural way and as much as possible you try to see that aspect of things. That said, until concentration, mindfulness, and continuity of practice are strong, one makes a lot of effort to see things as they are and stay with the natural arising and vanishing of sensations.From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.Helpful?Daniel -
Hi AnEternalNow, thanks very much for your thorough replies. I'm still in the middle of the first article, because I have trouble understanding these things, I'm as much a beginner in Buddhism as in Hinduism... :p But in the meantime, maybe I can explain myself, and hopefully you can guide me on these issues...
I think of actions in terms of effects, particularly when talking about lifestyles and world views... So I cannot reconcile "non-doership" with the 'real' effects of selfishness and indifference. That's what I meant when I said that if life were not lived [actively], then the [passive] being that suffers this life is a victim...
Can we say that a cruel person doesn't have the choice to change his ways? Or doesn't the good man strive for his goal because he somehow chooses to, and not because of circumstance?
I guess my question is, what's the Buddhist opinion on reward and punishment? If there is no one who acts, then there is no responsibility, much less someone who deserves... -
i've noticed several suggestions as to the need to practice something or other
i'm not really arguing with this need
but i'd just like to remind you of this quote from the opening post:
As long as there is the belief that you are somebody on the way to something, you confirm the existence of a separate individual.
so the need for practice is essentially the reinforcement of the separate sense of self
again i'd like to emphasize that if you feel the need to practice, then by all means do,
but don't think it will get you anywhere
other than the present moment
-
I guess my question is, what's the Buddhist opinion on reward and punishment? If there is no one who acts, then there is no responsibility, much less someone who deserves...
the essence of spirituality is not knowing
dropping all questions
but asking questions is ok,
as long as you realize it will not lead anywhere
the mind takes itself very seriously
until it sees it's ultimate limitations
and then all questions are dropped
and the present moment jumps out at you
as if you'd never noticed it before
-
Hi AnEternalNow, thanks very much for your thorough replies. I'm still in the middle of the first article, because I have trouble understanding these things, I'm as much a beginner in Buddhism as in Hinduism... :p But in the meantime, maybe I can explain myself, and hopefully you can guide me on these issues...
I think of actions in terms of effects, particularly when talking about lifestyles and world views... So I cannot reconcile "non-doership" with the 'real' effects of selfishness and indifference. That's what I meant when I said that if life were not lived [actively], then the [passive] being that suffers this life is a victim...
Can we say that a cruel person doesn't have the choice to change his ways? Or doesn't the good man strive for his goal because he somehow chooses to, and not because of circumstance?
I guess my question is, what's the Buddhist opinion on reward and punishment? If there is no one who acts, then there is no responsibility, much less someone who deserves...BTW I know Hinduism is not limited to Indians only, but just curious are you an Indian?
Daniel Ingram says, when training in morality assume free will, on the insight front its another matter.
Anyway, there is karma and karmic effects, but no doer and recipient of karma and karmic effects.
No-self does not deny manifestation and action, it only denies an agent/self/doer/watcher behind manifestation and action. So it does not promote a passive lifestyle. It only removes the illusion of a self, an agent.
In Diamond Sutra:
The Buddha said to Subhuti, "This is how the bodhisattva mahasattvas rnaster their thinking. 'However many species of living beings there are--whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all these beings to the ultimate nirvana so that they can be liberated. And when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated,'
"Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva."
Visuddhimagga states:
"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."
Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple
sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the
concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the
volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no
recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is
well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language,
when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or
with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the
result.
No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits;
Empty phenomena roll on:
This only is the correct view.
And while the deeds and their results
Roll on and on, conditioned all,
There is no first beginning found,
Just as it is with seed and tree. ...
No god, no Brahma, can be called
The maker of this wheel of life:
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all. -
AEN quote:
Anyway, there is karma and karmic effects, but no doer and recipient of karma and karmic effects.
Karma and karmic effects arise within my mind, the One Mind,
it's appearance is as real as the mind in which it is appearing
All is this mind
All is this appearance
All is One
-
Well said :)
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
BTW I know Hinduism is not limited to Indians only, but just curious are you an Indian?
Daniel Ingram says, when training in morality assume free will, on the insight front its another matter.
Anyway, there is karma and karmic effects, but no doer and recipient of karma and karmic effects.
No-self does not deny manifestation and action, it only denies an agent/self/doer/watcher behind manifestation and action. So it does not promote a passive lifestyle. It only removes the illusion of a self, an agent.
In Diamond Sutra:
The Buddha said to Subhuti, "This is how the bodhisattva mahasattvas rnaster their thinking. 'However many species of living beings there are--whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all these beings to the ultimate nirvana so that they can be liberated. And when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated,'
"Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva."
Visuddhimagga states:
Just to add: there is decision, but no decision maker to be found apart from the process of making decision. Choices are made, but no choice making entity can be made apart from the choice making process. Just a process of thoughts arising and subsiding one after another in/as space like awareness, no self entity can be found anywhere.
-
Hi JonLS,
It's very funny to read your posts and think, "yes, that's my aim," then realize that having no-aim as an aim is... pretty paradoxical =P
But I hope I make sense when I say that I think the need for practice will disappear when life itself becomes that practice. When I say that I don't need practice now, that's just me being lazy =P
AnEternalNow,
I'm ethnically Chinese :) I grew up atheist though.Anyway, there is karma and karmic effects, but no doer and recipient of karma and karmic effects.
This is slowly becoming clearer.
But why is there a divide between Buddhist morals and Buddhist insight? Or does one mindset become apparent with the other?
Also AEN, could you comment on Jon's original post? I'm curious to know how you see it from your POV.
I'm still reading those articles, so don't give up on me. Thanks to both of you :) -
rootie wrote:
It's very funny to read your posts and think, "yes, that's my aim," then realize that having no-aim as an aim is... pretty paradoxical
Also AEN, could you comment on Jon's original post? I'm curious to know how you see it from your POV.
having an aim is like having a point of view
it's the same as a wind blowing a leaf
eventually the wind abates, and the leaf is still
who is doing this?
But I hope I make sense when I say that I think the need for practice will disappear when life itself becomes that practice. When I say that I don't need practice now, that's just me being lazy
practice is like the wind blowing a leaf...
-
Originally posted by rootie:
But why is there a divide between Buddhist morals and Buddhist insight? Or does one mindset become apparent with the other?
Also AEN, could you comment on Jon's original post? I'm curious to know how you see it from your POV.
I'm still reading those articles, so don't give up on me. Thanks to both of you :)Because morality and insight training are really quite different areas.
Morality deals with relative truths and working skillfully within this field, while insight training deals with discerning the ultimate nature of reality. For example relatively speaking we talk about 'me', 'you', 'him', etc.
These are just conventional designations, and are fine -- but the problem is when we take it to be more than what they are really pointing to -- we treat 'me' or 'self' as a separate, independent, and permanent entity -- but upon investigation no such fixed entity can ever be found. 'Me', 'self', 'others' are useful concepts and designation -- without which we cannot function in our everyday interactions with people, but becomes a problem when we become attached and identified with these positions as being ultimate, absolute, there being 'truly inherent' and 'truly existing self'.
We think we are separate, independent, permanent entities, but when we really become mindful and aware of our experiential process of what we call 'self' we really see only a bunch of thoughts, feelings, sensations, arising and subsiding in lightning speed, happening naturally on its own in a causal fashion -- without a separate doer or controller, nor a perceiver. A separate and 'fixed' self cannot be found apart from the transient flow of phenomenality. There is only that everchanging flow, nothing fixed, nothing independent, nothing separate, nothing that can be identified as a 'self'. It is merely designated as 'self' for conventional purposes, but nothing inherent, independent or static can be found. There is in reality only a Dynamic Presence without center and circumference, not separated from the universe, not separated from the Totality. There is no division between 'me in here' and 'universe out there'. There is just One. That is our true nature.
To add on to your already heavy reading list (hehe) there's a good article by Toni Packer here, it's written in a way to bring your attention to our whole process of experiencing to discover ourselves whether is there really an entity called 'me' or not -- it's not a theory, it is written from experiential insights.
The article: What Is The "Me"?
Lastly, practice is still important -- in Buddhism to gain insights we practice Vipashyana or Vipassana practice, which means insight practice.
Our true nature is already spontaneously perfected -- i.e., there is nothing you can do to make our pristine awareness brighter than it already is. It always is bright and shining, but whether we notice it is another issue. Furthermore -- there is no need to 'get rid of a self', 'get rid of ego', etc etc... always already, there is no separate self. This is not a matter of getting rid of something -- but realising that always already, in seeing Always just scenery, no seer. In thinking Always just thought, no thinker. In acting Always just action, no actor. In hearing Always just sound, no hearer, etc... a separate perceiver or agent or self behind manifestation cannot be found.The very attempt to get rid of self is based on ignorance and the belief that there is a 'self' that is existing that must be 'gotten rid of'. But getting rid of a 'self' is just like trying to get rid of the 'horns of a rabbit' -- since no rabbits have horns, i.e. no horns can be found on rabbits, similarly no 'self entity' can be found to be gotten rid off.
So why practice, since our nature and the nature of reality is already perfectly shining awareness, already empty of self, already empty of inherent existence, etc...
The reason why we need to practice is because the dualistic and inherent way of viewing in terms of 'self', duality, inherency, is very very strong in us due to strong karmic propensities/tendencies/conditioning and continues to affect every moment of our perception, inquiry, and relating. We relate our experiences dualistically and inherently, because we fail to realise the nature of mind, the nature of reality.
And so we need to practice. But as explained earlier, practice is not about trying to get rid of something to achieve something (e.g. to brighten awareness, to reach a state of egolessness, etc.) It is not a 'state' that can be reached -- rather it is simply seeing on a level beyond conceptual knowledge what is always and already so, i.e. our ever-present true nature. Insight practices are designed for us to investigate, be aware of, the true nature of mind and reality. We investigate if there is truly a separate self entity that can be found. In the Mahamudra Vipashyana practices the practitioner is told to investigate what is the Mind like -- is it a tangible object that has colour or shape or size? Does it have a location? Or is it empty? Is its emptiness like a void or nothingness, or like space, or does it have an innate lucid knowingness? Does all other phenomena, thoughts, perceptions, have the same nature? Etc. By looking into our own mind, we discover the facts about our true nature not through theory but through direct experience of what we really are. In the Theravadin traditions, vipassana practitioners are also told to observe in their meditations the impermanence, suffering, and no-self characteristics on a moment to moment basis with precision (that is, not to even miss a single arising and subsiding of phenomena in real time!) It is this deep clarity that allows insights about the nature of reality to arise..
This 'practice' is not only limited to sitting meditation sessions but what is also important is to integrate the recognition and insight in our daily lives. Once we have some glimpses and recognition of our ever present awareness then we simply abide/rest in/relax into this fundamental seeing/awareness as much as possible and stop being lost and caught up in our thoughts, feelings and emotions. When doubts arise, question it and come back to what is clear, obvious and undeniable.
Insight practice, or vipassana, or vipashyana, should be distinguished from other concentrative practices known as 'Shamatha' in Buddhism, including but not limited to breathe control, mundane yoga, chanting mantras, visualisation, or any form of pure focusing techniques that aims to bring the mind to a state of one pointedness. Though these practices are important to bring the mind to a state of calm and one pointedness so that the mind can truly inquire into our own nature without distractions, nevertheless these concentrative techniques by themselves does not lead to insights, enlightenment, liberation, or Nirvana, but does lead to altered states of consciousness, blissful form and formless absorptions known as jhanas, samadhi, psychic powers, and so on. Altered states however, are transient, unlike insights.
Insight practices do not aim for altered states, it is not about reaching a 'more enlightened state of altered consciousness' but simply the insight into the nature of mind -- i.e., what is already and always the case in/as your ordinary present awareness, in which different contents and thoughts may appear but never obscure its luminosity.
-
Q: What specific questions can I ask or what inquiry can I do, given the fact most non-dual books, such as yours, claim there is nothing I can do?
John Wheeler: I never say this. Many do, but it is an unclear view. See the basic pointers for yourself. Apply the pointers. See who and what you are and expose the roots and doubt and suffering. If there is nothing to do to end seeking and suffering, why talk about all this?
Q: But the doing based on the separate 'I' is a distraction.
John Wheeler: Forget the doing or not doing. This is not the problem. As you are intuiting, the assumed 'I' sense is the central concept at the root of the mind's problems. That concept thrives because it is taken to be true, to be your identity. Who and what is this assumed entity? Can you find it? Is it real? Is this what you really are? This inquiry unwinds all the doubts and exposes your true state of present clarity. That is here now of course, but the fixation on conceptual thoughts turns us away from recognizing what is actually present. In the end, it is a matter of getting your doubts and questions resolved and simply abiding in and as the doubtless presence of awareness that you truly are.