Spontaneous Perfection vs Dependent Origination
-
Originally posted by Isis:
I'm just wondering...
how about there are times when one is forgetful and lack of awareness?
Is awareness always there?
念
let me try to answer that....I have choosen the word above "nien" or Mindfulness to explain awareness. the word nien or awareness is make up of 2 words 今 and 心. 今 means now and 心 mean heart. Therefore the now is always ever present. It's only the heart that is aware of the now that is always lacking. Through the practice of mindfulness and concentration, only can AWARENESS can be maintained
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I see... by no-solidity you mean Emptiness? The 'one action with the universe'.. can you elaborate?
The understanding of the concept of emptiness is not emptiness. We live in the world of concept. Therefore by referring emptiness to concept is not true understanding.I remember watching sesame street when I was young. It was referring to the concept of BIG. So, how BIG is BIG? Anything that is bigger than big is BIG.
-
Originally posted by Lin Yu:
The understanding of the concept of emptiness is not emptiness. We live in the world of concept. Therefore by referring emptiness to concept is not true understanding.I remember watching sesame street when I was young. It was referring to the concept of BIG. So, how BIG is BIG? Anything that is bigger than big is BIG.
Neither is emptiness refering to non-conceptuality. It cannot be grasped by conceptuality (well for intellectual understanding that's ok, but is different from the realisation), but neither can it be grasped by non-conceptuality. If you stop all concepts you won't realise it either. For one thing, emptiness is not talking about a state of experience void of thought and experience, but the nature of 'selves' and 'things' as 'ungraspable', 'unlocatable', 'interconnected'. Hence it is not a state to enter in meditation, but rather must be realised as what all phenomena always already is by nature - empty.
Emptiness can only be seen or realised through a quantum shift in perception where one penetrates and realise the dependent origination of all phenomena.
As an analogy given by Thusness:
If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, 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 inherent 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. -
Just to continue on my previous post where Thusness was correcting me on certain things.
He had another conversation with me yesterday which made me understand better.
It is a pretty long conversation I will just try to summarize.
Basically, someone who experience non-dual does not necessarily mean he understands the causes of the subject-object split in the first place, and the way to dissolve the split. One must also then face the question, "if there is no split, how am I going to dissolve the split?"
Next thing, when Joan Tollifson talked about there being "no body, only sensations" - she does not mean 'body' does not exist conventionally, but that the entire construct of a solid 'body' is phantasm, all there is is points of sensations.
When a practitioner speaks of non-dual, he penetrates and sees through the illusion of subject-object division. This is different from mere non-dual experience, however the insight/experience of "no division" and "no body" are different.
The same applies to the construct of "coming and going". It does not mean that once one experiences non-dual, one will penetrate the meaning of "no coming or going".
Seeing 'duality', 'body', 'coming and going', these are the result of imposing an inherent and dualistic framework on experience and thus seeing things inherently. A practitioner goes through these constructs one by one, and then later from the insight of emptiness realizes it is all about seeing things inherently, and then the practitioner progresses further.
One must know what is meant by "inherent" experientially. It is refering to the 'blinding factor' as in the case of 'body', 'dual'. Then a practitioner resolves all these into the One Mind, One Awareness, One Consciousness, but this too must be dissolved.
Now regarding Awareness, although Awareness is ever-present and unfabricated, the understanding of 'uncaused' must come from causes and conditions, must come from manifestation. All manifestations that dependently originate are self-luminous.
That is, we should not separate Awareness and manifestation into two. We cannot separate awareness from manifestation. As Manifestation, 'it' dependently originates and that alone is unconditioned, uncaused. And what that dependently originates does not arise, does not cease, does not come, does not go.
As David Loy stated:
"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe.
"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself...""...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."
And Archaya Mahayogi Shridar Rinpoche states:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html
Another word that has confounded many Hindu Svamis is ‘unborn’ (Skt. ajat), ‘unproduced’ (Skt. anutpada). In the context of the Hindu Vedanta, it means that there is this Ultimate Reality called the Brahma which is unborn i.e. never produced by anything or at any time, which means it always was. A thing or ‘super thing’ even a ‘non-thing’ that always existed and was never ever produced at any period in time which is separate from this born, illusory Samsara. In the Buddhist context, it is the true nature of Samsara itself which although relatively appears to be ‘born’, ultimately is never born. Advayavajra in his Tatvaratnavali says, “The world is unborn says the Buddha”. As Buddha Ekaputra Tantra (Tib. sangye tse tsig tantra) says, the base of DzogChen is the Samsara itself stirred from its depth. Since the Samsara stirred from its depth is interdependently originated, i.e. not really originated i.e. unborn and since Samsara is only relatively an interdependently originated thing but ultimately neither a thing nor a non-thing (bhava or abhava) that truly exists, the use of the word ‘unborn’ for Brahma (which is definitely not Samsara) and for Samsara itself in Buddhism are diametrically opposed. The true meaning of unborn (anutpada) is dependently originated (pratityasamutpanna), which is as already mentioned, the meaning of a nisvabhava (non-real existence) or Shunyata (emptiness). None of these can be a synonym for Brahma or anything that has kind of ultimate real existence, even if it is called Tathagatagarbha. There is no acceptance of an Ultimate Existence in any Buddhist Sutra. It is interesting that an exact word for Ultimate Existence (Skt. paramartha satta) in Tibetan Buddhism is very rarely used. It shows how non-Buddhist the whole concept is. One has to differentiate between existence (Skt. satta) and truth (Skt. satya) although they are so close and come from the same root in Sanskrit. Even in the Ratnagotra there is one single sentence (Skt. Yad yatra tat tena shunyam iti samanupasyati yat punartravasistam bhavati tad sad ihasthiti yathabhutam prajanati): “whatever is not found, know that to be empty by that itself, if something remains, know that to exist as it is).” This statement is straight out of the Vaibhasika Sutras of the Theravada (Sunnatavagga) and Sautrantika Abhidharma Samuccaya. It seems to imply an affirming negative. First of all, this statement contradicts the rest of the Ratnagotravibhaga if it is taken as the ultimate meaning in the Sutra (as the Shentongpas have done). Secondly, since it is a statement of the Vaibhasika school (stating that an ultimate unit of the consciousness and matter remains), it cannot be superior to the Rangtong Madhyamika. Thirdly, its interpretation as what remains is the ultimately existing Tathagatagarbha contradicts not only the interpretation that is found in other Buddhist sutras as “itar etar shunyata” (emptiness of what is different from it) but also the Shentong interpretation of Tathagatagarbha contradicts all the other definitions of the Tathagatagarbha found in the Ratnagotravibhaga itself.p.s. there's a good post by Thusness to contemplate on, which he posted on another forum previously.
(11:24 PM) Thusness: If we ask “Who am I”, does the question already condition the experience from beginning? If we look for a 'who' and enters into the realm of pure, it naturally becomes a pure subject. Is the subject that important in the realm of pure? Similarly when we say 'here and now', has the mind already pre-assumed the existence of space and time? (11:25 PM) Thusness: If for a moment we are able to free ourselves from of all sort of definitions and labellings, feel the bare sensations without words, feel 'aliveness', feel 'existence' then search with our entire being its 'location'. Have the same sort of 'awakeness' for 'location' as we have for “I AM”. Is impermanence a movement from here to there? (11:25 PM) Thusness: If we penetrate deeply, it will reveal that there is nothing here, nothing now, nothing self, yet, there is vivid appearance. There is only always vivid appearance which is the very living presence that dependently originates whenever condition is. And what that dependently originates does not arise, does not cease, does not come, does not go. (11:26 PM) Thusness:
We may then have an intuitive glimpse that direct path and vipassana are intimately related.
-
Originally posted by Emanrohe:
Dear AEN,
It seems to me the text doesn't seem to mention how it would be difference. But rather, it seems to imply that all these are just different names of the same thing. To call it a thing though would be a mistake because I am making it into a thing when it is really not anything. More will be said about making things later.
Also as I was reading the text, I realised some points which I am unsure of.
First, "Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind." Isn't karma the trace which was left behind?
Second, "Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything." Isn't future thoughts also conditioned in many ways by karma?
What do you think?
The next line after that, I find to be very well said though, "And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything, awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary." As they say from where I came from, it is just like this. Don't make anything special! In chinese, they say ä¸�è¦�é€ ä½œ,å�³è§�如æ�¥ã€‚
Metta_(|)_
Hi, actually, Guru Padmasambhava did answer the difference. Do read through the book I lent you, I think there was quite some detailed explanation and commentary on that.
The part that clarifies the difference is here:
25.
Moreover, as for this diversity of appearances, which represents relative truth,
not even one of these appearances is actually created in reality, and so accordingly they disappear again.
All things, all phenomenal existence, everything within Samsara and Nirvana,
Are merely appearances (or phenomena) which are perceived by the individual's single nature of the mind.
On any particular occasion, when your own (internal) mind-stream undergoes changes,
then there will arise appearances, which you will perceive as external changes.
Therefore, everything that you see is a manifestation of mind.
And, moreover, all of the beings inhabiting the six realms of rebirth perceive everything with their own distinct karmic vision.
The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of Eternalism as against nihilism.
Each of the nine successive vehicles sees things in terms of its own view.
Thus, things are perceived in various different ways and may be elucidated in various different ways.
Because you grasped at these various (appearances that arise), becoming attached to them, errors have come into existence.
Yet with respect to all of these appearances of which you are aware in your mind,
Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you do not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood.He puts it very clearly: Hindus posit a permanent essence of Being that underlies all existence, and is thus the truly existent substance of reality. This substance then appears as everything, which are simply modulations of the same One Essence of Pure Consciousness, which is 'one without a second'. Everything is just appearances of that One Essence or substratum, like waves are made of water, golden necklace is made of gold. Unawakened beings according to them, are like grasping the names and forms that the One Essence takes shape in, but forget the Essence itself, in which these forms arise from and are ultimately made of. The appearances may change in form but the Essence will not.
From some Hindu book and site:
"Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, unborn, and un-created reality underlying the world of change. Brahman is formless and nameless and hence cannot be perceived by the senses and intellect (mind). Brahman is the power whose varieties of manifestation are the myriad worlds of phenomena. All change is change in form and name only. To take an example: consider a gold necklace. It can be melted and made into, say, a ring. The gold in the ring is the same gold as in the necklace, only hitherto it was in the form of a necklace but now of a ring. Just so, all things arise and pass away (acquire forms and undergo change in forms) but the power that is all things is one and the same: it never arises or passes away. Being nameless and formless, Brahman cannot be captured in any system of knowledge."
"Creation is just the names and forms without any substantive other than Brahman. Just as ring, bangle, necklace, etc are the name and form without any substantive other than gold. Therefore all that you see is nothing but Brahman in varieties of names and forms (sarvaM khalvidam brahma – all this is Brahman) and there is nothing other than Brahman (neha nAnAsti ki~nchana)."
Archaya Shridar Rana Rinpoche says:
http://www.byomakusuma.org/Ved%C3%A0ntavis%C3%A0visShentong/tabid/87/Default.aspx
Sankaràcàrya even mentions the exact opposite view of what Sàntarakùita mentioned above and refutes him. Sàntarakùita says, “The error in the view of these philosophers is a slight one – due only to the assertion of eternality of cognition.” About the Chittamatra, Sankara says the error in the view of these philosophy is only slight - they believe the non-dual mind as changing moment to moment, we believe it as unchanging eternal.
If the meaning of the Uttara Tantra is what the Shentongpas make it out to be, it would have existed in the Indian sources too. Sankara would certainly have written that the view of these Buddhist philosophers as what the Vedas had always taught and that Buddhism is just a branch of Hinduism. Even today, if any Indian Hindu philosopher comes across the Shentong view, they would be most happy to embrace it as the correct view and take it as a solid proof that Buddhism is just a branch of Hinduism and the Buddha did not teach anything new. This of course blatantly contradicts what the Buddha himself said in Mahayana, Theravada, and Sarvàstivàda Sutras and Sàstra-s. The Buddha said that he taught something that had been lost for a long time. But the Vedas and the Vedic Bràhmaõa-s of the Buddha’s time, whom the Buddha met, had been and are still teaching the existence of true âtmà, and ‘eternal non-dual cognition’ as the Ultimate Reality.
If we glance through the Jain literature, we again find that no Jain scholar mentions that the Buddhists believed in an eternal / permanent non-dual cognition as the ultimate reality. At least, those Jain scholars after Asanga should have done so, if that was how the Uttara Tantra had been interpreted in India.
If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Sàntarakùita’s refutation, we find that both agree with the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta, which is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition and that the Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather an changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu and the 9th century Buddhist (both were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is a Hindu view and is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but also it was refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Sàntarakùita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘pariõàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged.
The Hindu âtmà is not only non-dual cognition but is also unchanging, eternal, and truly existing. Sankaràcàrya defines existence (sat) in hisTattvaboda as that which remains the same in all the 3 times (past, present, future). In the commentary by Gauóapàda (who was Sankaràcàrya’s Guru’s Guru), of the Mànóukya Upaniùada, in verse number 96, he calls the eternally really existing non-dual cognition is non-relational, i.e., free from reference points. In the 37th verse of the same work, this non-dual, eternal, really existing cognition is free from all sense organs, i.e., free from the dualistic mind (namshe). So the Upaniùadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Sàntarakùita as a wrong view.The subtle difference between Hindu non-duality and Buddhist anatta is well explained in Thusness Stage 4 and 5 description.
Basically: though non-duality may be experienced as an All-Self and hence subject and object are not divided, one can still extrapolate all phenomena as being extensions of a universal substratum (i.e. reifying Brahman as an Absolute/Universal Consciousness) -- and hence seeing reality as an inherent ontological essence, which is not in accord with the principles of Shunyata. Non-duality here is seen as the union/inseparability of objects with Subject, but the insight of No-Subject has not arisen.
In Stage 5, there is only vivid reflection and manifestation without mirror/Subject, there is no mirror (Ultimate Subject) reflecting or being in union with the manifestations. 'Everything' is a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing ontological or having an essence. Stage 5 is quite thorough in being no one and Thusness calls this anatta in all 3 aspects -- no subject/object division, no doer-ship and absence of agent. There is no agent, not just no subject/object division. This is Buddhism's No-Self.
So the difference between Advaita's non-dualism of brahman and world and Buddhism's No-Self is the difference between Thusness's Stage 4 and 5 which he explained in his comments on Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment. -
Another related post I made in another forum recently:
We can talk about this in two ways:
All there is is awareness, in other words, everything you experience is awareness.
Or -
There is just sensations and thoughts and no other thing called awareness, in other words, since there is just sensations and thoughts, those sensations and thoughts are the only 'awareness' there is, there is no separate perceiver or awareness.
Both are the same thing. There is a danger however, in reifying Case 1) into a Brahman, something ultimate, unchanging and independent. Though if it is not reified, that is fine.
Case 2 is what is more commonly explained in classical Nikaya, original Buddhist texts. Even though it never talks about Awareness as the essence of all experiences, it is implied already that awareness is non-dual because there cannot be a subject/object split in anatta, there cannot be a split when all there is is sensations and aggregates.
Reification would be imputing a particular set of sensation as 'Subject' or 'Awareness' while the other set as 'Objects', but in reality, all there is is self-aware sensations and thoughts, if all there is is self-aware manifestation, in other words only sensations and aggregates, and that sensations and aggregates auto-imply awareness, why talk about awareness at all? There is absolutely no reification here, only impermanent dependently originated sensations and thoughts whether they are gross (gross waking dream sensory experience) or subtle (such as dream, astral realms, or the subtler formless I AMness experience).
As Greg Goode said, "once experience doesn't seem divided and once it doesn't seem like there is anything other than consciousness, then the notion of consciousness itself will gently and peacefully dissolve."
P.S. As to Lucky noticing similarities between Advaita and Buddhism in terms of non-dual, I have to say that the non-dual experience in Advaita and Buddhism is exactly the same. The only difference lies in the view, whereby Advaita makes nondual awareness into Pure Subjectivity transcending and encompassing phenomena, but Buddhism sees only vivid and empty (dependently originated) manifestations and thus which leads to subtler realisation of the Anatta and Empty nature of luminosity in Buddhism. The difference thus lies not in non-dual but in Anatta and Emptiness.
There is no hearer, only sounds, hearing is just sounds. No seer, only scenery, the seeing is the scenery. What you call 'awareness' is only just dependently originated phenomena, sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. Absolutely no reification here. Reification would be stating - there is an independent awareness perceiving things, or an unchanging substance, like a mirror, behind all changes. Buddhism's 'awareness has always been so' does not mean a Brahman or an ultimate subject or an ultimate perceiver, rather it means all along there never has been a perceiver, only sensations, thoughts, sounds, sights, just that. -
Some thoughts on awareness:-
Awareness "IS" as opposed to ''was'' and "going to be".
It occurs in the present; the phenomena, a process.
It depends on conditions being present, and occurs spontaneously on conditions being present.
Awareness is present,recollection is awareness now interpreting the past.
Awareness is now, future is present projecting the future.
Thought elements or conditions pertaining to current thought must be present for it to occur.
Awareness can either be "associative" or "disassociative" , or simply the focus of attention.
Shamantha is "dissociative", while Vispashyana is "associative".
Thus, when we disassociate, awareness does not arise, as conditions is not sufficient,
Only if we associate does awareness arise, as conditions are met.
Example, if you not associate with sight, "seeing" do not arise, phenomena is a dancer in front of me, but I do not see.
If association of sound does not arise, "'hearing" do not arise. I am so engrossed with the dancer that I did'nt hear what you are saying.
Clinging to:-
"I" or "Self" is a referencing tool, "in relation to" or "in reference" to "I", representing or in representation of "I", the individual.
When awareness associates with "I", thoughts and emotions in relation to "I" arise.
When awareness disassociates with "I", thoughts and emotions in relation to "I" does not arise.
Physical pain can also be disassociated by refocusing association.
By acknowledging thoughts and emotions, they are not suppressed or reacted to, allowing it to come and go.
-
Hi Weychin,
Awareness is not the same as attention. I wrote a few years back:
http://awakeningtore...ew%20and%20Path
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."
As John Welwood says: "This larger awareness is self-existing: it cannot be fabricated or manufactured because it is always present, whether we notice it or not."
To reiterate my previous statement that Awareness is not the result of an effort put in concentration or focused attention, is not constructed, is unborn, self-existing and ever-present, and becomes 'apparent' through letting go of fixation, Judith Blackstone 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)Also, From ZenGuide:
Clangor:
Quote: "we hear sounds regardless if we pay attention to them or not."
.........
This is not emptiness, though it may happen automatically.
Awareness does not exist without an object [of which to be aware of].
Once the object exists there is the [imagined] object. This is "aware of".
In a sense, one could say 'awareness' and 'emptiness' are the same.
Shayne:
no.....you hear the sound of typing these words you wrote regardless if you want too or not.
this is awareness and is something you cannot run too. run away from. improve or negect.
it requiures no object.
the mind ( the attention ) is what amplifies things.
focus on your breathing.
the truth lies there.
.........
sounds arise.
their is no listener.
they arise as themselves.
but what is this listener that people think they have?
it is none other then then attention.
.........
sitting still.
listening to the sound of the world.
what hears beyond the attention.
why awareness hears.
the senses.
awareness is emptiness and attention is emptiness to a point.
emptiness fills the body.
awares the world regardless if we want to or not.
we are here.
..........
their is no great void.
their is nothingness.
no one thing ness.
this emptiness you speak of springs from the self.
when i was a boy of 13 i remember attempting to look for something. i found it. my attention. i looked in the mirror. i looked at my eyes. i looked at my eyebrows....my lips. then i just stopped. my " mind " unfocused and i was pure awareness.
when i was a young adult i was without i till i met my ex.
now that im 38 i am unpreoccupied with my attention. ive learnt my " lesson "
when not thinking the attention dont exist.
when not focusing on a particular sense object the attention dont exist.
attention is insecureity is doubt.
close your eyes.............the eyes naturally open by themselves when you are no longer focusing.
what is was and always will be is this moment.
bipolar is a conditioning of the mind.
i dont believe in the id the ego or the super ego.
i dont believe in the subconscious.
i dont believe in time..........................
what creates is the same question as what hears.
i dont believe we create ourselves............not in the first sense.
we create our own reality if you may.
money for example is a creation of ours we accept as fact.
but what hears?
me is a word.
i is a word.
if you get rid of words and use defiantions.....what hears?
the sum of all our parts.
paying attention to the breath something still hears sounds.
what is it?
we hear sounds regardless if we pay attention or not.
we aware the world wether we like it or not.
it is the sum of all our parts.
the awareness.
and this has nothing to do with the focus or the attention.
it is that which sees. hears. feels and tastes all at once.
....
Awareness is not attention.
awareness awares reality ( the immediate nowness ) all at once.
everything in it is included.
i am new in each instant.
i have no philosophy.
i focus on nothing.
not one thing.
pure awareness.
....
their is no doer.
their is just doing.
their is no thinker.
their is just thought.
their is no attention.
it is just awareness. -
Originally posted by Emanrohe:
Dear AEN,
It seems to me the text doesn't seem to mention how it would be difference. But rather, it seems to imply that all these are just different names of the same thing. To call it a thing though would be a mistake because I am making it into a thing when it is really not anything. More will be said about making things later.
Also as I was reading the text, I realised some points which I am unsure of.
First, "Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind." Isn't karma the trace which was left behind?
Second, "Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything." Isn't future thoughts also conditioned in many ways by karma?
What do you think?
The next line after that, I find to be very well said though, "And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything, awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary." As they say from where I came from, it is just like this. Don't make anything special! In chinese, they say ä¸�è¦�é€ ä½œ,å�³è§�如æ�¥ã€‚
Metta_(|)_
Second part of my reply to you.
First, "Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind." Isn't karma the trace which was left behind?
Second, "Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything." Isn't future thoughts also conditioned in many ways by karma?
What do you think?
Karma is not created if you experience self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness. Like drawing on water, actions and thoughts vividly manifest but all self-liberate upon its arising, not leaving the slightest trace.
Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness
If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.
But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit
will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.
But if you understand this empty primal awareness, which is your own mind,
the consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,
just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.
In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.
Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly.
This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of such great profundity,
and, this being so; you should become intimately acquainted with self-awareness.
Profoundly sealed!As for thoughts being unconditioned, you must experience thoughts and everything as a fresh new reality complete in itself having no origin - it is as David Loy explained:
"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe.
"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself...""...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."
And 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." -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Hi Weychin,
Awareness is not the same as attention. I wrote a few years back:
http://awakeningtore...ew%20and%20Path
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."
As John Welwood says: "This larger awareness is self-existing: it cannot be fabricated or manufactured because it is always present, whether we notice it or not."
To reiterate my previous statement that Awareness is not the result of an effort put in concentration or focused attention, is not constructed, is unborn, self-existing and ever-present, and becomes 'apparent' through letting go of fixation, Judith Blackstone 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)Also, From ZenGuide:
Clangor:
Quote: "we hear sounds regardless if we pay attention to them or not."
.........
This is not emptiness, though it may happen automatically.
Awareness does not exist without an object [of which to be aware of].
Once the object exists there is the [imagined] object. This is "aware of".
In a sense, one could say 'awareness' and 'emptiness' are the same.
Shayne:
no.....you hear the sound of typing these words you wrote regardless if you want too or not.
this is awareness and is something you cannot run too. run away from. improve or negect.
it requiures no object.
the mind ( the attention ) is what amplifies things.
focus on your breathing.
the truth lies there.
.........
sounds arise.
their is no listener.
they arise as themselves.
but what is this listener that people think they have?
it is none other then then attention.
.........
sitting still.
listening to the sound of the world.
what hears beyond the attention.
why awareness hears.
the senses.
awareness is emptiness and attention is emptiness to a point.
emptiness fills the body.
awares the world regardless if we want to or not.
we are here.
..........
their is no great void.
their is nothingness.
no one thing ness.
this emptiness you speak of springs from the self.
when i was a boy of 13 i remember attempting to look for something. i found it. my attention. i looked in the mirror. i looked at my eyes. i looked at my eyebrows....my lips. then i just stopped. my " mind " unfocused and i was pure awareness.
when i was a young adult i was without i till i met my ex.
now that im 38 i am unpreoccupied with my attention. ive learnt my " lesson "
when not thinking the attention dont exist.
when not focusing on a particular sense object the attention dont exist.
attention is insecureity is doubt.
close your eyes.............the eyes naturally open by themselves when you are no longer focusing.
what is was and always will be is this moment.
bipolar is a conditioning of the mind.
i dont believe in the id the ego or the super ego.
i dont believe in the subconscious.
i dont believe in time..........................
what creates is the same question as what hears.
i dont believe we create ourselves............not in the first sense.
we create our own reality if you may.
money for example is a creation of ours we accept as fact.
but what hears?
me is a word.
i is a word.
if you get rid of words and use defiantions.....what hears?
the sum of all our parts.
paying attention to the breath something still hears sounds.
what is it?
we hear sounds regardless if we pay attention or not.
we aware the world wether we like it or not.
it is the sum of all our parts.
the awareness.
and this has nothing to do with the focus or the attention.
it is that which sees. hears. feels and tastes all at once.
....
Awareness is not attention.
awareness awares reality ( the immediate nowness ) all at once.
everything in it is included.
i am new in each instant.
i have no philosophy.
i focus on nothing.
not one thing.
pure awareness.
....
their is no doer.
their is just doing.
their is no thinker.
their is just thought.
their is no attention.
it is just awareness.Hi AEN,
Thanks for your answers, I beg to differ, not because you are wrong, but that attention is also part of awareness, or rather, the conscious part of it.
Yes, sounds is "heard", sights,"seen"or sensations,sensed. However, if the sensation to be a source or origin of investigation, it has to be quantifiable, it has to have attention. That my present attention has "Nowness"..For awareness without non attention, to be quantifiable, it has to be in store consciousness and it has to arise to be perceived.
I am not enlightened, therefore I rely on self investigation or witness. Non dual witness, just spontaneous , just like clap, without conceptualisation! As I awaken, the the "Is-ness" or "Nowness" with the present increases with more awareness. Just as you say, a dog is colorblind, the flowers have color. However, without the faculty of color discrimination, everything is in shades of grey. So do we still say awareness of dog is in colour? Moreover, for a deaf and mute, can probably sense, with other faculties,but they will never hear and see! If I were in the dark, do I still see the flowers, or am I seeing dark? We are talking awareness and conditions leading to perception must be present!
With attentive awareness, we have a working model, we can observe conditions leading. However,that awareness that does not have immediate attention, that which lies in dormant state in our store consciousness and does not arise spontaneously in order,to be investigated,because now that it is recollective, is subject to conceptional speculation, as it lack the "Nowness". Also whether I hold you position to be true or false, is also due to hearsay and speculation, for it is not experiential, and not conclusive because there is no "Nowness", without witnessing spontaneous arising.
From you stand point you see, because of your increased awareness, but from my stand point,with my diminished capacity, I don't!
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Hi AEN,
Thanks for your answers, I beg to differ, not because you are wrong, but that attention is also part of awareness, or rather, the conscious part of it.
Yes, sounds is "heard", sights,"seen"or sensations,sensed. However, if the sensation to be a source or origin of investigation, it has to be quantifiable, it has to have attention. That my present attention has "Nowness"..For awareness without non attention, to be quantifiable, it has to be in store consciousness and it has to arise to be perceived.
I am not enlightened, therefore I rely on self investigation or witness. Non dual witness, just spontaneous , just like clap, without conceptualisation! As I awaken, the the "Is-ness" or "Nowness" with the present increases with more awareness. Just as you say, a dog is colorblind, the flowers have color. However, without the faculty of color discrimination, everything is in shades of grey. So do we still say awareness of dog is in colour? Moreover, for a deaf and mute, can probably sense, with other faculties,but they will never hear and see! If I were in the dark, do I still see the flowers, or am I seeing dark? We are talking awareness and conditions leading to perception must be present!
With attentive awareness, we have a working model, we can observe conditions leading. However,that awareness that does not have immediate attention, that which lies in dormant state in our store consciousness and does not arise spontaneously in order,to be investigated,because now that it is recollective, is subject to conceptional speculation, as it lack the "Nowness". Also whether I hold you position to be true or false, is also due to hearsay and speculation, for it is not experiential, and not conclusive because there is no "Nowness", without witnessing spontaneous arising.
From you stand point you see, because of your increased awareness, but from my stand point,with my diminished capacity, I don't!
When we investigate all sensations that imply "Nowness", and all sensations and thoughts that imply "Then-ness" or "Futureness", in other words whether a sensation, or a thought or memory of the past, or the sense of bodily contraction due to worrying about the future, whatever it is, once investigated we only experience all sensations as simply present and aware where it is. There is in fact, nothing inherently 'now', 'then', 'before', etc. These are simply impressions but when investigated all sensations that imply 'now', 'before', etc, are simply sensations vividly present where they are and are empty of anything inherent.
Furthermore, all our experience, be it thoughts, sensations, perceptions and so on, they are simply present, aware, non-dual as it is. This means all along, whatever manifests, be it sensations, thoughts, and so on, are simply manifest without an observer-observed duality. It is simply present and aware where they are. In seeing, always already only scenery, no seer. In thinking always already just thoughts, no thinker. In hearing always already just sounds, no hearer.
Similarly when we say 'awareness of grey', you may think that awareness is an observer of grey. Actually, the observer is the observed, or the observing IS what is observed, means there is simply the sight and sensation of grey. There is actually no separate observer or awareness apart from the arising sensation or sight which dependently originates. Means these sensations and thoughts simply arise and vanish moment to moment on its own accord due to causes and conditions. You did not create them (there is no you), nothing created them, they just appear according to the laws of causality. What we call awareness is simply the presently arising sound, thought, sight, sensation, etc. Hence you cannot say awareness is in the grey, as that would imply there is an entity called 'awareness' that can be 'inside' something else called 'grey', whereas in reality there is no separate or inherently existing entity 'awareness' other than these arising sensate reality itself.
Now with regards to attention, whether or not there is attention, sounds are still heard. If sound of airplane passes by, the sound will be spontaneously perceived whether or not you want to do so, and even if you are paying attention to something else like your breathe. Awareness simply awares of the entire reality all at once, as one seamless integrated totality. It requires no observer to observe, and there never has been a separate observer to observe. As for attention, attention is simply a mental factor that sorts of amplifies a particular sensations or thought. However attention is actually not what is 'aware' of sensate reality. All sensate reality are simply manifest in itself, aware and self-luminous in itself. The mind however focuses on a particular sensation. It is a mental factor, and as Shayne said,
when not thinking the attention dont exist.
when not focusing on a particular sense object the attention dont exist.Now, while Shayne seems to put down attention, in Buddhism it is not necessary that attention is 'bad'. In fact it is important for certain practices depending on what you are practicing. Especially for classical vipassana practice, focused attention on sensations to observe their three characteristics is often important in the beginning stages. Attention is also necessary for normal functioning in our lives to certain extent. However, it is important to understand that attention is not an 'observer' of sounds, sights, etc. All sounds and sights and phenomena and thoughts are simply present where they are, self-luminous, without an observer and observed division.
-
a dog is colorblind, the flowers have color
- Actually the fact that dogs cannot perceive colours means that the colours we attribute to be an inherent characteristic of a flower is actually false. In other words, there is no inherent colours, shapes, characteristics, or existence, to 'flower'. There is just a dependently originated appearance which is awareness.
-------------
From Dr. John Welwood's article:
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/336357
We can only perceive the suchness of things through an awareness that opens to them nonconceptualy and unconditionally, allowing them to reveal themselves in their as-it-is-ness. As the poet Basho suggests:
From the pine tree
Learn of the pine tree
And from the bamboo
of the bamboo.
Commenting on these lines, the Japanese philosopher Nishitani (1982) explains that Basho does not mean
That we should ‘observe the pine tree carefully.’ Still less does he mean for us to ‘study the pine tree scientifically.’ He means for us to enter the mode of being where the pine tree is the pine tree itself, and the bamboo is the bamboo itself, and from there to look at the pine tree and the bamboo. He calls on us to betake ourselves to the dimension where things become manifest in their suchness. (p. 128)
In the same vein, Zen Master Dogen advises: “You should not restrict yourselves to learning to see water from the viewpoints of human beings alone. Know that you must see water in the way water sees water” (Izutsu, 1972, p. 140). “Seeing water in the way water sees water” means recognizing water in its suchness, free of all concepts that spring from an observing mind standing back from experience.