Thusness:
In ignorance, there is hearer hearing sound.
In anatta, in hearing, only sound.
Yet sound has no true inherent nature (empty),
It is an activity and is that very activity call “hearing”.
Both “hearing and sound” are pointing to the same activity.
Only when seen to have true existence on either side does confusion arise.
In Madhyamaka Emptiness, reification is seen through.
Yet the experiential state of freedom from reification is not expounded.
However
one can have a taste of that freedom from arising insight of anatta
since anatta is precisely the freedom from reification of Self/self
(First fold Emptiness).
In anatta, seeing is simply the full scenery, in hearing only sound…
thus, always only lights, shape, colors, sounds, scents… in clean purity.
Emptying
the object further (second fold) is merely dissolving subtle bond of
“externality” that creates the appearance of true existence of objects
outside. When “externality” is deconstructed, it is effectively a
double confirmation of anatta…
…innerly coreless and outward empty, all appearances are still simply sound, lights, colors and rays
In
thorough deconstruction, as there is no layer that reifies, there is no
conceptuality. Therefore no complication, no confusion, no stains, no
boundaries, no center, no sense of dual..
no sense of activity…just self arising.
All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity.
Whatever appears is
neither here nor now,
Neither in nor out,
Neither arises nor ceases,
In the same space…
non-local, timeless and dimensionless
Simply present…
To Jax:
The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water…
is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You”
and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and
fully itself.
Lastly, it is interesting to get know something about Dzogchen however the jargons and tenets are far beyond me.
Just wrote due to a sudden spurt of interest, nothing intense.
Thanks for all the sharing and exchanges.
Gone!
Very clear !
Thanks you AEN and Thusness.
Firstly, I will like to state that i am not a good practitioner. ... have too much attachments.
However, will like to share some stuffs for discussions.
To my current understanding, there is no such things as thoughts. Thoughts are conceptual imagination cognated as chunks and objectified.
So non-conceptuality is not 'no thoughts'. Rather it is no-imagination. At each given moment, when we are in ignorance, experience is modified by a conceptual layer of imagination. It is like we never touch reality in its raw state.
In ignorance, we view experiences as
1. being experienced by a someone (self)... A someone is limited to a body... however Presence is not of such nature !
2. experience dualistically. This include taking that there are other selfs ... view others as objectified persons. .....( However, there are no selfs... only aggregates)
To my understanding, non-conceptually involves penetrating the conceptual-imagination layer. ... coming to a transparent experience.
Ignorance is taking the unreal for being totally real.... creating more suffering than is what is actually happening...
To me, even after a first glimpse is not enough (to establish a permanent shift).... attachments .. karmic habits continue to roll on... making establishing transparent unfabricated experiencing non-subjectable to ones' intentions....
Hi Simpo, isn't imagination and thought synonymous?
Originally posted by simpo_:
Firstly, I will like to state that i am not a good practitioner. ... have too much attachments.
However, will like to share some stuffs for discussions.
To my current understanding, there is no such things as thoughts. Thoughts are conceptual imagination cognated as chunks and objectified.
So non-conceptuality is not 'no thoughts'. Rather it is no-imagination. At each given moment, when we are in ignorance, experience is modified by a conceptual layer of imagination. It is like we never touch reality in its raw state.
In ignorance, we view experiences as
1. being experienced by a someone (self)... A someone is limited to a body... however Presence is not of such nature !
2. experience dualistically. This include taking that there are other selfs ... view others as objectified persons. .....( However, there are no selfs... only aggregates)
To my understanding, non-conceptually involves penetrating the conceptual-imagination layer. ... coming to a transparent experience.
Ignorance is taking the unreal for being totally real.... creating more suffering than is what is actually happening...
To me, even after a first glimpse is not enough (to establish a permanent shift).... attachments .. karmic habits continue to roll on... making establishing transparent unfabricated experiencing non-subjectable to ones' intentions....
So non-conceptuality is not 'no thoughts'. Rather it is no-imagination. At each given moment, when we are in ignorance, experience is modified by a conceptual layer of imagination. It is like we never touch reality in its raw state.
In Buddhist logic, the first moment of our sense perception is a pure sensation minus of all memory and is non constructive. This first moment from our senses is of a vivid and bright reality and immediately followed by our Understanding trying to explain it in general images terms and concepts from memory. In between the pure sensation and the understanding, there is another moment of intuitive intelligible, non sensuous intuition, which the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas alone possess allowing them to know everything directly. It is an intuition that comes after the first pure sensation and before the thought construction possess.
Is this the ‘non-conceptuality’ stage you are referring to?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Hi Simpo, isn't imagination and thought synonymous?
i think it is more of just semantic difference that we are referring..
i meant to say that thoughts viewed as inherent objects do not exist. that is .... phrase like ' i have a thought' seems to suggest that thoughts exist as definite object...
but....it is more like appearance given more attention, focus is seen as thoughts...
on the otherhand, imagination is a process... instead of objects.
Originally posted by Aik TC:
In Buddhist logic, the first moment of our sense perception is a pure sensation minus of all memory and is non constructive. This first moment from our senses is of a vivid and bright reality and immediately followed by our Understanding trying to explain it in general images terms and concepts from memory. In between the pure sensation and the understanding, there is another moment of intuitive intelligible, non sensuous intuition, which the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas alone possess allowing them to know everything directly. It is an intuition that comes after the first pure sensation and before the thought construction possess.
Is this the ‘non-conceptuality’ stage you are referring to?
Yep...
But ... me ... not at the stage 'to know everything directly'.
Originally posted by simpo_:i think it is more of just semantic difference that we are referring..
i meant to say that thoughts viewed as inherent objects do not exist. that is .... phrase like ' i have a thought' seems to suggest that thoughts exist as definite object...
but....it is more like appearance given more attention, focus is seen as thoughts...
on the otherhand, imagination is a process... instead of objects.
I see...