Very good description by Daniel Ingram.

Daniel Ingram:…/37-models-of-…/dependent-origination/

‘...First, the elimination of ignorance entails direct realization of the three characteristics, meaning a highly developed degree of awakening to the natural and basic truth of all sensate phenomena, everything that is actually experienced. In this way of perceiving, reality is no longer broken up at a core perceptual level into perceiving subject and perceived object. Nor is anything taken to be unchanging, static, or continuous at a very basic perceptual level. Thus, nothing comprises, forms, or fabricates a deluded sense of an autonomous self, a volitional self, a doer, controller, a “this”, an agent, a separate, permanent, split off, centrally perceiving, independently existing consciousness, subject, awareness, or watcher. This becomes hardwired at the sensate level through clear perception and investigation of the sense doors. At this point in practice, sensate reality is no longer split up artificially into name and form (mentality and materiality, thought and the other five sense doors), as each is just part of the variety of qualities occurring in the fluxing volume of experience.

This then has profound implications for the experience of the six sense doors, as now there is, for lack of a better way to put it, only one wide-open, volumetric sense door and it is sensing itself. Thus, there is really no contact, as there is no sense of anything split off that would be contacting some thing “out there”; there are instead just the qualities and textures of transient space. As there are just the qualities and textures of transient space, it can no longer be said that the qualities and textures called vedana belong to anyone, not that vedana isn’t still causal, since it is. At this point in practice, gone is some sense in that undifferentiated field of a split off “this side” that could try to move closer to pleasant sensations (fundamental attraction), move farther away from unpleasant sensations (fundamental aversion), or tune out boring sensations in a way that creates a sense of perceptual duality (fundamental ignorance), this being the basic implication of craving.

Thus, there is also no solidification of anything, as the whole transient field directly and immediately knows its own utter transience, and so the sort of clinging to any sense of a permanent, continuous “self” referred to here is rendered perceptually impossible. Without any possibility of habitual solidification, the special type of becoming or existence referred to here can’t happen, as it is directly known that no separate thing transmigrates, nothing remains, nothing makes up some stable core of perpetuating consciousness or self. That is all so far so good, as it goes. In fact, if you do insight practices well enough, you too will come to see that all that abstract-sounding theory suddenly describes experience to a tee! How cool is that? In fact, it is very, very cool.

However, finally, in the last two links, we have a problem, that being the annoying fine print regarding the end of suffering promised by the Buddha. As clearly demonstrated in the suttas, and as should be obvious, a body was born, and while the body lives, there will be pain, aging, sickness, and finally death. Then, we have the endless debates between the Mahayana and the Theravada about what happens next, but vastly more important to the pragmatist is understanding the links from one end to the other of this lifetime to the degree that they can be understood while a body still lives.’
0 Responses