• Geovani Geo
    "You keep coming back to justify your belief in long term practice which can eventually be quite a limiting factor. "
    Generally, it is true for most people, almost everybody.
    Buddha sat for 6 years before final awakening, Bodhidharma for 9 years, and so on.
    Malcolm said it is possible to attain rainbow body/Buddhahood in one life if one is doing thodgal practices in a retreat setting, and even then it takes years, I think up to 12 years if I can remember correctly. He said most Dzogchen practitioners are never going to attain full Buddhahood in their lifetime, but can attain liberation at the time of bardo.
    Zen Master Dogen:
    Consider the Buddha: although he was wise at birth, the traces of his six years of upright sittingcan yet be seen. As for Bodhidharma, although he had received the mind-seal, his nine years of facing a wall is celebrated still. If even the ancient sages were like this, how can we today dispense with wholehearted practice?
    Therefore, put aside the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing phrases, and learn to take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward. Body and mind of themselves will drop away, and your original face will manifest. If you want to realize such, get to work on such right now.
    Zen
    OCEANMOON.ORG
    Zen
    Zen
    1

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2h

  • On the duration it takes to attain Buddhahood:
    [1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Have you listened to the Dan brown? [Soh: this is referring to another video -- https://www.fitmind.co/.../dan-brown-phd-meditation-great... ]
    [1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: havent yet.. is it good?
    [1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: From I AM to non-dual to one mind to no mind
    [1:22 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. but not anatta?
    [1:22 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: To dzogchen, the view is the practice or view includes practice. You listen tomorrow, you will understand. Hale must be thinking that it is quite similar with the phases of insights But I deleted that away in the comment
    [1:25 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. why delete
    [1:27 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: I dunno about dzogchen much, so I will stay with what I know and experience...lol. Instead of saying phases of insights are similar, will cause unnecessary issues...and I am not trying to come out some version of jaxchen or soh-chen...
    [9:23 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. you said it talks about no mind but it didnt mention about anatta realization?
    [9:29 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Yeah
    [2:09 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Frankly I like Dan brown video but the timeline is unrealistic.
    [2:11 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: The steps are however clear.
    Nauli for example. Even doing the centre extrusion will take few months of practice and to really churn the will take about 2 years. To churn and have sufficient control will take much more time. Even if you practice diligently as an exercise will take you probably 4-5 years to master.
    [2:13 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: As for insights, it is not a matter of pointing out, the stability will take probably 10-25 years post anatta to even have stability and that is practicing quite diligently. Resting in appearances without observer and observed will take probably more time. Into 3 states IMO and experiences require another understanding and that is important. The key is in the message I told andre and asked you what are the other ways beside anatta and do for active mode of no-agency.
    [2:16 PM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. but buddha said you can attain arahant between 7 days to 7 years just by practicing four foundations of mindfulness.. but i guess that timeline is for monks and often in retreat
    [2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: That is not Buddhahood
    [2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. but should have cleared the ten fetters right
    [2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Yes. That is why I told you to ponder on the no agency part. You need to have that insight, otherwise it is just half done. In other words it is no self in active mode. Why is it half done? Because it is normally in passive mode. So your dreams will normally remain karmic.
    FITMIND.CO
    404 Not Found
    404 Not Found

  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
  • 2h
  •  
  •  

  • Reply
  • 15m
  •  
    • Admin
      André A. Pais
      Any other ways..? I'm not sure. Contemplating conditionality perhaps? It's less conceptual and more experiential.
      Yes, seeing non-duality is not the same as seeing no-inherency. The former is more about seeing through the characteristics of subject-object, while the latter seems to be more about seeing through all types of characteristics.
      What do you suggest to see through "thingness"? I may tend to fall into PCE's.
      2
      · Reply
      · 21w
      John Tan
      I think u have explored and r familiar with the different deconstruction methods and yes DO (general dependent origination) is an excellent tool for deconstruction. It deconstructs without ignoring diversities. In DO, one feels the deep intimacy and connectedness with the diversities, yet everything dissolves into a seamless formation of a total situation. Everything includes the sense of self and others, hereness and nowness, time and space, mind and body, physical and materiality and so and and so forth.
      But I m not looking at DO. In the Taoism YouTube that Soh
      posted, Jason Gregory provides another perspective to look at the agency-action issue. The emphasis is more on habitual repetition into elimination of the agent from the action/activity.
      But I m not referring to that as well. I m looking more on the non-attachment aspect, the freedom from gain/loss, success/failure, pride and fear in any endeavour. Practicing that way, the gap between the agent and action will also be gradually reduced to none, into the flow of actionless action.
      As for falling into PCEs, there is nothing wrong falling into PCEs imo; just how uncontrived and effortless, how natural and spontaneous the PCEs are. More importantly, are the PCEs endow with deep wisdoms that sees through:
      1. self (anatta)
      2. phenomena (chariot analogy)
      3. characteristics (redness of a flower). The lurid redness that appears to stick to a red flower seems to b an inherent part of the flower. But is it? There is neither redness out there nor in here. at the flower, nor on the mind, nor...
      4. the sematics/meanings of conventionalities
      5. appearances (experienctial emptiness). Appears but not found.
      To me over-emphasis of non-conceptualities (too early) is an extreme and can be a great disservice as it "bypasses" those valuable insights that see through reifications and semantic/meaning of conventionalities.
      But seeing through "thingness" moderates this extremity, it is like the middle path between conceptual and non-conceptualities.
      Eventually and gradually, everything too will b de-constructed; no thoughts and concepts, calmly and evenly into transparent pristine appearances in natural spontaneity.
      3
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      André A. Pais
      I don't understand why can't redness be in the mind - not intrinsically so, of course.
      · Reply
      · 21w
      Geovani Geo
      I guess its because "redness" would be another "thing".
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      John Tan
      Yes André
      , I m referring to intrinsically and inherently.
      That said, u may also want to look deeper into point 4 and compare it with the de-construction of "thingness/inherent-ness" of my earlier message:
      1. The very idea of "in", the very idea of "from" or the idea of "produce" r all sematics of conventionalities. We have mistaken "meanings" of these conventions as undeniable "reality" but they too r imputed. The mind thinks surely even without labels and designations, there is still the actuality of being "in" something, somewhere but this is not true. "In-ness" too is a formation formed from "mental constructions + sensations". They can similarly b de-constructed.
      If a mind free from all these sematics of conventionalities or total exhaustion of conceptualities, what is experience like?
      It is not "knowingness" nor a "not knowing mind", but just liberating all sematics of conventions and simply resting as mere clean, pure, pellucid sense of vivid radiance (in absorption)?
      2. Seeing through "inherent-ness/thingness" which is what I said in my earlier message.
      If u r interested, u can explore into them otherwise just treat it as some blah blah blah..🤣
      1
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      André A. Pais
      Yes, redness as a concept is totally imagined. And yet, a mere appearance is present. We can't say, of course, where it appears, or what it is, etc. Those would all be designations. But conventionally, it is indeed an appearance in mind. And I've seen John and Soh talking about such example, but how they get to the "unarisen" insight always eludes me.
      · Reply
      · 21w
      John Tan
      All appearances r like a finger drawing a circle in thin air, mere occurrences. Even the solid vivid sensations of "hardness", appears (in zero dimension) but r no where to b found - unarisen.
      3
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      Geovani Geo
      The ultimate fairer is the free empty heart. And I am not being romantic but purely "technical". Where else are all burdens shed?
      · Reply
      · 21w
      André A. Pais
      John Tan
      I resonate very much with the investigation of our sense of localization, embodiment (feeling to be inside a body), physicality, direction / perspective ("I am here looking there"), etc. You seemed to touch it, when talking about "in-ness", "from" and existing "somewhere".
      These are sensitive topics to me, as they relate to notions of space, solidity, etc. I like very much the line of inquiry "is experience happening anywhere?", for example.
      Can you explore it a bit?
      1
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      Geovani Geo
      At this point I find it quite useful to resort to "being awareness" (I think u call it PCE?). Such awareness is seeing through the luminosity of "things". But this is still a "doing", right? The "problem" with this is that there is a subtle duality awareness/stuff-being-awared. Then some may come up with the notion that awareness is not other then what is being awared. That there is only awareness. And here, I guess, is where inherency comes in. Fundamentally, is there an awareness at all? Or such awareness was also jsut a skillful means, a pointer?
      If there is not such inherent awareness, then what is here? Is there any kind of measurable dimension that could be established? etc...
      · Reply
      · 21w

      • Reply
      • 15m

    • John Tan
      André
      , what I m talking abt is the phenomelogy of day to day mumdane experiences, nothing transcendental.
      I'm merely looking at how mental constructs created by our language structures and social conventions define and shape our moment to moment of experiences.
      When we say our body is having such and such sensations, the mind really thinks in terms of containment. When we try to search for the referent we called "body", we realized there is no "body" apart from the dancing and fluxing sensations. So again, there r no two parts -- body and sensations; what we designate as "body" is just these sensations.
      Once the mind sees through this "body construct", the sense of "in-ness" also dissolves. Sensations r simply present, no where, zero dimension. Same for "self/Self" as a background.
      Just this experiential taste of thorough deconstruction is enough to take up my whole life. 🤣
      As a side note, in Taoism there is the art of "sit and forget" 坐忘. To sit and forget the "body" is difficult, to see through mental constructs is much easier once we get a hang of it and it is more penetrating and insightful.
      Ok André, been chatting too much. Thks for the exchanges.
      4
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      John Tan
      Geovani Geo
      to me, to be without dual is not to subsume into one and although awareness is negated, it is not to say there is nothing.
      Negating the Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is to not let Awareness remain at the abstract level. When such transpersonal Awareness that exists only in wonderland is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted as the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize that "presence" has always only been a convention for these vivid ordinary experiences.
      Then mundane activities -- hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.
      3
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      Geovani Geo
      John
      , yes. Any single atom is it. And even all atoms of all universes together are not it. Tx!!
      · Reply
      · 21w

      • Reply
      • 15m

    • TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei
      YOUTUBE.COM
      TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei
      TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 6m

    • Also related:
      [11:43 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Beyond subject-action-object
      [11:45 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The other day i just intuitively understood that tremendous merits and the perfections of paramitas comes from the actualization of anatta in practice and action.. like in generosity etc
      [11:45 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Beyond or empty of the three spheres
      [12:01 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Better, what else?
      [12:01 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: So what do u understand from it?
      [12:02 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Paramitas and fear....what have u understood and how is it different from just losing the background?
      [12:41 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: If for example one does an act of generosity with a self or giver in mind, a gift in mind and a receiver in mind, or the idea of a self creating merit in mind, then the merits accrued from such an act is very limited and the action can hardly be a perfection.
      When one is actualizing anatta in that action of giving with giver, gift and recipient, the action of generosity is naturally perfected and the merits accrued is immense.
      Also there is the actual mental qualities to be cultivated but the key is in the state of equipoise or actualization of anatta otherwise the quality cannot be perfected also. For example one can practice a kind of tolerance but this is different from completely dissolving the self in actualization and equipoise, then “patience” and “equanimity” arise untainted by self even when confronted with situations.
      Just losing the background can remain an inactive perceptual level but all the paramitas are qualities of mind that are perfected when anatta beyond three spheres are actualised when facing situations and people
      Likewise for fear
      [12:42 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: *without giver,...
      [12:46 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Like just chanting..
      [12:46 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Much better, but the relationship is still not clear. And it is not so correct to say that if anatta insight doesn't arise, u can't perfect paramitas. In fact it goes both ways.
      So the passive and active mode of anatta. How does the gap between the actor and action being eliminated to none in activity?
      [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: If one is in chanting samadhi no chanter or chanted.. not just samadhi but actualising one’s insight where self and objects are exhausted in equipoise, then that is most meritorious. Although one is not thinking of merits
      [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: No good.
      [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is not the key of anatta.
      [12:49 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: So do u have a better understanding of Wu Wei in Taoism? Effortless action, action without the sense of agent?
      [12:50 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Insight of anatta is not primary for them though it is the missing key....however still, one can enter in actionless action...by what way?
      [12:51 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: If u do not have insight of anatta, how r u to practice?
      [9:33 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Yes André, I agree with most of what u said, just 3 points:
      1. Primordial state, original face.
      What does it mean to to be without the imagined and imputed? It is simply one's primordial state, always and already so despite non-recognition.
      So the path can be directly pointing to one's original face or to rid from all imputed imagined artificialities.
      But the direct leap out of the imputed layer is often not exhaustive and thorough, many blindspots and hindrances. Therefore a short cut can often turns out to be a longer cut.
      2. Unmade, natural and spontaneous
      I agree that without imputations, there is no boundaries. Therefore all experiences is open and spacious and without the layer of imagined, whatever appears is pristine and pellucid, transpar…
      [12:42 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
      [4:05 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Lol
      [4:08 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Like zuo wang.. forgetting and dissolve self into the experience and activity
      First time i had no mind in 2006 was when i was practicing mindfulness then i forgot self into tree
      In 2008 was pondering “how is it to die and fade out of existence” then it triggered intense nondual experience but only for a short while
      [4:12 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: That is one way, more on no mind.
      [4:12 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is not what I m looking at.
      [4:14 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: 坐忘 (zuo wang/sitting and forgetting [self]) will not b unfamiliar to u. It is the direct day to day, down to earth aspect u need to look into it. U should see in terms of the paramitas, what exactly is actionless action.
      [4:16 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
      [4:20 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is imp. But the other way is equally true. Look into that direction. What if u have totally no insight at all. Does that mean u wont be able to overcome agency-action issue?
      [8:56 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: I wrote to Andre:
      I think u have explored and r familiar with the different deconstruction methods and yes DO (dependent origination) is an excellent tool for deconstruction. It deconstructs without ignoring diversities. In DO, one feels the deep intimacy and connectedness with the diversities, yet everything dissolves into a seamless formation of a total situation. Everything includes the sense of self and others, hereness and nowness, time and space, mind and body, physical and materiality and so and and so forth.
      But I m not looking at DO. In the Taoism YouTube that Soh posted, Jason Gregory provides another perspective to look at the agency-action issue. The emphasis is more on habitual repetition into elimination of the agent from the action/activity.
      But I m not referring to that as well. I m looking more on the non-attachment aspect, the freedom from gain/loss, success/failure, pride and fear in any endeavour. Practicing that way, the gap between the agent and action will also be gradually reduced to none, into the flow of actionless action.
      As for falling into PCEs, there is nothing wrong falling into PCEs imo; just how uncontrived and effortless, how natural and spontaneous the PCEs are. More importantly, are the PCEs endow with deep wisdoms that sees through:
      1. self (anatta)
      2. phenomena (chariot analogy)
      3. characteristics (redness of a flower). The lurid redness that appears to stick to a red flower seems to b an inherent part of the flower. But is it? There is neither redness out there nor in here. at the flower, nor on the mind, nor...
      4. the sematics/meanings of conventionalities
      5. appearances (experienctial emptiness). Appears but not found.
      To me over-emphasis of non-conceptualities (too early) is an extreme and can be a great disservice as it "bypasses" those valuable insights that see through reifications and semantic/meaning of conventionalities.
      But seeing through "thingness" moderates this extremity, it is like the middle path between conceptual and non-conceptualities.
      Eventually and gradually, everything too will b de-constructed; no thoughts and concepts, calmly and evenly into transparent pristine appearances in natural spontaneity.
      [11:00 AM, 10/2/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
      [11:33 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: No. Magical is not empty illusory nature.
      [11:34 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: Magical because the radiance is unmade...not mechanical, not artificial.
      [11:36 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: U feel it is of a totally different dimension from the artificial. Intense radiance and wondrous manifestation r all parts of being magic.
      [11:37 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: Or magic by being empty and luminous.
      [11:40 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: His [Tinh Panh] description is quite good. Brahman or not doesn't matter as long Brahman is not any transpersonal being in a wonderland, but is the very relative phenomena that we misunderstood.

    • Reply
    • 1m
     
0 Responses