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