Also see: Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan

Session Start: Thursday, September 11, 2008

(7:40 PM) AEN:    Satellite understands anatta rite?
(7:40 PM) AEN:   

Although duality is a mind state, not all mind states are dualistic.

In the absence of the sense of separation, the phenomen-ing of thought still arises. Just as there is feeling without a feeler, seeing without a see-er, thinking without a thinker arises. For it to be dualistic it requires a secondary layer of thought or belief that says it is 'my' thought.

A clear 'seeing' that subject and object are always, always one (or indeed none), renders all this struggle unnecessary. All there can ever be is Oneness appearing as this ever-fresh self-shining display. The separation is the imposition - though admittedly a very compelling one.


Session Start: Friday, September 12, 2008

(1:16 PM) Thusness:    Satellite yes. :)  If this state is truly stabilized, DO must be understood intuitively.


(11:31 PM) AEN:    btw this is Anatta as action rite:
It sounds completely paradoxical, but realization only has meaning for the person.

I say paradoxical because the myth is that realization means seeing that the person is nonexistent.

But this is only true from a certain perspective (so to speak.)

Right now, the person can be seen to be insubstantial, not separate and impermanent.

Its 'existence' is like that of a river. It cannot be found, yet it is not truly absent.

It is verb-like. The happening of person-ing is apparent.

It's within this stream that the 'realization event' arises.

The realization is that I am the Source and essence of this person-ing that is streaming in to view.

This is not to lose the person-ing, but to see it in its ultimate context.

(11:54 PM) Thusness:    the text above is by satellite?
(11:54 PM) AEN:    person-ing?
(11:54 PM) AEN:    ya
(11:55 PM) Thusness:    Seldom do we see practitioner having such clarity and experience


(11:25 PM) AEN:    Phroggy wrote:
(11:25 PM) AEN:    Initiated a file transfer
(11:25 PM) AEN:    Okay, so, like, I just figured out where all the discussion about Consciousness with Satellite was going after watching a video of Kevin Edwards. In fact, I think something has been brewing here for a while and it may not be done yet.

Basically, what I was trying to say in the discussion here is that mind automatically structures everything dualistically. That is, subject----verb----object, and yet in every case, the subject and object are assumed, leaving only the verb. If you hang in with me, I'll explain, and it looks pretty cool from here.

We say Consciousness expresses in form, but is there really a Consciousness apart from that expression, or is Consciousness just a conceptual subject supplied by the mind so that it seems to come from somewhere? What if Consciousness is it's content, such that the expression is all there is to this Consciousness thingy? Also, is there really a form? Do we know that, or do we also assume the existence of the object? I'm saying there is no subject and there is no object, just the expression itself. Consciousness IS that expression.
(11:25 PM) AEN:    Initiated a file transfer
(11:25 PM) AEN:   

Lets take thought. We say The thinker thought a thought. Is there a thinker or a conceptual thing we call a thought, or is there just thinking arising. Is there really any more to it than that? The subject and object are assumed and have no reality at all. Lets take Awareness. We say Awareness is aware of a tree. The subject and object are assumed and there is just awareness itself. There is no Awareness anywhere. It's existence is literally inherent to it's being aware. There is no object to Awareness either, and so we might say that the tree is awareness happening, but in the absence of an object we call a tree.
(11:25 PM) AEN:   

Listening to Kevin tonight, it came together for me when he said something like 'You say, "I see a plant". Now, throw away the point of reference, the I that sees.' In this, there is just the seeing of the plant without anybody seeing, and in fact the plant isn't even there, so there's just the seeing. No subject (me) and no object seen, just the perception iteself, inseparable from any other subject, and identical with all objects, because all subjects and all objects are literally the perceiving itself. In this way, everything is one thing, in the absence of thingness and in the absence of a separate perceiver. There is just experience happening. No experiencer and nothing experienced. If mind insists on retaining it's made up subject and object, then we can say the experiencer IS the experiencing itself, and the experiencing IS the experienced, and they all become one.
(11:28 PM) AEN:    wat u tink
(11:28 PM) AEN:    oh and Satellite just replied:
(11:28 PM) AEN:   

With a touch less of the slightly metaphysical tone, this could be the work of a Mahayana Buddhist.

Yes. Only experience (verb) or experiencing (without the usual dualistic split that is associated with these words.)

In this sense, there is nothing - only happenings, only experiencing.
(11:28 PM) AEN:    Yet in order for apparent communication and interaction, experience is conceptually divided into parts.

Right now, all there is is seamless experience. The phone rings - now it might be clumsy to say that the ring is an expression of experience - but it could be said that experience is arising as the sound of the phone. So now we have experience... arising as a something.

We are not saying that experience is apart from the thing experienced... only that language/conceptual thought can make it look that way.
(11:30 PM) Thusness:    Yes good
(11:31 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:31 PM) Thusness:    Anatta
(11:32 PM) Thusness:    Next step is to go non-conceptual
(11:32 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:33 PM) AEN:    u mean phroggy shld practice non-conceptuality?
(12:23 AM) AEN:    u mean after realising anatta then shld practice non conceptuality
(1:24 AM) Thusness:    What is the url?
(1:24 AM) AEN:    which url
(1:24 AM) AEN:    oh
(1:25 AM) AEN:
(1:35 AM) Thusness:    There r different depth to this experience.
(1:35 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:37 AM) Thusness:    One can still turn conceptual and cannot experience the vividness of this anatta experience
(1:37 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:38 AM) Thusness:    The Tendency to grasp this understanding conceptually will normally last for another few yrs or longer.
(1:39 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:39 AM) AEN:    btw phroggy realised anatta?
(1:40 AM) Thusness:    The 'reminding' will step in until stage 5 goes non-conceptual and arise as sound, scenery, taste...
(1:40 AM) Thusness:    Yes
(1:40 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:41 AM) AEN:    reminding as in
(1:41 AM) AEN:    conceptually thinking it?
(1:41 AM) Thusness:    But there must be direct experience.
(1:41 AM) AEN:    oic
(1:41 AM) Thusness:    Reminding oneself of this new found truth.
(1:41 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:42 AM) AEN:    but when he realised its not just a conceptual understand right? like he realised it?
(1:43 AM) Thusness:    Soon
(1:43 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:43 AM) Thusness:    But not yet
(1:43 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:43 AM) Thusness:    Not like satellite
(1:44 AM) AEN:    oic why
(1:44 AM) AEN:    oh
(1:44 AM) Thusness:    But stage 6 is a lil different.
(1:44 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:47 AM) Thusness:    this in buddhism is the right view
(1:47 AM) Thusness:    The next step is to see the DO (Dependent Origination) nature.

(1:59 AM) Thusness:    You see most ppl will know how different the experience is between 'I AMness' and anatta
(1:59 AM) Thusness:    After the experience
(2:00 AM) Thusness:    It is obvious otherwise he would not have made that comment
(2:01 AM) Thusness:    Future understanding is the dependently originate nature.
(2:01 AM) Thusness:    That is emptiness
(2:02 AM) Thusness:    Then leading to effortless non-conceptuality
(2:02 AM) Thusness:    Then self liberation

Session Start: Friday, October 17, 2008

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    proggy after discussion with satellite came to understand consciousness as action, as verb
(11:44 PM) Thusness:    language brought about the delusion that there is a subject and object division.
(11:45 PM) Thusness:    actually it is not just language, attachment.
(11:46 PM) Thusness:    proggy must later move from 5 aggregates to 18 dhatus, eliminating the mental formation.
(11:47 PM) Thusness:    then she will find delight in DO.

(10:01 PM) Thusness:    actually Proggy wrote very well the post.
(10:01 PM) Thusness:    is there a subject
(10:01 PM) Thusness:    it is just that one experience.
(10:01 PM) Thusness:    however there are few more important points to take note after initial insight.
(10:03 PM) Thusness:    she seems to stop writing liao

(10:06 PM) Thusness:    Actually if u understood what Satellite and Phroggy meant, u will realise that John Myrdhin, isn't there yet.
(10:07 PM) Thusness:    If there is just one Happening where subject and object are merely assumed, how can there be manifestation of the mind.
(10:07 PM) Thusness:    There is just manifestation or just experience or just mind. (Also see: Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan)
(10:08 PM) Thusness:    No more confusion with 'forms' and 'formlessness'
(10:09 PM) Thusness:    It was only when a practitioner is still assuming that there is a subject and object that such distinction exist.
(10:10 PM) Thusness:    otherwise it is just one expression, one body, one reality.
(10:10 PM) Thusness:    one happening...nothing else...
(10:11 PM) Thusness:    yet after this experience due to the 'tendency to divide', there will definitely be a period of desync.  If a practitioner cannot pass the test, his experience will not be stabilized and liberation will not be experienced.
(11:00 PM) Thusness:    By the way it is because we are unable to see with complete clarity that appearance is awareness that 'practice' is necessary.
(11:02 PM) Thusness:    Otherwise 'practice' is just every moment of experience
Labels: | edit post
0 Responses