Thusness Stage 2 vs Stage 4?

 

    Aditya Prasad shared a link.

    oopSd696h7i9a20hi3t688gtmg06 
    I'm having some difficulty distinguishing stages 2 and 4 (conceptually). I've already bothered Soh enough, so I want to put this question to the wider group.
    "Stage 4 tends to end up in the case of dissolving separateness into the pole of an ultimate pure subjectivity"
    But then:
    "stage 4 is on object...only on the object"
    "stage 2 is object merge into subject"
    These pages sound contradictory. Is anyone here able to explain the differences between stages 2 and 4 in a very simple manner?
    awakeningtoreality.com
    Difference Between Thusness Stage 1 and 2 and other Stages

    24 Comments


    • Aditya Prasad
    Author
    I'll take a stab, and people can correct me.
    Stage 2: Subject and object are still viewed as distinct, and objects are seen to be an emanation / manifestation of the subject.
    Stage 4: They are seen to be primordially nondual, but there's still a sense of substantiality to the subjectivity.
    But it seems like in both cases objects "merge into" or "dissolve into" subjectivity?


    • Tyler Jones
    The way I conceive of it is that stages 2 and 3 reflect stages 4 and 5, respectively, but only within mental consciousness, not within the sense consciousnesses directly. So in stage 2, consciousness pervades and is inseparable from all perceptual events, but perceptual events being a layer of conceptuality, the third skandha. The conceptualizing tendency is expressed as "I am everything." Whereas in stage 4 it is truly "in the seeing, just the seen, in the hearing just the heard" - direct, immediate, non-dual, non-conceptual mode of perception (though still a subtle reification of a background).


    • André A. Pais
    Admin
    That's why I always go for the simplified 4-stage model (I Am, One Mind, Anatta, Shunyata).


    Aditya Prasad
    Author
    André A. Pais Yeah, seems much simpler. One thing I haven't understood there: if the substantiality of awareness / luminosity is gone by anatta, then what is still not seen as empty?
    Or maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. The "substantiality" that is gone in anatta is the sense of subjectivity as a pre-existent thing. But _while_ the luminosity is manifesting, I suppose it might still be seen as "real."
    Is it laid out clearly anywhere on the blog or in the book that you know of?


    Aditya Prasad
    Author
    I suppose I should have another go at reading carefully myself before making you do my homework for me...


    • Yin Ling
    Admin
    Aditya Prasad I think u got it right Aditya.
    If the practitioner after realising anatta understood also the emptiness of phenomena, the work is quite done. Some might realise this way due to the way they learn and practise, they might practise on emptiness of phenomena first so when they realise anatta they realise everything is empty as well
    Ur second paragraph describe my experience though becusse I didn’t have direct experience of emptiness when anatta comes, so sensations was solid to me.
    It’s like how sometimes theravada teaching still solidify the 5 aggregates despite seeing the emptiness of self. They take the 5 as “real”


    • Aditya Prasad
    Author
    Yin Ling Thanks, this is helpful! Yes, that is how I had always understood the Theravada teaching when younger, and why it didn't appeal to me. Even in I AM there can be some insight into the emptiness of phenomena, and so such a teaching does not seem attractive.


    • Yin Ling
    Admin
    Aditya Prasad yeah i understand what u mean.
    Even at anatta I already intuited that phenomena is a blend of mental + physical because of the awareness merging with object .. but when I go back to the theravada sutta their teachings doesn’t have much on that, as in they didn’t teach u how to see the 5 aggregates at this point.
    Yes it is not self; but what is the nature? Physical? Mental? What?
    That wasn’t clear in theravada (maybe I’m not fluent) but the Mahayana vajrayana are very strong at these hence I became inclined to another sect


    • André A. Pais
    Admin
    Reading what, the 13 hundred pages of the guide, or the 8 hundred pages of the journal...? 😅


    • André A. Pais
    Admin
    I'll try to say something tomorrow.


    Sudden Awakenings
    André A. Pais yes, please! I’d like to hear more about this 4-stage model.













    • Tyler Jones
    Aditya, you ask, " if the substantiality of awareness / luminosity is gone by anatta, then what is still not seen as empty?" The answer I've gleaned from reading John and Soh's writings is...all the rest of the pre-verbal conceptual categories that organize our experience. Externality, arising and ceasing, cause and effect, movement, parts and wholes. These are the things that are deconstructed piece by piece with MMK reasoning. Some of these might have seemed to have ceased with non-dual realization, and yet somehow there is still some remnant that isn't seen clearly until subjectivity drops.


    Aditya Prasad
    Author
    Tyler Jones "Until subjectivity drops" = anatta, right? Seems like some of them only drop after anatta. Maybe which ones drop when depends on the practitioner. For example, emptiness of time is sometimes used to guide one to anatta, but perhaps sometimes time isn't seen as empty until afterward.


    • Tyler Jones
    Right, subjectivity drops = substantiality drops = anatta. The really weird case in point is externality - it is often said that the difference between anatta and emptiness is whether external objects are taken is real. But would seem that externality drops at non-dual, by definition, right? Yet this is because they are subsuming everything into Mind. When this Mind itself drops, some vestige of externality can re-emerge, people say reality turns "physical". Deconstructing this gives vestige of physicality is then emptiness. Not sure about other things like time. For instance, in Greg Goode's Direct Path book, deconstructing arising is what triggers non-dual. I'm not sure if there is a further deconstruction of arising that would have to happen post anatta if one proceeded like this.


    Aditya Prasad
    Author
    Tyler Jones Thanks! I've heard that the distinction between anatta (as understood in Theravada) and emptiness (in Mahayana) is precisely that: emptiness of phenomena. I had always thought that was because anatta (in Theravada) didn't include "I AM" -- in which it is already obvious that consciousness cannot be caused by physicality. To then head that there are people who have realized anatta (as defined in AtR) yet still believe this is strange to me. But I guess there really are a lot of nuances, and they will differ based on our propensities!







    • Yin Ling
    Admin
    Stage 2 is dual. There is the I. But u become big. I am everything , but the I stand apart and watch
    stage 4 is non dual. This big I is gone and go into all sensations, separately yet everywhere.
    Not a one big I as awareness anymore like 2. The self is dropped.
    For me the experience is night and day. Stage 4 u can’t really find yourself anymore, just sensations and more sensations which is self-aware
    That’s my interpretation of the phases haha wonder if u could relate?


    Tyler Jones
    How, then, would you describe the difference between stage 4 and 5?


    Yin Ling
    Admin
    Tyler Jones stage 4 is when the awareness falls out from the head to merge with sensation “over there”.
    There’s a sense of “merging”.. a line between awareness and sensation like A+B
    At 5, imo, the insight of anatta will inform that there’s no merging needed.
    In the seen only the seen. The awareness and sensation is just a whole manifestation, just this whole “X” if you may haha.
    So the effort to merge is drop and perception becomes effortless
    That’s imo how I intuit
    Original person Soh Wei Yu need to attest lol


    • Aditya Prasad
    Author
    Yin Ling From the second post I linked:
    (11:51 PM) Thusness: Stage 2 is there is merging
    (11:51 PM) Thusness: As if I dissolved and merge..
    (11:52 PM) Thusness: There r two, dual
    (11:52 PM) Thusness: Non-dual is there never was a separation
    So I think maybe in non-dual (stage 4) already there is no more "merging." But I don't really know, of course.


    • Yin Ling
    Admin
    Aditya Prasad oh then I don’t know already hahahaa


    • Yin Ling
    Admin
    Aditya Prasad message John tan 😛it’s his phases of insight 😛


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    If there is merging, it is more like candle flame example:
    4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta
    I have just casually gone through some of your forum discussions. Very enlightening discussions and well presentation of my 7-phases-of-insights but try not to over-emphasize it as a model; it should not be taken as a definite model of enlightenment nor should you use it as a framework to validate others' experiences and insights. Simply take it as a guide along your spiritual journey.
    You are right to differentiate non-dual experience from non-dual realization and non-dual realization from the insight of anatta. We have discussed this umpteem times. Non-dual experience in the context we are using refers to the experience of no-subject-object division. The experience is much like putting two candle flames together where the boundary between the flames becomes indistinguishable. It is not a realization but simply a stage, an experience of unity between the observer and the observed where the conceptual layer that divides is temporarily suspended in a meditative state. This you have experienced.
    Non-dual realization on the other hand is a deep understanding that comes from seeing through the illusionary nature of subject-object division. It is a natural non-dual state that resulted from an insight that arises after rigorous investigation, challenge and a prolonged period of practice that is specially focused on ‘No-Self’. Somehow focusing on “No-Self” will spark a sense of sacredness towards the transient and fleeting phenomena. The sense of sacredness that is once the monopoly of the Absolute is now also found in the Relative. The term ‘No-Self’ like Zen-Koan may appear cryptic, senseless or illogical but when realized, it is actually obviously clear, direct and simple. The realization is accompanied with the experience that everything is being dissolved into either:
    1. An ultimate Subject or
    2. As mere ‘flow of phenomenality’
    In whatever the case, both spells the end of separateness; experientially there is no sense of two-ness and the experience of unity can be quite overwhelming initially but eventually it will lose its grandeur and things turn quite ordinary. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the sense of Oneness is derived from the experience of ‘All as Self’ or ‘as simply just manifestation’, it is the beginning insight of “No-Self”. The former is known as One-Mind and the later, No-Mind.
    In Case 1 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization, understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of ‘No-Self based on Self’.
    For Case 2 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed.
    To mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
    Therefore this phase of insight is not about singing eloquently the non-dual nature of an Ultimate Reality; contrary it is deeming this Ultimate Reality as irrelevant. Ultimate Reality appears relevant only to a mind that is bond to seeing things inherently, once this tendency dissolves, the idea of a source will be seen as flawed and erroneous. Therefore to fully experience the breadth and depth of no-self, practitioners must be prepared and willing to give up the entire subject-object framework and be open to eliminate the entire idea of a ‘source’. Rob expressed very skillfully this point in his talk:
    One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
    This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.
    What then is the view that Buddhism is talking about without resorting to a ‘source’? I think the post by Vajrahridaya in the thread ‘What makes Buddhism different’ of your forum succinctly and concisely expressed the view, it is well written. That said, do remember to infinitely regress back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form. 🙂
    Labels: Anatta, I AMness, John Tan, Non-dual, Stages of Enlightenment |
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 6h

    • [4:14 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: Stage 2 is different.  U should not assumed from a non-dual or anatta perspective in stage 2.  In order words, the idea of "de-construction" is not present at that point in time.

    U din actually go through that also.  I told u not to extrapolate.  For stage 2, it is very focus on the "I M".  The "mind" has a non-dual experience but it couldn't understand it.  So the mind projects the very  "I" in me is the very "I" in you;  Is the "I M" in yin ling; is the "I M" of my dog, the "I M" in the fish swimming.
    [4:17 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: Then we project a even bigger "I" being multiplied as "I M" in all these individual "I M" and equate that with "God".
    [4:18 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: There is no de-construction of mental constructs, opposite in fact.  An infinite multiplication of that "I".

  • Reply
  • 5h
Labels: , , | edit post
0 Responses
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)