Robert Dominik Tkanka since André A. Pais mentioned about fire, let's take "fire" as an example,
When we look at "fire", there is a vision of a yellow, orange color image --> vision consciousness;
When we touch the "fire", there is a hot sensation --> sensation consciousness;
From these 2 different streams of consciousness, an imputing-consciousness abstracts and reifies a "fire" entity where there is none. Out of nowhere, an objective, independent "fire" is being created.
We then characterized this "heat sensation" by ascribing it to "fire" and made "fire" a bearer of characteristic and "heat" becomes it's essential nature where it has an inherent power to cause something to burn (essential causality).
But there is "no fire" as an entity that has the essential power to cause anything to burn; there is no self existing "heat" either; "fire" is a dependent arising; "heat" is a "dependent arising"; so:
1. What is dependent arising and
2. What is dependently originating?
Now in this example, what is involved in "ignorance" in relation to seeing self-nature:
1. an extra reified entity is created;
2. consciousness is being forgotten and excluded from the equation of understanding "reality" which is most crucial.
3. dependent arising is not seen, instead it is replaced by essential causality;
Anatta insight sees through 1, authenticated 2 but 3 is not seen (imo) but we jumped straight into freedom from all elaborations.
It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with the world also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.
Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;
Is the "scenery" out there?
Feel the "hardness" of the floor;
Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?
If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, are is "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".
It is not even in the "mind" for u can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?
If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?
So, to me, buddhism is not about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but also points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.
It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with "the world" also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.
Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;
Is the "scenery" out there?
Feel the "hardness" of the floor;
Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?
If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, is it "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".
Then we say "no", it is in the "mind". So now what that is believed to be "external" in the past is being "internalized" in a "mind".
How can "hardness" which is no where to be found be in "mind"?
Furthermore, we can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?
If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?
So, to me, buddhism is not only about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but more importantly points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.
Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness
Taken from a facebook group dharma connection.
In ignorance, there is hearer hearing sound.
In anatta, in hearing, only sound.
Yet sound has no true inherent nature (empty),
It is an activity and is that very activity called “hearing”.
Both “hearing and sound” are pointing to the same activity.
Only when seen to have true existence on either side does confusion arise.
In Madhyamaka Emptiness, reification is seen through.
Yet the experiential state of freedom from reification is not expounded.
However one can have a taste of that freedom from arising insight of anatta since anatta is precisely the freedom from reification of Self/self (First fold Emptiness).
In anatta, seeing is simply the full scenery, in hearing only sound…
thus, always only lights, shape, colors, sounds, scents… in clean purity.
Emptying the object further (second fold) is merely dissolving subtle bond of “externality” that creates the appearance of true existence of objects outside. When “externality” is deconstructed, it is effectively a double confirmation of anatta…
…innerly coreless and outwardly empty, all appearances are still simply sound, lights, colors and rays
In thorough deconstruction, as there is no layer that reifies, there is no conceptuality. Therefore no complication, no confusion, no stains, no boundaries, no center, no sense of dual..
no sense of activity…just self arising.
All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity.
Whatever appears is
neither here nor now,
Neither in nor out,
Neither arises nor ceases,
In the same space…
non-local, timeless and dimensionless
The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water…
is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You” and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and fully itself.
Lastly, it is interesting to get know something about Dzogchen however the jargons and tenets are far beyond me.
Just wrote due to a sudden spurt of interest, nothing intense.
Thanks for all the sharing and exchanges.
Daniel M. Ingram wrote in http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4179363
It is interesting that in another thread the was the assertion that MCTB whatever was about the first meaning of emptiness, rather than what your quote defines as both.
Just to be clear:
When I mean empty, I also mean without boundary, without inside and outside
I also mean the direct immediate experience in its unprocessed or raw form. I also mean the total dissolution of the sense of a perceiver.
I also mean no active agent.
I also mean that nothing is stable, including space and time.
I also mean that all is bare, shifting, empty sensate experience, causal, happening according to the basic laws of the universe, naturally, on its own.
I also would say that there is no boundary or differentiation between the sense doors at they occur, nor between body and mind, nor between manifestation and awareness, nor between this and that, beyond those ordinarily used for communication and discriminating function, but these are not the essential nature of experience, just part of it as sensations when they occur.
Nor can one find any here that is stable, nor a now that is stable, nor a knower, nor an investigator, nor any practitioner, nor any attainer.
When I talk of an integrated transient, natural, causal, luminous experience field, this sounds to me exactly like your "All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity."
I see no obvious difference either in theory or in actual practice.
Thusness's comments to AEN:
Those were just some very casual sharing written on the spur of a moment, they were not well thought. Emptiness to me has another dimension if you wish to look into it.
When there is not even a single trace of Self/self nor is there any sense of inner/outer division, experiencer and what experienced collapsed...
At this moment there is just this vivid beautiful scenery, this bright brilliant world…all self arises
At this point…
Close your eyes....
Relax and rest in this all-consuming awaring void, this clear non-dual Awareness standing alone as itself and of itself…
Then shift the focus to the breath…
Just the sensations of the breath…
Then the transparent dancing sensations…absolutely no mind, no body, no experiencer/experienced, no inner/outer division… borderless and boundless
Every moment is great and miraculous…
This must become natural to you first.
Then at this moment of appreciating maha suchness of the breath, the sensations, the entire scenery, the entire world…
Understand that they are Empty!
Experience the magnificence then deeply understand that they are empty but this Emptiness has nothing to do with deconstruction nor reification nor do I mean they are simply impermanent. So what is this Emptiness I am referring to?
On another occasion Thusness wrote:
Intelligent Knowingness as permanent… continuous… so many projections into time… so involved in mind conceptualities… Deconstruct seer, what happens is just this spontaneously manifested scenery
Deconstruct body further, you have mind-body drop
Deconstruct time, there will only be this clear vivid presence of immediacy
After arising insight of anatta, there is only “directness” and simplicity... go beyond conventions and conceptuality and recognize this immediate radiance is exactly what is appearing in this instantaneous moment...
If you are in need of a view for practice, then embrace the general principle of Dependent Origination that doesn’t entertain who-when-where construct, it will help sever dualistic and inherent propensities. Otherwise you will have to go back to the koan I asked you when I first met you in IRC… this moment ceases as it arises, is this moment arising or ceasing? If you are clear, then further penetrate this total exertion of immediacy and realize that though there is vivid appearances, there is nothing here… nothing now… you will never find it!
Labels: Anatta, Daniel Ingram, Emptiness, John Tan, Theravada |
The weight of thoughts -- Part 1
When contemplating, do not just let our contemplation remain as a mental reasoning exercise. For example:
What appears is neither "internal" nor "external". For the notion of "internality" is dependent on the notion of "externality", without either, the sense of neither can arise. Therefore both notions r merely conventional, they originates dependently.
Do not just let our contemplation remain at this level. If we do that, at most the freedom will simply remain at the mental level -- merely a pellucid, pure and clean state. It is no different from practicing raw attention although insight on how conceptualities proliferate the mind may arise.
But go further to relate directly to our sensations, thoughts, smells, colors, tastes, sounds and ask:
"What do we mean by thoughts are neither inside nor outside our head?"
Seeing through this will be much more penetrating. It will bring a deep sense of illusoriness and mystical awe as a real-time lived-experience.
The weight of thoughts -- Part 2
How heavy are thoughts?
Where are their roots?
It is not uncommon to hear in the spiritual circle phrases like "the 'I' is just a thought" or "thought is empty and spacious, there is no weight or root to it".
While the rootlessness and the space-like nature of "thoughts" should be pointed out, one must not be misled into thinking they have seen through "anything" much less up-rooted the deeply seated conceptual notions of "I/mine", "body/mind", "space/time"...etc.
So emphasis must also be placed on the other side of the coin. "Thoughts" are astonishingly heavy like a black-hole (size of a pinhole, weight of a star); the roots of conceptual notions" they carry permeate our entire being and everywhere.
The "roots" of thoughts are no where to be found also means they can be found anywhere and everywhere, spreaded across the 3 times and 10 directions -- in modern context, over different time-lines across the multiverse. In other words, "this arises, that arises".
In anatta, we see through self as a mental construct and one is set on a de-constructive journey to free oneself from all mental constructs, from self to all phenomena and the relationships among them.
However when we see dependent arising, nothing is eliminated.
Conceptualization remains, parts remain, cause-effect remains, self remains, others remains...Everything remains, only the mistaken view of "essence" is relinquished.
Instead of seeing them to exist essentially, it is now understood that they originates dependently and whatever originates in dependence is free from the four pairs of extremes (aka 8 negations of Nagarjuna).
Without understanding dependent arising and emptiness, spontaneous perfection free from all elaborations will be distorted.
Robert Dominik Tkanka since André A. Pais mentioned about fire, let's take "fire" as an example,
Posted by8 days ago
How to properly do self inquiry?
When doing self inquiry, I state phrases like "I AM", "Who am I?", "What is the nature of reality?", "Who is it that hears that noise?" but either nothing resonates in my mind or I end up consciously responding with things like "I am awareness/consciousness" thinking that's how you do self inquiry but I am really lost. Does anyone practice self inquiry and does it effectively? I know this is nonduality but please don't give me "there is no right or wrong way to do it" as I'm just looking to bettering my technique.
You’re doing self enquiry the wrong way. Self enquiry is not asking and answering mentally. It is turning the light around so that you can discover what your Source/Beingness/Awareness is.
Shared this before:
For example when you ask Who am I? It is not meant to elicit a verbal response. It is not even about a verbal asking, but more of an experiential investigation and finding out of what you true beingness is. The answer lies in the utter doubtless conviction and certainty of non-conceptual Beingness/Presence-Awareness. I wrote this for someone having difficulty with the koan "Before birth, who am I?""You said before birth who am I leads to conceptuality for you. I told you that you should change your koan to “before thinking, what am I?”There is a similar koan in the past 元音老人从前有一位师父参“如何是父母未生前本来面目？”参了多年，未能开悟。后来碰到一位大德，请他慈悲指示个方便。大德问：“你参什么话头？”他答道：“我参如何是我父母未生前的本来面目？”大德道：“你参得太远了，应向近处看。”他问：“怎么向近处看？”大德道：“不要看父母未生前，须看一念未生以前是什么？”禅者言下大悟。大家坐在这里，请看这一念未生前是什么？它在各人面门放光，朗照一切而毫无粘着，无知无见而又非同木石，这是什么？就在这里猛着精彩，就是悟道。所以说“至道无难，言端语端”啊！ Soh's translation: Yuan Yin Lao Ren: In the past there was a Master who contemplated, "what is the original face before my parents were born?" He contemplated for many years, but did not awaken. Later on he encountered a great noble person and requested for his compassionate guidance. The noble one asked: "What koan did you contemplate?" He replied: "I contemplated what is the original face before my parents were born?" Noble one replied: "You contemplated too far away, should look nearby." He asked: "How should I look nearby?" Noble one replied: "Don't look into what is before your parents were born, need to look at: before a thought arise, what is it?" The Zen practitioner immediately attained great awakening. Everyone that is sitting here, please look at what is this before a moment of thought's arising? IT is radiating light in front of everybody's [sense] doors, the brightness radiates everything yet is without the slightest clinging, nothing is known and nothing is seen yet it is not similar to wood and stones, what is This? IT is right here shining in its brilliancy, this is awakening to the Way. Therefore it is said, "the great way is not difficult, just cease speech and words"!
More in follow up comment
5. Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 6: if or as soon as anything other than ourself appears in our awareness, we should simply turn our attention back towards ourself, the one to whom all other things (all thoughts, forms or phenomena) appear
Regarding your statement, ‘I keep doing the enquiry “to whom these thoughts arise?”, “to me”, “who am I?” but I don’t know what I should do more’, these words, ‘to whom does this appear?’, ‘to me’, ‘who am I?’, are a very useful pointer given by Bhagavan, but we should understand clearly what he meant by this pointer. He did not mean that we should repeat these words to ourself whenever anything appears, but that we should simply turn our attention back to ourself, the one to whom all other things (all thoughts, forms or phenomena) appear. That is, he did not say ‘ask to whom’ or ‘ask who am I’ but ‘investigate to whom’ and ‘investigate who am I’, as he wrote in the following portion of the sixth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தா லவற்றைப் பூர்த்தி பண்ணுவதற்கு எத்தனியாமல் அவை யாருக் குண்டாயின என்று விசாரிக்க வேண்டும். எத்தனை எண்ணங்க ளெழினு மென்ன? ஜாக்கிரதையாய் ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே இது யாருக்குண்டாயிற்று என்று விசாரித்தால் எனக்கென்று தோன்றும். நானார் என்று விசாரித்தால் மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்; எழுந்த வெண்ணமு மடங்கிவிடும். இப்படிப் பழகப் பழக மனத்திற்குத் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி யதிகரிக்கின்றது.
piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl avaṯṟai-p pūrtti paṇṇuvadaṟku ettaṉiyāmal avai yārukku uṇḍāyiṉa eṉḏṟu vicārikka vēṇḍum. ettaṉai eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙiṉum eṉṉa? jāggirataiyāy ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē idu yārukku uṇḍāyiṯṟu eṉḏṟu vicārittāl eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum. nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṟku-t tirumbi-viḍum; eṙunda v-eṇṇamum aḍaṅgi-viḍum. ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṟku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṟgum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu.
If other thoughts rise, without trying to complete them it is necessary to investigate to whom they have occurred. However many thoughts rise, what [does it matter]? Vigilantly, as soon as each thought appears, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me. If one investigates who am I [by vigilantly attending to oneself, the ‘me’ to whom everything else appears], the mind will return to its birthplace [namely oneself, the source from which it arose]; [and since one thereby refrains from attending to it] the thought that had risen will also cease. When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases.
The verb he used here that I have translated as ‘investigate’ is விசாரி (vicāri), which in some contexts can mean enquire in the sense of ask, but in this context means enquire only in the sense of investigate. Asking questions is a mental activity, because it entails directing our attention away from ourself towards a question, which is a thought and hence other than ourself, so as long as we are asking questions we are still floating on the surface of the mind by attending to things other than ourself, whereas investigating ourself means being keenly self-attentive, which causes the mind to sink deep within and thereby return to its ‘birthplace’, the source from which it had risen, namely our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is our fundamental and ever-shining awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’.
Continue reading in follow up post:
Therefore what Bhagavan is pointing out in this passage is the direction in which we should send our attention. Instead of allowing our attention to go out following whatever thoughts may arise, we should turn it back towards ourself, the one to whom all thoughts appear. ‘To whom?’ is not intended to be a question that we should ask ourself but is a very powerful pointer indicating where we should direct our attention. Asking the question ‘to whom?’ may sometimes be an aid if it helps to remind us to turn our attention back towards ourself, but self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is not merely asking such questions but only fixing our attention on ourself alone.
Another point worth noting here is that what Bhagavan means by ‘thought’ is anything other than our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so it includes all perceptions, memories, feelings, ideas and other mental impressions of any kind whatsoever. As he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’, so when he says here ‘பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தால்’ (piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl), ‘If other thoughts rise’, or ‘ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே’ (ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē), ‘As soon as each thought appears’, he means that if or as soon as anything other than ourself appears in our awareness, we should turn our attention back towards ourself, the one to whom all such things appear.
6. If we are vigilantly self-attentive, as we should try to be, we will thereby ward off both thoughts and sleep, but when we are tired we are naturally less vigilant, so we may then fall asleep as a result of our trying to be self-attentive
You ask, ‘Should I keep doing Self-Enquiry all day for hours in seated position? Should I continue the enquiry in bed as well before sleep? Or should I stop the enquiry from time to time to give some rest to the body?’ Firstly, self-investigation has nothing to do with the body, so we can practise it whether the body is lying, sitting, standing, walking or doing anything else. For the same reason, we do not have to stop being self-attentive in order to give some rest to the body, because being self-attentive cannot strain the body in any way. In fact, when the body and mind are resting is a very favourable condition for us to be self-attentive.
Regarding your question about continuing the practice in bed before sleep, that is also good, but since we are generally very tired at that time, we usually subside into sleep soon after trying to be self-attentive. There is no harm in that, because when we need to sleep we should sleep. There is no time and no circumstance that is not suitable for us to be self-attentive, so we should try to be self-attentive as much as possible whatever the time or circumstances may be, but we should not try to deprive ourself of however much sleep we may need.
If we are vigilantly self-attentive, as we should try to be, we will thereby ward off both thoughts and sleep, but when we are tired we are naturally less vigilant, so we may then fall asleep as a result of our trying to be self-attentive. As Sadhu Om often used to say, when we are sleepy we should sleep, because when we wake up again we will be fresh, and we should then make use of that freshness by trying to be vigilantly self-attentive.
I do not know whether anything I have written here is of any use to you, but I hope some of it at least may help to point you in the right direction.
Continue reading in follow up post
7. What the word ‘I’ essentially refers to is only what is aware, so if we are just being aware of what is aware, we are thereby meditating on ‘I’
In reply to my first reply (which I adapted as the previous six sections) my friend wrote again about how he was trying to practise self-enquiry and the problems he was facing, in reply to which I wrote:
When you say ‘The practice of Self-Enquiry, especially in seated position (just being aware of awareness itself, not meditating in any object or form etc, simply just being, not even “I” in the “I am”) boosted my kundalini’, it is not clear to me what you are actually practising, because you say you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’ but then seem to say that you are not meditating even on ‘I’. Meditating on ‘I’ means attending only to yourself, or in other words, just being self-attentive, so if you are not meditating on ‘I’, what do you mean by saying that you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’?
In this context ‘awareness’ means what is aware, and what is aware is always aware of itself as ‘I’, so what the word ‘I’ essentially refers to is only what is aware. Therefore if you are not meditating on ‘I’, what is the ‘awareness’ that you are being aware of? Unfortunately ‘awareness’ is a potentially ambiguous term, because it could be taken to mean awareness in the sense of awareness of objects or phenomena, so when you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’, are you just being aware of what is aware, namely yourself, or are you being aware of your awareness of objects or phenomena?
If you are being aware only of what is aware, namely yourself, then you are meditating on ‘I’. That is, what you are meditating on is not the word ‘I’, but what the word ‘I’ refers to, namely yourself, who are what is aware. If you are not meditating on what the word ‘I’ refers to, then whatever ‘awareness’ you are being aware of is something other than what is aware.
This is why Bhagavan gave us the powerful pointer ‘to whom’, about which I wrote in my previous reply. If we understand this pointer correctly, it is directing our attention back towards ourself, the one to whom all other things appear. In other words, it is pointing our attention back to what is aware, away from whatever we were hitherto aware of.
If you are aware of any phenomenon, such as the boosting of your kuṇḍalinī, your attention has been diverted away from yourself, so you need to turn it back to yourself, the one to whom all phenomena appear. If you turn your attention back to yourself and hold firmly to yourself (that is, if you just remain firmly self-attentive), whatever phenomena may have appeared will thereby disappear, because no phenomenon can appear or remain in your awareness unless you attend to it at least to a certain extent.
8. No matter what may distract us or seem a problem to us, let us not be concerned about them but just patiently and persistently continue trying to be self-attentive, unmindful of everything else
Regarding the boosting of your kuṇḍalinī you say, ‘By boosting I mean that I feel an energy in the spine passing through the chakras’, but the energy, the spine, the cakras and the energy’s movement are all objects or phenomena, so you should ignore all such things by trying to be keenly self-attentive. However much such things appear, they need not concern you. To whom do they appear? Only to you, so you should just persevere in trying to attend only to yourself.
Whatever may appear or disappear is other than ourself, so it should not interest or concern us. Such things distract us and become a problem for us only to the extent that we take interest in them or are concerned about them. Why should we be concerned about them? Our only concern should be to investigate and know what we ourself are. If we are not interested in or concerned about anything else, we will not attend to them, and hence they will not be a problem.
If we find ourself being concerned about such things and therefore distracted by them, that is due to the strength of our viṣaya-vāsanās, and the most effective means to weaken our viṣaya-vāsanās and thereby wean our mind off its interest in all other things is just to persevere in this simple practice of being self-attentive. Therefore, no matter what may distract us or seem a problem to us, let us not be concerned about them but just patiently and persistently continue trying to be self-attentive, unmindful of everything else. https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/05/can-self-investigation-boost-mind-or.html
Be aware of the felt sense "I am", the wordless felt sense of your awareness, your existence. It has been called the "thoughtless thought".
Emptiness of Self-Sufficient Substantially Existent Person vs Emptiness of Inherent Existence of Persons, Bhumis
- Sharing these teachings, probably the most important teaching I have come across to further clear my cognitive obscurations after no-self insight. Here is the words of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, similarly John Tan has repeatedly asked me to contemplate and penetrate similar insights.Hhdl opines that negating self-sufficient existent person alone will not lead to liberation, which imo is the level of “self”negated in the Pali tradition. we need more than that. We need the help of Nargajuna and his MMK to help us understand what is inherent existence and then refute that.Imo the insights are different as night and day.He also goes on to say pure ground bodhisattvas and arhats still have view of inherent existence in their consciousnesses, unlike Arya’s meditative equipoise.Shocking? Yes but he is pushing us to realise a very deep level of insight in his modern book meant for public.I don’t know about you, but I have not come across anymore clearer teaching than this. Homage to hhdl who thinks we are capable enough to attain such deep insights needed for liberation.[see scanned pictures in https://www.facebook.com/yin.l.chok/posts/pfbid031tKro4P67rAa4NS1qJiZuec2Et9D5f1sN3Q6gWDL2FHZRsAccUyE7XpbuQGDSqogl?__cft__=AZVdQswNbBmrPC_kaKld6yBJPN06hM0Ft-bhruDjP1fLAWDt5NjAJIjGxZnuG98L8UmO1R2RXDFqgrPzUCOeVtPBkXfi7F7ZWrkbKSeoSHLbweS50W6F6GlTg79bDpOJcJY&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R ]
27 commentsJohn TanAlso Yin LingIn anatta, we see through self as a mental construct and one is set on a de-constructive journey to free oneself from all mental constructs, from self to all phenomena and the relationships among them.Conceptualization remains, parts remain, cause-effect remains, self remains, others remains...Everything remains, only the mistaken view of "essence" is relinquished.Instead of seeing them to exist essentially, it is now understood that they originate dependently and whatever originates in dependence is free from the four pairs of extremes (aka 8 negations of Nagarjuna).Without understanding dependent arising and emptiness, spontaneous perfection free from all elaborations will be distorted.Yin LingThank you. Yes if the essence is left un-refuted, it is almost impossible to see Nagarjuna 8 negations. How it is possible I do not know.HHDL pushes this liberating view across very strongly.
- See translation
Ling Yin Thank you for sharing. What book are those ecerpts from? The below has been pivotal in my daily practice:
"As long as one grasps the aggregates, one will also grasp the I with regard to them."
André A. Pais
According to Gelug, insight into emptiness is required to attain liberation, even the liberation of an Arhat. Curiously, they seem to say that insight to emptiness requires the Prasangika view. That would seemingly mean that, in the same breath, one would claim shravakas to have the Prasangika view but svatantrikas don't - and thus the shravakayana being more profound than Svatantrika Madhyamaka.
André A. Pais from this book, hhdl doesn’t think that shravakas share the same view as prasangika because for them dependent arising is used to proof true existence rather than emptiness, hence they r unable to sync dependent origination and emptiness. They still have Inherency in their views.
That is why I’m sometimes confused. Because if one map arhat to 8th ground bodhisattva- I remember hhdl did some where, if they don’t share the same insight ..
R we saying different insight of “no Inherency” or “no self” can also liberate?
Or r we saying once or non returners learn from sambhogokaya like sariputra learn from Avalokitesvara or .. lol.
Need to ask HHDL himself LOL
André A. Pais
I would say that bodhisattvas on the pure levels have the appearance of inherent existence, but not the view. They don't believe in inherent existence anymore (not since they've seen the nature of reality on the 1st bhumi), but due to karmic imprints things still appear as inherently existing, although immediately understood as otherwise.
André A. Pais "bodhisattvas on the pure levels" means? I m not sure about bodhisattvas but as a practitioner, I do think and believe it is possible "things" do not appear inherently existing anymore in normal waking state or at least boundaries and substantiality r relinquished to a great extend but may not be deep enough into the dream or bardo states.
André A. Pais
I mean what I think Yin Ling means when she talks about pure ground bodhisattvas - beings on the 8th to 10th bhumis. I think it means there are no more emotional obscurations, but there are still cognitive obscurations.
John Tan It seems to me that what you guys usually miss and have trouble relating your maps and experiences to the traditional depiction of bhumi and so on is that from the point of view of the five paths of mahayana, your experience might be still just a conceptual imitation of the direct realization of emptiness from the path of seeing. If we read the model honestly, it usually describes several stages of conceptual approximation, which can be classified as samadhi anyway. For example, our mutual Western lama friend and Dzogchen teacher between the lines also blurted out from his own experience of decades of practice that the samadhi that comes from penetrating the non-arising of everything, once it actually manifests, never leaves the practitioner again, though you can just get distracted from it. It does not, however, equate what appears to be "realization" in your maps with realization in the sense of the first bhumi. If an honest man sits down to these distinctions and gives them a chance, it is easy to understand that the realization of both the non-arising of persons and things is not a Mahayana binary. For example, depending on the subtlety of the mind available to a given practitioner (i.e. the purity of his nervous system / subtle body), the imitation of direct realization of voidness is described with examples that first it is like a painting of the moon, then its reflection on the surface of the lake, and only then the actual moon . In each of these stages, this 'realisation' or imitation of it may seem quite stable and is more than a mere anemic intellectual sequence of affirming or denying things.
Piotr Ludwiński yes and well said. I don't map phases of insights to bhumi at all and I never answer any questions with regards to bhumi stages nor the traditional 4 stages of enlightenment Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, and Arahant. I don't even know how a narration and casual sharing to a friend 2 decades ago can unfold and end up in such a silly dogmatic and rigid way tbh.
To me sincerity in practice is all that is needed and rest is really irrelevant.
Being also someone largely inspired by the content from the blog etc. and someone who de facto started his adventure with Buddhism from "7 stages", I would advise people from this environment to give a chance and consider the above aspect. It is possible that this will solve the constant problem of people relying on the map from the blog why in terms of behavior, quality of mind, siddhis, etc., their experiences, however authentic they may be, never seem to match the maps used by teachers like Garchen Rinpoche, HH Dalai Lama, etc.
Moreover, an honest study of these maps shows that persons like HH Dalai Lama, when they claim that they are not on the path of seeing, i.e. do not have completely pure and direct realization of voidness, are not showing off false modesty in front of the crowd, but simply in the original context of Vajrayana. practitioners on the first bhumi and above are commonly referred to as mahasiddhas.
A simple example to convince yourself of the non-binary nature of advancing insight into emptiness. For example, let's take a Soh for whom things seem to be stably quite unreal interdependent origination.
If, for the purposes of this argument, we hypothetically send him on a months or even years of retreat where they focused on subtle body practice, with him refreshing his vipassana and shamatha, and without any psychological distraction from entering into family, work and any other roles in responding to the necessities of the lay person's daily life, it is quite likely that a new article would be posted on the blog emerging from such seclusion. And who would have expected that it turns out that things may be more unreal than they are now, and that dependent origination may nevertheless be more synonymous with this unreality than it is now. And the next months devoted to cultivating samadhi with mettă and bodhichitta in society could make the total exertion even more complete than it is now.
It is likely that this would be the case with every person who came up in this discussion. We do not question the authenticity of someone's experiences, insights and their stability here, we only honestly give the possibility that it is as it was reported by probably more knowledgeable Mahayana and Vajrayana masters than us - this is not a binary issue and approximations of this realization are subject to progress.
well said Piotr.
However it’s good to understand the maps too and what insights are the requirements for liberations. They are very precise insight. If not we will just be blindly meditating for years like many.
So it really depends what one wants to focus on. I myself just focus on insights and deepening the maturity of insight. I don’t really care much for the bhumis map.. they are too beyond and above me lol.
That said Ling Yin , I do read ur lil practice notes everyday, very encouraging and insightful, keep it up! Imagine after a few decades it will be like 40000-50000 pages. If one day u summarize and refine them into just a couple of key insights, I think it will be extremely valuable especially coming from a medical doctor, but just ur own unfoldings, no need anything extra....