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.


End

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".  

But WAIT,  

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.


End

Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness

Taken from a facebook group dharma connection.

Thusness:

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
Simply present…

To Jax:
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.
Gone!


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.

Thoughts?

Thusness's comments to AEN:

Hi 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....

Voidness....

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.