Nov
30
Some comments on John Wheeler from a discussion thread
Soh

Also See: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

Aditya Prasad

André A. Pais Curious, how does this map onto the AtR model (in your view)?

Reply

2d

Edited

André A. Pais

Aditya Prasad probably it doesn't. It can be read as merely pointing to I Am.

Yet if we get more creative, we can see I Am (identification with consciousness), but also non-dual (phenomena being one with consciousness, and consciousness itself being one with the absolute).

Finally we can see that notions of consciousness or phenomena are designated out of the absolute, which is nothing but appearance and emptiness. The absolute ground is luminous empty appearances, which is designated as consciousness, phenomena, etc.

I shared recently the simplified version of the AtR model (I am, non-dual, anatta, shunyata) with John and he said that all that has been clear for him for quite a while.

Reply

1d

Aditya Prasad

André A. Pais I must admit that I don't yet understand the distinction between consciousness and awareness (or the absolute). I think of luminosity as another label for consciousness.

As for the simplified model being clear to John, what do you mean? Are there aspects there that aren't covered in AtR? (I've read it a few times and love it BTW, if it's the one I'm thinking of. I might ask you questions about it later...)

Reply

1d

André A. Pais

Aditya Prasad by John I mean John Wheeler. 😅

Reply

1d

Soh Wei Yu

André A. Pais he isn't clear even though he thought so. He went through I AM, then impersonality (he calls 'no self'), then one mind sort of nondual. Closer to Thusness Stage 4. He is clear about 1 to 4 but not 5 and onwards.

Session Start: Tuesday, January 20, 2009

(7:54 PM) AEN:

john wheeler: "i found that it is turned into a practice, the notion of the practice or attainment is based on the assumption that u have separated from the natural being itself. Essentially you find that the notion that arise that you stand separate from the being, and that becomes the basis of all the troubles. You can't be a seeker or a sufferer, or have a question or a doubt or a problem as

that pure non conceptual presence, and so that root of all of that activity is the assumption that I have moved apart from that, that I have somehow stood apart from pure being itself. When we question that to basically look and see, have I separated from that? Have I moved away from the pure awareness itself, however we want to point to that... to see if there is any evidence that there has

been any actual separation, and what we find is the exact same insight that we saw originally... all that we discover is our identity as that pure being itself. Exactly like you say, we don't find anything, we find that the assumed separation isn't real, hasn't happened."

(8:05 PM) AEN: -- from an mp3

(8:05 PM) AEN: "....At this point you can dispense with making a division between thoughts and awareness. That is good in the beginning as a means to make awareness evident. However, from another angle, thoughts, feelings and perceptions arise from, exist upon and subside into awareness. They have no real substance or independent existence apart from awareness. So they are only awareness

(8:06 PM) AEN: appearing as those forms, like waves emerging from the sea. It is all one substance. There is only one awareness, one presence. There is no separation possible, because there is no division in reality. There are no objects in ultimate truth, only awareness. There is

no one standing apart from that. Everything that appears is only that. All thoughts and feelings are only that. All is that. You are that. So what can you gain and lose at any time?" -- "You Were Never Born", John Wheeler

Session Start: Wednesday, January 21, 2009

(10:40 AM) Thusness: What John Wheeler said is quite true but only from the point of view of non-dual. Therefore it is insight that liberates. There are 2 important insights about our nature, one being non-dual and the other being the empty nature. John Wheeler is more about non-dual but our emptiness nature are equally important. In whatever case, both insights must lead a practitioner towards effortlessness

(10:41 AM) Thusness: and spontaneity as non-dual luminosity and emptiness are the nature of pristine awareness

(10:51 AM) Thusness: What John Wheeler said in the mp3 is good. After that realisation, practitioner realises it is insight that liberates and there is never a separation but the practitioner must also realised the power of the bond. Like a magical spell that blinds us from seeing the truth of our nature. This 'strength' if overlooked is equally misleading. One can teach and device a method like Dzogchen to

(10:54 AM) Thusness: experience whatever arises openly and fearlessly as all is Awareness but to deny the 'strength' of the bond and over-emphasis that nothing need to be done is very misleading. Just like reality is not what it seems to be but there is no denial of reality,

(10:56 AM) Thusness: after non-dual insight, the way of practice is pathless; it does not mean there is no practice needed.

Session Start: Friday, 20 November, 2009

...

(2:01 PM) AEN: btw i dun really understand. is john wheeler's realisation about impersonality or is it about no-self and whats the diff 😛

(2:21 PM) Thusness: John wheeler realized certain aspect of no-self

(2:21 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:21 PM) Thusness: Not anatta but close to phase 4

(2:21 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:22 PM) Thusness: The sense of dualism is still there

(2:22 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:22 PM) Thusness: Because he will not be able to integrate the transient

(2:23 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:23 PM) Thusness: He can however realize he is lived by a greater life

(2:24 PM) AEN: icic.. is that what u mean by feeling God

(2:24 PM) Thusness: All manifestations is the doing of this One life

(2:24 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:25 PM) AEN: eckhart tolle said "Many expressions that are in common usage, and sometimes the structure of language itself, reveal the fact that people don't know who they are. You say: "He lost his life" or "my life," as if life were something that you can possess or lose. The truth is: you don't have a life, you are life. The One Life, the one consciousness that pervades the entire universe and takes temporary form to experience itself as a stone or blade of grass, as an animal, a person, a star or a galaxy.

Can you sense deep within that you already know that? Can you sense that you already are That?"

(2:25 PM) Thusness: This One Life is same to u as well as me.

(2:25 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:26 PM) Thusness: This is a very subtle extrapolation

(2:27 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:27 PM) Thusness: But experientially it does appears so

(2:27 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:28 PM) Thusness: It has a lot to do with the spontaneous arising and impersonality (deconstruction of personality)

(2:29 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:31 PM) Thusness: Therefore when one focus and refine the 4 aspects i spoke abt without even arising the insight of non-dual, one can still lead to such an experience

This is stage 2

(2:31 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:31 PM) Thusness: Get it?

(2:31 PM) AEN: ya think so

(2:32 PM) AEN: so stage 2 is related to impersonality?

(2:33 PM) Thusness: Further to that one will want to penetrate into 3.

(2:34 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:34 PM) Thusness: Re-read phase one to 3

(2:34 PM) AEN: ok

(2:35 PM) Thusness: Phase 4 is strictly non-dual

(2:35 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:35 PM) Thusness: Though non-dual still having inherent view

(2:37 PM) Thusness: So a practitioner still does not see the truth of the relative

The absolute still seem special

(2:37 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:38 PM) Thusness: That is One Mind

(2:38 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:40 PM) AEN: The "vision" of truth appears new because it was not noticed before. Whatever we are and the world is, is already the fact. There is no attainment involved in being what you are. That is the constant space of life, awareness or being in which all appears. It includes silence and sound, activity and stillness, form and emptiness, knowledge and ignorance, and all other dualities and opposites. Your natural condition is not a state within the appearances but the spacious heart of reality which contains and embraces them all. It is like a bright mirror in which diverse reflections rise and set. The mirror remains as it is and bears no relation to the presence or absence of its reflections. The mirror cannot be limited by or identified with any of the reflections appearing in it, nor does it grasp or resist them. For their part, the reflections have no substance or independent nature apart from the mirror. In the same way, all that is, was or ever will be is contained in the timeless light of your true nature. The strange and wonderful thing is that this has always been so.

If this is not noticed, it gets pointed out and recognized, and the true perspective is restored. It is as simple as that. - john wheeler

this is like One Mind?

(2:44 PM) AEN: btw i just remembered a talk given by ven shen kai in the early 80s where he described about how one dissolves the self into the universe substance that is no different from all the buddhas... like the self dissolve and merge into space... and that while he was doing puja he totally dissolved into a place far away but later got back. but later he dissolved again. i think he's sort of like describing stage 3 right?

Reply

13m

Soh Wei Yu

(2:45 PM) AEN: i think i sent u that mp3 before long ago

(2:47 PM) Thusness: In phase 4, a practitioner will be obsessed with this substratum in a non-dual context.

(2:48 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:51 PM) Thusness: U must understand phase 5-7 is refining the insight of the same experience of 4

(2:52 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:56 PM) Thusness: U so clearly see that non-dual is implicit as there never is any agent apart from the ongoing phenomenality

(2:57 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:57 PM) Thusness: Then u realized the true meaning of anatta and emptiness

(2:57 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:57 PM) Thusness: And move from disassociation to self liberation

(2:58 PM) AEN: icic..

(3:00 PM) Thusness: Seems like talking to different practitioners help u understand the 7 phases but don't make it as an absolute model.

(3:00 PM) AEN: oic..

...

2010:

Session Start: Wednesday, 10 March, 2010

(12:22 PM) AEN: i think last time john wheeler talk about the i am/being/witness, then in the recent book he changed alot and talked about 'beyond consciousness', beyond the being and the witness, and he said "Consciousness appears as a transient state on your original condition. It is intimately tied to the presence of the

(12:23 PM) AEN: body-mind, which reflects the light of awareness, allowing consciousness to manifest in a tangible way.'

the presence of the body-mind is a necessary requirement for consciousness to manifest and for awareness to become aware that it is. Just as sunlight and reflected sunlight are really not two separate things, neither are non-dual awareness and manifested consciousness actually different.

(12:23 PM) AEN: You are that which was present before consciousness appeared on you. Before consciousness appeared, you were, but you did not know yourself or have any sense of existence. That is the absolute, non-dual or perfect state.

(12:26 PM) AEN: ...If consciousness is only a modification of the absolute, non-dual reality, then consciousness as such does not truly exist, since it has no actual independent nature. Consciousness appears but it has never truly existed as an independent reality. All there is, is the unconditioned, absolute, non-dual source. That absolute reality is all there is, and it is all that we have ever been. There has never been anything else except this. http://www.non-dualitypress.com/.../The%20Light%20Behind...

(12:46 PM) AEN: seeker posted in DhO haha http://www.dharmaoverground.org/.../messag.../message/392145

(6:17 PM) Thusness: Yes. John Wheeler is beginning to realize 'transience'

(6:17 PM) AEN: but he still talks about an eternal absolute beyond consciousness a bit confusing

(6:19 PM) Thusness: yes

(6:19 PM) AEN: "Consciousness is duality itself. You are prior to consciousness, prior to being, prior to presence, prior to the knower, prior to stillness."

(6:20 PM) Thusness: yes

(6:20 PM) Thusness: i told u before there is a desync of view and experience

(6:21 PM) Thusness: it is difficult to arise insight and one will rest in the non-conceptuality personifying it into an ultimate source

(6:22 PM) Thusness: seems to be a struggle to realize the nature of the transient who is seeker?

(6:22 PM) AEN: i dunnu.. never knew him b4. oic

(6:22 PM) Thusness: i din see the nick 'seeker'

(6:22 PM) Thusness: in dho

(6:23 PM) AEN: ya but Teck Cheong Han and seeker writing style the same 😛

(6:24 PM) Thusness: so u guess one ah

(6:24 PM) AEN: ya lol

(6:24 PM) AEN: anyway he also talked about the same things

(6:25 PM) Thusness: yes

(6:27 PM) AEN: btw i think i know john wheeler suddenly changed, i remember before he wrote that book many months back i sent him a link to the six stages, then inside there, longchen commented on john wheeler's article:

This is not exactly true... He sees presences as separate from thoughts...

What he percieved is thru 'the eternal witness' or pure observer... which is a very subtle witnessing... or 'cross referencing'.

This pure observer is also within the flow... it is not unchanging...In fact, it is changing all the time... in the stream too...so to speak

http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/210722...

(6:27 PM) AEN: then in the book he wrote about the witness and consciousness being transient also

(6:31 PM) Thusness: the right view is just a pointer

(6:31 PM) Thusness: because the mind is unable to see clearly the nature of reality

(6:32 PM) Thusness: the dualistic mind either sees only the mirror or is lost in the images of the appearances

(6:32 PM) Thusness: it cannot see the nature of the appearances

(6:33 PM) AEN: oic..

(6:35 PM) Thusness: first have the experience of non-dual and further deconstruct all the mental constructs (self, objects and prepositional phrases "in/out, here/there..etc")

then later u begin to realize what is meant by 'inherent' in Buddhism

(6:37 PM) AEN: icic..

(6:39 PM) Thusness: many of the 'Awareness practices' tend to teach non-duality by disassociation. This is not non-dual, direct approach.

(6:42 PM) Thusness: Only through the realization of the anatta nature of the transient can a practitioner sees the 'pathless path'

(6:43 PM) Thusness: and this implies realizing that the transient is the very Reality that is non-dual, luminous yet empty.

(6:44 PM) AEN: oic..

(6:46 PM) Thusness: if u cannot understand the transient in the way that is presented by Peter Fenner, then u will why do we stressed so much about the transient

(6:48 PM) Thusness: if u see that there is truly no coming/going, here/there, in/out in manifestation, then u being realize both the 'Ultimate and Transient' share the same non-dual luminous essence and empty nature.

(6:50 PM) Thusness: A practitioner must continue to refine the 'view' till he is completely clear what is really blinding him.

2010:

(7:44 PM) Thusness: Some mistaken "I AMness" as non-dual in non-dual teaching.

(7:45 PM) Thusness: some have experience of non-dual but knows not the knot that blinds them. like John Wheeler. Some is clear about non-dual but is still attached to the One Mind.

(7:46 PM) Thusness: some totally eliminate the background and is clear that the formless background is simply another manifestation.

(7:47 PM) AEN: oic..

(7:48 PM) Thusness: some sees clearly the non-dual yet empty nature and maturing the insight realizes that the direct path is the natural state of self-liberation. But it is not as u described. and has nothing to do with what u said..

(7:49 PM) Thusness: it is clear seeing of the non-dual and empty nature of all arisings that lead to self liberation

(7:49 PM) Thusness: because the approach has nothing to do with dis-association.

(7:50 PM) Thusness: so the 'freeing of the inherent and dualistic' tendencies at that moment of 'seeing' is liberation. By definition, the absence of these tendencies is liberation.

(7:52 PM) Thusness: so practice becomes dynamic

NEWHARBINGER.COM

Page not found – New Harbinger Publications, Inc

Page not found – New Harbinger Publications, Inc

Reply

Remove Preview

13m

Soh Wei Yu

2010:

(7:46 PM) AEN: john wheeler: Like anything else, the "sense of I am" is still an appearance, an experience. Realize that the "sense of I am " is not what you are. You are TO WHOM even that appears. What you are has no "I" sense at all. There is no "I" in non-conceptual awareness. It is not even looking at anything, because it is one without a second. The observer and the observed both appear in your non-conceptual reality. Do not confuse what you are with the "observer". That also is a limited thing, an appearance. You are beyond the observer also.

.... Reality, your true nature itself, has no center or reference point. It is not in the head, in the body, or anywhere else. All appearances arise in that which has no position, reference point or boundary and which is your natural condition. A subtle reference of what we are to a location still implies a specific "I" that is able to be located. But pure being or awareness is "no thing". It has no position, no time, no space, no location. All of those only apply to a thing. But your real nature is not an object, not a thing. The basis of the troubles is the separate "I" notion. If there is any subtle belief in the "I", the mind will attempt to give it some position, definition, location or concept. Why? Because it has no substance. It

(7:47 PM) AEN: It needs to wrap itself in some clothing to have any semblance of being. One solution is to try to pull away all the landing zones. That is potentially an endless undertaking. It is so easy for the "I" notion to creep back into the proceedings. That is often the blind spot. The nature of a blind spot is that you cannot see it because you are looking through it and not recognizing that fact. It is like looking through your glasses to find the glasses you assume are lost. The clear and direct solution is to examine the validity of the "I" notion itself. Do not settle for pulling away the leaves and branches, but go for the root.

(7:49 PM) Thusness: yet that is still a referencing

(7:51 PM) Thusness: to be without reference is to realize that all there is always only Appearance. When u realized that thoroughly, u r without reference, location, direct and vividly Present. 🙂

Session Start: Monday, 19 April, 2010

(5:12 PM) AEN: john wheeler: To know any experience, there must be a knowing that "I am". That is just the basic conscious knowing of being present. That is what first appears out of deep sleep. It is not a personal "I" or any other notion. Call it impersonal knowing. Subsequently, the mind begins operating and the separate "I" notion is created in thought.

Pure awareness, or non-conceptual reality, is non-dual. Upon or within this arises self-consciousness, which is the pure sense of "I am", but not yet individualized. Then follows the "I" concept, or the notion of separate individuality. Lastly, there appear notions such as I am this or that (body, mind, personality, etc.).

From the perspective of reality, there is NO appearance to speak of, because the seeming appearance is the appearance of THAT. It is all THAT.

(5:12 PM) AEN: All phenomena appear in consciousness. That consciousness is NOT personal. It is the primordial or first experience in duality. It is the pure sense of "I am" with no other content, just knowing "I am" without words, or being self-consciously aware. But that is still an experience. You are the space in which even that comes and goes.

Session Start: Monday, 19 April, 2010

(10:51 PM) Thusness: John Wheeler recent para is not bad.

(11:08 PM) AEN: oic..

he's talking about non dual?

(11:11 PM) Thusness: not just that

(11:13 PM) Thusness: John Wheeler seems to be able to outline the different phases of "I M" i told u

(11:14 PM) Thusness: however that is only up till non-dual level

Reply

13m

Soh Wei Yu

The reason why he thinks he understood anatta: because he realised certain aspect of no self. But only impersonality and up to nondual. 99% of the time when someone talks about no self, it is only at the impersonality level. They are not aware of the different degrees of self/Self and no-self/Self and the different insights and subtleties as I explained in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html

Different Degress of No-Self: Non-Doership, Non-dual, Anatta, Total Exertion and Dealing with Pitfalls

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Different Degress of No-Self: Non-Doership, Non-dual, Anatta, Total Exertion and Dealing with Pitfalls

Different Degress of No-Self: Non-Doership, Non-dual, Anatta, Total Exertion and Dealing with Pitfalls

Reply

Remove Preview

12m

Soh Wei Yu

Aditya Prasad This distinction between consciousness and awareness only occurs in his later books, not earlier ones. When he was more influenced by Nisargadatta who is trying to point to Thusness Stage 3 (see: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/03/thusnesss-comments-on-nisargadatta.html )

And also see:

Thusness's Comments on Nisargadatta / Stage 3

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Thusness's Comments on Nisargadatta / Stage 3

Thusness's Comments on Nisargadatta / Stage 3

Reply

Remove Preview

6m

Soh Wei Yu

Session Start: Monday, 21 June, 2010

(7:41 AM) AEN: http://www.naturalstate.us/pointers.html

what do u think of this:

(7:41 AM) AEN: When consciousness dawns upon arising from sleep, it is simply pure "knowing that I am". It is not individual, and is in fact, impersonal and unlimited. The notion of a limited self or "me" spins up in the subsequent conceptualizing in the mind after consciousness has already arisen. But

don't forget that your real position is the ever-present reality on which waking (consciousness) and sleep (unconsciousness) both appear.

(8:26 AM) AEN: A lot of people come up to the level of consciousness or recognizing the sense of being and take that as the absolute. Here they get stuck and mistake the dawn for the noon, so to speak. The "knowing that I am" or state of consciousness is the first eruption or modification on the absolute, eternal state. People generally miss the fact that

consciousness is an intermittent appearance. It is the first modification on the absolute and the beginning of duality. What people are often expounding as reality is really the root of the illusion! What is prior to consciousness — which is what you really are — cannot

(8:26 AM) AEN: properly be named. Whatever term is used is only a pointer. Sure, it may be pointed to as consciousness, awareness, being, emptiness, etc. but these are provisional pointers only. In the end, even these are discarded. Even statements like "I am consciousness",

"consciousness is all there is", "there is no one here", etc., are only mental concepts. So don't settle for pointers! Let the pointers go and BE what is being pointed to.

(8:38 AM) AEN: "many practitioners cannot know the difference and see the exact cause of arising and simply blah that there is no cause to it...

u should be clear about it." - lol i just found a post that did the exact same thing by saying there is no cause and whatever u do is useless 😛 http://beingisknowing.blogspot.com/.../nothing-works...

(8:41 AM) Thusness: When we say cause, we are really saying predictable patterns, not a metaphysical something behind.

(8:41 AM) AEN: oic.. yah, this guy is saying there is no predictable pattern or cause of an insight... and whatever u do is useless 😛

then i wonder why he wrote that for 😛

(8:42 AM) Thusness: ic...that is advaita...

(8:42 AM) AEN: ic.. u mean advaita generally teach that?

they teach self inquiry rite

(8:45 AM) Thusness: yeah...overwhelmed by the taste of presence, we wanted so much to make it 'independent' to suit our 'free will' and 'absolute' model of our dualistic paradigm, that is the mind created such a notion of Absolute Reality.

(8:46 AM) Thusness: This will only hinder our progress from further experiencing presence.

(8:46 AM) AEN: oic..

(8:46 AM) AEN: btw did u see this article - deepak chopra seems to be talking about the maha experience here http://www.anhglobal.org/en/node/591

(8:49 AM) Thusness: imo, that is more theoretical then experiential.

(8:49 AM) AEN: icic..

(9:03 AM) AEN: http://www.prahlad.org/.../NISARGADATTA%20CONSCIOUSNESS...

(9:03 AM) AEN: 3. Then I realize that if I subtract all the above, what is left? Only my sense of existing itself, my sense of presence, my sense of being here, the consciousness. I realize that I am that consciousness only,

(9:03 AM) AEN: the feeling of existing. I must be THAT. What IS that? It is very subtle. But now I am coming closer. This is the realization of the mystical phrase "I am that I am." And along with this stage of realization

comes the realization of my universality. This realization of the "I am" brings with it the explosive understanding that there is no such thing as an individual, the "I am" is universal, everyone and every

living thing is feeling it the same way. We don't ourselves create our sense of "I am." Rather we inherit the prior existing sense of presence of the original beingness which spontaneously first appeared on the background of the void, or the object-less pure awareness.

4. When I am thus established in sense of identity with this universal sense of presence, or the "I am," I am at last poised for the final realization. Remember, the realization of the "I am" is already a very

high state, and many will simply stop here to enjoy living in the universal personless beingness. This is the knowledge of God and the knowledge that I am God. But some rare ones keep going and keep

questioning deeper and come to the breakthrough realization that ALL beingness, even the beingness of "God" is still a form of illusion and duality, and they will realize and move into and "become" the

(9:03 AM) AEN: pure awareness only, giving up even that last and very high identity as the universal "I am." The consciousness will continue on no doubt, and the all the activities of life, but the identity of myself will now be

(9:04 AM) AEN: fixed back at its original home, the pure awareness which was prior to consciousness.

This last step is still incomprehensible to me but I love to think about it again and again. Many can give up the lesser false identifications, casting them off like tattered old clothes and stripping naked down

to the singular universal consciousness. But who can give up that very sense of beingness itself? We LOVE to be, and fear terribly not being anymore. It is frightening! Looked at from a lower level the final

realization seems like absolute and utter annihilation itself, and who on earth wants to be completely annihilated? Thus, very few rare souls ever realize the final realization! Above all, I WANT TO BE!

(9:05 AM) AEN: Buddha became the Void itself and entered into the great nirvana. A friend of mine called it "The Great Suicide." Then one realizes the final incredible and terrifying reality: there is nothing. And though

really and truly there is absolutely nothing, at the same time that nothingness is inexplicably filled to fullness with an indescribable "something which is not a thing," the pure awareness, the absolute,

unaware of itself. That is the one and only "thing-which-is-not- a-thing" which is truly real. All else is false, a fraud made of spacetime, of things which begin and end and come and go, the Great Maha

Maya, the dreams of the universal mind.

-

is this talking about transiting from I AM to impersonality?

(9:08 AM) Thusness: no

(9:11 AM) Thusness: this is phase 3 in terms of thoroughness and willingness of giving out even the sense of Presence... a phase to eliminate the ultimate block. Whatever experience that arises becomes secondary... it is an inner development to eliminate the last trace of 'Self/self' or clinging to the sense of 'I' but without any arising insight of non-dual or anatta.

(9:12 AM) Thusness: that sense of 'Self', that knot, that ultimate clinging, that ultimate attachment... we do not have to do away with it this way, it can be dissolved by the right view of emptiness.

(9:13 AM) AEN: oic..

(9:13 AM) Thusness: with that clinging to Presence, 'effortlessness' will not be truly understood.

(9:14 AM) Thusness: any form of clinging, be it Self/self or Presence, will prevent a practitioner from correctly experiencing 'effortlessness'. This is the 4th aspect I want u to realize.

(9:15 AM) Thusness: However this person only sees the 'void'.

(9:15 AM) AEN: icic..

(9:22 AM) AEN: btw what i pasted just now by john wheeler on top is also on the void?

(9:40 AM) Thusness: john wheeler is speculating with the attachment of Presence.

(9:40 AM) AEN: oic..

(9:43 AM) Thusness: that is, he wants to talk about the 'void' without giving up the sense of Presence.

(9:43 AM) AEN: icic..

naturalstate.us

NATURALSTATE.US

naturalstate.us

naturalstate.us

Reply

Remove Preview

1m



Labels: 0 comments | | edit post
Nov
06
Dzogchen: Ten Key Terms Black Friday Special at Wisdom Publications
Soh

Acarya Malcolm Smith posted: “My Dzogchen: Ten Key Terms Black Friday Special at Wisdom Publications. 60% off select courses using code ACADEMY60.” - https://wisdomexperience.org/dzogchen-terms/

But do note that the course can be quite technical and confusing especially for beginners. If you are seriously interested in Dzogchen or are a Dzogchen practitioner, it will be important for clarifying key Dzogchen terms and prevent misunderstanding of the terms. If you're totally new to Dzogchen or interested to find out what Dzogchen is about as a beginner, I suggest picking up a book first -- what Acarya Malcolm usually recommend for beginners -- like https://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Way-Light-Dzogchen-Philosophy/dp/1559391359/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2229BAIW5ZOHI&keywords=crystal+and+the+way+of+light&qid=1699432335&sprefix=crystal+and+the+way+o%2Caps%2C652&sr=8-1 and https://www.amazon.com/Dzogchen-Self-Perfected-Chogyal-Namkhai-Norbu/dp/1559390573/ref=pd_sbs_sccl_2_1/132-9373146-5877532?pd_rd_w=GSS7G&content-id=amzn1.sym.368860b3-210c-423c-90a6-0753fc75e40d&pf_rd_p=368860b3-210c-423c-90a6-0753fc75e40d&pf_rd_r=JJSG1EFY7AXSZF7KPA6T&pd_rd_wg=4c6Og&pd_rd_r=42e63146-35a0-4264-b544-c633a0661879&pd_rd_i=1559390573&psc=1 before going into that course. You can of course, purchase the course with the discount first and come to it after reading those books.
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
Nov
06
New Dharma Talks by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (Chinese)
Soh

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLunA4Fx_X22IJ0EbaBA6vB4dLMfs6QCoA

Labels: 0 comments | | edit post
Nov
05
The Great Ocean Samadhi
Soh

Also see: The Unbounded Field of Awareness


Quotes from The Great Ocean Samadhi chapter from Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo:


The Buddha once said in verse:
Merely of various elements is this body of Mine composed.
The time of its arising is merely an arising of elements;
The time of its vanishing is merely a vanishing of elements.
As these elements arise, I do not speak of the arising of an ‘I’,
And as these elements vanish, I do not speak of the vanishing of an ‘I’.
Previous instants and succeeding instants are not a series of instants that depend on each other;
Previous elements and succeeding elements are not a series of elements that stand against each other.
To give all of this a name, I call it ‘the meditative state that bears the seal of the Ocean’.

....

The Master’s saying, “One that contains all that exists,” expresses what the Ocean is. The point he is making is not that there is some single thing that contains all that exists, but rather that It is all contained things. And he is not saying that the Great Ocean is what contains all existing things, but rather that what is expressing ‘all contained things’ is simply the Great Ocean. Though we do not know what It is, It is everything that exists for the moment. Even coming face-to-face with a Buddha or an Ancestor is a mistaken perception of ‘everything that exists for the moment’. At the moment of ‘being contained’, although it may involve a mountain, it is not just our ‘standing atop a soaring mountain peak’, and although it may involve water, it is not just our ‘plunging down to the floor of the Ocean’s abyss’.18 Our acts of acceptance will be like this, as will our acts of letting go. What we call the Ocean of our Buddha Nature and what we call the Ocean of Vairochana* are simply synonymous with ‘all that exists’.


…


Wrote to someone months ago,


“"Awareness when reified becomes a whole containing everything as its parts, like the ocean and its waves. But when you deconstruct the wave and ocean, the whole and parts, it is just the radiance and clarity of pellucidity of sound, taste, colors of the imputed notion of wave and ocean. Awareness is a name just like weather is a name denoting rain, wind, sunshine, etc., and not a container or singular substance pervading them or transforming or modulating as them. Likewise, awareness is not an eternal singular substance pervading or containing or even modulating as everything. What is seen, heard, sensed are clear and vivid, pellucid and crystal, and 'awareness' is just a name denoting just that, not a diverse manifestation pervaded by a single ontological awareness that is non-dual with everything. Eventually, awareness is seen through as having its own reality and forgotten into the pellucidity of appearance, not just a state but an insight. As Scott Kiloby once said, 'If you see that awareness is none other than everything, and that none of those things are separate "things" at all, why even use the word awareness anymore? All you are left with is the world, your life, the diversity of experience itself.' Another teacher, Dr. Greg Goode, told me, 'It looks like your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?'


I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the 'prior entity,' and I had been meditating on 'emptiness is form' intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the 'ten-thousand things' in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere..."”



Also,




Ted Biringer commenting on Zen Master Dogen: “...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind.”

…

“In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.” - Ted Biringer, https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2017/11/zazen-polishing-tile-to-make-mirror.html

Labels: , , , , 0 comments | | edit post
Nov
05
No Agent but There Is Choosing
Soh

Someone said in a busy atr group chat that i hardly participate in, “There’s so much dysfunctional comfort that can come from believing it’s all an illusion, that you don’t exist, and that there is no agency. All great stuff for investigating our emotional knots.”




I popped in and commented,


“It is true that there is no self and agent, but it does mean no volition and choice. Many people totally misunderstood


https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/06/choosing.html

John Tan:

The logic that since there is no agency, hence no choice to be made is no different from "no sufferer, therefore no suffering".

This is not anatta insight.

What is seen through in anatta is the mistaken view that the conventional structure of "subject action object" represents reality when it is not. Action does not require an agent to initiate it. It is language that creates the confusion that nouns are required to set verbs into motion.

Therefore the action of choosing continues albeit no chooser.

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;

Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;

The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."


Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:


"When we say it's raining, we mean that raining is taking place. You don't need someone up above to perform the raining. It's not that there is the rain, and there is the one who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say the rain is falling, it's very funny, because if it weren't falling, it wouldn't be rain. In our way of speaking, we're used to having a subject and a verb. That's why we need the word "it" when we say, "it rains." "It" is the subject, the one who makes the rain possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a "rainer," we just need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same. The formations of birds and the birds are the same -- there's no "self," no boss involved.


There's a mental formation called vitarka, "initial thought." When we use the verb "to think" in English, we need a subject of the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But, really, you don't need a subject for a thought to be produced. Thinking without a thinker -- it's absolutely possible. To think is to think about something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the perceived object that is perceived are one.

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his point was that if I think, there must be an "I" for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration "I think," he believed that he could demonstrate that the "I" exists. We have the strong habit or believing in a self. But, observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to be possible. There is no thinker behind the thinking -- there is just the thinking; that's enough.


Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him, "Monsieur Descartes, you say, 'You think, therefore you are.' But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking -- that's enough. Thinking manifests without the need of a self behind it."

Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our 'self'? This is the object of our meditation. All the fifty-one mental formations take place and manifest without a self behind them arranging for this to appear, and then for that to appear. Our mind consciousness is in the habit of basing itself on the idea of self, on manas. But we can meditate to be more aware of our store consciousness, where we keep the seeds of all those mental formations that are not currently manifesting in our mind.

When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."


......




"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."


"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."


"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."


——



Alan watts expressed well too what thich nhat hanh said above. I just shared this quote today: “From "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" by Alan Watts:


As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, “goeswith”) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?


Scientists would be less embarrassed if they used a language, on the model of Amerindian Nootka, consisting of verbs and adverbs, and leaving off nouns and adjectives. If we can speak of a house as housing, a mat as matting, or of a couch as seating, why can't we think of people as “peopling,” of brains as “braining,” or of an ant as an “anting?” Thus in the Nootka language a church is “housing religiously,” a shop is “housing tradingly,” and a home is “housing homely.” Yet we are habituated to ask, “Who or what is housing? Who peoples? What is it that ants?” Yet isn't it obvious that when we say, “The lightning flashed,” the flashing is the same as the lightning, and that it would be enough to say, “There was lightning”? Everything labeled with a noun is demonstrably a process or action, but language is full of spooks, like the “it” in “It is raining,” which are the supposed causes, of action.


Does it really explain running to say that “A man is running”? On the contrary, the only explanation would be a description of the field or situation in which “a manning goeswith running” as distinct from one in which “a manning goeswith sitting.” (I am not recommending this primitive and clumsy form of verb language for general and normal use. We should have to contrive something much more elegant.) Furthermore, running is not something other than myself, which I (the organism) do. For the organism is sometimes a running process, sometimes a standing process, sometimes a sleeping process, and so on, and in each instance the “cause” of the behavior is the situation as a whole, the organism/environment. Indeed, it would be best to drop the idea of causality and use instead the idea of relativity.


For it is still inexact to say that an organism “responds” or “reacts” to a given situation by running or standing, or whatever. This is still the language of Newtonian billiards. It is easier to think of situations as moving patterns, like organisms themselves. Thus, to go back to the cat (or catting), a situation with pointed ears and whiskers at one end does not have a tail at the other as a response or reaction to the whiskers, or the claws, or the fur. As the Chinese say, the various features of a situation “arise mutually” or imply one another as back implies front, and as chickens imply eggs—and vice versa. They exist in relation to each other like the poles of the magnet, only more complexly patterned.


Moreover, as the egg/chicken relation suggests, not all the features of a total situation have to appear at the same time. The existence of a man implies parents, even though they may be long since dead, and the birth of an organism implies its death. Wouldn't it be as farfetched to call birth the cause of death as to call the cat's head the cause of the tail? Lifting the neck of a bottle implies lifting the bottom as well, for the “two parts” come up at the same time. If I pick up an accordion by one end, the other will follow a little later, but the principle is the same. Total situations are, therefore, patterns in time as much as patterns in space.


And, right now is the moment to say that I am not trying to smuggle in the “total situation” as a new disguise for the old “things” which were supposed to explain behavior or action. The total situation or field is always open-ended, for


Little fields have big fields

Upon their backs to bite 'em,

And big fields have bigger fields

And so ad infinitum. 


We can never, never describe all the features of the total situation, not only because every situation is infinitely complex, but also because the total situation is the universe. Fortunately, we do not have to describe any situation exhaustively, because some of its features appear to be much more important than others for understanding the behavior of the various organisms within it. We never get more than a sketch of the situation, yet this is enough to show that actions (or processes) must be understood, or explained, in terms of situations just as words must be understood in the context of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, libraries, and … life itself.


To sum up: just as no thing or organism exists on its own, it does not act on its own. Furthermore, every organism is a process: thus the organism is not other than its actions. To put it clumsily: it is what it does. More precisely, the organism, including its behavior, is a process which is to be understood only in relation to the larger and longer process of its environment. For what we mean by “understanding” or “comprehension” is seeing how parts fit into a whole, and then realizing that they don't compose the whole, as one assembles a jigsaw puzzle, but that the whole is a pattern, a complex wiggliness, which has no separate parts. Parts are fictions of language, of the calculus of looking at the world through a net which seems to chop it up into bits. Parts exist only for purposes of figuring and describing, and as we figure the world out we become confused if we do not remember this all the time.”


John tan replied just now “He is so gifted in expressing anatta and his insights, so clear.”




——



Also, excerpts from the longer AtR guide:


On the disease of non-doership, John Tan said:


“Nihilistic tendencies arise when the insight of. anatta is skewed towards the no-doership aspect. The happening by itself must be correctly understood. It appears that things are accomplished by doing nothing but in actual case it is things get done due to ripening of action and conditions.


So the lack of self-nature does not imply nothing needs be done or nothing can be done. That is one extreme. At the other end of extreme is the self-nature of perfect control of what one wills, one gets. Both are seen to be false. Action + conditions leads to effect.”

“

As to the specifics of your question I’m not sure, but here are a few major differences between classical “determinism” and Buddhist karmic causality:

Determinism proper necessarily involves inherently existent causes giving rise to inherently existent effects in a unilateral manner.


Karmic cause and effect in the context of the buddhadharma is only valid conventionally, and since every cause is an effect and every effect a cause, they are, in a coarse sense, bilateral in nature.


Karma can be “determined” in a certain sense, but since karma takes direction from intention, change can occur, certain results can be averted, suffering can be mitigated and ideally uprooted altogether.” - Kyle Dixon, 2019


“Kyle Dixon Dante Rosati we gave volition [cetana], and can direct that volition freely. Of course we are subject to our karma, but it is not as rigidly deterministic as you suggest.

1

●

Kyle Dixon Yes, we “have,” possess, volition. And are capable of directing it where we choose.

○ Like

○ · Reply

○ · 17h

●

Kyle Dixon Life is not a fully automated process in the sense that you are like a helpless leaf being blown around by the wind, is the point.


You can make choices and direct volition.

●

Kyle Dixon Eric Aksunah I don’t know the specifics.


I just recall Malcolm once said we don’t have “free will” because such a principle implies a rational agent, and we are still subject to karma. Nevertheless, we can direct our volition and intention in specific directions, such as following the path.

1

○ Like

○ · Reply

○ · 15h

“ - Kyle Dixon, 2020

“Determinism would require truly established causes giving rise to established effects in a unilateral manner, thus based on that buddhadharma is not deterministic. Causes are only conventional, and cause and effect are bilateral dependencies. Like Āryadeva says, we might think the father is the cause of the child, but the child is also the cause of the father. Re free will, we Buddhists acknowledge volition [cetana] but only conventionally. Free will is actually a monotheist principle used to reconcile sin with a creator deity. Thus free will proper is not a thing in Buddhism. Further, free will requires a rational agent which buddhadharma does not uphold. And actually we negate such thing. As such we have conventional volition but are still subject to karma.” – Kyle Dixon, 2022


Related:



[10:40 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Very good
[10:41 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: I wonder why people can't explain like Malcolm.
[10:42 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Lol

[11:36 PM, 10/17/2019] John Tan: Yes should put in blog together with Alan watt article about language causing confusion.



Alan Watts: Agent and Action

Investigation into Movement


Also, an enlightening conversation recently (thankfully with permission from Arcaya Malcolm to share this) in Arcaya Malcolm's facebook group:


"[Participant 1]
June 14 at 2:40 PM

I came across a passage in a book I'm reading which brings up how Nagarjuna often bases arguments on unstated and unproven premises and manipulates ambiguities in language to justify his arguments leading to criticisms of sophistry. How do later authors address this if they do at all?

One example from chap 3 of the MMK with the following 3 arguments:

"Vision cannot in anyway see itself. Now if it cannot see itself, how can it see other things?

"The example of fire is not adequate to establish vision. These have been refuted with the analysis of movement, past, future, and present" - refers to the refutation from chap 2

"When no vision occurs there is nothing to be called visions. How then can it be said: vision sees?"

The book brings up the following critcism respectively:

This is based on the assumption for objects to have certain functions it needs to apply the function to itself but this is not justified. A counter example being lamps illuminate themselves and others.

The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified.

Here Nagarjuna jumps from how seeing only occurs with a sense object to the occlusion the eye faculty can't see. The author distinguishes between "seeing independent of condition" and "seeing dependent of condition" so Nagarjuna really only negates the first one. And that negating the first is close to pointless since no one asserts seeing occurs irrespective of condition. The second is left alone.
6[...] and 5 others
17 Comments
Like
Comment
Comments

    [Participant 2] What book is this from?
    1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

    [Participant 1] Madhyamaka in China, the author was giving some background on Nagarjuna.
    1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w


Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Lamps do not illuminate themselves. Candrakirti shows this.
2

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Nāgārjuna is addressing the realist proposition, "the six senses perceive their objects because those sense and their objects intrinsically exist ." It is not his unstated premise, that is the purvapakṣa, the premise of the opponent. The opponent, in verse 1 of this chapter asserts the essential existence of the six āyatanas. The opponent is arguing that perception occurs because the objects of perception actually exist.
6

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith [Participant 1] "The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified."

Why?

Nāgārjuna shows two things in chapter two, one, he says that if there is a moving mover, this separates the agent from the action, and either the mover is not necessary or the moving is not necessary. It is redundant.

In common language we oftren saying things like "There is a burning fire." But since that is what a fire is (burning) there is no separate agent which is doing the burning, fire is burning.

On the other hand, when an action is not performed, no agent of that action can be said to exist. This is why he says "apart from something which has moved and has not moved, there is no moving mover." There is no mover with moving, etc.

This can be applied to all present tense gerundial agentive constructions, such as I am walking to town, the fire is burning, etc.
8

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Hide 11 Replies

 [Participant 3] Malcolm Smith these are not agentive constructions, they are unaccusative (cf. "byed med") verbs, so of course no separate agent can be established. So what?

The example of the fire and the eye are likewise not convincing, because they just happen to describe natural functions, but this is not all that unaccusative verbs do. When you say "the cat falls down", you cannot say that "falling down" is what a cat "is", the same way you can with fire burning.

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith [Participant 3] the point is aimed at the notion that there has to be a falling faller, a seeing seer, etc. it is fine to say there is a falling cat, but stupid to say the cat is a falling faller. The argument is aimed at that sort of naive premise.

For example, if eyes could see forms by nature, they should be able to forms in absence of an object of form, and so on.

But if the sight of forms cannot be found in the eyes, and not in the object, nor the eye consciousness, then none of them are sufficient to explain the act of seeing. Because of this, statements like the eyes are seers is just a convention, but isn’t really factual.

And it still applies in this way, apart from what has been seen and not been seen, there is no present seeing.
1

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited"

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Any people make the mistake of thinking that nag has an obligation to do more than just deconstruct the purpaksa.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

[Participant 1] Malcolm Smith thank you, definitely clears it up

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Malcolm Smith What is purpaksa?

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith purva means "prior", pakṣa" means postion
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm SmithActive Now
Malcolm Smith meaning, "the opponent's position."
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith Purvapaksa
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w"


- From his facebook group Ask the Ācārya https://www.facebook.com/groups/387338435166650/

Who this group is for: people who wish to ask Ācārya Malcolm Smith questions about Dharma etc., and to converse with like-minded people. Being admitted to this group carries a commitment not to share content outside of the group.

Who this group is not for: People with pseudonyms; people who think one can practice Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, etc. without a guru; people who think psychedelics are useful on the Buddhist path; people who think they can mix Buddhadharma with nonbuddhist paths, etc.

Also, more by Malcolm:

[10:51 PM, 10/17/2019] Soh Wei Yu: malcolm (Arcaya Malcolm Smith) wrote:


https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=30365&p=479718&hilit=AGENT#p479718

There is no typing typer, no learning learner, no digesting digester, thinking tinker, or driving driver.

...

No, a falling faller does not make any sense. As Nāgārjuna would put it, apart from snow that has fallen or has not fallen, presently there is no falling.

...


 It is best if you consult the investigation into movement in the MMK, chapter two. This is where it is shown that agents are mere conventions. If one claims there is agent with agency, one is claiming the agent and the agency are separate. But if you claim that agency is merely a characteristic of an agent, when agent does not exercise agency, it isn't an agent since an agent that is not exercising agency is in fact a non-agent. Therefore, rather than agency being dependent on an agent, an agent is predicated upon exercising agency. For example, take movement. If there is an agent there has to be a moving mover. But there is no mover when there is no moving. Apart from moving, how could there be a mover? But when there is moving, there isn't a mover which is separate from moving. Even movement itself cannot be ascertained until there has been a movement. When there is no movement, there is no agent of movement. When there is moving, there is no agent of moving that can be ascertained to be separate from the moving. And since even moving cannot be ascertained without there either having been movement or not, moving itself cannot be established. Since moving cannot be established, a moving mover cannot be established. If a moving mover cannot be established, an agent cannot be established.

...

 Hi Wayfarer:

The key to understanding everything is the term "dependent designation." We don't question the statement "I am going to town." In this there are three appearances, for convenience's sake, a person, a road, and a destination.

A person is designated on the basis of the aggregates, but there is no person in the aggregates, in one of the aggregates, or separate from the aggregates. Agreed? A road is designated in dependence on its parts, agreed? A town s designated upon its parts. Agreed?

If you agree to this, then you should have no problem with the following teaching of the Buddha in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra:

This body arises from various conditions, but lacks a self. This body is like the earth, lacking an agent. This body is like water, lacking a self. This body is like fire, lacking a living being. This body is like the wind, lacking a person. This body is like space, lacking a nature. This body is the place of the four elements, but is not real. This body that is not a self nor pertains to a self is empty.

In other words, when it comes to the conventional use of language, Buddha never rejected statements like "When I was a so and so in a past life, I did so and so, and served such and such a Buddha." Etc. But when it comes to what one can discern on analysis, if there is no person, no self, etc., that exists as more than a mere designation, the fact that agents cannot be discerned on analysis should cause no one any concern. It is merely a question of distinguishing between conventional use of language versus the insight into the nature of phenomena that results from ultimate analysis.



-------



[11:36 PM, 10/17/2019] John Tan: Yes should put in blog together with Alan watt article about language causing confusion.


-------

From other threads:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26272&p=401986&hilit=agent#p401986

There is no "experiencer" since there is no agent. There is merely experience, and all experience is empty.

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=24265&start=540


Why should there be someone upon whom karma ripens? To paraphrase the Visuddhimagga, there is no agent of karma, nor is there a person to experience its ripening, there is merely a flow of dharmas.


...

There are no agents. There are only actions. This is covered in the refutation of moving movers in chapter two of the MMK.

...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=26495&p=406369&hilit=agent#p406369

 The point is that there is no point to eternalism if there is no eternal agent or object.


...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=16306&p=277352&hilit=mover+movement+agent#p277352

 Things have no natures, conventionally or otherwise. Look, we can say water is wet, but actually, there no water that possesses a wet nature. Water is wet, that is all. There is no wetness apart from water and not water apart from wetness. If you say a given thing has a separate nature, you are making the exact mistaken Nāgārajuna points out in the analysis of movement, i.e., it is senseless to say there is a "moving mover." Your arguments are exactly the same, you are basically saying there is an "existing existence."

...

This is precisely because of the above point I referenced. Nagārjuna clearly shows that characteristics/natures are untenable.

Candrakīrti points out that the possessor does not exist at all, but for the mere purpose of discourse, we allow conventionally the idea that there is a possessor of parts even though no possessor of parts exists. This mistake that we indulge in can act as an agent, for example a car, we can use it as such, but it is empty of being a car — an agent is as empty of being an agent as its actions are empty of being actions. 


...


Unread post by PadmaVonSamba » Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:25 pm
If Nagarjuna had a mirror, would he say the mirror is a different mirror each time something different is reflected in it, or is it the same mirror?

Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm Smith:

"Apart from what has been mirrored and not been mirrored, there is no [present] mirroring. A mirroring mirror is redundant, just like moving movers." - https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=35353...
 
 
 
-----
 
Update, some interesting passages:
 
 

Author: Astus

Date: Sat Jul 20, 2024 4:42 AM

Title: Re: Free Will?

Content:

Beings are the makers and heirs of their own actions. If they were not the makers, that would be determinism. If they were not the heirs, that would be indeterminism. Such denial of cause and effect is called wrong view (e.g. https://suttacentral.net/an3.119/en/sujato), and is based on the mistaken belief in a self (https://suttacentral.net/sn24.5/en/sujato).

 

Author: Astus

Date: Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:59 AM

Title: Re: Free Will?

Content:

The Buddha has rejected both determinism and indeterminism (https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato), and he practically ridiculed those who denied autonomy in their actions (https://suttacentral.net/an6.38/en/sujato). Naturally, what's been done is done, but currently one chooses how to act (https://suttacentral.net/sn35.146/en/sujato), therefore bad habits can be rectified (https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato), and even the consequences of past actions can be mitigated (https://suttacentral.net/an3.100/en/sujato).

 

-----

Buddha's teaching: https://suttacentral.net/an6.38/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

  • Numbered Discourses 6.38
  • 4. Deities

One’s Own Volition

Then a certain brahmin went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:

“Mister Gotama, this is my doctrine and view: One does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition.”

“Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition?

What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of initiative?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, do we find sentient beings who initiate activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since there is an element of initiative, and sentient beings who initiate activity are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of another.

What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of persistence … exertion … strength … endurance … energy?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, do we find sentient beings who have energy?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since there is an element of energy, and sentient beings who have energy are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of another.

Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition?”

“Excellent, Mister Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may Mister Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

Labels: , , , , 0 comments | | edit post