Showing posts with label Deconstruction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deconstruction. Show all posts

 

Geovani Geo there is the way of de-construction from analysis where one analyses and understands that "named things" are empty and "non-arisen" but still, one may not directly taste that empty clarity even after clearly understanding it conceptually. We must ask y is it so.
So, my question is:
1. How can the understanding that conceptual notions are empty "SUDDENLY" lead to direct authentication of one's empty "clarity/awareness"? Or it does or does not affect one's "clarity/awareness"?
2. If it does not, then what is the purpose of such contemplations?
3. If we want to authenticate "clarity" directly, don't you find the neti neti way to self enquiry of "who am I" a much more direct and intuitive approach?
4. How do 1 and 3 differ from ATR anatta enquiry of:
In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer;
In seeing, there is just colors and shapes, no seer;
All the above r ways of deconstructing conceptual constructs, but they lead to different results. Clearly understanding which de-constructing technique lead to what "result" is crucial.
*** It has to do with whether we r deconstructing the "SYNTAX/STRUCURE" or the "SEMANTICS/MEANING" that is associated to conceptual notion but will not go into it.

61 Comments

Yin Ling
Can u give answers John? Ahaha
    John Tan
    Yin Ling I think good to contemplate and look into one's experience.🤪
    As long as we don't go in with any pre-conceived ideas about what results will the various ways of de-constructing techniques yield, the relationship between experiences and the techniques of deconstruction become quite Intuitive and predictable.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Yin Ling
    I find 1) bring myself to “emptiness” insight when suddenly I intuit the whole sofa is itself a designation and the designation doesn’t lie elsewhere . The understanding comes suddenly .
    2) I don’t know 😂
    3) who am I bring one face to face with the mind, not its nature like 1) .. it’s a differnt insight imo
    4) this inquiry is to realize anatta. At 3) someone might see the mind and phenomena as one but not understanding “no-self”- that there was no split from the start, but it was ignorance that create an artificial split- hence “just the sound”..
    4) Might or might not intuit 1) but things starts to get really trippy haha.
    I am not sure! I’m just guessing hence need some answers 😂
  • John Tan
    Yin Ling there are no text book answers, just sincere investigation so that we won't mixed up and lead to wrong conclusions resulting in confusions. But I like ur answers.
  • Yin Ling
    John Tan ooohh I see. Thanks 😬
  • Yin Ling
    John Tan but I don’t know number 2) ?
    I don’t know is also an answer?!😂
  • Yin Ling
    John Tan oh I see. Thanks!
  • Soh Wei Yu
    My take
    1) In greg goode direct path, the conceptual notions and constructs of physicality and objectivity is deconstructed even at the I AM phase prior to collapse of witness
    In this path, objects and physicality become deconstructed into arisings within witnessing awareness, even before witness collapses.
    This leaves the subjective pole undeconstructed until much later.
    (Their path: coarse Witnessing with personality undeconstructed > subtle Witness or opaque witness with personality and objectivity deconstructed > collapse of witness into pure consciousness (aka one mind) > finally even consciousness dissolve (no mind?))
    3) will lead to dissociation and I AM. But neti neti is needed for self enquiry and I AM realization.
    4) deconstructs subjective pole, leading to direct realization and taste of radiance as all manifestations. Aka anatta
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
    John Tan
    Soh Wei Yu how does insight of "I Am" got triggered via such method of seeing through "named things"?
  • Soh Wei Yu
    To me I AM is triggered from self enquiry, not deconstruction. Seeing through named things is more on deconstruction
  • John Tan
    Soh Wei Yu so u r saying 1 will not lead to realization of "clarity" but just mere release of mental suffering?
  • Soh Wei Yu
    If the deconstruction of all conceptual notions goes along with meditation into a state of cessation of concepts, there is also a possibility of discovering pure awareness / I AM. Doesn’t have to be self enquiry. Like sim pern chong got there by breathing meditation, some people through psychedelics, some people through yoga, kundalini etc
  • John Tan
    Soh Wei Yu yes but not necessarily until total cessation of concepts, however at a much later phase of de-construction. The insight by then will be much clearer and stable imo though it comes at a later phase of de-constructing. I m more interested in how and why.
  • Soh Wei Yu
    As for 2) i think 1) can be a kind of release on mental level even if anatta isn’t realised. Greg goode said that by the time he reached transparent witness he was free of mental suffering.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Soh Wei Yu what is opaque witness? Free of mental suffering is true.
  • Soh Wei Yu
    Sorry wrote wrong. Opaque witness first followed by transparent witness. He became free from mental suffering at transparent witness:
  • May be an image of text that says '2:06 FIMR பOALE 4G YSVO Chapter The Opaque Witness direct makes loose Types informal distinction between how other but wareness such either pedagogy toolo more subtle point, it's when vell. m witness seems From Gross explain more about Subtle between these types of path's doesn't One Atmananda presents focus seem bviously AA books.google.com.sg'
  • May be an image of text that says '2:06 CISENAE የሚለLያ other 4G subtle 0 that Atmananda presents the Teasons, xist with the commonly that thoughts bucket-like tet you deconstructing subtle that prematurely You them investigate before they Occasionally wish soon heir job, ake shortcut, leconstructing mind even done soon, path, main thought brute separation investigation Ph "You" dwarenes chom aha never separate AA books.google.com.sg'
  • May be an image of text that says '2:07 프다퇴마리호 면모스로트 보도보에 4G alienation, you investigation impossible. present. the difference "place" where awareness never separate practice. opaque Opaque Witness Comes About physical indirectly. objects, don't investigation. They During excluded; regard subtle since The attribute embodiment. fact, Aиe awareness gets natural the that from independen teaching on carified, transparent witness at the beginning the path, would 00 abstract continue work with, nvestigation witness will advanced students encounter particular multiple thoughts point body." question arises:* thoughts, should happen Sublation question awareness some tension personal example how, There thoughts' the official teaching ension order supposed energizing dissolve analogous AA books.google.com.sg'
  • May be an image of text that says '2:07 C9Z2 abstract you continue with 4G with, particular point wareness. witness will thoughts, body. thoughts, issue cansee should this directpat Sublation question being greater and non- path, accounts teaching caused They may omitled ryiew fsomeone touches am certain and The ouching. existence painful bodies think, the think, You eel whent AA imilar yours. touche experimenter touches books.google.com.sg'
  • May be an image of text that says '2:07 CIPVLSR RTALE YOLO 4G someone touches and pain. The ouching, existence painful body bodies imilar yours. me, awareness this your object body, full body "special" body Does subject attention, not the Investigate Body? context you analogous a That pain ppearing notions, being elt ight there That itch being arm his here and here, which that contraction the same body in rapped. AA books.google.com.sg'
  • May be an image of text that says '2:10 wUDD CUSVMME IXEALE YIEXLO 4G PD awareness! Well, interested. The End the Opaque Witness though the opaque witness transparent enough transparent help hatt the transition from phenomena. these discoveries, ne AA < books.google.com.sg'
  • May be an image of text that says '2:10 wuaa CIPEVER አግለ요 SX_OI 4G Chapter 8 The Transparent Witness In this chapter, idea discuss issues and problems surrounding the witness. |cover the direct goes these issues. discuss how transparent self-canceling teatures come when witness the everything things reality. longer of have being act, seem your identity lodged there somewhere. Belief can the omiced bock preylew AA < books.google.com.sg'
  • May be an image of text that says '4G 2:10 wiToss CAEVR ERALE discover direct experience there's no evidence ctually being present absent). that's present as presence) witnessing awareness tselt. Non-dual Sticking Points and Traps inquiry phenomena continues, witnessing awareness borders assing limitations wareness thon tn dissolution. blong with most direct path's keys their potential sticking you give don't blological issue that ocuses mind direct-path can that| experiment other people. Why not? Because think public AA books.google.com.sg'
  • After Awareness: The End of the Path
    AMAZON.SG
    After Awareness: The End of the Path
    After Awareness: The End of the Path
    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1d
  • James Bird Demik
    Soh Wei Yu which are free to read if you have azon unlimited
  • Geovani Geo
    Thanks for the detailed question that lead me to a deeper line of inquiry. I must start with #4. What I am going to say is NOT some kind of a criticism towards AtR at all. I am pretty sure there are several types of mind that resonate fully with the AtR 7 stages. As for me, I have a few problems. For example, regarding Anatta and Maha, I am unable to see them as stages. How could someone say that has realized Anatta but feels as if action or volition are still issuing from an entity or a centre? As I see it, if that is the case, then very simply Anatta was not fully realized.
    Another 'issue' is at the initial stages. The problem there is quite 'personal'. The thing is that what is called 'I am stage' conflicts with an experience I had as a young kid, that I have no other way to call it but 'I am' also. But these 2 'I am', the AtR and my experiencing, are different. In my case, at an age that was certainly less then 7, for I was not in school yet by the time we lived at that town, was as follows:
    "I suddenly realized that something was looking out from behind these eyes that was from 'inside out', unlike all other beings in the whole universe that where seen form 'outside'. And I knew that this could be realized by anyone who would care to look at it".
    And I felt it deeply as an 'I am'. But, of course, it was a split 'I am', for such seeing was looking at an outside world. Nonetheless, something absolutely genuine, undeniable, was at play there that ignited my 'quest' for truth - way of speaking.
    Having said that, as a beginning of my answer to your question, I would say that de-construction can start from the objective or subjective side.
    Later more...
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
    John Tan
    Geovani Geo thks for the answers but don't quite get what u r trying to convey...haha
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan. Well, for the time being I am just saying that I am unable to answer your #4 question: "How do 1 and 3 differ from ATR anatta enquiry. But I will look closely at,
    "In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer;
    In seeing, there is just colors and shapes, no seer",
    and try to understand the proper context of your question.
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan. "there is the way of de-construction from analysis where one analyses and understands that "named things" are empty and "non-arisen" but still, one may not directly taste that empty clarity even after clearly understanding it conceptually. We must ask y is it so."
    Because the de-construction is not complete. There may still remain a sense of inner versus outer or this versus that. One may see that named things are empty "out there", as objects, but fail to see that the "inner" has not been de-constructed and is being taken as an subjective side.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo I still don't get the linkage. If I deconstruct "chair", "car", "cause and effect"...etc, how does it eventually lead to direct authentication of one's radiance clarity? I m not saying it won't, but where and what that "linkage"?
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, yes, I understand, you are trying to follow my train of logic and thought.
    The "linkage" is there because you don't just deconstruct "chair", "car", the so-called outside things. You also deconstruct any and all fabrications involving a separate centre, like sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc. So, if nothing is left as some kind of an observer, you are left AS the whole enchilada that is self-shining.
  • Geovani Geo
    And such "shining light" is also linked with "emptiness".
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo yes. In addition to self-luminous presence from thorough de-construction of "named things", any other insights?
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, yes. The most subtle and 'powerful' perhaps: emptiness. One of the connotations or corollary of the realization of 'emptiness' is that appearances are spontaneous, that it all could not happen in any other way... naturally. Just like gravity, or the flow of a river downwards.
  • Geovani Geo
    John, when you say,
    "clearly understanding which de-constructing technique lead to what "result" is crucial",
    are you implying that there is not an ultimate realization that may be arrived at through several different approaches?
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo If u ask r we our thoughts? No coz thoughts come and go, but obviously we do not come and go. Likewise we r not our heart, our body, our thoughts, our sensations..we kept disassociating from all these appearances until we come to a point where the mind becomes completely still and is simply aware of ITSELF. Such negation technique result in the direct face to face authenication of one's clarity but do not recognize the nature of appearances.
    In contrast to the above negation technique, u can also contemplate along the line of 4, i.e, negating self and realised there is zero distant, zero gap between appearances (thoughts, sensations, sounds, smells, colors....etc) and trigger the insight of all appearances as one's empty clarity.
    The former leads to disassociation from appearances while the latter is full embracement. Different technique, different realization, different result.
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, got it. But, ultimately, can not both approaches can lead to the same thing?
    If neti-neti is taken to its ultimate consequences any distance from seeming objects is zero-ed. If all and anything perceived is not "I", then "I" am nothing and suchness is what is appearing. Nothing is everything. Fragmentation ended.
    If, OTOH, one goes through "perceptions only perceiving", such perceiving is source-less. You are left with appearances likewise. Fragmentation ended.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo possibly but u must explain what do u mean by "taken to its ultimate consequences" like how u start from thorough disassociation of neti neti, what makes the u-turned into total embracement using the same technique.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Geovani Geo
    By "ultimate consequences" I mean that with the neti-neti approach often he "perceiver" is quite difficult to completely be seen through, although one understands that any residue "inside" is also neti-neti.
    Failure to go all the way through "ultimate consequences" may leave the residue as some self standing eternal entity, namely, as in neo-advaita is called Awareness.
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan asks, "what makes the U-turned into total embracement"?
    Because taken to its ultimate consequences, the source-less perceiving imply in nothingness, like the analogy of "space". And by being nothing I am everything.
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo yes that is one point, but how and y the total embracement of appearances? Do take note that even when witness is deconstructed, it may not be a u-turned into embracement of appearances but into a state of total oblivion or a state of impersonality or no-doership. There is no effortless and insubstantial non-dual insight.
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, what is the difference between "u-turn into embracement of appearances" and "state of impersonality or no-doership"?
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo impersonality is a total surrender where u let go even of the witness and being lived by life. Non-doership is state of effortless flowing as there is no-self. Both does not lead to insight that appearances are one's radiance clarity so simply negating witness does not necessarily lead to embracement of appearances. Coalescence of emptiness and appearances require more than that.
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, ...or perhaps less. 🙂 I don't think that the coalescence of emptiness and appearances can be arrived at through some method. The very 'notion' of emptiness is crucial end tricky. I say it is tricky because one can make 'something' out of it, a kind of subtle substantiation. And its crucial because it is emptiness that gives coalescence, equalizes all.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, and more than that, one realizes that what is, is self-perfecting. I really dont see such realization possible as a consequence of anything 'else' - like a system or method of contemplation. Just my opinion.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo I don't buy into that. Lol. I think that is a misconception of self-perfection. Awakening does not happen through confused views. Also just my opinion. 🙂
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, if its not self-perfecting, who or what is able to perfect it? Some "other"? "God"? The meditator? Then perfection would be a consequence, a result of some cause. Makes no sense.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo I m not denying self and natural perfection. I m saying self-perfection does not means any path, anything goes and anyhow will still lead to same result. That is complete mis-interpretation.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, but now you are regarding a time-bound "self-perfecting" as a means to go from here to there. From one state to another better state. I am not looking at it in such manner.
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo u have completely mistaken the natural state from the conventional. What de-constructed is the conventional, no attempt is made to make suchness more suchness.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, but that is what I said above! In the conventional "perfecting" is from one state to another, from not-so-perfect towards a more perfect. That is the conventional. It is looking at the other shore as if there where different shores, right? We are so used to methods and systems that we think that the Path is to move from here to there. Its a conditioned view. Actually, the Path is never other then the one under our feet. No?
  • Geovani Geo
    At one point there is no other shore to get at, there are no two shores. Is this not the quantum leap, the immediate no-otherness?
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo if u feel totally ok with such understanding, there is no point in discussing further and it is about time for me to sleep also..haha.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Geovani Geo
    John Tan, there is absolutely no claim here of attainment of some 'state' of being OK. I am what I am at the moment I am writing stuff. As I wrote that, above, yes... It felt just like that, really OK: no other shore to be attained is arriving at the other shore.
    Circumstances change and the scenario changes.
    It was our - as you called it - discussion that led me to that specific "place".
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Geovani Geo In self-arising wisdom, there only spontaneous presence and natural perfection; but,
    If there is mind even in the most minuest sense, there will be knowing, there will be apprehension, there will be grasping and there will be division. Hence everything orginates in dependence, everything is empty;
    And as long as there is mind,
    "Self" and "otherness" orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;
    View, path and result originate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;
    Cause and effect orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;
    If we r still in a state of mind (relative) even in the minuest sense and sprouting glamorously "no practice, no path and and no result" that is just deluding oneself into self-perfection.
      • Reply
      • 1d
      • Edited
  • Chris Wilson
    1.I don't like my answer to this.. I can't articulate it. Edit: looking more at the question... I don't know
    3. yes because it gives things to look at and investigate and to see that it can't be that and eventually lead to a complete frustration of all thought the mind can present for an answer to the point of surrender of control to actually experience the clarity.
    4. The investigation is deconstructing the internal.. the point of reference.. rather than looking for the internal that the external is found in. It feels like the point of reference getting thrown out to everywhere and nowhere for I to land or everywhere for it to land.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
    Chris Wilson
    4 is not very clear for me... just what I think coming from brief experiences
  • John Tan
    Chris Wilson my conversations with Geovani Geo may answer some of ur questions.
  • Chris Wilson
    Thank you... my bad this isn't AtR... just saw some of the usual suspects 😁
  • John Tan
    Chris Wilson haha yeah. I m not in ATR group.
  • Reply
  • 1d
  •  
  • John Tan, lets continue with this new thread, please. Its just that my PC does not follow long sub-threads, so it becomes hard to find your comments. Also, sorry for deviating the main subject. My mind goes crazy sometimes.
    so, you where saying:
    "In self-arising wisdom, there only spontaneous presence and natural perfection; but,
    If there is mind even in the most minuest sense, there will be knowing, there will be apprehension, there will be grasping and there will be division. Hence everything orginates in dependence, everything is empty;
    And as long as there is mind, "Self" and "otherness" orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;
    View, path and result originate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;
    Cause and effect orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;
    If we r still in a state of mind (relative) even in the minuest sense and sprouting glamorously "no practice, no path and and no result" that is just deluding oneself into self-perfection."
    18 Comments
    Like
    Comment
    Share

    18 Comments

    • Geovani Geo
      I lost you when you said, "And as long as there is mind, "Self" and "otherness" orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting"
      I don't understand what you mean with "that is self-perfecting". Is not the presence of mind, Self and Other, conditioned response, the past? Why do you say it is self-perfecting?
      Hide 12 Replies
      • John Tan
        If u don't understand, then u r not in a state of omniscience so better stop claiming self-perfection and I m not in the business of self delusion so this is my last post to u, Geovani Geo.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • 21h
        • Edited
      • Geovani Geo
        OK. But it is not a conscious claim. I am listening.
      • Geovani Geo
        U meant with "that is self-perfecting" that it is WRONGLY seen as that?
      • Geovani Geo
        Or... that seeing ignorance correctly... that is also self-perfecting.
      • Geovani Geo
        U just completed your comment with "this is my last post to u, Geovani Geo"
        Alright, but is there anything I could say that would change your mind? Anyway, thanks.
      • Geovani Geo
        "And as long as there is mind, "Self" and "otherness" orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting"
        Of course... I got it.
        This is tantamount to perceiving that suffering is self-perfecting.
        I hope, John, you change your mind about not talking to me. You have misunderstood my position regarding "practices". I have never said or suggested in any way to not practice. I challenge you to point where did I say that. I have said this several times before to Soh, to André, - to whom I even mentioned Garab Dorje in this regard. I will repeat it again with other words:
        The sublime practice is to be nothing, which does not mean at all that it is sublime to practice nothing.
      • John Tan
        Yes Geovani Geo , u r thinking, pondering, responding, contemplating and communicating with a FB guy named "JohnTan" 😁 and at the same time claiming "no view, no path, no result" with a view of a truly exisitng state called "self-perfection", that imo is "delusory".
        For me, the right path miraculously manifests for a sincere and genuine practitioner and that is already as perfect as it can be. If nothing manifests, then we would probably have to worry. Therefore,
        If one understands what dependently orginates does not orginate, there is no actual path; infinite illusory paths originate dependently as skillful means from the infinite mind of sentient beings.
        Since dependent orgination and emptiness are synonym and emptiness is the perfection of wisdom, dependent orgination is naturally perfected and those who see dependent orgination also sees natural perfection.
        That is how I see it and has helped me refine my view, experiences and insights. Hopefully it will also work for u and good luck!
        2
        • Like
        • Reply
        • 16h
        • Edited
      • Geovani Geo
        Ha.. but I agree totally with all of that and I have not said anything to contest it. I dont know why you got pissed off 🙂. It seems that it takes some time for us to adjust what we are hearing from each other to the the proper context. We don't communicate very often and also, I have no school/lineage background so adjustments must be made regarding nomenclature and the such.
        Look:
        I said that the world is self-perfecting. With 'world' I meant all-inclusion. I have not excluded sorrow, suffering, delusion - the whole thing. To that you got annoyed and answered in a contesting tone as:
        "If there is mind even in the most minutest sense, there will be knowing, there will be apprehension, there will be grasping and there will be division. Hence everything originates in dependence, everything is empty. And as long as there is mind, "Self" and "otherness" originate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting. View, path and result originate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting"
        Where is the difference?? All you did was to specify the nature of ignorance and delusion which are as part of the world as I meant. And I enjoyed reading it - truly. I did not get your point immediately because - as i said - it took me some time to find the proper context because the 'tone' of your answer was of disagreement, of contesting what I said.
        ###
        Are you not also seemingly communicating with a FB guy named Geo?
      • John Tan
        Geovani Geo don't misunderstand, I m not pissed. I m just being firmed on what I see as nihilistic view of no-practice and see it as pointless to keep discussing on such issues. I rather let that person to carry on their path.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • 14h
        • Edited
      • Geovani Geo
        OK, but you are putting words in my mouth, stuff I did not say. Where did I say not to practice?
    • John Tan
      Anyway just journey urself and don't keep wasting time on such issues.
    • Geovani Geo
      Right... for the time being. But I'll be back at you!!! LOL 😉
    • John Tan
      Lol, I might not reply. Lol🤣🤦
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 14h
      • Edited
    • Geovani Geo
      I am not writing either 😍🥰🙃