There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer

In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

Don't you think so? But beyond that one has to go deep into dependent origination and emptiness.

By the way there's nothing wrong with flow of experience. Precisely because it is not substantialist nondual then one speaks about flow of experience. Otherwise one will speak of an unchanging absolute.

(2:34 PM) Thusness: Some of AF articles are quite good.

And the Realization tallies the experience described.

(2:35 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:35 PM) Thusness: it is also not easy to have that sort of clarity.

many cannot differentiate the difference between non-dual and anatta

(2:38 PM) Thusness: the only point lacking in AF is the realization of 'process'-based understanding

(2:40 PM) AEN: what do u mean by process based understanding

(2:41 PM) Thusness: understanding reality as a flow

not entity

(2:45 PM) AEN: oic.. but AF doesnt understand reality as an entity right

(2:45 PM) Thusness: yes but there is a difference

(2:46 PM) Thusness: no-subject is directly understood as this flow...

(2:46 PM) Thusness: which is quite clear in joan's article.

and in stainlessness and tata articles.

(2:47 PM) Thusness: as well as steven hagen

(2:47 PM) Thusness: means there is clarity in expression about this.

(2:49 PM) Thusness: Because in actual experience, it becomes very clear. If a practitioner were to explore further, it will not be difficult for him to realize the impact of 'view' on experience.

(2:50 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:55 PM) AEN: btw is this about the flow: "...Apperceptiveness is observing the moving flow of experience and enjoying things as they are changing ... in full appreciation of being here and participating in this happenstance. Apperceptiveness is seeing the birth, growth, and maturation of all phenomena ... and it is seeing all phenomena age, decay and die. Apperceptiveness is its own attentiveness moment by moment, continuously ... one is the experiencing of the doing of this moment of being alive. Apperceptiveness stops one from adding anything to perception, or subtracting something from it: one does not enhance anything for one does not emphasise anything. One is free to observe exactly what is here now without distortion..."

"...By living together in peace and harmony, equity and freedom, we have proved that, with pure intent, this is possible for anyone on the planet. Life, after all, was meant to be easy, friendly, comfortable, peaceful, harmonious, ever-changing, fresh each moment, direct, obvious, with the senses allowing intimate and total involvement in this moment of being alive. But then again we all have sometimes suspected this and even had tantalizing glimpses of this perfection. It is the destiny we seek..."

(2:57 PM) Thusness: yes but what is the insight about?

(2:59 PM) Thusness: when there is no-subject and experience is a moving flow and has always been so, what does that mean? what is the relationship between in/out, here/there, now/then... awareness/thoughts

(2:59 PM) Thusness: what does the insight of anatta really tell us?

(3:00 PM) AEN: hmm... its telling us that there is only a flow of sensations with nothing inherent anywhere?

(3:02 PM) Thusness: there is non-conceptual thought then conceptual thought, then non-conceptual thought...... there is no Awareness

(3:02 PM) Thusness: relate this to the quotes u provided in ur comment

(3:08 PM) AEN: hmm.. so when awareness is the flow, both conceptual thought and non conceptual thought have the same essence and nature... there is no other inherent entity called non conceptual awareness, its just a flow of conceptual and non conceptual thoughts and the flow itself is awareness?

(3:08 PM) Thusness: no

(3:09 PM) Thusness: there is no the flow itself is awareness as in true existence

just mere convention

(3:09 PM) AEN: oic..

(3:10 PM) AEN: so the insight is in seeing how nothing is inherent and everything we say like in/out, awareness/thoughts etc are mere conventions?

but in reality theres only a flow

(3:10 PM) Thusness: no

(3:11 PM) Thusness: it tells us why a reality that is always so can become entity base...

(3:11 PM) Thusness: and how it relates to liberation

(3:12 PM) AEN: oic...

(3:46 PM) AEN: it tells us why a reality that is always so can become entity base... - u mean by seeing everything as impermanence, then u realise how u have been solidifying them through grasping them as fixed entities?

Session Start: Saturday, 24 July, 2010

(11:28 PM) Thusness: AF sees the universe as this flesh and bone as a realization of one's destiny. This is important.

(11:28 PM) AEN: destiny?

oic

thats like anatta right

(11:30 PM) Thusness: it is very difficult to explain to u now unless it becomes an effortless experience for u.

(11:31 PM) Thusness: universe as this body is not exactly right but for now it helps ur understanding of impersonality and the I AM phase.

(11:32 PM) Thusness: if u refine ur non-dual experience in terms of luminosity with all these insights, then u will understand anatta better.

(11:33 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:27 AM) AEN: do u think it is possible to be completely emotionally free and fearless? --> hmm the buddha said arhants with defilements do not have fears right?

*without defilements

(1:01 PM) Thusness: i do not like to discuss endlessly without true insight. Unless u have genuine understanding of what 'fear' is first.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: most of what said is theoretical, nothing much experiential yet.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: it is like telling me theoretically what "I AM" is, there is no point talking about it and end up in endless arguments.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: However what is important is to know what is the "mode of thought/perception" for spiritual practice -- not by way of inference, deduction or induction. You must replace the 'how, what, where, when and why' with this new found "mode of perception". So are u able to direct experience 'fear' the way u experienced "I AM"?

(1:02 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:33 PM) AEN: fear only arise when there is attachment to a sense of self right, otherwise there is just sensations without fear

(2:31 PM) AEN: http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=0&writingid=228

(11:26 PM) Thusness: it is very well written but it is just non-conceptual thought and conceptual thought really.

(11:26 PM) Thusness: he still can't get around the idea that there is always only thoughts. Conceptuality creates the separation.

(11:26 PM) Thusness: and this is the practice of bringing presence to the foreground. U have to touch the rawness of 'thought'

(11:26 PM) Thusness: to deepen the practice.

(11:26 PM) Thusness: it is a good practice to lead a practitioner to the realization of non-dual luminosity.

(11:32 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:33 PM) AEN: yah yesterday i was trying to be nondual with thoughts... i notice the tendency to discard thoughts to sink back to a formless background is simply more duality... there is no need need to discard anything

(11:35 PM) Thusness: not only that...there are different degree as i told u...learn to bring this to the foreground...but first...have more indepth experience of impersonality

(11:35 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:36 PM) Thusness: kiloby's explanation is quite good but it has to apply to both thoughts and awareness too.

Start: Monday, 6 September, 2010

(9:01 PM) AEN: scott kiloby wrote an article on 'The Flow' http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=0&writingid=253

(9:13 PM) Thusness: kiloby's article is very good

(9:16 PM) Thusness: the article u posted in the blog by kiloby and together with this article, it fairly complete

(9:17 PM) Thusness: u must be able to integrate the 2 articles.

(9:17 PM) Thusness: currently u r looking at AF 'aliveness' that is only the luminosity aspect.

(9:19 PM) Thusness: now the article u showed me has two very important points, tell me the 2.

(9:23 PM) Thusness: many of the titles seem interesting

(9:35 PM) AEN: it's talking about self not as something solid but as the flow, ungraspable?

(9:36 PM) Thusness: no

(9:36 PM) Thusness: completely out

(9:37 PM) AEN: its saying that concepts are part of the flow, and concepts do not actually refer to something solid, and therefore thoughts aren't a problem?

(9:38 PM) Thusness: what is the different between all previous articles and this one?

(9:43 PM) AEN: the previous article seems to stress more on non conceptuality

this one seems to talk about concepts as not a problem?

im not so sure

(9:44 PM) Thusness: just read through the articles, they are very different

(9:44 PM) AEN: u're talking about which previous article

(9:44 PM) Thusness: the one u posted in our blog

(9:45 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:47 PM) AEN: im not so sure..

(9:48 PM) Thusness: so just rem this part

(9:49 PM) AEN: remember what?

(9:49 PM) Thusness: rem that there are differences between these 2 articles

very different in fact.

(9:51 PM) Thusness: and u r always looking for easy answers. Even if u were to think, u still face the same issue that is mentioned in kiloby's article.

the article that u pasted in this msn.

(9:51 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:29 PM) AEN: in the blog article, scott kiloby talks about objects as being thoughts, emotions, sensations happening in awareness

in the article he talks about thoughts, emotions, sensations as seamless currents of an unknowable river

(10:30 PM) Thusness: totally out

(10:30 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:32 PM) Thusness: the analogy is the same as the dust and the mirror i told u.

(10:33 PM) Thusness: but he is unable to get over the idea of the mirror.

(10:33 PM) Thusness: yet in the article of the blog, he spoke of no mirror

(10:33 PM) AEN: ic..

(10:33 PM) Thusness: therefore there is no clarity of the view yet

(10:34 PM) Thusness: u can see he repeatedly talk about the current is the river

(10:35 PM) AEN: oic.. but wats the difference between the two articles?

(10:35 PM) Thusness: first go through all the points first

all are very important

(10:36 PM) Thusness: post it in the blog, i see whether i got time to go through...there are some very important points that u have to know.

(10:37 PM) Thusness: it is also advisable to re-read these articles to have deepening insight.

(10:40 PM) AEN: posted

(10:41 PM) Thusness: will go through it these few days

(10:42 PM) AEN: ic..

(10:43 PM) Thusness: u posted twice

(10:43 PM) AEN: yea deleted the other one

(10:56 PM) Thusness: is AF more about the flow article, or you r left with the world?

(11:00 PM) AEN: you are left with the world

AF seldom mentions about the flow

(11:00 PM) AEN: i think

(11:02 PM) Thusness: yes

(11:02 PM) Thusness: what is AF emphasizing?

(11:02 PM) AEN: the universe, the physical, the actual, the intensity of luminosity

(11:02 PM) Thusness: yes

this experience peaks when?

(12:13 AM) AEN: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/15659-edo-and-the-self/

(12:38 AM) AEN: mikael says:

*i think I have a natural disposition toward the PCE

*i think i've had one before

*whenever I "naturally" try to meditate.. I concentrate on the senses and try to "become" the world, ignore feelings by just seeming them as impermanent physical sensations. thoughts are usually non existent because i'm concentrating

*i'm going to try to cultivate that

(12:44 AM) AEN: i think i know the difference between the first and second article... the awareness is the world is like talking about the 2nd stanza of anatta with the emphasis on luminosity as the universe, then the flow is talking abuot the 1st stanza of anatta... the insubstantiality of everything as

simply mind moments arising and passing without anything graspable whatsoever. like a thought is simply an arising bubble... but then the flow article fails to integrate the insight of awareness as simply the 'current', the universe, the sensations?

(1:58 AM) AEN: the new article still talks about river and current as if river is something inherent even though the current is part of the river... the previous article is talking about how there is no mind/awareness, only the manifestation/current

Session Start: Tuesday, 7 September, 2010

(11:15 AM) Thusness: PCE is simply non-dual experience except the realization is about manifestation (coming face to face with the actual stuff, i.e, the other five entries and exits) instead of coming face to face with "I AM".

ur answer is still no good

(11:15 AM) Thusness: although ur answer is quite near. You must also be aware of the part on there is no way u can have any 'concepts' of the flow. But the idea or 'right view' is still not there. Not having any 'fixed idea' or 'fixed view' is still not good enough.

(11:16 AM) AEN: oic..

(11:43 AM) AEN: what do u think of what upekka said: when we say 'we see the computer screen', we take the 'seeing+computer screen' as one entity and we are conscious to the computer screen. this is what happen to us all the time, this will be what happen to us all the time unless we can not understand Buddha's Teaching

if we are mindful, if we have sati, if we have yoniso-manasikara, we do not cling to the 'computer screen', we are not with ignoranace (avijja) so do not create any sankhara (kamma-formation)

when there is no kamma-formation, there is no place for Consciousness to reside on

(11:43 AM) AEN: one thought moment arisen and fallen away without any residual to come back again in future

in other words, in one thought moment there is no Dependent-arising activated

(4:44 PM) AEN: http://www.you-are-that.com/questions-&-answers.html

* There is no individual 'seer', there is only Pure Consciousness Seeing.

* There is no individual 'hearer', there is only Pure Consciousness Hearing.

* There is no individual 'speaker', there is only Pure Consciousness Speaking.

* There is no individual 'thinker', there is only Pure Consciousness Thinking.

* There is no individual' doer', there is only Pure Consciousness Doing.

* There is no individual 'life', there is only Pure Consciousness Living.

* There is no individual 'breather', there is only Pure Consciousness breathing.

This "pure Intelligence" or "living presence" is keeping your entire body together, the "glue" that is holding the whole universe in place as it appears. Functioning your entire body effortlessly and naturally for you. There is absolutely nothing you have to do by "will", to be alive right now! This living presence or livingness naturally IS! It is your natural state of presence.

(4:44 PM) AEN:

Just like when you were only a group of cells, this "pure Intelligence" or "Life" was growing you and forming you effortlessly and naturally. Putting together the pattern or body that you have right now, inside your mother's womb all by itself, just as it is still

growing you right now naturally and effortlessly all by itself. This pure Intelligence, Life or Consciousness, does not need any help from you or anyone else, it knows very well what it is doing!

Realize that this entire manifested Universe is that exact same one "Presence", unchanged and untouched by time and space. The "Infinite Essence" of this entire Universe is your essence also, one and the same! Only one essence is present, that is your true nature or natural state of presence, not a small transient human being, but this Infinite unchanging Presence of Consciousness.

4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta

I have just casually gone through some of your forum discussions. Very enlightening discussions and well presentation of my 7-phases-of-insights but try not to over-emphasize it as a model; it should not be taken as a definite model of enlightenment nor should you use it as a framework to validate others' experiences and insights. Simply take it as a guide along your spiritual journey.

You are right to differentiate non-dual experience from non-dual realization and non-dual realization from the insight of anatta. We have discussed this umpteem times. Non-dual experience in the context we are using refers to the experience of no-subject-object division. The experience is much like putting two candle flames together where the boundary between the flames becomes indistinguishable. It is not a realization but simply a stage, an experience of unity between the observer and the observed where the conceptual layer that divides is temporarily suspended in a meditative state. This you have experienced.

Non-dual realization on the other hand is a deep understanding that comes from seeing through the illusionary nature of subject-object division. It is a natural non-dual state that resulted from an insight that arises after rigorous investigation, challenge and a prolonged period of practice that is specially focused on ‘No-Self’. Somehow focusing on “No-Self” will spark a sense of sacredness towards the transient and fleeting phenomena. The sense of sacredness that is once the monopoly of the Absolute is now also found in the Relative. The term ‘No-Self’ like Zen-Koan may appear cryptic, senseless or illogical but when realized, it is actually obviously clear, direct and simple. The realization is accompanied with the experience that everything is being dissolved into either:

1. An ultimate Subject or

2. As mere ‘flow of phenomenality’

In whatever the case, both spells the end of separateness; experientially there is no sense of two-ness and the experience of unity can be quite overwhelming initially but eventually it will lose its grandeur and things turn quite ordinary. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the sense of Oneness is derived from the experience of ‘All as Self’ or ‘as simply just manifestation’, it is the beginning insight of “No-Self”. The former is known as One-Mind and the later, No-Mind.

In Case 1 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization, understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of ‘No-Self based on Self’.

For Case 2 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed.

To mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.

Therefore this phase of insight is not about singing eloquently the non-dual nature of an Ultimate Reality; contrary it is deeming this Ultimate Reality as irrelevant. Ultimate Reality appears relevant only to a mind that is bond to seeing things inherently, once this tendency dissolves, the idea of a source will be seen as flawed and erroneous. Therefore to fully experience the breadth and depth of no-self, practitioners must be prepared and willing to give up the entire subject-object framework and be open to eliminate the entire idea of a ‘source’. Rob expressed very skillfully this point in his talk:

One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

What then is the view that Buddhism is talking about without resorting to a ‘source’? I think the post by Vajrahridaya in the thread ‘What makes Buddhism different’ of your forum succinctly and concisely expressed the view, it is well written. That said, do remember to infinitely regress back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form.