Showing posts with label Stream Entry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stream Entry. Show all posts
Genuine Realisation is Rare, Most Claimants are Delusional


Someone recently revealed to me the identity of the person responsible for creating those misleading videos.


Here was my response:


I have never gotten the impression that Mr. X possessed genuine insight or understanding. Yes, Angelo has realized anatta, but as I mentioned earlier, Ms S certainly has not. Mr E had glimpses in the past but not realisation, though I’m uncertain about his current state.


Be cautious about believing anyone who talks about "no self." Many are just talking about dry non doership, impersonality, nondual experiences, etc. As I've stated before, 99% of those who speak about the experience or insight of "no self" are far from the anatta of AtR or the anatta realization in Buddhadharma.


They haven’t even realized the I AM, let alone attained a genuine realization of anatta. There is a lot of misinformation online, the internet is full of misleading and delusional claims not just on YouTube but also on platforms like Reddit. Even in this group, it happens from time to time that some people openly present themselves as realised when they are essentially just deluding themselves. In the past I just let it slip, but now we have a new rule and any claims will never go unchallenged.


As Krodha/Kyle Dixon once said:


“The streamentry sub is full of people who overvalue their own meditation insights and experiences. Most claiming to be stream entrants who are not.”


“There are probably no srotapannas there. From reading that sub over a decade it is essentially just full of people deluding themselves.


Some nice meditation experiences, sure. But actual stream entrants? Definitely not.”


"It is quite rare to attain stream entry, I’ve been involved with dharma for over a decade and can count those who are tried and true stream entrants on one hand. That said, contemplate the Bahiya and Kalakarama suttas and cultivate the first dhyāna."




----------------------



Mr Z said: "He has quoted Rob Burbea several times "We’re not trying to destroy the sense of self, where trying to understand something about it”. He claims Angelo and others have taken it a step too far."



Soh replied:


Rob Burbea is not correct here. Buddhism does destroy the sense of self, but only at an advanced phase of one's practice.

Destroying the sense of self is part and parcel of overcoming the third and eighth fetters of Buddha’s teachings (I am not speaking here of Kevin Shanilec’s version which I consider to be not exactly the same as  Buddha's definitions but that's another story).


However the way the fetters are destroyed is not through forcing it out. That cannot be done.


As John Tan said: 


"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising. "


~ Thusness (source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)


"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another form of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force yourself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."


~ Thusness


- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html



So if that is what Rob Burbea meant, then he is correct. However, if he meant that the sense of self will forever be around, then it is clearly wrong, and he is clearly at odds with the Buddhist scriptures from Theravada to Mahayana and Vajrayana. Sense of self will indeed vanish without a trace in true liberation. Also see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/07/buddhahood-end-of-all-emotionalmental.html

Buddha or arahants will still be able to respond to someone calling his name, but it does not mean he/she has a sense of self.


"Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)"


- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFNGVgBHTq9uH1IuxwgiDtblDUbra_E7HnGM2DmoHhF_XIBOtuwE2EnrfDEXjkmhQ



And here's another better translation:


SN 1.25

Question: When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: would they say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”

The Buddha replied: “When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: they would say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

Question: “When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: is such a mendicant drawing close to conceit if they’d say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”

The Buddha replied: “Someone who has given up conceit has no ties, the ties of conceit are all dissipated. Though that intelligent person has transcended substantial reality, they’d still say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

Lastly, another sharing of an excerpt of Buddha's discourse in MN 140:

29. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace.’

30. “‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?

31. “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and is not agitated. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he be agitated?

32. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ Bhikkhu, bear in mind this brief exposition of the six elements.”



----


The Buddha said: Blissful is passionlessness in the world, The overcoming of sensual desires (i.e. anagami); But the abolition of the conceit "I am" (i.e. arahantship) — That is truly the supreme bliss.
 

Also, the Buddha said:

“The noble ones have seen as happiness

The ceasing of identity.

This [view] of those who clearly see

Runs counter to the entire world.

 

“What others speak of as happiness,

That the noble ones say is suffering;

What others speak of as suffering,

That the noble one know as bliss.”




He said: "[he] has called out you and Angelo several times as preaching an unhealthy, inhumane form of no-self that does not represent the middle way"


Soh replied: 


He does not understand the approach and impact of insight nor the anatta insight. Depression and shadows can be released through genuine insight into anatta and emptiness but he does not have these insights at all.

 

See https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/03/pam-tans-anatta-realisation-and-purging.html


Our admin Tommy said, “These people should speak to me: Former opiate addicted, chain smoking, SSRI-filled, delusional mess. If I'm deluding myself and dissociating then my ability to fabricate experience must be absolutely amazing. 🤣🤣🤣”

 

 

Related article: Good book on healing trauma and nondual realization



----------------

Update: Tommy McNally shared:

Tommy McNally
Admin
Top contributor
Re. Soh's mention that "99% of those who speak about the experience or insight of "no self" are far from the anatta of AtR..."
This is also true on the Dharma Overground. I spoke to Daniel about this around three years ago and he estimated less than 1% of the people on DhO have actually attained 1st Path, even by MCTB standards.
Just thought I'd add this as it's another example of how easily people can overestimate their insights and confuse flashy meditative experiences for something more profound. I know because I've done it repeatedly, so this isn't just speculation on my part.
  • Reply
     
     
     



Good video by Angelo. Also see my comments belo



----

As another admin pointed out, "X is stuck in non-doership and believes anatta is some sort of ego-death.”

I also wrote, "havent watched both videos yet but Z said “X is stuck in non-doership and believes anatta is some sort of ego-death.”

Thats also been my impression with him

99% of people who speak about no self dont go beyond these

They havent even realised I AM or radiance, let alone nondual, or anatta. But many just think it is anatta

The dunning kruger effect is strong for so many people. This is why i put an end to all the unchecked attainment announcing in atr group rules.. otherwise there will just be endless nonsense one after another and countless people misled"

On the different faces of self/Self and 'no self' experiences and insights, see my article https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html - Different Degrees of No-Self: Non-Doership, Non-dual, Anatta, Total Exertion and Dealing with Pitfalls

Yet another admin pointed out, "From what Angelo and others have said, I'm guessing he's programmed himself into dissociation and depersonalization, like XYZ did, and now thinks that everyone else has done the same thing."

Also, anyone who mistakes anatta with some sort of ego death state clearly hasn't been reading AtR at all.

See https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/anatta-is-dharma-seal-or-truth-that-is.html

Excerpt:

"First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically.

John Tan adds: "This is the seal of no-self and can be realized and experienced in all moments; not just a mere concept.""

Also, see my recent new article that I made into a 'Must Read' article featured on the Must Read list in AtR blog: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/09/genuine-realisation-is-rare.html - "Genuine Realisation is Rare, Most Claimants are Delusional"




——

Update:

Person A says, “I agree so much with Angelo and Jac o Keefe also says wait 5 years before maturing to teach. Her Association for Spiritual Integrity helped me as I had a terrible experience in Portugal with a teacher kind of linked to Andrew Cohen ( which I didn’t know about before I joined).
So happy this happened and for this clarifying video as we need ethics here in teaching.”

Person B replies, “5 years sounds like a minimum time, notwithstanding some people have been on the path about 20 years and aren’t teaching or interested in teaching. One’s motivation for teaching really needs a good look at also.”

Soh replied,

“five years and twenty years are not enough if they remain confused, lack any true insights, or insights are not mature.

These people need to learn and study under truly awakened masters and teachers, and not be teaching and misleading others.

And i can assure you that without proper guidance and pointers, many will not make any progress despite whatever length of time”

“Excerpt from my article https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/01/finding-awakened-spiritual-teacher-and.html

…Bodhidharma, esteemed as the first patriarch of Chan/Zen, marking him as a foundational and transformative figure in the lineage and teachings of this tradition, emphasizes the crucial role of a teacher in the journey towards enlightenment. In his teachings, he states, "To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature. Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha. If you don’t see your nature, being mindful of Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are not equal to it. Being mindful of Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good intelligence; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth in heavens, and making offerings results in future blessings — but no buddha. If you don’t understand by yourself, you’ll have to find a teacher to know the root of births and deaths. But unless he sees his nature, such a person isn’t a good teacher. Even if he can recite the twelve groups of scriptures he can’t escape the Wheel of Births and Deaths. He suffers in the three realms without hope of release. Long ago, the monk Good Star was able to recite the twelve groups of scriptures. But he didn’t escape the Wheel, because he didn’t see his nature. If this was the case with Good Star, then people nowadays who recite a few sutras or shastras and think it’s the Dharma are fools. Unless you see your own Heart, reciting so much prose is useless.

To find a Buddha have to see your nature directly. Your nature is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the person who’s free: free of plans, free of cares. If you don’t see your nature and run outwards to seek for external objects, you’ll never find a buddha. The truth is there’s nothing to find. But to reach such an understanding you need a good teacher and you need to struggle to make yourself understand. Life and death are important. Don’t suffer them in vain.

There’s no advantage in deceiving yourself. Even if you have mountains of jewels and as many servants as there are grains of sand along the Ganges, you see them when your eyes are open. But what about when your eyes are shut? You should realize then that everything you see is like a dream or illusion. If you don’t find a teacher soon, you’ll live this life in vain. It’s true, you have the buddha-nature. But without the help of a teacher you’ll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher’s help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn’t need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you’re so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you’ll understand.

People who don’t understand and think they can do so without study are no different from those deluded souls who can’t tell white from black.” Falsely proclaiming the Buddha-Dharma, such persons in fact blaspheme the Buddha and subvert the Dharma. They preach as if they were bringing rain. But theirs is the preaching of devils not of Buddhas. Their teacher is the King of Devils and their disciples are the Devil’s minions. Deluded people who follow such instruction unwittingly sink deeper in the Sea of Birth and Death.

Unless they see their nature, how can people call themselves Buddhas they’re liars who deceive others into entering the realm of devils. Unless they see their nature, their preaching of the Twelvefold Canon is nothing but the preaching of devils. Their allegiance is to Mara, not to the Buddha. Unable to distinguish white from black, how can they escape birth and death?

Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha; whoever doesn’t is a mortal. But if you can find your buddha-nature apart from your mortal nature, where is it? Our mortal nature is our Buddha nature. Beyond this nature there’s no Buddha. The Buddha is our nature. There’s no Buddha besides this nature. And there’s no nature besides the Buddha."

Also, Jigme Phuntsok Rinpoche said:

“If you wish to eradicate your afflictions, you must follow your teacher and study for a long time. Otherwise, studying for only a few days will not have any significant effect ... Some people today are not willing to study or reflect on the Dharma, but they are enthusiastic about meditation. They believe meditating all day with their eyes shut is the ultimate practice. I do not think much of this. Although there are people of the highest caliber who attain enlightenment without study or reflection, are you of such caliber? Therefore, you cannot live in a cave or another completely isolated place when you first start to practice. Instead, you should be with a qualified Dharma teacher and earnestly receive the Buddhadharma; it is best if you are always engaged in study, reflection, and practice. Of course, I am not asking you to study and reflect for a lifetime without ever practicing. But to spend an entire life in blind meditation without any study or reflection is also the wrong path!“”

“Another admin said after me, 

“Yeah would be nice if time was a deciding factor on maturity in this context

Sadly not the case

E.g., Jax”
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
[insight] [buddhism] A reconsideration of the meaning of "Stream-Entry" considering the data points of both pragmatic Dharma and traditional Buddhism

Also see:
What is Nirvana?
Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings
The Deathless in Buddhadharma?
The Meaning of Nirvana

Early Buddhism's Model of Awakening

The Mahayana Model of Awakening
Buddhahood: The End of All Emotional/Mental Afflictions and Knowledge Obscurations

 


One of the most top-voted threads on Reddit's streamentry subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20

 

[9:07 PM, 8/27/2020] John Tan: Yes pretty much agree with what he said.
[9:40 PM, 8/27/2020] John Tan: But the same insight of anatta must be applied to object, characteristics, cause and effect, production and cessation...which is a more slippery issue.  Nevertheless, experientially seeing through self/Self is still most crucial.

 

 

 

John TanFriday, January 23, 2015 at 6:13pm UTC+08

u cannot choose and pick what u like about liberation and enlightenment. Saying one has actualized anatta and uprooted self and attained arahatship is not what u see ppl declaring here and there. I have told u many times what [these people] realized is only at most stream entry. U r talking about liberation and freedom from cyclical existence and therefore u r referring to arahatship.

 

 

......

 

 

 

[6:11 am, 19/04/2022] John Tan: This article is written myriad object?
[6:14 am, 19/04/2022] John Tan: Should put geoff and myriad objects article in main link, I think it clears a lot of misconceptions.
Soh: Yeah.. ok
Main link as in the stickied posts in atr blog?
John Tan: Yes
Soh: Ok
[9:58 am, 19/04/2022] John Tan: Any links to insightful articles?
[9:58 am, 19/04/2022] John Tan: I think a section on that is good
Soh: Ok.. later i think how to create
John Tan: Otherwise many ppl might missed all these good articles
[9:59 am, 19/04/2022] John Tan: Otherwise many ppl might missed all these good articles
[9:59 am, 19/04/2022] John Tan: And its really difficult to search through the whole blog other than u 😂😂😂
[10:00 am, 19/04/2022] John Tan: Nafis is another one that probably went through the whole blog... Lol
Soh: yeah im surprise he is becoming like me.. many of the posts he pasted was what i wanted to pasted but lazy
lol

 


….

Update, 2024:


I recently wrote on reddit:


What Krodha said in this thread is right: "It is quite rare to attain stream entry, I’ve been involved with dharma for over a decade and can count those who are tried and true stream entrants on one hand. That said, contemplate the Bahiya and Kalakarama suttas and cultivate the first dhyāna."


I would add that many people have misunderstood what stream entry is. Maybe 99% on reddit. The only thread on the streamentry subreddit that correctly presents stream entry can be found in https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20 , it is a good read and highly recommended reading.




——


Glad you liked it. If that interests you, I think this should interest you too. On nondual awareness and its nature and the subtleties of insight:


https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-

experience.html


https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html


https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html


🙏 :) p.s. I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages in my journey


——




Self-view is well defined, for example, as I quoted in my article:


“The contemplation of neti neti, or dissociation, the separation of the witness from the witnessed, Self from not-self and so on, is done to 'support' a position of a true Self. So with regards to the phenomenal world of everchanging things, I reject as not me and mine, for I am the ultimate Witness that is perceiving all these.


This is the false View no. 4 described in Sabbasava Sutta: "...As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress." - the commentary of 'Middle Length Discourses' book explains, "of these six views, the first two represent the simple antinomy of eternalism and annihilationism; the view that ‘no self exists for me’ is not the non-self doctrine of the Buddha, but the materialist view that identifies the individual with the body and thus holds that there is no personal continuity beyond death. The next three views may be understood to arise out of the philosophically more sophisticated observation that experience has a built-in reflexive structure that allows for self-consciousness, the capacity of the mind to become cognizant of itself, its contents, and the body with which it is inter-connected. Engaged in a search for his 'true nature,' the untaught ordinary person will identify self either with both aspects of the experience (view 3), or with the observer alone (view 4), or with the observed alone (view 5). The last  view is a full-blown version of eternalism in which all reservations have been discarded."”


• ⁠https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html


The insight and realisation of anatman puts an end to all views of self.



——




Since self view is well defined by Buddha in several suttas, that is a very clear indication of when stream entry occurs. Most people however misunderstand that point and have a watered down version of “ending self view”.


So yes what you said is right it is not arbitrary


On a related note, i wrote an article about the different degrees of no self. Only the true anatman insight can end self view, not mere non doership, impersonality or even nondual: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html



….

A crucial criteria in Buddha's teachings on stream entry is the ending of self-view. This ending of self-view marks the attainment of stream entry.

Krodha/Kyle Dixon explained well what that entails: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/15m6m36/explain_like_im_five_what_is_selfview_how_to/

krodha
·6 mo. ago

What's an easy way to identify self view in daily life?

Self-view is the nonconceptual feeling of being an inner subjective knower of external phenomena that feel separate from you. If you feel that you are the seer of sights, hearer of sounds, feeler of feelings, knower of the known, that is self-view.

Overcoming self-view looks like this:

With the recognition of selflessness there is an emptying out of both the “subject” and “object” aspects of experience. We come to understand that “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to the mind and body as well as all external representations is deluded. When the recognition of selflessness is fully developed there is no longer any reification of substantial referents to be experienced in relation to subjective grasping. Whatever is seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). Whatever is heard or sensed is merely the heard (sutamatta) and merely the sensed (mutamatta). Whatever is known is merely the known (viññātamatta). This is explained in Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

When there is no self to be found one’s experience becomes very simple, direct, and uncluttered. When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness, that’s all. There is no separate “seer.” The seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen. There is no separate, independent subject or self.

This is also the case for the sensory object. The “seen” is entirely dependent upon the eye faculty and visual consciousness. There can be no object seen independent of the eye faculty and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent sensory object.

The same holds true for sensory consciousness as well. “Seeing” is entirely dependent upon the eye and visible form. There can be no seeing independent of the eye and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory cognitions. There is no separate, independent sensory consciousness.

It’s important to understand this experientially. Let’s take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking, you could describe the experience as “I see the computer screen.” Another way of describing this is that there’s a “seer” who “sees” the “seen.” But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience? Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?

The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”
— Geoff/Jnana

15

Note by Soh: For the full chapter and article by Geoff/Jnana which is very highly recommended, "required reading", please read in full: Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings



Update, 2022:


Someone wrote:

>the first five looks fairly easy, even somebody trained in Adaita Vendanta could do most of them



Soh:


Actually what triggers stream entry would be a direct experiential realization of anatman and conditionality. This is different from the realization of atman-brahman in Hinduism or Advaita Vedanta.


Anatman could be summarised as the realization that in truth, always already, in seeing, there is just the seen, no seer, in hearing, there is just sound, no hearer, and so on. Read Bahiya Sutta and Kalaka Sutta for example. Also check out the chapters on selflessness and cessation in this well compiled PDF: https://app.box.com/s/nxby5606lbaei9oudiz6xsyrdasacqph


Also, you should read this well written article explaining what stream entry is, what the realization entails, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20


When the direct realization of anatman manifests and you attain stream entry, you instantly cut off the first three fetters all at once. You will no longer have skeptical doubt about the Buddhadharma because now you have direct experiential realization of it and have ascertained the Buddha's words to be true.



Edit and update on my first point: When you experience impersonality and even nondual even in Advaita Vedanta, it is certainly not the overcoming of self view of the first fetter. There can still be the view of an unchanging self or awareness like vedanta. It is very clear by reading all the suttas that overcoming of self view covers even eternal witness and substantialist nondual views, so impersonality and nondual does not reach the elimination of self view that a stream enterer has attained.


I wrote an article before with citations from Buddha on how all these self views are refuted, including an eternal witness or an unchanging infinite consciousness as self and so on http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html — stream entry realization covers the dissolution of all these subtle views of self and inherent existence.


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