Posts
From Dharma Connection
David Vardy
Joel Agee
Joel Agee
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Joel Agee
Joel Agee
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Joel Agee
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Joel Agee
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Joel Agee
Joel Agee
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Joel Agee
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Soh
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Kyle Dixon
David Vardy
Soh
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
David Vardy
David Vardy
Kyle Dixon
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Kyle Dixon
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Kyle Dixon
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Soh
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh
Soh
Soh
Soh
Kyle Dixon
David Vardy
David Vardy
Douglas Harding took the 'headless' position to be one in which seeing is a container, a background, Brahman. It's very much an Advaita position. "Two-way seeing" for example, denotes the notion of a seer, who is absent, but seeing the seen.
3 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 2:33am)Joel Agee
Stefan, I really like your phenomenological approach. I too find myself, at any given moment, in a situation that is never static and entails some latent possibility or implication. You use the word “intricate.” For me, it’s intricate only in the description. Experience itself seems too simple for words.
You began your reflections with the question: “Can I resonate with ‘In the seeing, only the seen’?”
Here are some thoughts on the implications of that phrase. In the two translations of the Bahiya Sutta I know, the word “seeing” does not even appear in the Buddha’s teaching. In Thanissaro Bikkhu’s translation, it’s “In reference to the seen, there will only be the seen.” In John Ireland’s: “In the seen there is only the seen.” I don’t know if these are the most accurate translations. In any case, what is being pointed out is that there is no intermediary “seer” and activity of “seeing”(or “hearer” and “hearing”). There is only experience in its spontaneous immediacy and transience. I don’t think that excludes the intricacy of its content when examined, or the dynamic “implying” that are part of moment-to-moment experience.
A key sentence in the Sutta, for me, is when the Buddha says, “This, just this, is the end of stress.” I find that by simply experimenting with the directions given, stress falls away. In theseen there is only the seen. In the cognized there is only the cognized. Such a relief!
I agree that it’s not necessary to battle against situations in which “a falsely imagined awareness-‘background’” temporarily presents itself. It’s enough to recognize that it’s imagined.
I don’t know how I would respond to extreme physical or emotional pain – whether instinctively I would grasp at the idea of an unafflicted background awareness as a way to find relief. Maybe I’m kidding myself, but I can’t imagine it would work, simply because I wouldn’t believe in the construction. Relief could only be found (if at all) in complete openness to the experience.
4 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 6:41am)You began your reflections with the question: “Can I resonate with ‘In the seeing, only the seen’?”
Here are some thoughts on the implications of that phrase. In the two translations of the Bahiya Sutta I know, the word “seeing” does not even appear in the Buddha’s teaching. In Thanissaro Bikkhu’s translation, it’s “In reference to the seen, there will only be the seen.” In John Ireland’s: “In the seen there is only the seen.” I don’t know if these are the most accurate translations. In any case, what is being pointed out is that there is no intermediary “seer” and activity of “seeing”(or “hearer” and “hearing”). There is only experience in its spontaneous immediacy and transience. I don’t think that excludes the intricacy of its content when examined, or the dynamic “implying” that are part of moment-to-moment experience.
A key sentence in the Sutta, for me, is when the Buddha says, “This, just this, is the end of stress.” I find that by simply experimenting with the directions given, stress falls away. In theseen there is only the seen. In the cognized there is only the cognized. Such a relief!
I agree that it’s not necessary to battle against situations in which “a falsely imagined awareness-‘background’” temporarily presents itself. It’s enough to recognize that it’s imagined.
I don’t know how I would respond to extreme physical or emotional pain – whether instinctively I would grasp at the idea of an unafflicted background awareness as a way to find relief. Maybe I’m kidding myself, but I can’t imagine it would work, simply because I wouldn’t believe in the construction. Relief could only be found (if at all) in complete openness to the experience.
Joel Agee
P.S.: Morphine would also help, of course!
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 7:03am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Doesn't "in the seen there is only the seen" imply and I..., and isn't it that "only the activity of seeing" looks so much like neoadvaita...? Can the "only experience in its spontaneous inmediacy" as you say Joel, be deconstructed? I don't want to imply a nihilistic view but can one rest in the seen there is only the seen, and not be falling into neoadvaita or pure awareness teachings, or a Bhavavivekan point of view?
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 9:17am)Joel Agee
I didn’t say there is “only the activity of seeing.” I said the opposite: “There is no intermediary ‘seer’ and activity of ‘seeing’.”
I.e. “No seer and no seeing.” I.e. it doesn't imply an I.
So it’s different from “resting in awareness” or “as awareness,” which I think is what you’re referring to when you speak of neo-Advaita. I’m not familiar with Bhavaviveka.
The expression I used, “spontaneous immediacy of experience,” is an abstraction referring to sounds, sights, sensations, feelings, thoughts. They come and go. What's there to deconstruct?
Right now I’m hearing an airplane. That sentence is an inaccurate description, because a) "I" am not doing that, and b) no activity of hearing was involved ("was" because now it’s already in the past, a memory). In the heard there was only the heard.
2 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 10:12am)I.e. “No seer and no seeing.” I.e. it doesn't imply an I.
So it’s different from “resting in awareness” or “as awareness,” which I think is what you’re referring to when you speak of neo-Advaita. I’m not familiar with Bhavaviveka.
The expression I used, “spontaneous immediacy of experience,” is an abstraction referring to sounds, sights, sensations, feelings, thoughts. They come and go. What's there to deconstruct?
Right now I’m hearing an airplane. That sentence is an inaccurate description, because a) "I" am not doing that, and b) no activity of hearing was involved ("was" because now it’s already in the past, a memory). In the heard there was only the heard.
Joel Agee
The point is, there's no "resting in experience." That word "experience" is another abstraction. What the word refers to is ungraspable, already gone even as it appears.
4 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 10:05am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
When you ask me what is there to deconstruct, well I would say the coming and the going. There was never any sound or seeing, there is just your description. When you describe it it is already gone, hence when you say in the seen only the seen etc, its just a description since "it" cannot be grasped, because of its emptiness. I hope I am becoming clear what has been my complain, if you will, to sentences as the ones I have quoted above. Before the sentence is said it has already gone.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 10:54am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Your last sentence is such an obvious contradiction. You write "What the word refers to is ungraspable, already gone even as it appears". So, my question is, why even utter a word?
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:17am)Soh
Descriptions are never a problem since they are just conventional, pointers are a problem as it implies a view of inherency.
What Joel Agee is actually trying to avoid is using pointers that refer to (inherent) noumenons.
"10/19/2012 11:15 AM: Soh: He said
10/19/2012 11:15 AM: Soh: The same illusion as what? "This" is a word that points to what is. Would you prefer the term "vivid, clear, present"? Or "lemon-meringue-pie"?
10/19/2012 11:21 AM: John: Is "teaspoon bangs on a teacup, tings...Vivid, clear and present" a pointing to "anything" or simply a description?
10/19/2012 11:22 AM: John: Do u know what I mean?
10/19/2012 11:23 AM: Soh: Yes
10/19/2012 11:23 AM: Soh: Descriptions are phenomenal
10/19/2012 11:23 AM: Soh: Pointers imply hidden noumenons
10/19/2012 11:24 AM: John: Yes
10/19/2012 11:25 AM: John: And yet that is not all, that would b just anatta ... Not DO"
2 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:28am)What Joel Agee is actually trying to avoid is using pointers that refer to (inherent) noumenons.
"10/19/2012 11:15 AM: Soh: He said
10/19/2012 11:15 AM: Soh: The same illusion as what? "This" is a word that points to what is. Would you prefer the term "vivid, clear, present"? Or "lemon-meringue-pie"?
10/19/2012 11:21 AM: John: Is "teaspoon bangs on a teacup, tings...Vivid, clear and present" a pointing to "anything" or simply a description?
10/19/2012 11:22 AM: John: Do u know what I mean?
10/19/2012 11:23 AM: Soh: Yes
10/19/2012 11:23 AM: Soh: Descriptions are phenomenal
10/19/2012 11:23 AM: Soh: Pointers imply hidden noumenons
10/19/2012 11:24 AM: John: Yes
10/19/2012 11:25 AM: John: And yet that is not all, that would b just anatta ... Not DO"
Joel Agee
I agree, "coming and going" is descriptive language (mine) that can be deconstructed. -- Why utter a word? Because we're on FaceBook and you asked for clarification.
2 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:34am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
You make a distinction between descriptions and pointers, which I agree, but would say the difference at the edges is quite unclear. I see that many times a description hides a pointer because what is there to describe? Aren't they similar or please tell me what I am not seeing. Why would you have no problem with descriptions but not with pointers, aren't both reifying something. The only difference in of degrees.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:36am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
I asked for clarification...? I was clarifying I thought.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:37am)Joel Agee
Maybe you were, but your original post was a question. That's what I meant.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:37am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Joel Agee all my posts have been original. I don't know which one do you mean by "your original posting". This has been quite a long thread.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:41am)Joel Agee
"Doesn't "in the seen there is only the seen" imply and I..., and isn't it that "only the activity of seeing" looks so much like neoadvaita...?"
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:43am)Joel Agee
That was the prompt for my subsequent utterances.
1 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:45am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Hhahahha
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:50am)Soh
"I see that many times a description hides a pointer because what is there to describe?"
For example, describing that you see red flower in a loose, conventional way may be taken to mean that there is inherently a you, an inherently existing flower, and that the flower has an intrinsic property called redness. But we know redness is not seen in many other species and is thus dependently arisen appearance, like everything else.
So descriptions can indeed be taken to contain pointers, or it can simply be taken to be mere conventional parlance describing the way appearance shows without viewing them in terms of inherent existence. Conventions are imputed on a basis of designation -- the various phenomena in experience, which dependently originates.
The same word can be used in a loose, conventional manner, or it can lead to the wrong view of inherency. So there is no need to avoid any word at all, but its usage can be revealing. The Buddha teaches anatta and yet sometimes uses the word 'I', but never does he use the word 'I' other than as mere conventional parlance, he does not use it as a pointer to an inherent self. But if the word is used in an ontological sense, as in pointing to a true existence of self, then that is to be rejected (You exist, You are, etc etc). It is in this sense that the Buddha says, " ‘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"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../jootla/wheel414.html...
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)
3 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 12:07pm)For example, describing that you see red flower in a loose, conventional way may be taken to mean that there is inherently a you, an inherently existing flower, and that the flower has an intrinsic property called redness. But we know redness is not seen in many other species and is thus dependently arisen appearance, like everything else.
So descriptions can indeed be taken to contain pointers, or it can simply be taken to be mere conventional parlance describing the way appearance shows without viewing them in terms of inherent existence. Conventions are imputed on a basis of designation -- the various phenomena in experience, which dependently originates.
The same word can be used in a loose, conventional manner, or it can lead to the wrong view of inherency. So there is no need to avoid any word at all, but its usage can be revealing. The Buddha teaches anatta and yet sometimes uses the word 'I', but never does he use the word 'I' other than as mere conventional parlance, he does not use it as a pointer to an inherent self. But if the word is used in an ontological sense, as in pointing to a true existence of self, then that is to be rejected (You exist, You are, etc etc). It is in this sense that the Buddha says, " ‘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"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../jootla/wheel414.html...
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)
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Joel, Still you have not said clearly why or what is different in your reading of the Bahiya Sutta and neoadvaita (you know what i mean by neoadvaita!)?
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 12:17pm)Joel Agee
I tried my best to say it clearly. Maybe someone else can do it better.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 12:45pm)Soh
What Joel Agee described has nothing to do with "pure awareness teachings". But neither does it deny 'awareness', but shows a non-substantialist view of Self, awareness, and everything. Substantialists posits pure awareness as a container, first as a background, then later that sense of a background/Witness collapses into substantial nondualism (One Mind) in which all phenomena are subsumed into it as an inseparable pure expression of that awareness. That Awareness is still seen as changeless and inherently existing but now 'inseparable' from everything without subject/object division, modulating as anything and everything.
In Bahiya Sutta, it is seen that there is no 'Awareness' existing in and of itself (or inherently existing 'inseparable with' or 'modulating as' everything) much less something changeless -- in seeing only the seen (no intrinsic seer or seeing), in hearing only sound (no intrinsic hearer or hearing), or more accurate in the seen just the seen -- which are momentary and fundamentally non-arising mere luminous appearance in shimmering suchness as described in Kalaka Sutta*. There is no knower behind, or even 'inseparable with', the self-luminous appearance.
You are right to say even the 'seen', 'heard' is fundamentally non-arising, however this non-arising is to be understood from dependent origination. That would be the secondfold emptiness insight after anatta. Whatever dependently originates never arise, never abides, never ceases, just as a reflection of moon is a mere dependently originated appearance that cannot be said to have come into existence inside the pond.
*"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime." -- Buddha, Kalaka Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../an04/an04.024.than.html
2 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 12:56pm)In Bahiya Sutta, it is seen that there is no 'Awareness' existing in and of itself (or inherently existing 'inseparable with' or 'modulating as' everything) much less something changeless -- in seeing only the seen (no intrinsic seer or seeing), in hearing only sound (no intrinsic hearer or hearing), or more accurate in the seen just the seen -- which are momentary and fundamentally non-arising mere luminous appearance in shimmering suchness as described in Kalaka Sutta*. There is no knower behind, or even 'inseparable with', the self-luminous appearance.
You are right to say even the 'seen', 'heard' is fundamentally non-arising, however this non-arising is to be understood from dependent origination. That would be the secondfold emptiness insight after anatta. Whatever dependently originates never arise, never abides, never ceases, just as a reflection of moon is a mere dependently originated appearance that cannot be said to have come into existence inside the pond.
*"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime." -- Buddha, Kalaka Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../an04/an04.024.than.html
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
i believe is your incapacity to hold to your explanation that is tiring. you cannot hold that experience per se is like some sort of expression of anatta. I insist, and even following Soh example above, that even if I would see how wonderful is the music and how much I like it and it gives me great pleasure, or if there is only seen, both experiences are empty hence no one more holy than the other.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 12:53pm)Soh
In hearing only sound -- music is also only sound, no hearer. In thinking only thought, no thinker. Anatta is a dharma seal. Always already so.. so yes, both experiences are empty of self, empty of an agent, a hearer/seer/etc behind experience. And experiences are also empty.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 1:05pm)Soh
That being said, there can be delusion or wisdom, delusion of twofold emptiness and having wrong view. Even in delusion the twofold emptiness is fully exhibited in all phenomena as its nature but not realized, and because of not realizing and being ignorant, it makes all the difference -- i.e. grasping, suffering, etc. It's not a matter of which is more holy, but which has more suffering.
5 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 1:07pm)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh Soh as long as you keep on making such a difference you are on relative teachings I would say. When you say all experiences are empty, on your before to last post, that makes you not want one experience over the other and in that sense there is liberation because you are out of the world of samsara, without preference and not wanting one experience over the other. We are clear that this doesn't mean an absolute void where there is no discrimination, but you (and Joel) keep on coming back to relative teachings, and according to me reifying them. This is my critique on your insistence on realisation versus non realisation, or delusion and wisdom. From a definitive point of view and teachings there is no realisation because there is nothing to be realised. Would you agree with this statement? So, when you keep on going back to dual interpretations of reality like delusion and wisdom for example, I wonder what are you talking about when we had already agreed that all experiences are empty, and it is this realisation that frees. All posterior choosing and talk in dual terms is just relative.
(Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:17pm)Soh
Denying or rejecting the path, wisdom, delusion, liberation, etc is just nihilism. That may be a kind of neo-Advaitin, non-Buddhist view, that eschews all convention and grasps at an ultimate. This is definitely not how Buddhists understand emptiness. The ultimate is simply the emptiness of the relative, it reveals the nature of conventions and is not a transcendent nature of any sort. Dependent origination is emptiness, emptiness is only truly understood from D.O.
Greg: "Refuting inherencies not only leaves conventional truths, but it (1) depends on them, and (2) liberates them. Structures are not abandoned, just liberated from conceptions of inherency."
Kyle Dixon: "Vidyā (knowledge/wisdom) and avidyā's (ignorance) lack of inherency does not negate their conventional validity, if you assert that their conventional application is negated (by the fact that they lack inherency) then this is nihilism and is grasping at the ultimate, which is just delusion."
"Ultimately there is 'no such thing' as anything, yet processes unfold and appearances manifest. This goes without saying, yet if this principle is grasped at then the ultimate is identified with by mind, which causes a negation of the system, specifically; the basis, path and result. This is called allowing the view to overtake the conduct, which is an error that the system warns against. On the flip side there is such a thing as allowing the conduct to overtake the view, so there must be a balance, and right view is the corner stone of that balance.""
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../dependent... - "Nagarjuna emphasizes that everything--and this must include emptiness--is dependently arisen. So everything--including emptiness--lacks inherent existence. So nothing lacks the three coextensive properties of emptiness, dependent-origination, and conventional identity.
With this in hand, Nagarjuna can reply to the critic. He first points out (24: 20-35) that in virtue of the identity of dependent origination and emptiness on the one hand and of ontological independence and intrinsic reality on the other, such phenomena as arising, ceasing, suffering, change, enlightenment, and so on--the very phenomena the opponent charges Nagarjuna with denying--are possible only if they are empty. The tables are thus turned: it appears that Nagarjuna, in virtue of arguing for the emptiness of these phenomena, was arguing that in reality they do not exist, precisely because, for the reifier of emptiness, existence and emptiness are opposites. But in fact, because of the identity of emptiness and conventional existence, it is the reifier who, in virtue of denying the emptiness of these phenomena, denies their existence. And it is hence the reifier of emptiness who is impaled on both horns of the dilemma s/he has presented to Nagarjuna: contradicting the ultimate truth, s/he denies that these phenomena are empty; contradicting the conventional, s/he is forced to deny that they even exist! And so Nagarjuna can conclude (24: 36):
If dependent arising is denied,
Emptiness itself is rejected.
This would contradict
All of the worldly conventions. "
Nagarjuna:
If dependent arising is denied,
Emptiness itself is rejected.
This would contradict
All of the worldly conventions.
If emptiness is rejected,
No action will be appropriate.
There would be action which did not begin,
And there would be agent without action.
If there is svabhava, the whole world
Will be unarising, unceasing,
And static. The entire phenomenal world
Would be immutable.
If it (the world) were not empty,
Then action would be without profit.
The act of ending suffering and
Abandoning misery and defilement would not exist.
(Garfield 1995, p.72)
1 liked this (Friday, August 22, 2014 at 11:58pm)Greg: "Refuting inherencies not only leaves conventional truths, but it (1) depends on them, and (2) liberates them. Structures are not abandoned, just liberated from conceptions of inherency."
Kyle Dixon: "Vidyā (knowledge/wisdom) and avidyā's (ignorance) lack of inherency does not negate their conventional validity, if you assert that their conventional application is negated (by the fact that they lack inherency) then this is nihilism and is grasping at the ultimate, which is just delusion."
"Ultimately there is 'no such thing' as anything, yet processes unfold and appearances manifest. This goes without saying, yet if this principle is grasped at then the ultimate is identified with by mind, which causes a negation of the system, specifically; the basis, path and result. This is called allowing the view to overtake the conduct, which is an error that the system warns against. On the flip side there is such a thing as allowing the conduct to overtake the view, so there must be a balance, and right view is the corner stone of that balance.""
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../dependent... - "Nagarjuna emphasizes that everything--and this must include emptiness--is dependently arisen. So everything--including emptiness--lacks inherent existence. So nothing lacks the three coextensive properties of emptiness, dependent-origination, and conventional identity.
With this in hand, Nagarjuna can reply to the critic. He first points out (24: 20-35) that in virtue of the identity of dependent origination and emptiness on the one hand and of ontological independence and intrinsic reality on the other, such phenomena as arising, ceasing, suffering, change, enlightenment, and so on--the very phenomena the opponent charges Nagarjuna with denying--are possible only if they are empty. The tables are thus turned: it appears that Nagarjuna, in virtue of arguing for the emptiness of these phenomena, was arguing that in reality they do not exist, precisely because, for the reifier of emptiness, existence and emptiness are opposites. But in fact, because of the identity of emptiness and conventional existence, it is the reifier who, in virtue of denying the emptiness of these phenomena, denies their existence. And it is hence the reifier of emptiness who is impaled on both horns of the dilemma s/he has presented to Nagarjuna: contradicting the ultimate truth, s/he denies that these phenomena are empty; contradicting the conventional, s/he is forced to deny that they even exist! And so Nagarjuna can conclude (24: 36):
If dependent arising is denied,
Emptiness itself is rejected.
This would contradict
All of the worldly conventions. "
Nagarjuna:
If dependent arising is denied,
Emptiness itself is rejected.
This would contradict
All of the worldly conventions.
If emptiness is rejected,
No action will be appropriate.
There would be action which did not begin,
And there would be agent without action.
If there is svabhava, the whole world
Will be unarising, unceasing,
And static. The entire phenomenal world
Would be immutable.
If it (the world) were not empty,
Then action would be without profit.
The act of ending suffering and
Abandoning misery and defilement would not exist.
(Garfield 1995, p.72)
Soh
"makes you not want one experience over the other "
By the way, it is important to distinguish 'wisdom' from 'peak experience'. Wisdom is realizing the way things always already are, i.e. twofold empty in terms of subject and object. Wisdom once realized can never be unseen or lost, and can be quite effortlessly actualized (but complete actualization will take some training). Peak experiences is just an experience, nothing is realized, and usually it lasts only a few moments or sometimes even hours but eventually gone and no fundamental transformation takes place.
And as much as all the Neo-Advaitins are talking about 'dropping the search', this is certainly not what the Buddhadharma is asking its practitioners to do. The Buddha teaches and advices to take up the "noble search" (http://suttacentral.net/en/mn26) and another sutta clarified how the right kind of seeking can eventually result in the end of craving. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../sn51/sn51.015.than.html) What the noble search is seeking however, is of course not just some transient wonderful peak experience, but the permanent end of suffering.
2 liked this (Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 12:12am)By the way, it is important to distinguish 'wisdom' from 'peak experience'. Wisdom is realizing the way things always already are, i.e. twofold empty in terms of subject and object. Wisdom once realized can never be unseen or lost, and can be quite effortlessly actualized (but complete actualization will take some training). Peak experiences is just an experience, nothing is realized, and usually it lasts only a few moments or sometimes even hours but eventually gone and no fundamental transformation takes place.
And as much as all the Neo-Advaitins are talking about 'dropping the search', this is certainly not what the Buddhadharma is asking its practitioners to do. The Buddha teaches and advices to take up the "noble search" (http://suttacentral.net/en/mn26) and another sutta clarified how the right kind of seeking can eventually result in the end of craving. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../sn51/sn51.015.than.html) What the noble search is seeking however, is of course not just some transient wonderful peak experience, but the permanent end of suffering.
Soh
On the topic of distinguishing view, realization, experience, etc I wrote a very long article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../experience... -- and a much shorter one -- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../insight...
1 liked this (Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 12:17am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Did I make you believe I was reyifing emptiness? This we all know and I hope you have read my critiques on neoadvaitins, absolutists and emptyiests. We agree that the conventional is empty and the absolute, or definitive (emptiness) is empty too. This said, and to summarise all your quotes and explanations, I agree. Now, what I am saying is that the Bahiya sutra is a provisional text because it rest on an experience which I say is also empty. I say that you and Joel are reifying this experience. The theory of the two truths is also provisional, and if you read carefully the diamond sutra just to give an example it is written, "Subhuti, what do you think? Has the Tathaghata a teaching to enunciate? Subhuti replied to Buddha, World honored one, the tathaghata has nothing to teach. (Price translation). I am not reyifing emptiness and dissolving all conventions into an absolute voidness. What I am saying is that you and Joel are refying conventionality and basing your understanding on the Bahiya Sutta which I say is a provisional text. One cannot rest, and I say Joel and you do in a particular experience "in the seen there is only the seen". Actually, it is me who said this to me sounds a neoadvaita position. Now you blame me for what I am criticising you. This is funny.
(Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 7:22am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
The Last Passing of the Robe and Bowl
One day Hung-jen challenged his monks to compose a verse that expressed their understanding of the dharma. If any verse reflects the truth, Hung-jen said, the monk who composed it will receive the robe and bowl and become the Sixth Patriarch.
Shen-hsiu (Shenxiu), the most senior monk, accepted this challenge and wriote this verse on a monastery wall:
Our body is the bodhi tree
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour
And let no dust alight.
When someone read the verse to the illiterate Huineng, the future Sixth Patriarch knew Shenxiu had missed it. Huineng dictated this verse for another to write for him:
There is no bodhi tree
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight?
Hung-jen recognized Huineng's understanding but did not publicly announce him the winner. In secret he instructed Huineng on the Diamond Sutra and gave him Bodhidharma's robe and bowl. But Hung-jen also said that, since the robe and bowl were desired by many who didn't deserve it, Huineng should be the last to inherit them to keep them from becoming objects of contention.
(Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 7:24am)One day Hung-jen challenged his monks to compose a verse that expressed their understanding of the dharma. If any verse reflects the truth, Hung-jen said, the monk who composed it will receive the robe and bowl and become the Sixth Patriarch.
Shen-hsiu (Shenxiu), the most senior monk, accepted this challenge and wriote this verse on a monastery wall:
Our body is the bodhi tree
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour
And let no dust alight.
When someone read the verse to the illiterate Huineng, the future Sixth Patriarch knew Shenxiu had missed it. Huineng dictated this verse for another to write for him:
There is no bodhi tree
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight?
Hung-jen recognized Huineng's understanding but did not publicly announce him the winner. In secret he instructed Huineng on the Diamond Sutra and gave him Bodhidharma's robe and bowl. But Hung-jen also said that, since the robe and bowl were desired by many who didn't deserve it, Huineng should be the last to inherit them to keep them from becoming objects of contention.
Kyle Dixon
The insight of anatta is a dharma seal though, it is not an experience that is grasped at. It is empty like everything else but that doesn't negate the nature of anatta as an insight.
Anatta isn't a 'thing' or 'experience' but rather is a cessation of the cause for the arising of what we'd interpret as a subjective point of reference.
Hence why Śākyamuni is attempting to communicate that species of insight to Bāhiya.
6 liked this (Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 10:40am)Anatta isn't a 'thing' or 'experience' but rather is a cessation of the cause for the arising of what we'd interpret as a subjective point of reference.
Hence why Śākyamuni is attempting to communicate that species of insight to Bāhiya.
David Vardy
Mardava. In reference to the Bahiya Sutta, how can a verb be reified in the absence of a subject? Functionality itself cant be reified without the subject/object duo.
1 liked this (Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 1:06pm)Soh
Its important to note that at the time Hui-neng wrote the no-mirror-stand (not no-mirror) quote, he has not yet attained great enlightenment. It is more like a realization of the formless I AM, and how the I AM is fundamentally void of sensory/mental obscurations. But this is still way better than Shenxiu, who was still talking from the viewpoint of purifying the mind through shamatha, without any realization of his Mind. Hui-neng's great enlightenment occurred later on.
A better translation (by me):
菩提本无树，
Bodhi (Awareness/Mind/Self) is originally without tree
明镜亦非台，
The Clear Mirror (Awareness/Mind) is not a Stand
本来无一物，
Originally (in the Source) there is not one phenomena
何处惹尘埃
Where does dust alight?
3 liked this (Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 4:58pm)A better translation (by me):
菩提本无树，
Bodhi (Awareness/Mind/Self) is originally without tree
明镜亦非台，
The Clear Mirror (Awareness/Mind) is not a Stand
本来无一物，
Originally (in the Source) there is not one phenomena
何处惹尘埃
Where does dust alight?
Soh
""in the seen there is only the seen" is not a position of neoadvaitins. I have not seen neo-advaitins talking about realization of anatta. They may have experiences of one mind or no mind, they may talk about impersonality, non-doership or even realized non-dual, but not insight of anatta.
'In the seen just the seen' is definitely not about 'resting' in experience, experience cannot be rested in. As Kyle said, anatta is a dharma seal. Anatta is simply realized, and once realized it cannot be unseen, it is not about an experience to rest in. The realization of which is simply about liberating any delusion of a background self or seeing, leading towards gapless, self-luminous taste of everything. Further insights into the emptiness and D.O. of phenomena can later arise. But first, anatta must be realized.
As Greg Goode wrote in http://nonduality.com/goode6.htm -- "In Middle Way teachings, it is said that without realizing the selflessness of persons, it is not possible to realize the selflessness of phenomena.[2] So the meditative reasonings are done first on persons."
Conventionality is reified when it is seen to be have intrinsic existence. But it is not, when it is not. However, by denying or rejecting them one will fall into the worst kind of view that Buddha has always rejected and warned against -- the view of nihilism. That is precisely what nihilism is about.
In the article I posted yesterday explaining the two truths:
"Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka, however, rejects both these positions, and argues only what is conventionally non-intrinsic reality (niḥsvabhāva) is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the conventional nature of which is non-intrinsic, are subject to conditioned or dependent arising. Conventional truth (here treated as dependently arisen phenomenon), given it is causally effective, is therefore always intrinsically unreal, and hence lacks any intrinsic reality even conventionally. Hence that which is conventionally (or dependently) coarisen is always conventionally (or dependently) arisen and strictly does not arise ultimately."
"Nevertheless to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of things as simply nothing. On the contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert that the things are empty of any intrinsic reality is to explain the way things really are as causally conditioned phenomena (pratītyasamputpaṅhā).
Nāgārjuna's central argument to support his radical non-foundationalist theory of the two truths draws upon an understanding of conventional truth as tied to dependently arisen phenomena, and ultimate truth as tied to emptiness of the intrinsic nature. Since the former and the latter are coconstitutive of each other, in that each entials the other, ultimate reality is tied to being conventionally real. Nāgārjuna advances important arguments justifying the correlation between the conventional truth vis-à-vis dependent arising, and emptiness vis-à-vis ultimate truth. These arguments bring home their epistemological and ontological correlations (MMK 24.14; Dbu ma tsa 15a). He argues that wherever applies emptiness as the ultimate truth, there applies the causal efficacy of the conventional truth and wherever emptiness does not apply as the ultimate truth, there does not apply the causal efficacy of the conventional truth (Vig.71) (Dbu ma tsa 29a). According to Nāgārjuna, ultimate truth's being empty of any intrinsic reality affords conventional truth its causal efficacy since being ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced, conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such thing that is not empty” (MMK 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a)."
5 liked this (Saturday, August 23, 2014 at 1:49pm)'In the seen just the seen' is definitely not about 'resting' in experience, experience cannot be rested in. As Kyle said, anatta is a dharma seal. Anatta is simply realized, and once realized it cannot be unseen, it is not about an experience to rest in. The realization of which is simply about liberating any delusion of a background self or seeing, leading towards gapless, self-luminous taste of everything. Further insights into the emptiness and D.O. of phenomena can later arise. But first, anatta must be realized.
As Greg Goode wrote in http://nonduality.com/goode6.htm -- "In Middle Way teachings, it is said that without realizing the selflessness of persons, it is not possible to realize the selflessness of phenomena.[2] So the meditative reasonings are done first on persons."
Conventionality is reified when it is seen to be have intrinsic existence. But it is not, when it is not. However, by denying or rejecting them one will fall into the worst kind of view that Buddha has always rejected and warned against -- the view of nihilism. That is precisely what nihilism is about.
In the article I posted yesterday explaining the two truths:
"Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka, however, rejects both these positions, and argues only what is conventionally non-intrinsic reality (niḥsvabhāva) is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the conventional nature of which is non-intrinsic, are subject to conditioned or dependent arising. Conventional truth (here treated as dependently arisen phenomenon), given it is causally effective, is therefore always intrinsically unreal, and hence lacks any intrinsic reality even conventionally. Hence that which is conventionally (or dependently) coarisen is always conventionally (or dependently) arisen and strictly does not arise ultimately."
"Nevertheless to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of things as simply nothing. On the contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert that the things are empty of any intrinsic reality is to explain the way things really are as causally conditioned phenomena (pratītyasamputpaṅhā).
Nāgārjuna's central argument to support his radical non-foundationalist theory of the two truths draws upon an understanding of conventional truth as tied to dependently arisen phenomena, and ultimate truth as tied to emptiness of the intrinsic nature. Since the former and the latter are coconstitutive of each other, in that each entials the other, ultimate reality is tied to being conventionally real. Nāgārjuna advances important arguments justifying the correlation between the conventional truth vis-à-vis dependent arising, and emptiness vis-à-vis ultimate truth. These arguments bring home their epistemological and ontological correlations (MMK 24.14; Dbu ma tsa 15a). He argues that wherever applies emptiness as the ultimate truth, there applies the causal efficacy of the conventional truth and wherever emptiness does not apply as the ultimate truth, there does not apply the causal efficacy of the conventional truth (Vig.71) (Dbu ma tsa 29a). According to Nāgārjuna, ultimate truth's being empty of any intrinsic reality affords conventional truth its causal efficacy since being ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced, conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such thing that is not empty” (MMK 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a)."
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Kyle Dixon, I agree with you. What I am saying is that I see the "description" in the Bahiya Sutta as a reified state. I would say this (anatta) dharma seal applies to what is written in the Bahya 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."[2]." All my critique is that one has to be careful in making in the seen there is only the seen a "state", or as Soh writes, not even a realisation, since a realisation in this form is a reified state. Moreover, if you read well it says "train" in this manner and no where doest it say it is a way things are. In any case, I am not denying anatta. Emptiness of self is not just a special experience not having an I but just mere experience. I repeat, this would sound just like a neoadvaitin description.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 1:42am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
David VardyI think it is a very smiler to the neoadvaitins of one consciousness. I see here a reification too. And, a verb can also be a reification, process can be reification, a reification of process.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 1:43am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh, from where do you say Huinengs realisation came later on? I thought that by then he was already realised and that is why the 5th patriarch gives him the title. Here you make the distinction between the formless and emptiness....I agree. I wouldn't translate ´bodhi´as self/mind/self, in sanskrit at least it would mean more like wisdom/awakeness. I wonder what you say that Huineng was not enlightened. I read it as Huineng gave an absolute view rather than a relative as Shen-hsiu (Shenxiu) had done in the first poem.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 1:52am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Soh, you put this quote which I agree and think I understand, "According to Nāgārjuna, ultimate truth's being empty of any intrinsic reality affords conventional truth its causal efficacy since being ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced, conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such thing that is not empty” (MMK 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a)."" Conventional and ultimate are dependent on one another but one cannot rest on what the Bahiya sutta states since that is also empty and not an experience or a view of emptiness. It is just another nice experience, but not emptiness. This is why, I say and told Joel Agee, that he was resting in this experience. I see you and Joel in this case reifying an experience. I hear from you and Joel that because I criticise, and say what I am saying, that I am reifying a void or the formless. I think this is where we are at. We seem to both agree that the two realities exist and actually depend on one another. We try by not negating the relative, not to make a reified ultimate of emptiness in similar vein as the neoadvaitin, and I say that by not negating the emptiness of all things you are reifying "in the seen only the seen".
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 2:02am)David Vardy
The concept of the "Emptiness of all things" is negated by virtue of "in the seen only the seen".
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 2:46am)David Vardy
"And, a verb can also be a reification, process can be reification, a reification of process." Reification requires the assumption of a subject. Without it, the assumption that is, nothing which happens sticks, leaving functioning free of a subject and an object as in "in the seen only the seen".
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 3:48am)Kyle Dixon
Mardava, is "negating the emptiness of all things" supposed to be a reference to the emptiness of emptiness?
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 4:53am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
It certainly includes it. Emptiness is empty of itself.It is not a reference to the emptiness of emptiness, but it certainly includes not to make of emptiness another "thing". In this manner we can say that in the seen only the seen is also empty. Hence, having a cappuccino, me having a cappuccino, or in tasting only the tasting, both are empty and have equal relative value. When one experience is compared to another I become suspicious. Especially when the experience of the Bahiya Sutta seems to reveal anatta. As far as I am concerned, it is the knowledge of all things empty that is the understanding rather than preferring one experience over another. Me tasting a cappuccino or in the tasting only the tasting have the same value if we see that both experiences are empty.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 5:35am)Kyle Dixon
What would another reason for negating the emptiness of all things be?
The emptiness of emptiness does not negate emptiness, it means the emptiness of X pertains to X. So emptiness depends upon that which is empty and therefore is not something independent or separate which can be reified. That does not negate the emptiness of X though, or the fact that X lacks essence or substantiality.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 6:15am)The emptiness of emptiness does not negate emptiness, it means the emptiness of X pertains to X. So emptiness depends upon that which is empty and therefore is not something independent or separate which can be reified. That does not negate the emptiness of X though, or the fact that X lacks essence or substantiality.
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
David Vardy, one can also reify a process, a verb, even a void. Even if there is no subject, which I doubt but don't want to go there, in the experience of "in the seen only the seen" there can be a reification.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 6:16am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Let me be clear, I am not negating the emptiness of all things. I am affirming the emptiness of all things.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 6:17am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
including emptiness....and "in the seen only the seen.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 6:17am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
The emptiness of things depend on their being there in a relative way. This can be said to be the understanding of two truths theory. We could also apply Nagarjuna´s cathurti argument and say it is not A, it is not the negation of A, it is not A and B, and it is not the negation of A and B. This said I still find unconceivable how and why Joel and Soh defend so much the Bahiya Sutta.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 6:24am)Kyle Dixon
The emptiness of things just depends on said thing that is empty. Not on those things being there in a relative way.
"Relative" is simply ones experience from the standpoint of a deluded cognition which perceives existents and non-existents.
A deluded cognition is one that lacks knowledge that things are empty and therefore is ignorant of the fact that existence, non-existence, both and neither are ultimately impossibilities.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 6:53am)"Relative" is simply ones experience from the standpoint of a deluded cognition which perceives existents and non-existents.
A deluded cognition is one that lacks knowledge that things are empty and therefore is ignorant of the fact that existence, non-existence, both and neither are ultimately impossibilities.
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
What you just said is Nagarjuna's cathurti argument which I also wrote just above your post. I would say as a comment to your first sentence on your last post that emptiness does depend on things being there on a relative way. Things are there in no other way than a relative way, and only because there are things that are relative does emptiness is. Certainly to say that emptiness is is an error because one cannot say emptiness is, or that is not. So again, how does in the seen only the seen reflect anatta? Maybe as a first step, but to say that view is the view of emptiness or even of anatta I find it erroneous. Is there not a reification on the Bahiya Sutta and hence cannot be taken as a definitive text? Just this is my comment. I am not trying to convince anyone how deep is my understanding nor question Nagarjuna. I am
just questioning the definitiveness of the Bahiya sutta. So, Kyle Dixon can you comment on your understanding of those sentences of the Bahiya sutta...? Do you find them definitive? I dont.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 7:38am)just questioning the definitiveness of the Bahiya sutta. So, Kyle Dixon can you comment on your understanding of those sentences of the Bahiya sutta...? Do you find them definitive? I dont.
Soh
"Hence, having a cappuccino, me having a cappuccino, or in tasting only the tasting, both are empty and have equal relative value. When one experience is compared to another I become suspicious. Especially when the experience of the Bahiya Sutta seems to reveal anatta."
You are still confusing a realization with a peak experience. Realizing anatta is not 'the experience of Bahiya Sutta seems to reveal anatta'. It is absolutely not 'using an experience' to reveal anatta. It is simply realizing that always already, there never is/was/will be a me having a cappuccino, becausing in tasting there is always already only taste, never a taster, in seeing always already only seen, no seer. This fact of anatta is always already the case. This is seeing through a specific misperception and a realization of the nature of all experiences as empty of a self/Self, not a particular experience revealing something. That being the case, how is it that this is about resting in any experience? It is definitely not. Every experience reveals anatta to already be the case, and every experience is ungraspable and cannot be rested in. But it must be realized (not just 'experienced' as in a peak experience)
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 9:42am)You are still confusing a realization with a peak experience. Realizing anatta is not 'the experience of Bahiya Sutta seems to reveal anatta'. It is absolutely not 'using an experience' to reveal anatta. It is simply realizing that always already, there never is/was/will be a me having a cappuccino, becausing in tasting there is always already only taste, never a taster, in seeing always already only seen, no seer. This fact of anatta is always already the case. This is seeing through a specific misperception and a realization of the nature of all experiences as empty of a self/Self, not a particular experience revealing something. That being the case, how is it that this is about resting in any experience? It is definitely not. Every experience reveals anatta to already be the case, and every experience is ungraspable and cannot be rested in. But it must be realized (not just 'experienced' as in a peak experience)
Soh
"I thought that by then he was already realised and that is why the 5th patriarch gives him the title. Here you make the distinction between the formless and emptiness....I agree. I wouldn't translate ´bodhi´as self/mind/self, in sanskrit at least it would mean more like wisdom/awakeness. I wonder what you say that Huineng was not enlightened. I read it as Huineng gave an absolute view rather than a relative as Shen-hsiu (Shenxiu) had done in the first poem."
Nope. Huineng simply realized the I AM at that time. The 5th patriarch rubbed his no-mirror-stand poem off with his feet saying that too is not an expression of great realization, told him to go meet him at midnight with a cryptic message from his staff. Upon meeting, the 5th patriarch explained the Diamond Sutra, and upon hearing the verse "giving rise to an unsupported mind" he realized "great awakening". This is written in chapter 1 of Platform Sutra
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 9:46am)Nope. Huineng simply realized the I AM at that time. The 5th patriarch rubbed his no-mirror-stand poem off with his feet saying that too is not an expression of great realization, told him to go meet him at midnight with a cryptic message from his staff. Upon meeting, the 5th patriarch explained the Diamond Sutra, and upon hearing the verse "giving rise to an unsupported mind" he realized "great awakening". This is written in chapter 1 of Platform Sutra
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
You are right. I had read it but forgot that he was realised at having the transmission of the Diamond sutra "Next day the Patriarch came secretly to the room where the rice was pounded. Seeing that I was working there with a stone pestle, he said to me, "A seeker of the Path risks his life for the Dharma. Should he not do so?" Then he asked, "Is the rice ready?" "Ready long ago," I replied, "only waiting for the sieve." He knocked the mortar thrice with his stick and left.
Knowing what his message meant, in the third watch of the night I went to his room. Using the robe as a screen so that none could see us, he expounded the Diamond Sutra to me. When he came to the sentence, "One should use one's mind in such a way that it will be free from any attachment," I at once became thoroughly enlightened, and realized that all things in the universe are the Essence of Mind itself" (http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/hui_neng1.html).
3 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:39am)Knowing what his message meant, in the third watch of the night I went to his room. Using the robe as a screen so that none could see us, he expounded the Diamond Sutra to me. When he came to the sentence, "One should use one's mind in such a way that it will be free from any attachment," I at once became thoroughly enlightened, and realized that all things in the universe are the Essence of Mind itself" (http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/hui_neng1.html).
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
I am not sure why you say that I confuse peak experience with realisation, or station with state, as the sufis would put it. When you speak of realisation aren't you reifying your realisation? Can a realised being say he is realised? I say that any realisation, which you could say is a peak experience, is relative, and your realisation is also conventional at the moment it has a coming. In this manner it would be also fair to say that there is no realisation. One cannot say there is one, and we cannot say there is no realisation...etc. Hence, when you insist on realisation and beginning a series of dual vocabulary, it just proves to me that what is said in the Bahiya sutta is merely conventional.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:49am)Soh
"I say that any realisation which you could say is a peak experience is relative, and your realisation is also elate the moment it has a coming."
Not sure I get what you meant. Can you rephrase?
Realisation is not a peak experience. Realisation once seen cannot be unseen, like one day you realize santa claus isn't real and never from then on will you be deluded and misconceive a santa claus. That's just a very gross example but the point is in realization you realize something and a form of delusion is then lost. In a peak experience you don't realize anything and the delusion comes back again in full force.
"When you speak of realisation aren't you reifying your realisation?"
Speaking of realization isn't reifying realization -- the Buddha had spoke of his realisation.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html
"Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, 'Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?'
"When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:
'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [4] I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart. For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, unbound. To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of Kasi. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.'
"'From your claims, my friend, you must be an infinite conqueror.'
'Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations' end. I've conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I'm a conqueror.'
"When this was said, Upaka said, 'May it be so, my friend,' and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:55am)Not sure I get what you meant. Can you rephrase?
Realisation is not a peak experience. Realisation once seen cannot be unseen, like one day you realize santa claus isn't real and never from then on will you be deluded and misconceive a santa claus. That's just a very gross example but the point is in realization you realize something and a form of delusion is then lost. In a peak experience you don't realize anything and the delusion comes back again in full force.
"When you speak of realisation aren't you reifying your realisation?"
Speaking of realization isn't reifying realization -- the Buddha had spoke of his realisation.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html
"Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, 'Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?'
"When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:
'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [4] I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart. For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, unbound. To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of Kasi. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.'
"'From your claims, my friend, you must be an infinite conqueror.'
'Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations' end. I've conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I'm a conqueror.'
"When this was said, Upaka said, 'May it be so, my friend,' and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
i already edited. its clearer now
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:56am)Soh
"Hence, when you insist on realisation and beginning a series of dual vocabulary, it just proves to me that what is said in the Bahiya sutta is merely conventional."
Conventionality is not a problem, if it is a problem then Buddha would not have spoken what he spoken above. Reifying conventionality with the view of intrinsic reality is a problem. In any case, never have anyone implied an intrinsic self, realization, dharma, etc. Emptiness allows conventional to be conventional rather than intrinsic.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:56am)Conventionality is not a problem, if it is a problem then Buddha would not have spoken what he spoken above. Reifying conventionality with the view of intrinsic reality is a problem. In any case, never have anyone implied an intrinsic self, realization, dharma, etc. Emptiness allows conventional to be conventional rather than intrinsic.
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
even Osho spoke of his realisation. i was going to ask you not to quote me autobiographies of realisations.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:57am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
please, lets assume i get the difference between peak experience and realisation and move on.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 10:58am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
The experience, realisation if you will, in the Bahiya sutta is not definitive according to me. For me you have failed to say why it is definitive. I insist you reify what is written in the Bahiya sutta, and talk around about peak experience and realisation. I am saying realisation never happens. To understand this is the realisation.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:01am)Soh
You are somehow seeing emptiness as eschewing all conventions. Realization has its conventional validity, so does four noble truths.
There's something I wrote that is somehow related to what we're discussing.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../how...
This post is written to address the blog comment above in the topic My Thoughts on The Four Noble Truths. Readers should look into that post first to get the context for this posting.
First of all we have to understand that taints, clinging, karmic propensities are empty. But it is not empty in the sense of being non-existent, rather, it is empty of inherent existence due to dependent origination. For example we may think that craving exists somewhere in our 'minds' that we must somehow 'get rid of it'. This is having an inherent view. This is like looking into the mirror and trying to destroy the person appearing in the mirror by punching the mirror and cracking the mirror in order to "destroy the person inside the mirror" (as if there is a person living inherently inside the mirror, where in reality what's reflected is a dependently originating, non-arising appearance). That would be totally silly, and likewise trying to destroy afflictive emotions conceived as inherently existing somewhere "in us" without discerning its causes and conditions would be totally silly. If you want to remove the reflection, you have to discern the whole chain of dependencies which leads to that, and those afflictive causes are to be remedied. To have insight into the emptiness and dependent origination of our afflictive condition is to realize the Total Exertion of Karmic Tendencies
Likewise, thankfully our suffering is not inherently existing but arises due to dependent origination, and what is arising is fundamentally non-arising and free from extremes. Precisely because of this, we can discern the whole chain of dependent origination whereby ignorance depends on taints, taints dependents on ignorance, setting the whole chain of suffering. If we understand this, we don't focus our efforts on the wrong place. Things don't exist inherently - they manifest due to dependent origination, and when the causes and conditions are present, no effort or will can prevent them from arising, that is the nature of manifestation. If we fail to understand emptiness in the context of dependent origination, we will fall into a non-Buddhist or nihilistic version of emptiness, and it will not liberate us.
In the path of Buddhadharma, since we understand dependencies, we do not attempt to get rid of afflictive emotions by hard will, or by dissociation (which strengthens the fundamental delusion of an inherently existing subject and an inherently existing object), or other ways based on the view of inherent existence - which is akin to punching the mirror to get rid of the reflection. At the same time, we are not saying "they are purely an illusion, nothing to work on" (let's try that tactic when your clothes catch fire!). What we're saying is that by directly penetrating the dependent origination and emptiness of taints, precisely because they are illusory and not inherently existing, we can understand the necessity to apply the right remedy which cuts the basis for suffering (the 12 links from ignorance... to death). What path? The engagement in right view and right practice, in which integral conduct allows the arising of integral samadhi which allows the arising of integral wisdom, which results in the cessation of ignorance and the chains. With the arising of wisdom, the chain of afflictive dependent origination is released.
As Nagarjuna pointed out, it is precisely because of emptiness that the soteriological values of Buddhadharma can work at all. This is nicely explained in http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew103934.htm :
(continued in URL)
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:05am)There's something I wrote that is somehow related to what we're discussing.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../how...
This post is written to address the blog comment above in the topic My Thoughts on The Four Noble Truths. Readers should look into that post first to get the context for this posting.
First of all we have to understand that taints, clinging, karmic propensities are empty. But it is not empty in the sense of being non-existent, rather, it is empty of inherent existence due to dependent origination. For example we may think that craving exists somewhere in our 'minds' that we must somehow 'get rid of it'. This is having an inherent view. This is like looking into the mirror and trying to destroy the person appearing in the mirror by punching the mirror and cracking the mirror in order to "destroy the person inside the mirror" (as if there is a person living inherently inside the mirror, where in reality what's reflected is a dependently originating, non-arising appearance). That would be totally silly, and likewise trying to destroy afflictive emotions conceived as inherently existing somewhere "in us" without discerning its causes and conditions would be totally silly. If you want to remove the reflection, you have to discern the whole chain of dependencies which leads to that, and those afflictive causes are to be remedied. To have insight into the emptiness and dependent origination of our afflictive condition is to realize the Total Exertion of Karmic Tendencies
Likewise, thankfully our suffering is not inherently existing but arises due to dependent origination, and what is arising is fundamentally non-arising and free from extremes. Precisely because of this, we can discern the whole chain of dependent origination whereby ignorance depends on taints, taints dependents on ignorance, setting the whole chain of suffering. If we understand this, we don't focus our efforts on the wrong place. Things don't exist inherently - they manifest due to dependent origination, and when the causes and conditions are present, no effort or will can prevent them from arising, that is the nature of manifestation. If we fail to understand emptiness in the context of dependent origination, we will fall into a non-Buddhist or nihilistic version of emptiness, and it will not liberate us.
In the path of Buddhadharma, since we understand dependencies, we do not attempt to get rid of afflictive emotions by hard will, or by dissociation (which strengthens the fundamental delusion of an inherently existing subject and an inherently existing object), or other ways based on the view of inherent existence - which is akin to punching the mirror to get rid of the reflection. At the same time, we are not saying "they are purely an illusion, nothing to work on" (let's try that tactic when your clothes catch fire!). What we're saying is that by directly penetrating the dependent origination and emptiness of taints, precisely because they are illusory and not inherently existing, we can understand the necessity to apply the right remedy which cuts the basis for suffering (the 12 links from ignorance... to death). What path? The engagement in right view and right practice, in which integral conduct allows the arising of integral samadhi which allows the arising of integral wisdom, which results in the cessation of ignorance and the chains. With the arising of wisdom, the chain of afflictive dependent origination is released.
As Nagarjuna pointed out, it is precisely because of emptiness that the soteriological values of Buddhadharma can work at all. This is nicely explained in http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew103934.htm :
(continued in URL)
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
Thanks, I will read it.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:08am)Soh
Emptiness of X is not about non-existence of X but realizing the emptiness of intrinsic existence and realizing dependent origination... thus allowing for the soteriological values of path, realization, fruition.. not viewed in an intrinsic way but a loose, conventional way
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:09am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
before i read it, I send you this: When you color "realisation" in the "poetry" of the Bahiya sutta as if me drinking the cappuccino and in the tasting there is only tasting where two different experiences, I am saying you are reifying one and preferring one over the other and in this not seeing the emptiness of both. hence there is no choosing and i read you reifying, I would quote you here the 3rd patriarch.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:10am)Soh
You speak as if there can be a 'me drinking the cappuccino', but realizing anatta means realizing that it is impossible to have a 'me drinking the cappuccino' to begin with, never was there an actual agent or 'me drinking the cappucino' -- there is never anyone hiding behind or within the cappucino, there is just the appearance/taste of the drinking of cappucino with no one behind/within/in-between it. This is realized to be always already the case.
Therefore, for me, there is no choosing of one experience over another, simply because anatta is not 'one particular experience' but the nature of all experiences always already the case.
5 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:14am)Therefore, for me, there is no choosing of one experience over another, simply because anatta is not 'one particular experience' but the nature of all experiences always already the case.
Soh
This is about seeing through a delusion conclusively rather than chasing after an experience neverendingly.
3 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:16am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
I think you reify because you describe a state of affairs. in the hearing only the hearing...with no subject i can understand, but the experience of hearing is also empty. it has a beginning and has an end, a moment of realisation, and I sincerely question this "new" view. This is what I say there is no realisation. I would be very Nagarjunic and say one cannot sustain there is realisation, one cannot deny there is, we cannot affirm there is realisation and there is not, and we cannot deny both at the same time. I say you rest on the description of the Bahiya sutta.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:17am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
you realise the emptiness of me drinking the cappuccino but as you have said this relative experience is empty, but nevertheless experience it as such. in the tasting only the tasting is also empty. realising the emptiness of both is liberation.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:19am)Soh
" it has a beginning and has an end, a moment of realisation"
Yes and no. The moment of realisation happens, and from then on the realisation becomes effortlessly actualized moment by moment. It is quite easy. In all my waking life nowadays, the delusion of an agent is gone... now it is still so. This realization is actualized in a non-conceptual manner.
As Thusness posted before,
...As what Joan Tollifson once asked Toni “if she'd ever had one of those big awakenings where life turns inside out and all identification with the body-mind ceases.
Toni replied, "I can't say I had it," she replied. "It's this moment, right now." ...
3 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:20am)Yes and no. The moment of realisation happens, and from then on the realisation becomes effortlessly actualized moment by moment. It is quite easy. In all my waking life nowadays, the delusion of an agent is gone... now it is still so. This realization is actualized in a non-conceptual manner.
As Thusness posted before,
...As what Joan Tollifson once asked Toni “if she'd ever had one of those big awakenings where life turns inside out and all identification with the body-mind ceases.
Toni replied, "I can't say I had it," she replied. "It's this moment, right now." ...
Soh
The fact that realization is empty does not mean we deny it. The point is not about denying it, or affirming an intrinsic existence. In fact if realization was truly existent, then it would be impossible, it would be static, substantial, or what some Advaitins might say "you are always already enlightened". That is not how we see realization.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:22am)Soh
Realizing the emptiness of phenomena is important, but does not in any way negate realizing the emptiness of self, but sort of builds onto it.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:23am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
this "from then on" I am questioning. the delusion of the agent you say gone, but in my case I continue savouring cappuccinos and when i am an agent or not, it is the same since both i consider empty. I cannot even see enlightened and ignorant people. You keep making a distinction that separates heaven and earth for me between the realised and the ignorant. I would say no enlightened person would make such a sin. Please ask yourselves, why do you assume me in a neoadvaitin position? i have never said that. Actually, if you read the Vimalakirti sutra it says it is inconceivable and impossible to attain. That is why it is called the great attainment. Realising that there is nothing to attain is the great attainment.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:34am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
from the vimalakirti sutra ch. 3 ""'Reverend Mahamaudgalyayana, how could there be a teaching in regard to such a Dharma? Reverend Mahamaudgalyayana, even the expression "to teach the Dharma" is presumptuous, and those who listen to it listen to presumption."
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:35am)Soh
"the delusion of the agent you say gone, but in my case I continue savouring cappuccinos and when i am an agent or not, it is the same since both i consider empty."
Nope. Seeing the emptiness of X and Y does not mean seeing X and Y as the same, in fact, seeing X and Y as insubstantial reveals them to be quite different -- it allows the the diversity of conventional phenomena. But this is quite different from a substantialist view, where all the conventions are eschewed/subsumed/reduced into a monist ultimate reality. "Everything is only Brahman/This/Awareness" they say.
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:36am)Nope. Seeing the emptiness of X and Y does not mean seeing X and Y as the same, in fact, seeing X and Y as insubstantial reveals them to be quite different -- it allows the the diversity of conventional phenomena. But this is quite different from a substantialist view, where all the conventions are eschewed/subsumed/reduced into a monist ultimate reality. "Everything is only Brahman/This/Awareness" they say.
Soh
Also you will never "be in agent"... after realization that is just gone... there can be a sense of agent but never any actual agent (this is the case for all), but in my experience and many others, that's gone after the insight is stabilized.
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:36am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
please stop it assuming a neoadvaita view. read well what I have written and don't put words on my mouth.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:38am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
your experience of the Bahiya sutta is as empty as me drinking a cappuccion. your selfless cappuccino is as empty.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:39am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
you can be in agent if you know it is empty. actually you can be in agent and play.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:39am)Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
I say you have reified non agency. you are making the same fault you criticise me. you are denying the existence of an agent when what is denied is not its existence but just its substantiality.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:41am)Soh
First of all, there never ever will be a me drinking a cappucino -- a me drinking cappucino is assumed, never actual. Which is why when analyzed, it can be seen there never actually was a me drinking cappucino.
There can be a delusion or false sense of a me, but that is naturally dropped once realization of emptiness manifest. That realization is empty, but undeniable, and precisely because it is empty is realization/suffering/etc all made possible...
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:41am)There can be a delusion or false sense of a me, but that is naturally dropped once realization of emptiness manifest. That realization is empty, but undeniable, and precisely because it is empty is realization/suffering/etc all made possible...
Mardava Mr./Ms. CP
and, i am not denying realisation or understanding.
1 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:42am)Soh
Yeah. Ok, so you're saying realization is as empty as suffering, or anything, and I am also not denying that. But it would also be erroneous to say that "they are the same".
4 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:47am)Soh
"I say you have reified non agency. you are making the same fault you criticise me. you are denying the existence of an agent when what is denied is not its existence but just its substantiality."
Because the existence of an agent is one of the impossible ways a self could exist. Like one of the 7 rejections of 'self' by Candrakirti.
In the end, we could say the self is conventional in a loose way, but not in an inherent way -- that it exists apart from experience, within experience, or anyway in between or both. That would be to see it as truly and inherently existing.
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:56am)Because the existence of an agent is one of the impossible ways a self could exist. Like one of the 7 rejections of 'self' by Candrakirti.
In the end, we could say the self is conventional in a loose way, but not in an inherent way -- that it exists apart from experience, within experience, or anyway in between or both. That would be to see it as truly and inherently existing.
Soh
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." - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../anatta-not...
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 11:57am)Soh
Was conversing with John Tan. He mentioned "Mardava is saying "training" oneself to see in the seen, just the seen is not realization but a "state". But in seeing, there is only always scenery...is realization. Do u see the difference?". I said yes, that part seems to be suggestive of a form of training and the realization aspect may not be very explicitly stated. John said, "So bringing this point out isn't wrong. In fact it is a good point. However he should not look at Bahiya Sutta this way.
"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."[2]"---> This part is realization. So if u merely emphasized "in reference to the seen, there will only be the seen", it may be mistaken as a "state" and become a path of shamatha practice. However there is no reification. It is also important that Buddha relates a description similar to consciousness without features in Bahiya sutta. This is what I told jax abt allowing the five elements to "kill u" when he asked me abt how I understand consciousness without features."
4 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 12:23pm)"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."[2]"---> This part is realization. So if u merely emphasized "in reference to the seen, there will only be the seen", it may be mistaken as a "state" and become a path of shamatha practice. However there is no reification. It is also important that Buddha relates a description similar to consciousness without features in Bahiya sutta. This is what I told jax abt allowing the five elements to "kill u" when he asked me abt how I understand consciousness without features."
Kyle Dixon
No doubt a thread for the blog.
2 liked this (Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 1:18pm)David Vardy
Sensing in the absence of an agent is no less than the totality of what's happening, the seeing of which demonstrates not only the absence/emptiness of self but all 'things'.
(Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 7:46pm)
