Posts
From a discussion in Dharma Connection -
https://www.facebook.com/groups/dharmaconnection/permalink/2108649265828945/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/dharmaconnection/permalink/2108649265828945/
Kyle DixonKyle and 12 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for Dharma Connection. Although he got into trouble yesterday for being unable to exercise compassion and make an apology when he offended someone. He make a remark that struck a chord in regards to a loved one someone had lost, and they asked him to apologize. He refused.
John TanJohn and 12 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for Dharma Connection. Can't understand him. This aside, recently he posted some extracts about selflessness written by Khenpo Tsulstrim Gyamtso:
"When we realize the selflessness of the individual, however, this whole process stops. The wrong views that have their root in the belief in self cease, then the mental afflictions cease, then karmic actions cease, and as a result of that, birth in samsara’s cycle of existence ceases."
"We can formulate the following logical reasoning: Karmic actions and results are mere appearances devoid of true existence, because no self, no actor, exists to perform them. This is a valid way to put things because if the self of the individual does not exist, there cannot be any action, and therefore there cannot be any result of any action either."
Would like to hear ur view Kyle, that because there is no-self, there is no action.
Frankly this is not inline with the experience and insight of anatta I have. I seriously cannot accept jax's "because there is no self, there is nothing to do". I resonate more with Buddhaghosa's ' Suffering as such exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer is found.'
Manage"When we realize the selflessness of the individual, however, this whole process stops. The wrong views that have their root in the belief in self cease, then the mental afflictions cease, then karmic actions cease, and as a result of that, birth in samsara’s cycle of existence ceases."
"We can formulate the following logical reasoning: Karmic actions and results are mere appearances devoid of true existence, because no self, no actor, exists to perform them. This is a valid way to put things because if the self of the individual does not exist, there cannot be any action, and therefore there cannot be any result of any action either."
Would like to hear ur view Kyle, that because there is no-self, there is no action.
Frankly this is not inline with the experience and insight of anatta I have. I seriously cannot accept jax's "because there is no self, there is nothing to do". I resonate more with Buddhaghosa's ' Suffering as such exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer is found.'
Kyle DixonKyle and 12 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for Dharma Connection. I was thinking about these comments from KTG just the other day because I saw Jax post them, they do seem off.
The only guess I have regarding the first quote is that he is referring to the complete realization of selflessness, not a mere recognition. It would not be right to think all of those processes cease upon initial recognition, but that is of course how Jax misinterpreted the excerpt. I don't have the text, but I can imagine there is more context that is missing.
As for the other quote, it isn't the best way to communicate the message in my opinion.
My view is that the self is imputed onto the action or afflicted activity. And the activity is the result of ignorance. First there is ignorance regarding the nature of appearance, and appearances are mistaken to be external, whereas mind is then internal. From there further grasping occurs which fortifies this split, and the alleged inner reference point is then treated as mine and myself, which leads to I-making in the form of imputation. That activity of imputation then further deepens the fallacious structure of self and other because activity unfolds based on the misconception of the self.
But the self is not the lynchpin. Ignorance is. Is the self and ignorance synonymous? I don't think so. Because ignorance is two fold in that it reifies the apparent inner dimension and external dimension. The self that karma is related to is the mind reified as self. We can recognize non-arising related to that substrate knower, and still perceive a substantial external dimension. Likewise we can recognize non-arising of objects in the external dimension and the inner substrate knower remains in tact. Then, we can also recognize the non-arising in different sensory gates at different times. For instance one can recognize the non-arising of sound yet visual perception remains afflicted, and vice versa.
So it isn't as simple as just negating the self and washing our hands of the massive nexus of afflictive processes. It is much more complex than that.
Is it true that the self is unreal and the activity base on the self is unreal? Sure. But KTG is sort of communicating this in a backwards fashion. Just because the self is unreal does not mean it is not constructed and based on a complex nexus of afflictive activity, that is then based in delusion. And that activity is habitual.
This is why Padmasambhava says my view is higher than the sky but my attention to karmic cause and effect is finer than flour.
The karmic cause and effect is the patterns of grasping that reinforces the inner and outer yings or dimensions.
KTG's message is true in a certain context, but is communicated recklessly. And of course the nuance of the issue are completely lost on you-know-who. I feel he has had some coarse insights into substantial non-dual states, maybe. But he has never really seen equipoise. This is my feeling.
The self does not create the fundamental afflictive activity. The fundamental afflictive activity gives rise to the self, and then both spin out of control from there. But one will not resolve the affliction by merely negating the self.
ManageThe only guess I have regarding the first quote is that he is referring to the complete realization of selflessness, not a mere recognition. It would not be right to think all of those processes cease upon initial recognition, but that is of course how Jax misinterpreted the excerpt. I don't have the text, but I can imagine there is more context that is missing.
As for the other quote, it isn't the best way to communicate the message in my opinion.
My view is that the self is imputed onto the action or afflicted activity. And the activity is the result of ignorance. First there is ignorance regarding the nature of appearance, and appearances are mistaken to be external, whereas mind is then internal. From there further grasping occurs which fortifies this split, and the alleged inner reference point is then treated as mine and myself, which leads to I-making in the form of imputation. That activity of imputation then further deepens the fallacious structure of self and other because activity unfolds based on the misconception of the self.
But the self is not the lynchpin. Ignorance is. Is the self and ignorance synonymous? I don't think so. Because ignorance is two fold in that it reifies the apparent inner dimension and external dimension. The self that karma is related to is the mind reified as self. We can recognize non-arising related to that substrate knower, and still perceive a substantial external dimension. Likewise we can recognize non-arising of objects in the external dimension and the inner substrate knower remains in tact. Then, we can also recognize the non-arising in different sensory gates at different times. For instance one can recognize the non-arising of sound yet visual perception remains afflicted, and vice versa.
So it isn't as simple as just negating the self and washing our hands of the massive nexus of afflictive processes. It is much more complex than that.
Is it true that the self is unreal and the activity base on the self is unreal? Sure. But KTG is sort of communicating this in a backwards fashion. Just because the self is unreal does not mean it is not constructed and based on a complex nexus of afflictive activity, that is then based in delusion. And that activity is habitual.
This is why Padmasambhava says my view is higher than the sky but my attention to karmic cause and effect is finer than flour.
The karmic cause and effect is the patterns of grasping that reinforces the inner and outer yings or dimensions.
KTG's message is true in a certain context, but is communicated recklessly. And of course the nuance of the issue are completely lost on you-know-who. I feel he has had some coarse insights into substantial non-dual states, maybe. But he has never really seen equipoise. This is my feeling.
The self does not create the fundamental afflictive activity. The fundamental afflictive activity gives rise to the self, and then both spin out of control from there. But one will not resolve the affliction by merely negating the self.
Kyle DixonKyle and 12 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for Dharma Connection. Anatta
equipoise is related to absence of time, and in this sense action is
indeed negated. Also the threefold actor, action, acted upon is undone
when the insight is twofold. Anatta in objects is related to unreality
of space. But only Buddhas are in non-retroactive state of that nature.
Manage
John TanJohn and 12 others manage the membership and moderators, settings and posts for Dharma Connection. Yes Kyle,
like u said it is not so straight forward and logical deduction can b
slippery. Does freedom from subject/object duality necessarily frees
one from "mine" attachment?
"First there is the ignorance regarding the nature appearance and appearances are mistaken to b external whereas mind is then internal. "
My view is this misapprehension is the result of ignorance but grasping need not arise. That is, I/others, subject/object are not the result of grasping but a non-recogntion. However when "mine" arises, that is grasping.
Manage"First there is the ignorance regarding the nature appearance and appearances are mistaken to b external whereas mind is then internal. "
My view is this misapprehension is the result of ignorance but grasping need not arise. That is, I/others, subject/object are not the result of grasping but a non-recogntion. However when "mine" arises, that is grasping.
· Reply · 5h · Edited
Kyle DixonKyle and 12 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Dharma Connection. I agree that the feeling of subject-object precedes grasping and "mine."
In some systems there is actually a tiered model of ignorance for this very reason, and that simple non-recognition is treated as a different aspect of ignorance. That bare non-recognizing ignorance is sometimes illustrated in the example of the first instances when waking up from sleep where one is cognizing appearances, and those appearances are externalized, but self-identification has not arisen yet. I've had these moments extend to where I will wake up and it takes a few moments to even register where I am, yet bare cognizance is certainly functioning. Then imputation arises and recollection of person, place, time, plans, schedule etc., all unfold, which is held as a different type of ignorance.
ManageIn some systems there is actually a tiered model of ignorance for this very reason, and that simple non-recognition is treated as a different aspect of ignorance. That bare non-recognizing ignorance is sometimes illustrated in the example of the first instances when waking up from sleep where one is cognizing appearances, and those appearances are externalized, but self-identification has not arisen yet. I've had these moments extend to where I will wake up and it takes a few moments to even register where I am, yet bare cognizance is certainly functioning. Then imputation arises and recollection of person, place, time, plans, schedule etc., all unfold, which is held as a different type of ignorance.
