AtR Dharma Library

Start Here

A short mobile guide to Awakening to Reality's core readings and library sections. The full sidebar library is still preserved after the article.

Read article ↓ Jump to full library after article ↓

Top Must Reads

Must Reads
Just Manifestation or Just Mind
Soh
Also see: Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan

Session Start: Thursday, September 11, 2008

(7:40 PM) AEN:    Satellite understands anatta rite? http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?t=4315&start=120
(7:40 PM) AEN:   
Yes.

Although duality is a mind state, not all mind states are dualistic.

In the absence of the sense of separation, the phenomen-ing of thought still arises. Just as there is feeling without a feeler, seeing without a see-er, thinking without a thinker arises. For it to be dualistic it requires a secondary layer of thought or belief that says it is 'my' thought.

A clear 'seeing' that subject and object are always, always one (or indeed none), renders all this struggle unnecessary. All there can ever be is Oneness appearing as this ever-fresh self-shining display. The separation is the imposition - though admittedly a very compelling one.

.

Session Start: Friday, September 12, 2008

(1:16 PM) Thusness:    Satellite yes. :)  If this state is truly stabilized, DO must be understood intuitively.

...


(11:31 PM) AEN:    btw this is Anatta as action rite:
It sounds completely paradoxical, but realization only has meaning for the person.

I say paradoxical because the myth is that realization means seeing that the person is nonexistent.

But this is only true from a certain perspective (so to speak.)

Right now, the person can be seen to be insubstantial, not separate and impermanent.

Its 'existence' is like that of a river. It cannot be found, yet it is not truly absent.

It is verb-like. The happening of person-ing is apparent.

It's within this stream that the 'realization event' arises.


The realization is that I am the Source and essence of this person-ing that is streaming in to view.

This is not to lose the person-ing, but to see it in its ultimate context.

(11:54 PM) Thusness:    the text above is by satellite?
(11:54 PM) AEN:    person-ing?
(11:54 PM) AEN:    ya
(11:55 PM) Thusness:    Seldom do we see practitioner having such clarity and experience

...

(11:25 PM) AEN:    Phroggy wrote:
(11:25 PM) AEN:    Initiated a file transfer
(11:25 PM) AEN:    Okay, so, like, I just figured out where all the discussion about Consciousness with Satellite was going after watching a video of Kevin Edwards. In fact, I think something has been brewing here for a while and it may not be done yet.

Basically, what I was trying to say in the discussion here is that mind automatically structures everything dualistically. That is, subject----verb----object, and yet in every case, the subject and object are assumed, leaving only the verb. If you hang in with me, I'll explain, and it looks pretty cool from here.

We say Consciousness expresses in form, but is there really a Consciousness apart from that expression, or is Consciousness just a conceptual subject supplied by the mind so that it seems to come from somewhere? What if Consciousness is it's content, such that the expression is all there is to this Consciousness thingy? Also, is there really a form? Do we know that, or do we also assume the existence of the object? I'm saying there is no subject and there is no object, just the expression itself. Consciousness IS that expression.
(11:25 PM) AEN:    Initiated a file transfer
(11:25 PM) AEN:   

Lets take thought. We say The thinker thought a thought. Is there a thinker or a conceptual thing we call a thought, or is there just thinking arising. Is there really any more to it than that? The subject and object are assumed and have no reality at all. Lets take Awareness. We say Awareness is aware of a tree. The subject and object are assumed and there is just awareness itself. There is no Awareness anywhere. It's existence is literally inherent to it's being aware. There is no object to Awareness either, and so we might say that the tree is awareness happening, but in the absence of an object we call a tree.
(11:25 PM) AEN:   

Listening to Kevin tonight, it came together for me when he said something like 'You say, "I see a plant". Now, throw away the point of reference, the I that sees.' In this, there is just the seeing of the plant without anybody seeing, and in fact the plant isn't even there, so there's just the seeing. No subject (me) and no object seen, just the perception iteself, inseparable from any other subject, and identical with all objects, because all subjects and all objects are literally the perceiving itself. In this way, everything is one thing, in the absence of thingness and in the absence of a separate perceiver. There is just experience happening. No experiencer and nothing experienced. If mind insists on retaining it's made up subject and object, then we can say the experiencer IS the experiencing itself, and the experiencing IS the experienced, and they all become one.
(11:28 PM) AEN:    wat u tink
(11:28 PM) AEN:    oh and Satellite just replied:
(11:28 PM) AEN:   

With a touch less of the slightly metaphysical tone, this could be the work of a Mahayana Buddhist.

Yes. Only experience (verb) or experiencing (without the usual dualistic split that is associated with these words.)

In this sense, there is nothing - only happenings, only experiencing.
(11:28 PM) AEN:    Yet in order for apparent communication and interaction, experience is conceptually divided into parts.

Right now, all there is is seamless experience. The phone rings - now it might be clumsy to say that the ring is an expression of experience - but it could be said that experience is arising as the sound of the phone. So now we have experience... arising as a something.

We are not saying that experience is apart from the thing experienced... only that language/conceptual thought can make it look that way.
(11:30 PM) Thusness:    Yes good
(11:31 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:31 PM) Thusness:    Anatta
(11:32 PM) Thusness:    Next step is to go non-conceptual
(11:32 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:33 PM) AEN:    u mean phroggy shld practice non-conceptuality?
(12:23 AM) AEN:    u mean after realising anatta then shld practice non conceptuality
(1:24 AM) Thusness:    What is the url?
(1:24 AM) AEN:    which url
(1:24 AM) AEN:    oh
(1:25 AM) AEN:    http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?t=4543
(1:35 AM) Thusness:    There r different depth to this experience.
(1:35 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:37 AM) Thusness:    One can still turn conceptual and cannot experience the vividness of this anatta experience
(1:37 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:38 AM) Thusness:    The Tendency to grasp this understanding conceptually will normally last for another few yrs or longer.
(1:39 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:39 AM) AEN:    btw phroggy realised anatta?
(1:40 AM) Thusness:    The 'reminding' will step in until stage 5 goes non-conceptual and arise as sound, scenery, taste...
(1:40 AM) Thusness:    Yes
(1:40 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:41 AM) AEN:    reminding as in
(1:41 AM) AEN:    conceptually thinking it?
(1:41 AM) Thusness:    But there must be direct experience.
(1:41 AM) AEN:    oic
(1:41 AM) Thusness:    Reminding oneself of this new found truth.
(1:41 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:42 AM) AEN:    but when he realised its not just a conceptual understand right? like he realised it?
(1:43 AM) Thusness:    Soon
(1:43 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:43 AM) Thusness:    But not yet
(1:43 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:43 AM) Thusness:    Not like satellite
(1:44 AM) AEN:    oic why
(1:44 AM) AEN:    oh
(1:44 AM) Thusness:    But stage 6 is a lil different.
(1:44 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:47 AM) Thusness:    this in buddhism is the right view
(1:47 AM) Thusness:    The next step is to see the DO (Dependent Origination) nature.

(1:59 AM) Thusness:    You see most ppl will know how different the experience is between 'I AMness' and anatta
(1:59 AM) Thusness:    After the experience
(2:00 AM) Thusness:    It is obvious otherwise he would not have made that comment
(2:01 AM) Thusness:    Future understanding is the dependently originate nature.
(2:01 AM) Thusness:    That is emptiness
(2:02 AM) Thusness:    Then leading to effortless non-conceptuality
(2:02 AM) Thusness:    Then self liberation

Session Start: Friday, October 17, 2008

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    proggy after discussion with satellite came to understand consciousness as phenomena-ing...as action, as verb
(11:44 PM) Thusness:    language brought about the delusion that there is a subject and object division.
(11:45 PM) Thusness:    actually it is not just language, attachment.
(11:46 PM) Thusness:    proggy must later move from 5 aggregates to 18 dhatus, eliminating the mental formation.
(11:47 PM) Thusness:    then she will find delight in DO.

(10:01 PM) Thusness:    actually Proggy wrote very well the post.
(10:01 PM) Thusness:    is there a subject
(10:01 PM) Thusness:    it is just that one experience.
(10:01 PM) Thusness:    however there are few more important points to take note after initial insight.
(10:03 PM) Thusness:    she seems to stop writing liao

(10:06 PM) Thusness:    Actually if u understood what Satellite and Phroggy meant, u will realise that John Myrdhin, isn't there yet.
(10:07 PM) Thusness:    If there is just one Happening where subject and object are merely assumed, how can there be manifestation of the mind.
(10:07 PM) Thusness:    There is just manifestation or just experience or just mind. (Also see: Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan)
(10:08 PM) Thusness:    No more confusion with 'forms' and 'formlessness'
(10:09 PM) Thusness:    It was only when a practitioner is still assuming that there is a subject and object that such distinction exist.
(10:10 PM) Thusness:    otherwise it is just one expression, one body, one reality.
(10:10 PM) Thusness:    one happening...nothing else...
(10:11 PM) Thusness:    yet after this experience due to the 'tendency to divide', there will definitely be a period of desync.  If a practitioner cannot pass the test, his experience will not be stabilized and liberation will not be experienced.
(11:00 PM) Thusness:    By the way it is because we are unable to see with complete clarity that appearance is awareness that 'practice' is necessary.
(11:02 PM) Thusness:    Otherwise 'practice' is just every moment of experience
Labels: 0 comments | | edit post
Fearing No-Self
Soh
 
 
LeanderThanks for all the answers, it means a lot to me and makes it a lot more bearable already.

@An Eternal Now: ive read the first link. Suzanne Segals story and the two types of nondual contemplation after I AM.
i have to admit that just reading the contemplation spikes some panic in me because it implys i have to go further into no-mans land. Things like "theres no seer, just seeing". it makes me feel even less existent. As if thats the missing nail in the coffin to destroy me once and for all.


Fear and panic arises due to the misconception that 'I' have existed in the first place and has to dissolve. This is a misunderstanding. There is no 'I' behind the seeing which is none other than colors, no 'I' or 'hearer' that is behind the hearing which is none other than sounds. Nothing needs to dissolve, it is seen through and realized to be always already the case. You think that hearing and seeing is the job of an agent, a perceiver, a doer, and you are some detached perceiver, but in reality scenery sees and sound hears. The agent never was. It only appears to be real, and while the delusion is there, the appearance is very strong and hypnotic. There is a constant self-refencing, a tiresome and tedious process of referencing every experience back to a presumed agent out of ignorance, from 'just the seen' to 'I see'. The seeing/colors, hearing/sounds, action/activity happen first, followed by an unnecessary self-referencing to an imaginary agent. This sense of being a self, an agent, a perceiver, a doer, can however be challenged, investigated, and seen through. With the illusion seen through, the process of self-making naturally stops, it is not so much that a self is destroyed as it was never truly there. Nothing is lost, and in losing an illusion you 'gain' the world.

The old Zen koan goes:

The man sitting atop the hundred foot pole:
Though he's gained entry, this is not yet the real.
Atop the hundred foot pole, he should step forward:
The universe in all directions is the whole body.

Nothing is destroyed any more than seeing through the belief in the real existence of santa claus actually destroys some santa claus. You just wake up to reality. Oh, life is happening brilliantly without a center, without the need for the fiction of a center, and life is much more marvellous, wondrous, alive, boundless and free than the tiresome and fearful holding and grasping on to an unnecessary self-contraction and imagined entity and all the related sufferings. It's like holding on to hot charcoal and yet strangely not willing to release it due to fear of the unknown. Once the illusion is seen through and released there is a sense of freedom, release and fearlessness in facing life (see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/08/fearless-samadhi.html )

Then there is no fear as this is realized to be always already the case. The notion that 'I' had existed at the center, experiencing and coordinating everything is unnecessary and unfounded. The absence of self and agent is also experienced positively as everything is brilliantly alive and self-luminous, the quality of 'witnessing' which was once seen as a background observer now is felt as a quality of everything revealing itself to itself. The seeing is seen-seeing, colors and sounds and sensations are just felt vividly where they are instead of being experienced from some vantagepoint of self. It is not a static state of detached uninvolvement in life, there is complete engagement and intimacy in all actions, chop wood, carry water.

What is called pure consciousness experience becomes effortless and natural: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/pce.htm , and in this state there can be no dissociation. If you do not experience the aspect of intense luminosity then joy and liveliness will not be felt (see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/11/the-importance-of-luminosity.html ) The intimacy is not the intimacy of two entities meeting each other but the sense of gaplessness, when hearing a sound the sound is as if 'you', closer than your breath, when seeing the blue sky the blue sky is as if 'you', closer than your heartbeat. Everything is alive and vivid. So how can there be dissociation and derealization?

For a theoretical understanding of no-self also see http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_baggini_is_there_a_real_you

For the experiential insights into no-self/anatta refer to On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
 
 
William Jeffery Pratt:
Dear AEN,

Poignant and veracious.

Yet, the organism that hasn't awakened and the awakened organism will both automatically recoil when it unknowingly touches a red hot fire.


The recoiling as a pure bodily function and activity will happen spontaneously without self-referencing. It is necessary and useful for the survival of this organism, be it awakened or not. It does not come with the kind of self-contraction and fear and grasping before awakening.

Some people will have glimpses of this 'spontaneous happening' even without realizing anatta. For example they may wake up from sleep and experience the body coughing by itself, too fast before the sense of self kicks in as they just woke up (the structures of subject/object, identity, selfing, takes some time to kick in after arousing from sleep). But then the sense of a detached observer then quickly kicks in, and there's a sense "oh I was just watching this thing, the body is doing its thing and I'm not the doer, I am the watcher". This is an experience of non-doership but NOT what I call realization of anatta, therefore dissociation still happens. Most people who have certain glimpses of non-self are talking about an experience of non-doership, which is not necessarily a non-dual experience, or a peak experience of PCE, but even if he/she experiences a PCE it is still not what I call the realization of anatta. Even one realizes non-dual luminosity as always undivided, they may still fall into the case of Thusness Stage 4 - subject/object non-division rather than realizing true anatta or no-subject of Thusness Stage 5 - Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

As I often said (elsewhere) - for 8 years now, there has not been the slightest sense of agency, an agent, or subject/object division in any situation. Non-doership, no agent, and no subject-object division (vivid non-dual luminosity) all at once. Spontaneous and effortlessly so as a natural state. The aspect of no agent must be clear, not just non-doership, and not just subject/object non-division or non-dual luminosity either.

Like seeing a picture puzzle, once you see it and the insight stabilizes, you can't unsee it even if you want to.
Labels: 0 comments | | edit post