Affirming Dependencies
Soh
Lack of inherent existence affirms dependencies, or the heap of dependencies. In the state of actualizing anatta (the background self, or seer-seeing-seen, or a standalone Clarity or Presence is seen through into pure taste of mere manifestation) where bliss and clarity is intense and Presence stands out as everything intensely, realize that this Presence/Presencing is a heap or collection of activities-dependencies, so the non-inherent existence way of seeing 'mere name' actualises or affirms pure presence as dependencies. It can be anything manifesting at that moment, the whole universe is involved in giving rise to a given activity or moment, for example if you are singing in a group then "each person" is contributing to that activity and the entirety of Presence is that dependencies. Without deep experience of anatta, one cannot appreciate this. Then even after that, contemplate and deepen one's view even more.

This "mere name" way of seeing all and any given imputed entities/selves/phenomena allows us to penetrate into the true nature of appearance as seamlessly arising in dependence but not truly arising (not coming into being by its own power but more like reflections of moon on water).

...

There's two modes of perception. The wrong mode of perception is seeing something as having solid inherent existence or as totally non existent. The other mode is seeing the pure appearances as dependent reflections but this pure appearances doesn’t "exist by way of inherent existence" but as dependencies. Conventions also do not refer to inherent existence but only appears via dependencies.

Shadow is not same or different from sunlight. Without sunlight there is no shadow, but neither exists by itself. We cannot say that sunlight or shadow does not exist. But the "actual condition" of shadow is that it is only established conventionally in relation to sunlight (conditions).

Sunlight/shadow supports and is supported by all other conditions. A conventional phenomena cannot manifest, support or be supported by other conditions if it truly exists on its own.

If we say sunlight is same or different from shadow, then we are seeing from the viewpoint of inherent existence and fail to see its manifestation is inseparable from its dependencies, in terms of conditions and designation. If sunlight does not exist then neither could shadow. If there were inherent existence of either shadow or sunlight, or that they are same or different, then shadow could not appear as there will be no sunlight that supports shadow. The emptiness of inherent existence affirms dependencies and the way things are via dependencies. The lack of inherent existence reveals that appearances and conventions only arise in relation and dependencies.
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
Awareness and Appearance
Soh
Andre A. Pais:

Awareness cannot be independent or separate from the appearances it knows. If it was, there could be no connection between knowing and known - and thus no experience could arise. All perception must be non-dual, despite having [conceptually] implicit in its functioning a subject and an object.

But if awareness is not separate or independent from the appearances that are known, it must be as transient and fluxing as the very appearances that are known. There is no sensible way in which one single thing (in this case the [conceptual] union of awareness and appearances) can have a split nature or a contradictory way of being.

These being the case - that no awareness exists outside of the arising appearances; and that awareness is thus of a transient nature -, it follows that all there ever exists is the self-knowing, self-luminous appearances, free of an observing or knowing subject beyond themselves, meaning that awareness, mind or any knowing principle are merely beliefs imputed on the flow of naturally luminous appearances.

It follows that we are not experiencing an external reality (naive realism), nor a mental representation (scientific materialism), nor even modulations of our own awareness (most non-dual traditions). There is actually no experiencer, no witness, no observer, no center or core, no knower - and no awareness (as awareness is always posited as "that which knows"). Let's allow that to sink in. This is one of the most powerful insights available to us.

What this means is that there isn't even perception going on. There is no one perceiving anything. The dualistic idea of perception itself is merely conceptually constructed and imputed onto pure manifest activity. What appears is reality as it is - as real, authentic and direct as it gets. Luminosity arises naturally and dependently, empty of any duality of knowing and known, mind and matter, inside and outside, subject and object, etc. Curiously, if one had to choose between the reality of either subject or object, the presence of the "objective world" would be far more undeniable than that of any subjective entity.

Further investigation must happen as to deeply understand the unestablished, empty and merely transient nature of what appears. This will help clarify the answer to "what is this?". However, the main question of all spiritual traditions, "who/what am I?", is answered when reality is understood as being without any observer, experiencer or entity of any kind and thus free of knowingness itself (and its ideas of "distorted" or "undistorted" perception).
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
Truth and Reality
Soh
Hoping for Thusness's comments on this writing by Andre A. Pais:



What appears is what appears. We could call that ''reality''.

''Reality'', when conceptualized, becomes a ''truth''.

If those concepts express the true nature of what appears, it's an ultimate truth (usually about the emptiness of what appears; or the natural union of emptiness and appearance in what appears).

If those concepts express something other than the true nature of what appears, it's a conventional truth (usually about some function performed by some conceptualized object, like a table; or a belief in the permanence or inherency of some conceptualized object).

Concerning what appears, ''reality itself'', when it arises as ''concealing'' its true nature (emptiness), which is every ordinary appearance, then it's conventional reality.

When what appears, appears as it actually is (happening only when one has a direct perception of emptiness, since emptiness is empty and appears as such), then it's ultimate reality.

So, we have both conventional and ultimate reality. And we have both conventional and ultimate truth.

____

I'm having an issue with the conventional reality aspect. I said ordinary appearances are intrinsically of a ''concealing'' nature, because the tradition says that things always appear as inherently existing. Only emptiness appears in the same way as it is - empty.

I'm not sure I agree. When what is labeled as ''perception of blue sky'' arises, the ''blueness'' that appears is not broadcasting any inherency. It is only ''naturally manifest'', a mere  instance of sheer luminosity. The mask of inherency is added later, conceptually.

So, I'd say all appearances are ultimate reality, because they all naturally express the intrinsic union of emptiness and appearances, nothing else. All else is a mere truth about it - conventional or ultimate.

____

What are people's thoughts about this?
Labels: 0 comments | | edit post