Comments

• 📷Active NowStian Gudmundsen Høiland📷 So we see that it has a condition, on account of which presence it arises and absence it ceases.
  
  From having a condition, we see it is impermanent: If in response to the presence of the condition it arises, then in response to the absence of the condition it ceases. Having arisen dependent on a cause, it is thus impermanent, since—having arisen *in dependence* on the presence of the cause—the absence of the cause entails its cessation.
  
  Consider closely this part:
  
  > If in response to the presence of the condition it arises...
  
  Why is it that we get from that the consequence of:
  
  > ... then in response to the absence of the condition it ceases.
  
  It is because the arising is bound to the state of presence (of the condition). When the condition is no longer present, then—since it arose *dependent* on (the presence of) that condition—it will thus cease.
  
  So, "arising with a cause" necessitates "cessation when the cause disappears".
  
  What becomes understood here is called impermanence, and when that understanding goes even further what is understood is called "conditionedness".2
• Like
• · Reply
• · 16h
• · Edited
• 📷Active NowStian Gudmundsen Høiland📷 Being a conditioned thing, it is something "out from control". Dukkha, anatta.
  
  ... it is something completely determined by conditions—there is no "free" factor beside conditions that could otherwise overrule its conditions and make it arise or cease. In fact, such a thing would just be... a condition.
  
  Grasping/understanding conditionedness is very close to what is called dispassion. The coming and going of things—and quite so by themselves—keeps the mind from fascinating about things as-if they were permanent and could be controlled by a single entity (this "as-if" attitude is quite unconscious and hidden from us), and this leads to a hands-off approach, i.e. doesn’t grasp and cling.
  
  Emptiness, here, very specifically means what one intuits as the lack of "being worthy of" or "deserving" grasping and clinging. By understanding conditionedness one intuits the reason of not deserving grasping and not being worthy of clinging. This intuited "quality" lies very close to what is called dukkha and anatta. What one thus intuits or understands is called "(the state of) being void", but which we get translated as "emptiness". The result of understanding how (thus conditioned) things (i.e. things that are conditioned as such, i.e. arises dependent on condition, i.e. is conditionally arisen, i.e. conditioned arising) are void is called many things, for example "dispassion". This dispassion is tantamount to non-involvement (atammayata?) with conditioned things, a slight turning away of the mind from conditioned things, which leads to what is called nibbāna and asaṅkhata.
  
  Thus, by completely understanding dependent arising and conditionedness, the mind becomes dispassionate and does not grasp nor cling to anything conditioned. Consciousness naturally becoming calm and resting through dispassion, ceases from further movements of mind and mental activity.
  By completely understanding the meaning of "conditioned", one finally comes to direct experience of what is called "unconditioned" (& "nirvana").3
• Like· Reply
  · 15h
  · Edited
  
• 📷Active NowStian Gudmundsen Høiland📷 In short, and about the thought "I am":
  
  When you contemplate dependent arising & ceasing of seeing (or "eye-contact"), you are unwittingly replacing the assumption of an agent of seeing.
  
  Somewhere in your psyche there is a belief-ing that seeing is an act performed by an agent.
  
  When you consider that this visual awareness right here depends on eye & form and that with this eye & form there is this visual awareness and that without this eye there would be no visual awareness and that without this form there would be no visual awareness, then "I am" with regards to seeing stops for as long as you remain in that understanding; there is then no "I am seeing", there is only seeing, no "I am" doing the seeing.
  
  > ... 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.
  
  > When a noble disciple has clearly seen with right wisdom this dependent origination and these dependently originated phenomena as they are, it’s impossible for them to turn back to the past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past?’ Or to turn forward to the future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or to be undecided about the present, thinking: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’4
• Like· Reply
  · 16h
  · Edited
  
• 📷Active NowStian Gudmundsen Høiland📷 Now try it again. Slowly this time.
• Like· Reply
  · 16h
  
• 📷Active NowStian Gudmundsen Høiland📷 Did anyone at least get to the point where it clicks that without eye or without form visual awareness co-ceases (i.e. impermanence)?
• Like
• 
  
• · Reply
• · 15h
• · Edited