Jayson MPaul
5m  ·
I have been noticing the link between anatta emptiness of self and how it is exactly the same insight for emptiness of objects recently. Yesterday I was reading comments about the weather analogy, which was instrumental in my anatta insight. It suddenly became clear how that also applies to all objects, but not only that, how it applies to my direct experience. I saw that all these fleeting sensations and changing visual impressions were being held in the mind like weather, as though it was a real thing. That knot unravelled itself and everything in direct contact was seen to be this way. It felt as if the sensations had already been disconnected from a supposed this side and now they were detached from a supposed that side. The whole thing is an apparition, dream-like in nature. Really nothing to worry about here.

Данила Игнатовски
Do you mean that whether is just a label and it only exist like empty word, just a pointer to clouds, for example? Also then clouds doesn't exist itself bc it just water and water doesn't have inherent existence bc it just pointer to... Etc. And in the end we found only empty emptiness.
Do you talk about this stuff? Like all aggregation stuff is doesn't exist on its own as well as I'm.

1
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 
•  · 2h
• 
  
Jayson MPaul
Author
Данила Игнатовски exactly. I've seen the recursive nature of emptiness deconstructing my concepts before. This was a deepening and the release of a deeply held belief that sensations were attributed to something on that side. Even after seeing this there is a period of subtler and subtler assumptions coming up and being dispelled. Releasing mental constructs frees up so much energy to just be the dancing sensations instead of observing them.

1
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 
• • •  · 1h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
Admin

John Tan commented:
There r 3-fold understanding to it post anatta. It is related to http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../daniel-post-on...
This is similar to the chariot analogy. But what is crucial in this analogy is how the "chariot" is understood. It can be from non-gelug perspective or the gelug perspective.
For the non-gelug, it is understood simply as a designation mistaken as "real" and we should eliminate all conceptualities into freedom from all elaborations, i.e, recognize the primordial purity, ka dag of phenomena. In this case reified constructs r treated more like non-existence instead of non-arisen. Then there is a need to point to the unfailing appearances and emphasized the union of emptiness and appearances. So there r 3 vital steps and insights:
1. Recognizing the primordial purity - ka dag (emptiness)
2. Realize that appearances unfailingly appears despite thorough negation (non-implicative)
3. Union of 1 emptiness + 2 appearances. Mipham coined it as "coalescence".
For the gelug, chariot is non-arisen instead of non-existence. They see the purpose of analysing the "chariot" with the 7 fold reasoning is to understand the dream-like nature of phenomena/appearances are like the designation of chariot. Imo the 3 vital points r all included in this understanding as gelug treats all cognitions as "conceptual" including direct sense perceptions.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness
Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 
  Remove Preview
•  · 5m
•  
•  
•  John Tan shared something I posted on AtR by Kyle Dixon:
  
  
  http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../kyle-dixon-on...
  Kyle dixon:
  The middle way is actually a freedom from the misconceptions of existence and non-existence. Holding that things exist (whether they are conditioned or unconditoned phenomena) is eternalism, holding that things do not exist (whether they are conditioned or unconditioned) is nihilism. Annihilationism is the belief that something existent becomes non-existent.

  The way to avoid these various extremes is emptiness, which means (i) a lack of inherent existence, (ii) a freedom from extremes, (iii) a lack of arising [non-arising], (iv) dependent co-origination. All of those definitions being synonymous.

  Dependent origination is the proper relative view which leads one to the realization of the ultimate view; which is emptiness. Many people misunderstand emptiness to be a negative view, but it is actually the proper middle way view which avoids the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.

  All in all there is really no way to ELI5 with this topic, you'll just have to ask questions. It is simple once understood, but very, very few people actually understand dependent origination.

  Here is a collection of stuff I wrote awhile ago on dependent origination for the sake of the discussion:

  the general definition of independent origination, the very idea that things are endowed with their own-being/essence [svabhāva], or self [ātman]. In order for something to be independently originated it would have to be unconditioned, independent and uncaused, but this is considered an impossibility in the eyes of Buddhism. The correct conventional view for emptiness is that of dependent origination, and so we see that in order to have objects, persons, places, things and so on, they must possessed of causes and conditions. Meaning they cannot be found apart from those causes and conditions. If the conditions are removed, the object does not remain.

  The adepts of the past have said that since a thing only arises due to causes, and abides due to conditions, and fails in the absence of cause and condition, how can this thing be said to exist? For an object to inherently exist it must exist outright, independent of causes and conditions, independent of attributes, characteristics and constituent parts. However we cannot find an inherent object independent of these factors, and the implications of this fact is that we likewise cannot find an inherent object within those factors either. The object 'itself' is unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces, which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts, characteristics or attributes either. Therefore the object is merely a useful conventional designation, and its validity is measured by its efficacy, apart from that conventional title however, there is no underlying inherent object to be found.

  Dependent origination is pointing to a species of implied interdependency; the fact that an allegedly conditioned 'thing' only arises via implication from the misperception of other conditioned things, and so each 'thing' is simultaneously a cause and an effect of each other, and everything else. Dependent origination isn't a case in which we have truly established things which are existing in dependence on other truly existent things, for instance; that we have objects which are truly constructed of parts which are in turn made of smaller parts such as atoms etc. This is of course one way of looking at dependent origination, but this would be considered a very coarse and realist/essentialist view. One that subtly promotes a sense of own-being or essence to things. So instead what dependent origination is pointing out, is that there is no inherent object to be found apart from (or within) the varying conventional characteristics we attribute to said object. On the other hand there would also be no inherent objects found in relation to (or within a relationship) with the various characteristics attributed to said objects. For each would only be valid when contrasted with the other, and upon discovering a lack of inherency in regards to one, the validity of the other would be compromised as well. Our experiences are merely interdependent conventional constructs composed of unfounded inferences.

  In this way, the object 'itself', as an essential core 'thing' is unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces, which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts, characteristics or attributes either.

  So for example, if a table were truly inherently existent, meaning it exists independently, then we would be able to find that table independently of its varying characteristics. The table would be able to exist independently of being observed, independent of its color or texture, independent of its parts and pieces, independent of its designated name, independent of its surroundings etc. In contrast, if observation - or consciousness for example - were truly existent, we would likewise be able to find it apart from the perception of the table, surrounding environment, and so on. There is no essential, 'core' nature that a table in fact 'is' or possesses, and the same goes for consciousness and anything else.

  For sentient beings afflicted with ignorance, conceptual imputation and conventional language are mistaken as pointing towards authentic persons, places, things, etc. When ignorance is undone, there is freedom to use conventional language, however it doesn't create confusion because wisdom directly knows ignorance for what it is. In Buddhism conventionality is allowed to be a tool implemented for communication, so we're allowed to be John Doe or Mary Smith, trees, rocks, cars are allowed to be designations. Conventionality is simply a useful tool which doesn't point to anything outside of itself. The conventional truth is relative... words, concepts, ideas, persons, places, things etc., and is contrasted by ultimate truth, which is emptiness.

  All apparent phenomena which fall under the category of 'conditioned' - meaning they accord with one or more of the four extremes (existence, nonexistence, both, neither) - originate dependently. We know this is so because there is no such thing as phenomena which doesn't arise dependent upon causes and conditions.

  "Whatever is dependently co-arisen

  That is explained to be emptiness.

  That, being a dependent designation

  Is itself the middle way.

  Something that is not dependently arisen,

  Such a thing does not exist.

  Therefore a non-empty thing

  Does not exist."

  -- Nāgārjuna

   

   

   

  Soh Wei YuAdmin
  Soh:
  

  recently i have been reading some old posts by kyle dixon
  i found that his salt analogy to be a good explanation of chariot applied to all phenomena
  from http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/03/a-sun-that-never-sets.html
  [6:00 am, 17/11/2021] John Tan: Yes.  Not easy to find one that has Kyle's insights and experiences.  Not even among those so called "masters" and "teachers".
  [6:33 am, 17/11/2021] John Tan: He seems less active in reddit nowadays (Soh: not exactly true: https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/comments/)
  A Sun That Never Sets
  AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
  A Sun That Never Sets
  A Sun That Never Sets
  2
  
       · Reply
       · Remove Preview
       · 10h
  
  Jayson MPaulAuthor
  Soh Wei Yu I've read over this one many times in the past. So many gems in here!
  1
   · Reply
   ·
  
           · 51m
  
  
  Данила Игнатовски
  Soh Wei Yu can you explain, please, about non-arising.
  First in my practice I saw that everything is just arising and passing away. Now I see with a little bit more clarity, contemplate on impermanence and feel like phenomenons just passing away. When it arises it just automatically begin to die. Only verb, only processes and everything is going to dissolve right after its was birth.
  My only suggestion about non-arising its about empty nature of everything, like holograms, thats why nothing is really arrises nor passes away. Its like imagination. Also a few weeks ago you commented somewhere in topic of awareness real or not, that "only appearances is real". My guess its like images in dream, but its lack of inherent existence/substance. Can you put it short in your simple words, thank you.
   · Reply
   ·
  
       · 1h · Edited
  
  Soh Wei YuAdmin
  Данила Игнатовски
  Let's say you see a mirage, the mirage is simply a conglomeration of various causes and conditions aggregating and appearing as a mirage, but can a true substance or essence of a mirage be found within or apart from those conditions and appearances? No mirage can be found. Such a mirage is thus never truly arisen, never come into existence anywhere, and is a mere coalescence of appearance and emptiness.
  Or a reflection of a moon on water, can it be said that something is truly born in the water? No, what is on display is simply the union of dependent arising and emptiness.
  All phenomena, all appearances and displays have this same nature of being like a chariot, like weather. Whatever dependently originates in truth never really arise, is empty. And this very emptiness is also the nature of mind, of consciousness, of all displays.
  Nagarjuna:
  What arises in dependence is not born;
  That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality 😊 Buddha).
  Candrakirti:
  (The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.)
  (The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:)
  Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!” - excerpt from Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View
  
       · Reply
       · 7m · Edited
  
  Soh Wei YuAdmin
  The non-arising of phenomena is subtler than the insight into the impermanence of conditioned phenomena.
  http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2015/01/four-levels-of-insight-into-emptiness_9.html
  Thusness had a casual discussion with me regarding the various phases of seeing through intrinsic-ness in experience:
  Realizing the nature (i.e. non-arising, empty nature) of clarity is not the same as realizing clarity. Anatta can lead one to experience whatever arises/appearance as presence.
  Presence is part of the journey. The practitioner goes through anatta and realizes what we called presence is just appearance. Then he must start
  looking at absence. There are at least 4 levels of seeing through intrinsic-ness or the realizing of absence and anatta is just the beginning.
  1. The emptiness (i.e. non-existence of a) background
  2. Seeing foreground appearance as empty like mist or shimmering paint in
  the pond but appearance is seen as arising, abiding and ceasing.
  3. Seeing absence in vivid presence... means in clear vivid non-dual
  appearance, realize it is never there at all. At this phase, there must
  be complete conviction without the slightest doubt from logical
  analysis in understanding why it is "never there". The article where I
  asked you what is second fold... non-Arisen emptiness. (link: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/04/daniel-post-on-anattaemptiness.html)
  4. Turn insight of non-arisen in 3 into a taste, otherwise the 2 mindstreams cannot become one... that is, mind stream of dependent arising and emptiness are like what Tsongkhapa said "mutually exclusive", no way to become one unless one reaches Buddhahood. This is because we do not know the key is in recognizing the taste of absence (i.e translate the logical and inferring consciousness into a taste).
  Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness
  AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
  Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness
  Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness
   · Reply
   · Remove Preview
   ·
  and sent him http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/06/non-arising-due-to-dependent-origination.html