- eotrdSsopnf um4aaey29s100a1Mfim0 5gPf0 :Y3ft40a5triut0f7e0d5Shared with Your friendsMany secular Buddhists ignore karma and rebirth. But being a traditional Buddhist, and because not only Buddha but many practitioners, even a number in the AtR community had actually recalled and traced their past lives and karma in meditation, it is safe to say that we have to take it seriously.Shared this excerpt from Buddha recently,“We should take karma more seriously.Excerpts from https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN36.htmlBuddha:“When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two… five, ten… fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus I recollected my manifold past lives in their modes & details.“This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose—as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.“When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw—by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human—beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: ‘These beings—who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views—with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. But these beings—who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views—with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in a good destinations, a heavenly world.’ Thus—by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human—I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.“This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose—as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.“When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental effluents. I discerned, as it had come to be, that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the way leading to the cessation of stress… These are effluents… This is the origination of effluents… This is the cessation of effluents… This is the way leading to the cessation of effluents.’ My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the effluent of sensuality, released from the effluent of becoming, released from the effluent of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, ‘Released.’ I discerned that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’“This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose—as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.”<The law of karma>《業果法則》The other thing about karma which I love to say , is when you do any bad karma, you don’t just get it back one by one. If you hit a nun , you don’t get it back a hundred times or a thousand times , its more than that , millions of time or something. When you do a good act of karma, it comes back to you many times. A bad act of karma comes back many times. So if you do the maths, remember I was a mathematician , physicist , before I became a monk。 you ‘ve done so much bad karma each one of you , and me; there is no way we can pay all back, its too much. But you also have done so much good karma, there’s no way you can exhaust all. A good kind act get paid back millions of times over. So we have got such a store of good karma and such a store of bad karma.Why is one type of karma comes into fruition, other types don’t ? you can understand why. Right now , what is your mind state like ? If you get a bad mind state, you are attracting bad karma from the past. Therefore if you are in a miserable mood, more bad things happened on you. But if you can be in a good mood , a kind mind, so amazing how many good things happen on you, you are attracting the store of good karma from the pastKarma is an amazing thing, you have so much good karma each one of you其他關於業力的而我又喜歡說的是,當你造任何惡業,你不只是逐個地拿回。假如你打一個僧尼,你不會只是拿回100倍或1000倍的報應, 那是比這個還要多,會是百萬倍或是怎樣的。當你做一件善業,也會以許多倍回報給你。惡業也是。假如你計計數(請記得我在做比丘前是一個數學家、物理學家),你們每個人曾做過許多惡業,我也是。我們無法全部償還,太多了。但你也做了許多善業,你們也無法耗盡所有。一個好、良善的舉動能夠以百萬倍回報你。所以我們已有那麽多山野和惡業的庫存。爲什麽一種業會成熟、另一種則不?你可以明白的。現在,你的心是什麽狀態?假如你有一個壞的心的狀態,你就在吸引過去的惡業。假如你在一個痛苦的情緒,更多的惡事就會在你身上發生。但如果你心情好、有良善的心,那是驚人的—有多少好事會發生在你身上,你在吸引過去善業的庫存業力是個令人驚奇的東西,你有非常多的善業,你們每個人Expectations Cause Suffering | Ajahn Brahm | 24 June 2022《49:21more about ajahn brahm
25 comments
- Reply
- 1d
- Edited
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 7h
- Edited
- Reply
- 6h
- Reply
- 6h
- Reply
- 2h
- Reply
- 2h
- Edited
- Reply
- 2h
- Reply
- 1h
- Edited
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1d
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h
- Edited
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h
- Reply
- 21h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 3h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 3h
- Reply
- 19h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 15h
- Reply
- 15h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 49m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 44m
- Reply
- 42m
Mr H wrote: Thank you, I have only had time to skim and read parts, but it appears to be very helpful, and I will go through it properly when I have enough time. Just to clarify something, which will help me with interpretation when I read it properly: is it then fair to characterize anatta as always on autopilot? I would appreciate just a short answer to this if possible, so that I can read the rest with this understanding.
Soh to Mr. H:
From online: ""Everyone has experienced flow — that state of mind where you’re “in the zone” and able to perform tasks optimally with little conscious effort. In flow, time seems to pass differently. Your deep-seated skills take over and run on autopilot. You might even find that you’re able to successfully perform tasks at a level that was previously out of reach."
Under this definition, I would say no, anatta does not require deep seated skills. It is not a peak experience brought about by being so skilled and pro at something that everything becomes automatic because you're just darn good at it and things flow naturally due to learnt skills.
For example it can be the very first time you ever did cooking, and you keep referring back to the cooking instructions and manual and recipes, and after one or two hours of clumsy cooking all the food still turns out bland and tasteless, and you made a mess in the kitchen along the way because you didn't know how to operate things properly. You failed by the judgements of all others. Still, you still could have actualized anatta completely throughout the process.
As I quoted to you earlier, https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/anatta-is-dharma-seal-or-truth-that-is.html
""Differentiate Wisdom from Art
Replying to someone in Rinzai Zen discussion group, John Tan wrote recently:
“I think we have to differentiate wisdom from an art or a state of mind.
In Master Sheng Yen’s death poem,
Busy with nothing till old. (无事忙中老)
In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. (空里有哭笑)
Originally there never was any 'I'. (本来没有我)
Thus life and death can be cast aside. (生死皆可抛)
This "Originally there never was any 'I'" is wisdom and the dharma seal of anatta. It is neither an art like an artist in zone where self is dissolved into the flow of action nor is it a state to be achieved in the case of the taoist "坐忘" (sit and forget) -- a state of no-mind.
For example in cooking, there is no self that cooks, only the activity of cooking. The hands moves, the utensils act, the water boils, the potatoes peel and the universe sings together in the act of cooking. Whether one appears clumsy or smooth in act of cooking doesn't matter and when the dishes r out, they may still taste horrible; still there never was any "I" in any moment of the activity. There is no entry or exit point in the wisdom of anatta.”""
That being said, anatta is characterized by pellucid non-dual luminosity as well as spontaneity. But it is not just the aspect of non-doership and spontaneity otherwise it becomes more of non-doership than the anatta experience or insight.
Excerpt from another link:
Of late I had a few conversations with a number of people whose experience of no-self is skewed towards non-doership rather than pellucid no-self, the pellucidity of luminosity in nondual and no-self. John Tan too have similar encounters. At the most their insight is into the first stanza of anatta but not the second https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
I think I will need to write an article on this in AtR blog and guide.
[8:39 PM, 6/9/2021] John Tan: Yes more on no-doership.
[8:40 PM, 6/9/2021] John Tan: 1. Dzogchen has a phrase "spontaneous presence". I do not know it's exact meaning in dzogchen however the phrase is intimately related to the 2 experiences of the 2 stanzas:
1. No doership = spontaneous
2. Mere appearances as Presence
Imo, she is more on 1 not so much on 2 so far in her descriptions."
"[11:25 PM, 5/23/2021] John Tan: Like in prasangika mmk, the non-affirming negation, in the phases of insights approach of the 2 stanzas,one is not interested in the affirmation, just the thorough deconstruction of self construct. The seeing through of self in anatta is the direct experiential taste of non-dual, purity and spontaneity.
[11:39 PM, 5/23/2021] John Tan: So when someone describe to u, they say they have deconstruct self/Self but there is no direct taste of colors, smell, sensation, sound, no direct face to face of the radiance, pellucidity, purity, spontaneity, insubstantiality and non-duality of appearances, is that genuine authentication?
[12:00 AM, 5/24/2021] Soh Wei Yu: No its not.. more like impersonality
[12:00 AM, 5/24/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Or nondoership"""
-
Both aspects are present every moment of actualizing even if you are completely unfamiliar, clumsy, at doing something for the very first time with zero skills at all, or are still a learner, still following the manuals, etc. Anatta does not preclude thinking, intentionality, effort, even the act of choice or choosing. In each act there is no agent or doer or watcher behind the act, just the act alone is. Intentions are integrated into the total action without a gap between actor and act.
John Tan:
The logic that since there is no agency, hence no choice to be made is no different from "no sufferer, therefore no suffering".
This is not anatta insight.
What is seen through in anatta is the mistaken view that the conventional structure of "subject action object" represents reality when it is not. Action does not require an agent to initiate it. It is language that creates the confusion that nouns are required to set verbs into motion.
Therefore the action of choosing continues albeit no chooser.
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.""-- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/06/choosing.html
Anatta is a dharma seal, it is the nature of reality, it is what is always already case, it is not a peak experience. No self is what is always already the case: in hearing there is always only sound, never a hearer, in seeing only ever colors, no seer, in doing just the action, never have there been a doer or actor just like wind is only the blowing and nothing else.
As such, no acts can ever be precluded from this truth, even actions like complex thinking, etc. It is not a peak experience you can enter or leave nor does it take effort at all to experience. It is a truth that is always so, and once seen cannot be unseen, much like a rope that was mistaken to be a snake, once realized to be merely a rope will never be hallucinated into a snake again. Once you realize the truth of no background and no self/Self and no agent as what is always already, you can never again 'hallucinate' Awareness into a background. It will no longer be like a mode you switch between (background and foreground) because you see the truth of it so clearly -- there is no background. This does not mean you deny the "pure sense of Existence" of that "I AM" but it is just realized to be another foreground manifestation, a mere vivid spontaneous happening, spontaneous presence, no different from the pellucid pristine luminosity of a color, a sound, a smell or sensation or thought, it is not a static background. No background is a truth -- in hearing, hearing is only ever sound without a hearer, in seeing, seeing is only ever radiant colors without a seer. Sound hears and sight sees, everything knows and rolls without a knower or agent.
p.s. one more excerpt on the pellucid luminosity of no-self:
Actual Freedom and the Immediate Radiance in the Transience
I was having a conversation with someone today (he had some history with various practices, vipassana, actual freedom, and recently came across a famous Thai ajahn, etc) who shared about an experience of dissolving into centerless space. I told him what I call anatta is not just being centerless, it is the effulgence and radiance of the transience. That is, regardless of any realization of no-self, and no matter how centerless one feels or how centerless is one's experience of awareness and so forth... still, anything short of direct realization of the radiance or luminosity as the very stuff of transiency is still not what I call the realization of anatta. (And that too is also just an aspect of anatta, and furthermore not yet into the twofold emptying)
Was reminded of a conversation with Thusness back in Aug 2010 and found some excerpts from the Actual Freedom site:
"(12:22 AM) Thusness: for u, u will not be clear now... what Richard taught has some problem...that focus is in the experience
u should focus on the realization
(12:22 AM) Thusness: the pce is what i told u, bring what u experience into the foreground
(12:23 AM) Thusness: Richard has a very important realization.
(12:24 AM) Thusness: that is, he is able to realize the immediate radiance in the transience
(12:25 AM) AEN: this is like ur second point of anatta in the anatta article?
(12:25 AM) Thusness: yes
(12:26 AM) Thusness: there is nothing to argue, it is obvious and clear.
(12:27 AM) Thusness: however i do not want to focus on the experience
(12:27 AM) Thusness: u need to go through a period of frustration first"
From the Actual Freedom site:
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/…/selecte…/sc-relativism.htm
RESPONDENT: How do the qualities of ‘splendour and brilliance’ present themselves AS splendour and brilliance?
RICHARD: Directly ... as splendour and brilliance are intrinsic to the properties of this actual world they present themselves openly where apperception is operating: everything is literally bright, shining, vivid, intense, sparkling, luminous, lustrous, scintillating and coruscating in all its vitality here in this actual world.
.....
RICHARD: As I understand it (I am not a scientist nor have any scientific training) a photometer can measure how bright or brilliant something is in a more precise, reliable and universal way than the eye can sensately determine ... and one can then talk about the brilliance of that something if one wishes to convey to another what one is experiencing (the word comes from the French ‘briller’ meaning ‘shine’).
• ‘brilliance: brilliant quality; intense or sparkling brightness, radiance, or splendour; an instance of this’. (© Oxford Dictionary).
As for the splendour of something (the word comes from the Latin ‘spendere’ meaning ‘be bright; shine’) ... it is related to a brilliant display:
• ‘splendour: 1. great or dazzling brightness, brilliance. 2. magnificence; sumptuous or ornate display; impressive or imposing character; a magnificent feature, object, etc. 3. distinction, eminence, glory’. (© Oxford Dictionary).
Therefore, when I wrote that ‘as [the qualities of] splendour and brilliance are intrinsic to the properties of this actual world’ and that ‘they present themselves openly where apperception is operating’ I am reporting that literally everything is ‘bright, shining, vivid, intense, sparkling, luminous, lustrous, scintillating and coruscating in all its vitality here in this actual world’ ... thus it is not the imposition of subjective attributes (which phrase may very well equate to what you called ‘internal percepts’ in the previous e-mail) that I am talking about.
Rather it is the absence of such subjectively imposed attributes – due to the absence of identity – which reveals the world as-it-is.
...
RESPONDENT: This is what I meant in my question ‘present themselves AS splendour and brilliance?’
RICHARD: Okay ... incidentally, I do not go about seeing things in terms of their properties, qualities or values (such classifications never occur to me other than when having a discussion such as this) ... I simply delight in the wonder of it all and marvel in the amazing display.
Once experienced apperceptively – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – one will never again settle for second-best.
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/…/selected…/sc-sensation.htm
RICHARD: Yes ... ‘how amazing’ indeed, eh? I am particularly pleased to see you say that you had a ‘clear and unequivocal PCE’ as, of course, I have no way of ascertaining the intrinsic quality of what any body experiences other than what they describe – and I have no intention of setting myself up to be to arbiter of another’s experience anyway – so I cannot adjudge the exact nature of what you experienced. The rule of thumb is to ask oneself: is this it; is this the ultimate; is this the utter fulfilment and total contentment; is this my destiny; is this how I would want to live for the remainder of my life ... and so on. It is up to each and every person to decide for themselves what it is that they want ... as I oft-times say: it is your life you are living and only you get to reap the rewards and pay the consequences for any action or inaction you may or may not do. [...]
Having said that, and I am not inferring anything either way by what I am writing here, it may or may not be relevant to report that one must be most particular to not confuse an excellence experience with a perfection experience ... and the most outstanding distinction in the excellence experience is the marked absence of what I call the ‘magical’ element. This is where time has no duration as the normal ‘now’ and ‘then’ and space has no distance as the normal ‘here’ and ‘there’ and form has no distinction as the normal ‘was’ and ‘will be’ ... there is only this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (a three hundred and sixty degree awareness, as it were). Everything and everyone is transparently and sparklingly obvious, up-front and out-in-the open ... there is nowhere to hide and no reason to hide as there is no ‘me’ to hide. One is totally exposed and open to the universe: already always just here right now ... actually in time and actually in space as actual form. This apperception (selfless awareness) is an unmediated perspicacity wherein one is this universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
In a PCE one is fully immersed in the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity where everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything and everyone – for one is not living in an inert universe.
It is one’s destiny to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.
...
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/…/selected…/sc-sensation.htm
RICHARD: Put simply: as there is no (subjective) experiencer there is no separation ... no ‘inner world’/‘outer world’.
RESPONDENT: If the images (presumably) are identical in quality, do you see them differently (e.g. in terms of clarity)?
RICHARD: Yes ... and just as the moving picture is visually brilliant, vivid, sparkling, so too is the sound track aurally rich, vibrant, resonant.
...
• [Richard]: ‘The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/ ‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/ ‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose ... plus adding all kinds of emotional/ psychological baggage to what is otherwise the bare sensory experience of the flesh and blood body’.
...
• [Richard]: ‘I am speaking of the immediate perception, of this body and that body and every body and of the mountains and the streams and of the trees and the flowers and of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum, without the affective faculty existent operating ... which reveals actuality in all its purity and perfection. This applies not only to ocular perception but also to cutaneous perception, to gustatory perception, to olfactory perception, to aural perception ... and even to proprioceptive perception, for that matter. There is no mystery where there is such direct perception of actuality as described ... all is laid open, as it already always has been open just here right now all along, because nothing is ever hidden. One walks through the world in wide-eyed wonder simply marvelling at being here doing this business called being alive on this verdant and azure paradise called planet earth. This is what innocence looks like’.
As immediate, direct perception (sensuous perception) does not involve either the affective faculty or the cognitive function the thinker (‘I’ as ego) and the feeler (‘me’ as soul) do not get a look-in ... hence I call this direct perception ‘apperception’ (perception unmediated by either ‘self’ or ‘Self’). Thus what I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... which means that the actuality of the physical can indeed be known, each moment again, day after day.
I do not know if I can put it more briefly or succinctly than this.
Labels: Actual Freedom, Anatta, Luminosity |
Robert Dominik Tkanka since André A. Pais mentioned about fire, let's take "fire" as an example,
When we look at "fire", there is a vision of a yellow, orange color image --> vision consciousness;
When we touch the "fire", there is a hot sensation --> sensation consciousness;
From these 2 different streams of consciousness, an imputing-consciousness abstracts and reifies a "fire" entity where there is none. Out of nowhere, an objective, independent "fire" is being created.
We then characterized this "heat sensation" by ascribing it to "fire" and made "fire" a bearer of characteristic and "heat" becomes it's essential nature where it has an inherent power to cause something to burn (essential causality).
But there is "no fire" as an entity that has the essential power to cause anything to burn; there is no self existing "heat" either; "fire" is a dependent arising; "heat" is a "dependent arising"; so:
1. What is dependent arising and
2. What is dependently originating?
Now in this example, what is involved in "ignorance" in relation to seeing self-nature:
1. an extra reified entity is created;
2. consciousness is being forgotten and excluded from the equation of understanding "reality" which is most crucial.
3. dependent arising is not seen, instead it is replaced by essential causality;
Anatta insight sees through 1, authenticated 2 but 3 is not seen (imo) but we jumped straight into freedom from all elaborations.
End
It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with the world also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.
Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;
Is the "scenery" out there?
Feel the "hardness" of the floor;
Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?
If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, are is "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".
It is not even in the "mind" for u can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?
If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?
So, to me, buddhism is not about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but also points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.
It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with "the world" also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.
Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;
Is the "scenery" out there?
Feel the "hardness" of the floor;
Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?
If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, is it "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".
Then we say "no", it is in the "mind". So now what that is believed to be "external" in the past is being "internalized" in a "mind".
But WAIT,
How can "hardness" which is no where to be found be in "mind"?
Furthermore, we can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?
If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?
So, to me, buddhism is not only about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but more importantly points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.
End
Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness
Taken from a facebook group dharma connection.
Thusness:
In ignorance, there is hearer hearing sound.
In anatta, in hearing, only sound.
Yet sound has no true inherent nature (empty),
It is an activity and is that very activity called “hearing”.
Both “hearing and sound” are pointing to the same activity.
Only when seen to have true existence on either side does confusion arise.
In Madhyamaka Emptiness, reification is seen through.
Yet the experiential state of freedom from reification is not expounded.
However one can have a taste of that freedom from arising insight of anatta since anatta is precisely the freedom from reification of Self/self (First fold Emptiness).
In anatta, seeing is simply the full scenery, in hearing only sound…
thus, always only lights, shape, colors, sounds, scents… in clean purity.
Emptying the object further (second fold) is merely dissolving subtle bond of “externality” that creates the appearance of true existence of objects outside. When “externality” is deconstructed, it is effectively a double confirmation of anatta…
…innerly coreless and outwardly empty, all appearances are still simply sound, lights, colors and rays
In thorough deconstruction, as there is no layer that reifies, there is no conceptuality. Therefore no complication, no confusion, no stains, no boundaries, no center, no sense of dual..
no sense of activity…just self arising.
All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity.
Whatever appears is
neither here nor now,
Neither in nor out,
Neither arises nor ceases,
In the same space…
non-local, timeless and dimensionless
Simply present…
To Jax:
The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water…
is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You” and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and fully itself.
Lastly, it is interesting to get know something about Dzogchen however the jargons and tenets are far beyond me.
Just wrote due to a sudden spurt of interest, nothing intense.
Thanks for all the sharing and exchanges.
Gone!
Daniel M. Ingram wrote in http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4179363
It is interesting that in another thread the was the assertion that MCTB whatever was about the first meaning of emptiness, rather than what your quote defines as both.
Just to be clear:
When I mean empty, I also mean without boundary, without inside and outside
I also mean the direct immediate experience in its unprocessed or raw form. I also mean the total dissolution of the sense of a perceiver.
I also mean no active agent.
I also mean that nothing is stable, including space and time.
I also mean that all is bare, shifting, empty sensate experience, causal, happening according to the basic laws of the universe, naturally, on its own.
I also would say that there is no boundary or differentiation between the sense doors at they occur, nor between body and mind, nor between manifestation and awareness, nor between this and that, beyond those ordinarily used for communication and discriminating function, but these are not the essential nature of experience, just part of it as sensations when they occur.
Nor can one find any here that is stable, nor a now that is stable, nor a knower, nor an investigator, nor any practitioner, nor any attainer.
When I talk of an integrated transient, natural, causal, luminous experience field, this sounds to me exactly like your "All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity."
I see no obvious difference either in theory or in actual practice.
Thoughts?
Thusness's comments to AEN:
Hi AEN,
Those were just some very casual sharing written on the spur of a moment, they were not well thought. Emptiness to me has another dimension if you wish to look into it.
When there is not even a single trace of Self/self nor is there any sense of inner/outer division, experiencer and what experienced collapsed...
At this moment there is just this vivid beautiful scenery, this bright brilliant world…all self arises
At this point…
Close your eyes....
Voidness....
Relax and rest in this all-consuming awaring void, this clear non-dual Awareness standing alone as itself and of itself…
Then shift the focus to the breath…
Just the sensations of the breath…
Then the transparent dancing sensations…absolutely no mind, no body, no experiencer/experienced, no inner/outer division… borderless and boundless
Every moment is great and miraculous…
This must become natural to you first.
Then at this moment of appreciating maha suchness of the breath, the sensations, the entire scenery, the entire world…
Understand that they are Empty!
Experience the magnificence then deeply understand that they are empty but this Emptiness has nothing to do with deconstruction nor reification nor do I mean they are simply impermanent. So what is this Emptiness I am referring to?
..............
On another occasion Thusness wrote:
Intelligent Knowingness as permanent… continuous… so many projections into time… so involved in mind conceptualities… Deconstruct seer, what happens is just this spontaneously manifested scenery
Deconstruct body further, you have mind-body drop
Deconstruct time, there will only be this clear vivid presence of immediacy
After arising insight of anatta, there is only “directness” and simplicity... go beyond conventions and conceptuality and recognize this immediate radiance is exactly what is appearing in this instantaneous moment...
If you are in need of a view for practice, then embrace the general principle of Dependent Origination that doesn’t entertain who-when-where construct, it will help sever dualistic and inherent propensities. Otherwise you will have to go back to the koan I asked you when I first met you in IRC… this moment ceases as it arises, is this moment arising or ceasing? If you are clear, then further penetrate this total exertion of immediacy and realize that though there is vivid appearances, there is nothing here… nothing now… you will never find it!
Labels: Anatta, Daniel Ingram, Emptiness, John Tan, Theravada |
.....
The weight of thoughts -- Part 1
When contemplating, do not just let our contemplation remain as a mental reasoning exercise. For example:
What appears is neither "internal" nor "external". For the notion of "internality" is dependent on the notion of "externality", without either, the sense of neither can arise. Therefore both notions r merely conventional, they originates dependently.
Do not just let our contemplation remain at this level. If we do that, at most the freedom will simply remain at the mental level -- merely a pellucid, pure and clean state. It is no different from practicing raw attention although insight on how conceptualities proliferate the mind may arise.
But go further to relate directly to our sensations, thoughts, smells, colors, tastes, sounds and ask:
"What do we mean by thoughts are neither inside nor outside our head?"
Seeing through this will be much more penetrating. It will bring a deep sense of illusoriness and mystical awe as a real-time lived-experience.
.....
The weight of thoughts -- Part 2
How heavy are thoughts?
Where are their roots?
It is not uncommon to hear in the spiritual circle phrases like "the 'I' is just a thought" or "thought is empty and spacious, there is no weight or root to it".
While the rootlessness and the space-like nature of "thoughts" should be pointed out, one must not be misled into thinking they have seen through "anything" much less up-rooted the deeply seated conceptual notions of "I/mine", "body/mind", "space/time"...etc.
So emphasis must also be placed on the other side of the coin. "Thoughts" are astonishingly heavy like a black-hole (size of a pinhole, weight of a star); the roots of conceptual notions" they carry permeate our entire being and everywhere.
The "roots" of thoughts are no where to be found also means they can be found anywhere and everywhere, spreaded across the 3 times and 10 directions -- in modern context, over different time-lines across the multiverse. In other words, "this arises, that arises".
.....
In anatta, we see through self as a mental construct and one is set on a de-constructive journey to free oneself from all mental constructs, from self to all phenomena and the relationships among them.
However when we see dependent arising, nothing is eliminated.
Conceptualization remains, parts remain, cause-effect remains, self remains, others remains...Everything remains, only the mistaken view of "essence" is relinquished.
Instead of seeing them to exist essentially, it is now understood that they originates dependently and whatever originates in dependence is free from the four pairs of extremes (aka 8 negations of Nagarjuna).
Without understanding dependent arising and emptiness, spontaneous perfection free from all elaborations will be distorted.
Someone asked,
How to properly do self inquiry?
When doing self inquiry, I state phrases like "I AM", "Who am I?", "What is the nature of reality?", "Who is it that hears that noise?" but either nothing resonates in my mind or I end up consciously responding with things like "I am awareness/consciousness" thinking that's how you do self inquiry but I am really lost. Does anyone practice self inquiry and does it effectively? I know this is nonduality but please don't give me "there is no right or wrong way to do it" as I'm just looking to bettering my technique.
Soh/Xabir replied:
You’re doing self enquiry the wrong way. Self enquiry is not asking and answering mentally. It is turning the light around so that you can discover what your Source/Beingness/Awareness is.
Shared this before:
For example when you ask Who am I? It is not meant to elicit a verbal response. It is not even about a verbal asking, but more of an experiential investigation and finding out of what you true beingness is. The answer lies in the utter doubtless conviction and certainty of non-conceptual Beingness/Presence-Awareness. I wrote this for someone having difficulty with the koan "Before birth, who am I?""You said before birth who am I leads to conceptuality for you. I told you that you should change your koan to “before thinking, what am I?”There is a similar koan in the past 元音老人从前有一位师父参“如何是父母未生前本来面目?”参了多年,未能开悟。后来碰到一位大德,请他慈悲指示个方便。大德问:“你参什么话头?”他答道:“我参如何是我父母未生前的本来面目?”大德道:“你参得太远了,应向近处看。”他问:“怎么向近处看?”大德道:“不要看父母未生前,须看一念未生以前是什么?”禅者言下大悟。大家坐在这里,请看这一念未生前是什么?它在各人面门放光,朗照一切而毫无粘着,无知无见而又非同木石,这是什么?就在这里猛着精彩,就是悟道。所以说“至道无难,言端语端”啊! Soh's translation: Yuan Yin Lao Ren: In the past there was a Master who contemplated, "what is the original face before my parents were born?" He contemplated for many years, but did not awaken. Later on he encountered a great noble person and requested for his compassionate guidance. The noble one asked: "What koan did you contemplate?" He replied: "I contemplated what is the original face before my parents were born?" Noble one replied: "You contemplated too far away, should look nearby." He asked: "How should I look nearby?" Noble one replied: "Don't look into what is before your parents were born, need to look at: before a thought arise, what is it?" The Zen practitioner immediately attained great awakening. Everyone that is sitting here, please look at what is this before a moment of thought's arising? IT is radiating light in front of everybody's [sense] doors, the brightness radiates everything yet is without the slightest clinging, nothing is known and nothing is seen yet it is not similar to wood and stones, what is This? IT is right here shining in its brilliancy, this is awakening to the Way. Therefore it is said, "the great way is not difficult, just cease speech and words"!
More in follow up comment
quote from https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/05/can-self-investigation-boost-mind-or.html
5. Nāṉ Ār? paragraph 6: if or as soon as anything other than ourself appears in our awareness, we should simply turn our attention back towards ourself, the one to whom all other things (all thoughts, forms or phenomena) appear
Regarding your statement, ‘I keep doing the enquiry “to whom these thoughts arise?”, “to me”, “who am I?” but I don’t know what I should do more’, these words, ‘to whom does this appear?’, ‘to me’, ‘who am I?’, are a very useful pointer given by Bhagavan, but we should understand clearly what he meant by this pointer. He did not mean that we should repeat these words to ourself whenever anything appears, but that we should simply turn our attention back to ourself, the one to whom all other things (all thoughts, forms or phenomena) appear. That is, he did not say ‘ask to whom’ or ‘ask who am I’ but ‘investigate to whom’ and ‘investigate who am I’, as he wrote in the following portion of the sixth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?:
பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தா லவற்றைப் பூர்த்தி பண்ணுவதற்கு எத்தனியாமல் அவை யாருக் குண்டாயின என்று விசாரிக்க வேண்டும். எத்தனை எண்ணங்க ளெழினு மென்ன? ஜாக்கிரதையாய் ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே இது யாருக்குண்டாயிற்று என்று விசாரித்தால் எனக்கென்று தோன்றும். நானார் என்று விசாரித்தால் மனம் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற்குத் திரும்பிவிடும்; எழுந்த வெண்ணமு மடங்கிவிடும். இப்படிப் பழகப் பழக மனத்திற்குத் தன் பிறப்பிடத்திற் றங்கி நிற்கும் சக்தி யதிகரிக்கின்றது.
piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl avaṯṟai-p pūrtti paṇṇuvadaṟku ettaṉiyāmal avai yārukku uṇḍāyiṉa eṉḏṟu vicārikka vēṇḍum. ettaṉai eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙiṉum eṉṉa? jāggirataiyāy ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē idu yārukku uṇḍāyiṯṟu eṉḏṟu vicārittāl eṉakkeṉḏṟu tōṉḏṟum. nāṉ-ār eṉḏṟu vicārittāl maṉam taṉ piṟappiḍattiṟku-t tirumbi-viḍum; eṙunda v-eṇṇamum aḍaṅgi-viḍum. ippaḍi-p paṙaga-p paṙaga maṉattiṟku-t taṉ piṟappiḍattil taṅgi niṟgum śakti y-adhikarikkiṉḏṟadu.
If other thoughts rise, without trying to complete them it is necessary to investigate to whom they have occurred. However many thoughts rise, what [does it matter]? Vigilantly, as soon as each thought appears, if one investigates to whom it has occurred, it will be clear: to me. If one investigates who am I [by vigilantly attending to oneself, the ‘me’ to whom everything else appears], the mind will return to its birthplace [namely oneself, the source from which it arose]; [and since one thereby refrains from attending to it] the thought that had risen will also cease. When one practises and practises in this manner, for the mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace increases.
The verb he used here that I have translated as ‘investigate’ is விசாரி (vicāri), which in some contexts can mean enquire in the sense of ask, but in this context means enquire only in the sense of investigate. Asking questions is a mental activity, because it entails directing our attention away from ourself towards a question, which is a thought and hence other than ourself, so as long as we are asking questions we are still floating on the surface of the mind by attending to things other than ourself, whereas investigating ourself means being keenly self-attentive, which causes the mind to sink deep within and thereby return to its ‘birthplace’, the source from which it had risen, namely our real nature (ātma-svarūpa), which is our fundamental and ever-shining awareness of our own existence, ‘I am’.
Continue reading in follow up post:
Therefore what Bhagavan is pointing out in this passage is the direction in which we should send our attention. Instead of allowing our attention to go out following whatever thoughts may arise, we should turn it back towards ourself, the one to whom all thoughts appear. ‘To whom?’ is not intended to be a question that we should ask ourself but is a very powerful pointer indicating where we should direct our attention. Asking the question ‘to whom?’ may sometimes be an aid if it helps to remind us to turn our attention back towards ourself, but self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is not merely asking such questions but only fixing our attention on ourself alone.
Another point worth noting here is that what Bhagavan means by ‘thought’ is anything other than our fundamental awareness ‘I am’, so it includes all perceptions, memories, feelings, ideas and other mental impressions of any kind whatsoever. As he says in the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Ār?, ‘நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை’ (niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam eṉḏṟu ōr poruḷ aṉṉiyam-āy illai), ‘Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as world’, and in the fourteenth paragraph, ‘ஜக மென்பது நினைவே’ (jagam eṉbadu niṉaivē), ‘What is called the world is only thought’, so when he says here ‘பிற வெண்ணங்க ளெழுந்தால்’ (piṟa v-eṇṇaṅgaḷ eṙundāl), ‘If other thoughts rise’, or ‘ஒவ்வோ ரெண்ணமும் கிளம்பும்போதே’ (ovvōr eṇṇamum kiḷambum-pōdē), ‘As soon as each thought appears’, he means that if or as soon as anything other than ourself appears in our awareness, we should turn our attention back towards ourself, the one to whom all such things appear.
6. If we are vigilantly self-attentive, as we should try to be, we will thereby ward off both thoughts and sleep, but when we are tired we are naturally less vigilant, so we may then fall asleep as a result of our trying to be self-attentive
You ask, ‘Should I keep doing Self-Enquiry all day for hours in seated position? Should I continue the enquiry in bed as well before sleep? Or should I stop the enquiry from time to time to give some rest to the body?’ Firstly, self-investigation has nothing to do with the body, so we can practise it whether the body is lying, sitting, standing, walking or doing anything else. For the same reason, we do not have to stop being self-attentive in order to give some rest to the body, because being self-attentive cannot strain the body in any way. In fact, when the body and mind are resting is a very favourable condition for us to be self-attentive.
Regarding your question about continuing the practice in bed before sleep, that is also good, but since we are generally very tired at that time, we usually subside into sleep soon after trying to be self-attentive. There is no harm in that, because when we need to sleep we should sleep. There is no time and no circumstance that is not suitable for us to be self-attentive, so we should try to be self-attentive as much as possible whatever the time or circumstances may be, but we should not try to deprive ourself of however much sleep we may need.
If we are vigilantly self-attentive, as we should try to be, we will thereby ward off both thoughts and sleep, but when we are tired we are naturally less vigilant, so we may then fall asleep as a result of our trying to be self-attentive. As Sadhu Om often used to say, when we are sleepy we should sleep, because when we wake up again we will be fresh, and we should then make use of that freshness by trying to be vigilantly self-attentive.
I do not know whether anything I have written here is of any use to you, but I hope some of it at least may help to point you in the right direction.
Continue reading in follow up post
7. What the word ‘I’ essentially refers to is only what is aware, so if we are just being aware of what is aware, we are thereby meditating on ‘I’
In reply to my first reply (which I adapted as the previous six sections) my friend wrote again about how he was trying to practise self-enquiry and the problems he was facing, in reply to which I wrote:
When you say ‘The practice of Self-Enquiry, especially in seated position (just being aware of awareness itself, not meditating in any object or form etc, simply just being, not even “I” in the “I am”) boosted my kundalini’, it is not clear to me what you are actually practising, because you say you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’ but then seem to say that you are not meditating even on ‘I’. Meditating on ‘I’ means attending only to yourself, or in other words, just being self-attentive, so if you are not meditating on ‘I’, what do you mean by saying that you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’?
In this context ‘awareness’ means what is aware, and what is aware is always aware of itself as ‘I’, so what the word ‘I’ essentially refers to is only what is aware. Therefore if you are not meditating on ‘I’, what is the ‘awareness’ that you are being aware of? Unfortunately ‘awareness’ is a potentially ambiguous term, because it could be taken to mean awareness in the sense of awareness of objects or phenomena, so when you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’, are you just being aware of what is aware, namely yourself, or are you being aware of your awareness of objects or phenomena?
If you are being aware only of what is aware, namely yourself, then you are meditating on ‘I’. That is, what you are meditating on is not the word ‘I’, but what the word ‘I’ refers to, namely yourself, who are what is aware. If you are not meditating on what the word ‘I’ refers to, then whatever ‘awareness’ you are being aware of is something other than what is aware.
This is why Bhagavan gave us the powerful pointer ‘to whom’, about which I wrote in my previous reply. If we understand this pointer correctly, it is directing our attention back towards ourself, the one to whom all other things appear. In other words, it is pointing our attention back to what is aware, away from whatever we were hitherto aware of.
If you are aware of any phenomenon, such as the boosting of your kuṇḍalinī, your attention has been diverted away from yourself, so you need to turn it back to yourself, the one to whom all phenomena appear. If you turn your attention back to yourself and hold firmly to yourself (that is, if you just remain firmly self-attentive), whatever phenomena may have appeared will thereby disappear, because no phenomenon can appear or remain in your awareness unless you attend to it at least to a certain extent.
8. No matter what may distract us or seem a problem to us, let us not be concerned about them but just patiently and persistently continue trying to be self-attentive, unmindful of everything else
Regarding the boosting of your kuṇḍalinī you say, ‘By boosting I mean that I feel an energy in the spine passing through the chakras’, but the energy, the spine, the cakras and the energy’s movement are all objects or phenomena, so you should ignore all such things by trying to be keenly self-attentive. However much such things appear, they need not concern you. To whom do they appear? Only to you, so you should just persevere in trying to attend only to yourself.
Whatever may appear or disappear is other than ourself, so it should not interest or concern us. Such things distract us and become a problem for us only to the extent that we take interest in them or are concerned about them. Why should we be concerned about them? Our only concern should be to investigate and know what we ourself are. If we are not interested in or concerned about anything else, we will not attend to them, and hence they will not be a problem.
If we find ourself being concerned about such things and therefore distracted by them, that is due to the strength of our viṣaya-vāsanās, and the most effective means to weaken our viṣaya-vāsanās and thereby wean our mind off its interest in all other things is just to persevere in this simple practice of being self-attentive. Therefore, no matter what may distract us or seem a problem to us, let us not be concerned about them but just patiently and persistently continue trying to be self-attentive, unmindful of everything else. https://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2021/05/can-self-investigation-boost-mind-or.html
Be aware of the felt sense "I am", the wordless felt sense of your awareness, your existence. It has been called the "thoughtless thought".