Certainty of Being
-
A sincere and humble practitioner from DhO (Dharma Overground) and owner of another spiritual forum asked me for some comments.
S: thank you for your email. *deep bow*
Has the division of both the subjective and objective pole been collapsed into a single field of undifferentiated oneness... in your experience?
if i understand you correctly, no, not at all. but occasionally i get intuitive glimpses. my sense is that they are not even direct glimpses, more like shadows in my peripheral vision that i intuitively assume must be from a light source (speaking completely metaphorically) .i mean, i get moments of nonconceptual clarity, where there is "simply what is", but, the way i currently understand things, my awareness quickly contracts habitually into a pattern of sensations that 1) seem to confirm a "here" vs "out there" and 2) imply a separate self "here" being controlled vs "out there" a mostly of control world.here is something i wrote a few days ago that might give you a better sense of where i am at, if you care to read:there is still an irritating sense of peering out from behind my eyes.sometimes it's like i take a wrong turn and this whole thing becomes a form of self-consciousness that has me feeling and even acting awkward, "out of it", not all there, shy, introverted.i want to penetrate this sense of separation.there is something relevant about this sense that arises strongly that i am behind the sensations of my face, behind my eyes predominately, that this is the location of who i am, my identity as thoughts, beliefs, from there then down into my feelings, my body. the construction of an identity.the world is "out there", and i am peering out.at times i get a brief glimpse that this is only a belief, yet so deeply habitual.vipassana noting seems to be a powerful process in deconstructing this. following awareness as it playfully swirls through experience without any volition or center.i sense that this awareness is merely accustomed to rapidly swirling back and forth in specific habitual ways, e.g., rapidly moving from a perceived object, a sight or a sound, back to sensations that appear to confirm a separate perceiver "in here" vs. what was perceived, e.g, this idea that "i am behind my face" and things are "out there".exploring this further, i've been noticing that some aspect of this is a very subtle visualization that i project faintly very close in front of my visual perception including out into my periphery. a visualization of, the best way i can describe is, the inside of a mask kind of, the "other side" of my face in a way. its very subtle, hard to get a real sense of, much less describe.another aspect of it is the feeling of my face, of the skin of my face, but there is also this strange sense that i am feeling the reverse side of the skin of my face, like i am inside my face with a sensation of the skin from the inside.what a weird way to create a self.my inquiry is to see this more directly while openly pondering, what is it that experiences even this most rudimentary aspect of this sense of a "me"?AEN: Hi S,
The self seems so real, the division seems so obvious, it will not be obvious that it is simply a ‘view’. That is, the existing framework we use to orientate the world is obscuring and shaping our experience.The magic of ‘view’, its power to ‘blind’ is amazing... much like a magical spell creating a made belief division. We will have to revisit the transformation of ‘view’ again...Therefore we start by loosening the grip by being ‘bare’ in attention as a first step towards deconstruction. Means to sense everything in bare, naked, awareness... as Thusness have taught: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/390582?page=14#post_10208045After which we investigate mind-objects, such as ‘body’, ‘face’, ‘self’, and so on.That is – investigate all the constructs of a ‘body’, a ‘face’, a ‘self’.... what we call self or even a face or a body is merely a projected felt-sense or image... we feel that there is a face here, but on direct evidence, there isn’t a face, a head that is ‘in here’. That felt-sense of a face, a head, a body, is actually inferred – for example, by looking into the mirror, there is the reflected image of a face, but to imagine that there is a real face ‘here’ behind what is being seen is simply that – an imagination, an inference. It really cannot be found but is something like a trick of the mind, an illusion that we conjured out. Likewise, the sense of a body with a specific shape and solid mass ‘here’ is really an inferred construct... it is just bits of sensations that we link up to form an apparently solid shape of a body which we then identify with.If we go by direct observation of experience... a self inside the head, behind the face, cannot be found. There is only in the seeing just the seen, in the hearing just the heard... without a seer or hearer - just more perceptions and sensations, some of which we then reify into an entity with a solid shape and characteristic... some of which we then take to imply a self, a centerpoint, and so on, yet when that sense of a centerpoint or a self is investigated, all we find are only more sensations, perceptions, popping in and out like bubbles - which are simply being ‘sensed’ where they are, self-luminous as it is, without a cognizer... in the same way that all sensations are simply ‘felt’ where they are without a perceiver. At that point all constructs are seen through and dropped.The Bahiya Sutta style of contemplation would be a powerful way to investigate Anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.htmlRegardsAENS: *deep bow*
these instructions are very direct, i appreciate your attention.also, fyi, i am leaving for a 10 day silent vipassana retreat on friday morning.i had planned on doing noting practice, mahasi sayadaw style.given what you know about me so far, do you think that is the best to insight on my retreat?thanks again!Me: If you practice noting, and following MTCB style... you should take note that it lacks the PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) aspect. I described it in the link to my forum I provided you. Without that aspect, the insight into Anatta will be incomplete. The luminous clarity of PCE is lacking from such approach... they are dissolving the sense of self from the arising and passing.
S: yes, this is a concern. i am really not very interested in going through a big theravada "cycling" trip if that is unnecessary.
a part of me just wants to intuitively alternate between three practices:1) mantra, which i can use to get to a place where awareness is watching the reciting of the mantra, without any sense that "i" am reciting the mantra. the mantra is simply being recited.2) bare attention, e.g., zuowang as taught by my taoist teacher (liu ming)3) advaita style inquiry, e.g., what do i absolutely know? what is always already present? etc.s
Me: Hi S,
You are a sincere and humble practitioner and I truthfully hope that you will achieve swift spiritual break-through. As I am too in a learning process, I will try to share with you what I have learnt.
First you should break-through the division between subject and object. It is OK to experience substantial non-duality first, but it is good to bear in mind that there are further phases.
When we challenge the boundaries and division between subject and object, we are able to collapse our experience into oneness. This is the phase of substantial non-dual. By challenging the boundary where awareness ends and manifestation begin, or the border between awareness and content, everything reveals itself to be an expression of a single field of undivided awareness. Such that things no longer occur 'In' awareness, but 'As' awareness. Everything is equally an expression of the infinite field of awareness... and there is no separation whatsoever between awareness and content, perceiver and perceived, subject and object.
That is the substantial non-dual phase. After which you can try to contemplate, 'in seeing just the seen', 'in hearing just the heard' like in Bahiya Sutta. This is not just a matter of substantial non-dualism. It is not 'everything is Awareness' but that 'there is no Awareness apart from the sights, sounds, etc'. So effectively, the term 'Awareness' is just a label, like the word 'weather', for the myriad of self-luminous experiences... it has no independent, permanent existence of its own. In seeing, ONLY just the seen. Apart from that there is no seeing or awareness. Just the seen, heard, cognized, thought, etc... just manifestation. So we no longer see a metaphysical essence. We no longer see anything inherent. Not even an 'Awareness'. Instead, we see a dynamic stream of luminous activities, without an agent, without a perceiver, a doer, controller, etc. This is not the inseparability of subject and object, but seeing how there is no subject to begin with – only self-luminous processes, activities, dharmas.
When a person undergo awareness practice until a certain phase – non-dual, it is very very important to keep instilling the right view and keep breaking the 'essence'. At this point you will need to have clarity on anatta and dependent origination in order to refine the experience of anatta. Even if one had glimpses and experiences of no-mind, one will still be unable to realize anatta, until practitioners realize that it is not necessary to have an 'essence' at all – it is simply a distorted view. So, to penetrate into Anatta, there must be the willingness to let go of the wrong 'view' entirely – the entire idea of an 'essence' must be gone. So with the adoption of view, we perfect the experience until all doubts are gone, and the center is completely gone – just flat, disjoint, unsupported, dimensionless and pure experience, manifested as whatever arises.
First investigate and clear the bond of duality, then investigate and clear the bond of inherency.
Regards,AEN
-
Gradual Path and Direct Path
Chat took place on 15th April 2011. Slightly edited.
Participant 1: So gradual method is more stable, while direct method allows you to skip stages, but may be unstable and disconcerting.
Me: You can skip stages (referring to Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment) in gradual methods (depending on which method you practice) as well. Means if you practice Vipassana alone, you will not go through I AM.
Participant 1: I see. Is it possible to do meditation when walking?
Me: Yes.
Participant 1: But it is very distracting. A lot of noise. Scenery, movement, and heat even, these days. What kind of meditation is best while walking?
Me: If you read Thusness's Vipassana instructions ( http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/419870?page=1 ) you would see that his instructions were given to 'Truthz' who asked, 'john, how to practise vipassana in daily life?'.
He also stated that you do not need to concentrate. If you need to concentrate on something, like a particular object, or breath, then you will not be able to focus on your other work in daily living. It is not necessary to focus or concentrate in Thusness's Vipassana. You just need to immerse yourself in sensate clarity, whatever it is that appears at the moment.
Noise, scenery, movement, all becomes sensuous and delightful. They are all part of your Vipassana practice. You must sort of 'trip on' sensuousness, on sensate actualities. Then even traffic sounds become clear, incredible, wonderful, delightful.
Participant 1: So basically, just try and immerse yourself in the sensations. But there are so many different sensations.
Me: Yes, but at each moment, there is one global sensation so to speak... if we do not hold on to separative constructs. Not a state of oneness, but it is diverse multiplicity being seamlessly experienced.
Participant 1: You can only direct your mind to one sensation at a time?
Me: You don't have to direct your mind to anything. It is best to let go of control and just let whatever manifest, manifest in its vivid clarity.
Participant 1: What about traffic lights?
Me: Traffic sound is part of what manifests. And what manifests is vividly clear, luminous, alive. It is 'aware' of its own accord. There is no 'you' being aware, the sound is its awareness.
Participant 1: I mean it requires some thinking and awareness to be aware of crossing the road, etc.
Me: Then thinking and focusing would happen.
Participant 1: You can't just let go, at least not in my experience.
Me: You don't have to let go. What I meant was letting go of contrived effort to focus on some particular thing all the time. This is not necessary (unless you are practicing something like mindfulness of breathing in sitting meditation). But focusing, thinking, happens on its own accord according to circumstances. You need focusing to cross the road, drive the car, listen to a lecturer, etc. In any case, there isn't an actual thinker. They just arise according to conditions. But before realization we feel ourselves to be the thinker of thoughts, the doer of deeds, the feeler of feelings, the seer of sights, etc.
Participant 2 joined the conversation.
Participant 1: So far from what I have understood from your articles, the gradual path consists of three stages. The normal deluded stage, then the I AM stage where you feel in tune, interconnected with the world, but there is still a sense of self, a sense of presence, a sense of substance.
Me: The I AM stage is the realization that You are that Presence... and this Presence is the universal ground of all beings and all phenomenon. But to answer your question, no, it is not the case that all gradual paths consists of three stages.
There are many types of gradual path, just as there are many types of direct path. Gradual paths are any path that 'is like polishing the mirror to reveal the luminosity' while the direct path 'aims for direct realization straight away' as stated in my previous conversation. Gradual path focus on the experience first, the realization happens later. Direct path focus on investigating and getting a direct realization.
For example, Michael Langford's 'Awareness Watching Awareness/Turning Awareness upon itself, to the Pure Presence, to Pure Being' - this is a gradual path leading to I AM.
Self-inquiry, asking 'Before birth, Who am I?' is a direct path leading to I AM.
Vipassana is a gradual path leading to Anatta realization. Whereas, contemplating Bahiya Sutta, Ven Buddhaghosa's verses on Anatta, or Thusness's two stanzas of Anatta, or Ruthless Truth/Ciaran's contemplation on 'There is no you, Look!' are all forms of direct path leading to the realization of Anatta.
So in short, if you practice Vipassana, you do not enter I AM. You will just realize Anatta.
Participant 2: I heard of this term, 'non-dual luminosity'. Exactly what does it refer to?
Me: It means if you see something, there is no you seeing something that is separate from you. There is no perceiver-perceived, subject-object duality, dichotomy. There is just pure awareness of whatever is, without distance, without separation, from what is perceived. There is just pure seeing, hearing, without a separate seer, hearer.
However, non-dual luminosity may not be Anatta. It could be like Thusness Stage 4 kind of insight, substantial non-dualism. (check my last reply to S in the first post of http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/390582?page=15) Or it can be a temporary experience of NDNCIDMOP or PCE, which is like a peak experience.
Participant 2: Ok, with regards to Master Sheng Yen's article which you posted yesterday in the forum, 'When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the ‘I’ does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognise that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena. Not until the distinctions of all phenomena disappear, and everything goes back to truth or Heaven, will you have absolute peace and unity. As long as the world of phenomena is still active, you cannot do away with conflict, calamity, suffering and crime.'
How should I understand Master Sheng Yen's use of "everything goes back to truth or Heaven", especially the word Heaven?
Me: I think it is a Chinese phrase, or expression. I need to see the Chinese words. But the 'Truth' here is this: ...One who has entered Ch’an does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth...
You can replace the word 'basic substance' with the word 'weather', or the word 'self' with the word 'weather'. For example:
...This is because weatherly phenomena (rain, lightning, wind, etc) themselves are weather, and apart from weatherly phenomena (rain, lightning, wind, etc) there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of weather exists right in the unreality of weatherly phenomena (rain, lightning, wind, etc), which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth...
The problem with us is that, even if we have a transcendental glimpse of luminosity, of non-duality, and so on... due to our framework of viewing things inherently, we treat luminosity as something ultimate, as something inherent.
Just like the word 'Weather'... Ok, weather is undeniable. But is weather a thing? An entity? If yes, then where is it located as a fixed position?
It cannot be located, and is not other than these ceaselessly changing phenomenon. The same goes for 'self', 'awareness', 'luminosity', 'basic substance'. They are something being directly realized and experienced, yet reified into something independent and permanent and ultimate... but what we need to see is that the so called 'self' is merely a label collating the conglomerate of five ever-changing aggregates (matter, feelings, perceptions, volition, and consciousness) or the five skandhas, and 'awareness' is merely a label that denotes the six modes of cognizance (Visual consciousness (cakkhu-viññÄ�na), Auditory consciousness (sotÄ�-viññÄ�na), Nasal consciousness (ghÄ�na-viññÄ�na), Taste consciousness (jihvÄ�-viññÄ�na), Tactile consciousness (kÄ�ya-viññÄ�na), Mind-consciousness (mano-viññÄ�na), the same goes for 'luminosity' and 'basic substance'.
There is nothing ultimate to be found. After realizing Anatta, you should apply the same insight onto objects: chairs, tables, weather, all are like the 'weather' analogy... unlocatable, apart from a stream of insubstantial activities. Vivid, luminous, alive, yet like a mirage, like bubbles, like a dream.
Participant 1: To borrow Thusness's words, the realization of "I AM" is to be able to perceive without intermediary, the perceived?
Me: In the realization of "I AM", you are able to have direct perception of I AM without intermediary. Means there is just that, I AMness, no concepts, no division, no dualistic separation. And not only that, there is a realization and utter conviction of something undeniable. So you no longer have doubts.
Participant 1: Is "I AM" and luminosity synonymous with each other?
Me: Yes and no. I AM is only an aspect of luminosity pertaining to mind consciousness. There are 18 dhatus (the six sense objects, six sense faculties, and six sense consciousness) - see http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eighteen_dhatus. 'I AM' is simply pure consciousness of the mind realm. It is luminosity pertaining to the mental realm. Therefore, I AM is only the luminosity of a single dhatu. In particular, it is the luminosity of non-conceptual thought. Not the entirety of mind consciousness as mind consciousness can refer to a myriad of mental experiences like conceptualization, emotions, remembering, imagination, etc.
Participant 1: Then the realization of Anatta 'extends' the realization of luminosity from mind-consciousness to eye... ear... nose... tongue... body... consciousnesses?
Me: Yes.
What people realize as 'I AM' is simply the non-conceptual thought which is a particular manifestation of mind-consciousness, and this realization and experience is being reified into something ultimate, independent, permanent, Self. It is seen to be something special and more ultimate than other phenomena.
In Anatta, all realms become 'flat'. Because if in seeing there is just the seen without seer, then everything becomes implicitly non-dual and luminous (without reifying a non-dual substance or Absolute). There is no more hierarchy, no more treating a particular dhatu as something more ultimate than another. There is no more 'treating a speck of dust as ultimate and making every other phenomena dusty' to put it in Thusness's way of speaking.
Participant 2: If a person claims to not feel anger when insulted, even thanking the person who scolded him, for example, does that indicate No Self? (I have my own opinion, but I wanna hear from you guys)
Participant 1: Not necessarily, because realizing not-self does not mean the fetters are completely cut off. So if the conditions are right for anger to arise, then it is unavoidable. Only arhats and above are incapable of feeling anger. But realizing anatta is only stream-entry.
Me: To Participant 2: Well first of all, No Self is not a state. It is a fact about existence. It means always already, there never was a self. There never was an agent. So this is about a realization. It is like what I said just now regarding 'weather'. All along, there is no 'weather' to be found. It is just a convenient label for a conglomerate of ceaselessly changing phenomena. So how can there be an entity called 'weather' to be found anywhere? So having realized this, do you say that suddenly, there is no more weather? This is obviously not the case. 'No Weather' is not talking about the disappearance of weather. It is simply pointing out a fact about reality, that there is no independent, unchanging, locatable entity called 'Weather' anywhere. 'Weather' is simply a convenient label for the everchanging weatherly phenomenon. The same goes for No Self. No Self is not a state, it is simply pointing out a fact about reality, that there is no independent, permanent, locatable self or agent. And Self is a mere convenient label for the five skandhas.
A fetter-model first stage Sotapanna realizes Anatta or what you call No Self, whereas a fetter-model fourth stage Arhant has removed all traces of defilements, afflictions, attachments, passionate emotions, and sense of self. That is the difference.
To Participant 1: Even the fetter-model third stage Anagamis have already stopped cravings for sensual pleasures as well as anger, worry and fear... needless to speak of the fetter-model Arhant.
Participant 2: It (realising No Self) is about realising a fact.
Me: Precisely... you simply realize that it has always been so. All along, in seeing always just the seen, no seer. In hearing always just the heard, no hearer. So it is not the case that you dissolve the seer or hearer, it is that there never was a seer or hearer to begin with, and you realize that this has always been the case. However for those who experienced a peak experience, aka a NDNCDIMOP or a PCE, these people haven't realized anatta as a dharma seal, as a fact about reality. So they may be under the impression that suddenly, the self disappeared, and then returned later on. That is because the bond of 'self' temporarily goes into abeyance. But without the insight, it becomes just a state that comes and goes... he does not realize anything. So he might think that 'I became the sound' or 'I suddenly dissolved for a moment', not realizing that all along, there never was an 'I', a perceiver, an agent.
Participant 1: I still can't believe you can memorise the acronym NDNCDIMOP lol.
Me: Non dual, non conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception. Easy to remember.
-
You can file for world record for rhe longest acronym NDNCDIMOP.
The longest I seen before.
-
Thanks to the genius of Thusness... hehe
-
If you find out what is a non conceptual thought, what is the essence of the mind at rest, it may be revealed that it is that same powerful presence and certainty as that I Am realization but now it’s simply viewed as a thought - and no more intimately me than a sight or sound so it is nothing like a background.
It is not that I AM is a still formless presence underlying forms. That so called I AM is simply a manifestation of intimate (non-dual) non-conceptual thought, reified into an ultimate identity. After non-dual is experienced, one no longer clings to that formless Presence as an ultimate identity.
However, identity can still linger after clear nondual experience, so that person now has an grandiose, unified identity view like "I am everything and I am everywhere" or "Brahman is the world". It is like ‘firewood becomes ash’ - it is an illusion to think that awareness is, or becomes, the world. This is distinct from the realization of "in the seeing just the seen" such that the radiant world/every experience only references itself without dualistic and inherent thought. There is nothing I, nothing Me, just seeing/seen, hearing/heard, thinking/thought, activities occurring yet without anything linking a thought with another, an experience with another.
As Zen Master Dogen teaches, firewood is firewood, ash is ash, each phenomena abides on its own phenomenal expression, complete as it is, disjoint, and unsupported. ‘Awareness’ is a manifestation (and 'Awareness' is simply and only the six forms of cognizance: five senses + mental cognizance). ‘The world’ is also manifestation. Whatever arises is manifestation and there is no identity ‘firewood becomes ash’, ‘firewood transforms into ash’, and so on – each phenomenon abides as its own phenomenal expression without becoming, coming, or going. When we have non-inherent and non-dual insight, we do not make the mistaken of those who have non-dual insight/experience but view of inherency (thinking that 'Awareness' is an entity identical with, or that it becomes, or that it transforms into the 'world').
The insight of anatta (in the seeing just the seen) along with the insight of everything being disjoint and self-releasing allows one to become traceless.
The nondual, noninherent view releases every dual and inherent though, releasing every experience without traces, so that there is only direct experiencing without views... Viewlessness.
I think both the inquiry "what is nonconceptual thought without thinker" and "who am I" can lead to similar experiences yet very different realization. But imo it’s better for people to go through the I Am realization first, followed by non-dual and anatta, as otherwise it is not easy for there to be stable, deep, penetrating insight into Anatta. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
If you find out what is a non conceptual thought, what is the mind at rest, it is clear that it is that same powerful presence and certainty as that I Am realization but now it’s simply viewed as a thought - and no more intimately me than a sight or sound so it is nothing like a background.
It is not that I AM is a still formless presence underlying forms. That so called I AM is simply a manifestation of intimate (non-dual) non-conceptual thought, reified into an ultimate identity. After non-dual is experienced, one no longer clings to that formless Presence is an ultimate identity.
However, identity can still linger after clear nondual experience, so that person now has an inflated, grandiose, unified identity view like "I am everything and I am everywhere" or "Brahman is the world". It is like ‘firewood becomes ash’ - it is an illusion to think that awareness is, or becomes, the world. This is distinct from the realization of "in the seeing just the seen" such that the radiant world/every experience only references itself without dualistic and inherent thought. There is nothing I, nothing Me, just seeing/seen, hearing/heard, thinking/thought, activities occurring yet without anything linking a thought with another, an experience with another.
As Zen Master Dogen teaches, firewood is firewood, ash is ash, each phenomena abides on its own phenomenal expression, complete as it is, disjoint, and unsupported. ‘Awareness’ is a manifestation (and 'Awareness' is simply and only the six forms of cognizance: five senses + mental cognizance). ‘The world’ is also manifestation. Whatever arises is manifestation and there is no identity ‘firewood becomes ash’, ‘firewood transforms into ash’, and so on – each phenomenon abides as its own phenomenal expression without becoming, coming, or going.
The insight of anatta (in the seeing just the seen) along with the insight of everything being disjoint and self-releasing allows one to become traceless.
The nondual, noninherent view releases every dual and inherent though, releasing every experience without traces, so that there is only direct experiencing without views... Viewlessness.
I think both the inquiry "what is nonconceptual thought without thinker" and "who am I" can lead to similar experiences yet very different realization. But imo it’s better for people to go through the I Am realization first, followed by non-dual and anatta, as otherwise it is not easy for stable, deep, penetrating insight into Anatta.Is there such thing known as non-conceptual thought?
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Is there such thing known as non-conceptual thought?
Yes there is.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Yes there is.
But thought itself is a concept. How can non-conceptual thought exist?
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
But thought itself is a concept. How can non-conceptual thought exist?
No, thought is not a concept. Concept is a form of thought, but it is not the entire spectrum of thought.
When your mind silences, you discover a non-conceptual thought - it is simply a mere presence, that sense of existence that remains. This is a non-conceptual thought. More often than not, this will be reified into an ultimate Self.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No, thought is not a concept. Concept is a form of thought, but it is not the entire spectrum of thought.
When your mind silences, you discover a non-conceptual thought - it is simply a mere presence, that sense of existence that remains. This is a non-conceptual thought. More often than not, this will be reified into an ultimate Self.
You meant the awareness of thought that arises and ceases.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
You meant the awareness of thought that arises and ceases.
No. I mean what I wrote in the first post (The red highlighted part):
Thusness told me to write down. So I'll just note down some of my meditation experience yesterday.
I was doing self inquiry yesterday, 'Who am I', 'Before Birth Who am I'... with an intense desire to know the truth of my being. As the thoughts subside, an intense and palpable sense of beingness and presence, the only 'thing' that remains that I feel to be my innermost essence... became very obvious... very very vivid and intense, and feels like a constant background in which everything is taking place, thoughts (almost none at that moment, but arise afterwards) that arise are also taking place in this unchanging background... and there is this certainty and doubtlessness about this I AM-ness, IT is absolutely real and undeniable. IT/I AMness/The Witness is the only solid and undoubtable Presence and is clearly present with or without thoughts. I remembered briefly thinking after having experienced that, "So this is it! This is enlightenment!" and "No, not enlightenment", but it’s funny how these thoughts are just passing thoughts like wind, occurring in this solid constant undoubtable sense of presence. Inconsequential and illusory doubts and concepts are arising within undoubtable presence... passes away as soon as they arise because there is no more identification with the mind/ego. After all, I am just this Reality, this background of awareness that is ever-present and watching, I'm not any of those thoughts that come and go. The part that thinks 'I am enlightened' or 'I am not enlightened', that is not what I am and can never be 'enlightened' and thus totally irrelevant, while what I am, is always already completely clear and perfect beyond doubt, already and always perfectly 'awake'/'aware'. From the perspective of Consciousness, all thoughts and perceptions are just illusory appearances coming and going within consciousness. I just found a quote by Nisargadatta Maharaj that puts it so well: "This reality is so concrete, so actual, so much more tangible than mind and matter, that compared to it even diamond is soft like butter. This overwhelming actuality makes the world dreamlike, misty, irrelevant."
Just a pure sense of existence and beingness. An unmoving context, like a screen in which the entire display of life is shown in. This background of presence and awareness is formless, behind, and prior to all thoughts and forms. Feels most vivid when there is no engagement in thoughts, no thoughts, just BEING it. Though, thoughts that arise didn't affect the background sense of presence. Presence remains unmoved, unaffected, undeniably present. It may be apparently obscured when the attention goes all out at thoughts and feelings, such that we are so totally identified with them that we think that they are the entirety of our being. That is why we need to self-inquire seriously, not taking any concepts to be truth, but relentlessly inquire into the depths of our being without any conceptual perception until we feel with confidence this solid, thoughtless being and presence is the undeniable, unmoving essence of being. It reveals itself easily if we let go of our thoughts in meditation, like a jewel at the bottom of the lake reveals itself if the surface is calm.
Keep inquiring: Who am I?
Doubt (stop following) every single thought until only the undoubtable, vivid, non-conceptual self-knowing Presence and Beingness remains. It is free from all conceptual constructs, separation and attributes. Understand that no concepts and thoughts are an accurate representation of reality, self, or the world. Absolutely no thought is the (absolute) truth. Naked Self-Knowing Presence is the only source of true certainty, all thoughts are doubtable and disposable, like a dream that when we wake up we realise to be simply projections and imaginations.
You are non-dual self-knowing Awareness. Without even using thoughts, you can't deny that sense of existence that You Are. That which knows/is certain of I AM is I AM itself.
That which is sure of its existence – the innermost
certainty of I Am – is what you essentially are. In
other words: I Am this knowing that knows that I Am. - Leo HartongThusness commented I should experience the impersonality aspect (note: not anatta, but the impersonally aspect of AMness) so much so that I feel I share the ‘same source’, and though I have realised the Self, I have not yet realised that it is the 'non-conceptual, direct' that gives the 'certainty', the undoubtedness. This is what makes the experience of I AM different from ordinary dualistic experience, which has intermediary, is dualistic, and secondary. No direct-ness. And... the depth and intensity of experience can still be improved. He said that if I pursue the experience then non-conceptuality becomes a hindrance and I will suffer because I cannot overcome the arising thoughts, which will lead to struggling. Which I fully agree because the next thing after meditation, frustration started happening for me, when there’s an attempt to 'get back' to the experience and don't know how. Yet, all attempts are secondary, like trying to rest the mind in awareness when awareness has always been at rest, trying to stop mind movement when Awareness has always been the still point of the turning world. He also told me deeply inquire on the old philosophical question about whether a tree in the forest would make a sound if no one were there to hear it. It will lead to nondual experience. If I were to go through the motion, I will not realise it. It must be the sort of experience I have with I AMness.
Note: this is not enlightenment in Buddhism as it is not the realisation of anatta and emptiness. It is Self-Realization, a form of awakening, but not yet the enlightenment of Arhants or Bodhisattvas or Buddhas. See Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment for more info. I am merely noting some of the experiences I have, I'm just a learner and practitioner.
With regards to the above experience, Thusness also said that this is the Rigpa, the luminous presence, the light... it is just (a matter of having) the right understanding of this with the right view.
As the Buddha himself taught in the earliest Pali suttas, "This mind, monks, is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from without. But this the uninstructed worldlings understand not as it really is, wherefore for the uninstructed worldlings there is no cultivation of the mind, I declare. This mind, monks, is luminous, and it is cleansed of taints that come from without. Wherefore, for the uninstructed noble disciple there is cultivation of the mind, I declare."
Also, I have had many previous glimpses both in and out of meditation of the I AM/Witness... what makes this somewhat different from the previous experiences is the sense of certainty and doubtlessness of Being. It is hard to explain.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No, thought is not a concept. Concept is a form of thought, but it is not the entire spectrum of thought.
When your mind silences, you discover a non-conceptual thought - it is simply a mere presence, that sense of existence that remains. This is a non-conceptual thought. More often than not, this will be reified into an ultimate Self.
When Zen authors talk about "no thought", what does that usually refer to? And what about in relation to your insights thus far? -
Originally posted by realization:
When Zen authors talk about "no thought", what does that usually refer to? And what about in relation to your insights thus far?It usually means no conceptual thoughts.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
It usually means no conceptual thoughts.
I used to think no thought is the gap between two thoughts. -
More on No-Thought:
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/shikantaza.html
III. Also distinctive of Dogen's account of Shikantaza is that it is the practice of "without thinking" (hishiryo): which is also called no-mind (mushin; wu-hsin), the essence of Zen Enlightenment. Here we shall discuss "thinking," "not-thinking" and "without thinking."
A. THINKING (shiryo): This is our habitual tendency to stay in the mode of conceptualizing thought.
1. About "thinking" a) Noetic Attitude: positional (either affirming or negating); b) Noematic Content: conceptualized objects.
a) Noetic Attitude is positional (either affirming or negating): A subject is adopting an intentional stance toward an object and, specifically, thinking about it in either a positive or negative way: "This is an X" or "This is not an X," "Do X" or "Do not do X."
(1) Consciousness is an intentional vector proceeding from a subject to an object. The subject is a cognitive agent.
b) Noematic Content: X is an intentional object pointed to and conceived through our thoughts.
2. "Thinking" can be pictured as follows:
c) Aspects of "thinking":
(1) Subject-object division present: an active subject thinks an object.
(2) Non-immediacy: We do not experience the object immediately but only at a distance, as removed subjects, and only through the thoughts we have of the object.
(3) Non-fullness: We do not experience the object in its fullness or "suchness" but, rather, only as filtered through our thinking about it.
B. NOT-THINKING (fushiryo): About "not-thinking": (1) noetic attitude: positional (only negating); (2) noematic content: thinking (as objectified).
1. Noetic attitude is positional (only negating): Subject is agent seeking to suppress its thinking.
2. Noematic content: The object is now the "second-order" object "thinking about X."
"Not-thinking" can be pictured as follows:
3. Aspects of "not-thinking": Same as for "thinking."
a) Consciousness is still an intentional-vector proceeding from a subject to the object. The subject is still functioning as agent, even if one trying to bring an end to its own agency.
C. WITHOUT THINKING (hishiryo): This is no-thought (munen; wu-nien) or no-mind (mushin; wu-hsin): pure immediacy in the fullness of things as they are.
1. About "not-thinking": (1) noetic attitude: nonpositional (neither affirming nor negating); (2) noematic content: pure presence of things as they are (genjokoan).
a) Noetic attitude is nonpositional (neither affirming nor negating): Consciousness is no longer an intentional vector proceeding from a subject to an object but is, rather, an open dynamic field in which objects present themselves.
b) Noematic content: The object is no longer an object that is the target of an intentional act but is, rather, the object itself as it presents itself within the open dynamic field of consciousness.
c) Aspects of "without thinking":
(1) No subject-object distinction: The subject has disappeared—this being the Zen interpretation of Buddhist anatta or no-mind.
(2) Immediacy: Without a subject standing back, the experience is one of immediacy within the dynamic field of consciousness.
(3) Fullness: Because the object is not filtered through an intentional act, it presents itself in its fullness.
(4) Such immediacy and fullness are genjokoan, "pure presence of things as they are."
It is a serious mistake in the understanding of Zen to refer merely to the "denial" or "cessation" of "conceptual thinking." Regardless of whether or not it can be proven than the pre-Buddhist Sanskrit etymology of the term Dhyana can be shown to have no-thought connotations, the main concern here is the semantic development undergone by the Chinese term ch'an in the course of the production of the Ch'an texts in East Asia.
It is quite clear that in Ch'an Buddhism, no-mind, rather than referring to an absence of thought, refers to the condition of not being trapped in thoughts, not adhering to a certain conceptual habit or position.
The error of interpretation made by many scholars (and by Zen practitioners as well) lies precisely in taking the term "no-thought" to refer to some kind of permanent, or ongoing absence of thought. While this assumption is routinely made, it is impossible to corroborate it in the Ch'an canon. If we study the seminal texts carefully, we do find a description of the experience of an instantaneous severing of thought that occurs in the course of a thoroughgoing pursuit of a Buddhist meditative exercise.
Nowhere in the Platform Sutra, Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, Diamond Sutra, or any other major Ch'an text, is the term "no-mind" explained to be a permanent incapacitation of the thinking faculty or the permanent cessation of all conceptual activity. (source) -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
]More on No-Thought:
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/shikantaza.html
III. Also distinctive of Dogen's account of Shikantaza is that it is the practice of "without thinking" (hishiryo): which is also called no-mind (mushin; wu-hsin), the essence of Zen Enlightenment. Here we shall discuss "thinking," "not-thinking" and "without thinking."
A. THINKING (shiryo): This is our habitual tendency to stay in the mode of conceptualizing thought.
1. About "thinking" a) Noetic Attitude: positional (either affirming or negating); b) Noematic Content: conceptualized objects.
a) Noetic Attitude is positional (either affirming or negating): A subject is adopting an intentional stance toward an object and, specifically, thinking about it in either a positive or negative way: "This is an X" or "This is not an X," "Do X" or "Do not do X."
(1) Consciousness is an intentional vector proceeding from a subject to an object. The subject is a cognitive agent.
b) Noematic Content: X is an intentional object pointed to and conceived through our thoughts.
2. "Thinking" can be pictured as follows:
c) Aspects of "thinking":
(1) Subject-object division present: an active subject thinks an object.
(2) Non-immediacy: We do not experience the object immediately but only at a distance, as removed subjects, and only through the thoughts we have of the object.
(3) Non-fullness: We do not experience the object in its fullness or "suchness" but, rather, only as filtered through our thinking about it.
B. NOT-THINKING (fushiryo): About "not-thinking": (1) noetic attitude: positional (only negating); (2) noematic content: thinking (as objectified).
1. Noetic attitude is positional (only negating): Subject is agent seeking to suppress its thinking.
2. Noematic content: The object is now the "second-order" object "thinking about X."
"Not-thinking" can be pictured as follows:
3. Aspects of "not-thinking": Same as for "thinking."
a) Consciousness is still an intentional-vector proceeding from a subject to the object. The subject is still functioning as agent, even if one trying to bring an end to its own agency.
C. WITHOUT THINKING (hishiryo): This is no-thought (munen; wu-nien) or no-mind (mushin; wu-hsin): pure immediacy in the fullness of things as they are.
1. About "not-thinking": (1) noetic attitude: nonpositional (neither affirming nor negating); (2) noematic content: pure presence of things as they are (genjokoan).
a) Noetic attitude is nonpositional (neither affirming nor negating): Consciousness is no longer an intentional vector proceeding from a subject to an object but is, rather, an open dynamic field in which objects present themselves.
b) Noematic content: The object is no longer an object that is the target of an intentional act but is, rather, the object itself as it presents itself within the open dynamic field of consciousness.
c) Aspects of "without thinking":
(1) No subject-object distinction: The subject has disappeared—this being the Zen interpretation of Buddhist anatta or no-mind.
(2) Immediacy: Without a subject standing back, the experience is one of immediacy within the dynamic field of consciousness.
(3) Fullness: Because the object is not filtered through an intentional act, it presents itself in its fullness.
(4) Such immediacy and fullness are genjokoan, "pure presence of things as they are."
It is a serious mistake in the understanding of Zen to refer merely to the "denial" or "cessation" of "conceptual thinking." Regardless of whether or not it can be proven than the pre-Buddhist Sanskrit etymology of the term Dhyana can be shown to have no-thought connotations, the main concern here is the semantic development undergone by the Chinese term ch'an in the course of the production of the Ch'an texts in East Asia.
It is quite clear that in Ch'an Buddhism, no-mind, rather than referring to an absence of thought, refers to the condition of not being trapped in thoughts, not adhering to a certain conceptual habit or position.
The error of interpretation made by many scholars (and by Zen practitioners as well) lies precisely in taking the term "no-thought" to refer to some kind of permanent, or ongoing absence of thought. While this assumption is routinely made, it is impossible to corroborate it in the Ch'an canon. If we study the seminal texts carefully, we do find a description of the experience of an instantaneous severing of thought that occurs in the course of a thoroughgoing pursuit of a Buddhist meditative exercise.
Nowhere in the Platform Sutra, Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, Diamond Sutra, or any other major Ch'an text, is the term "no-mind" explained to be a permanent incapacitation of the thinking faculty or the permanent cessation of all conceptual activity. (source)
I think only practitioner with certain level of insight can understand this. -
On the contrary, Richard says that everybody has had PCEs some point in their lives before.
....................
Richard: A PCE is when one’s sense of identity temporarily vacates the throne and apperception occurs. Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself … it is a pure awareness . Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception is when the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is not and an unmediated awareness occurs. The pure consciousness experience is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear.
This is knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any ‘self’ whatsoever. One is able to see that ‘I’ and ‘me’ have been standing in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential character of this moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is in abeyance. One is the universe ’s experience of itself as a human being ... after all, the very stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no ‘outside’ to the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity.
Apperception is something that brings the facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual . Then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence.
To get out of stuckness and induce a Pure Consciousness Experience one gets off one’s backside and does whatever one knows best to activate delight. From the position of delight, one can vitalize one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. Then one is no longer intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sense away. Such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence ) the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one stares intently at the world about by glancing lightly with caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and I am the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
When one remembers a PCE – or precipitates another – then one is well on the way to freedom ... this is what actualism is all about. Scattered along the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom are as many PCEs as one may need ... repeated peak experiences may very well be brought about on maybe a daily basis with constant application of reflective and fascinated contemplation . In such pure contemplation, ‘I’ cease seeing and seeing takes place of its own accord. ‘I’ can never be here now in this actual world for ‘I’ am an interloper, an alien in psychic possession of the body. ‘I’ do not belong here.
All this is impossible to imagine which is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. This confidence is born out of knowing, which is derived from the PCE, and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. One does not have to generate confidence oneself – as the religions require of one with regard to their blind faith – the purity of the actual world bestows this confidence upon one. The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore.
...............
RICHARD: As a generalisation, pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) are more prevalent in childhood and the memory is tucked away in an area of the brain not normally accessed. Because a PCE has no emotional/ passional qualities whatsoever – there is no affective being present to record the memory in its affective memory banks – it cannot be remembered in the normal way (reverie, reminiscence, nostalgia, and so on).
Also, ‘I’ can have a vested interest in disremembering a PCE as it could very well be the beginning of the end of ‘me’.
Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things such as washing the dishes (for instance) and can be quite brief ... I can recall being on a farmhouse veranda at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within.
Often in my early childhood there would be a ‘slippage’ of the brain, somewhat analogous to an automatic transmission changing into a higher gear too soon, and the magical world where time had no workaday meaning would emerge in all its sparkling wonder ... where I could wander for hours at a time in gay abandon with whatever was happening.
They were the pre-school years: soon such experiences would occur of a weekend ... so much so that I would later on call them ‘Saturday Morning’ experiences where, contrary to having to be dragged out of bed during the week, I would be up and about at first light, traipsing through the fields and the forests with the early morning rays of sunshine dancing their magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; where kookaburras are echoing their laughing-like calls to one another and magpies are warbling their liquid sounds; where an abundance of aromas and scents are drifting fragrantly all about; where every pore of the skin is being caressed by the friendly ambience of the balmy air; where benevolence and benignity streams endlessly bathing all in its impeccable integrity.
This magical world is what occasions me to write like this:
• [Richard]: ‘When one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe there is the direct experiencing that there is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any ‘King’s Ransom’. It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed blissful and rapturous ‘States Of Being’ ... it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious that makes the ‘sacred’ a mere bauble.
It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe – which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent – as a physical actuality. The limpid and lucid purity and perfection of actually being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent bead of moisture with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with at length has experienced this impeccable integrity and excellence in some way or another at varying stages in their life.
This preciosity is what one is as-one-is – me as I am in actuality as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ am in reality – for one is the universe’s experience of itself’.
-
Experience, Realization, and View
Our paradigm, view, insights, experiences, affect our every moment perception of life, self, the universe. Speaking from experience, this is what a seeker might go through:
Duality
Generally every normal non-spiritual person sees himself as a subject, self, perceiver, doer, which is a psychic entity conceived as locating inside the body - be it inside the head behind the eyes or in the heart or some other locations.
This conceived psychic entity causes a sense of alienation as 'I' am inside my body, looking outwards at the world through my eyes, ears, etc. I am self-contracted, separated from the world out there, and so experience is divided into 'inner' and 'outer'. Reality consists of three components: I, the seer, sees the world out there. (Seer, seeing, seen) I, the doer, does the deed (Doer, doing, done). All these actions, and perceptions, are felt to have occured by virtue of this psychic entity residing inside my body, which I call Me.
This mentally conceived sense of alienation from a separate objective world resulting from the perceived existence of a separate self and psychic entity residing within this body-mind results in all manners of passionate feelings such as fear, anger, craving, malice, sorrow, and all forms of destructive undertakings endemic in our world: war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence, corruption and so on.
Basically it comes down to this: craving (craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for extermination), which arises due to the view of there being an inherently existing self alienated from the world, whereby the self must always get away from unpleasant experiences and chase after pleasant experiences, in search for happiness and the attenuation of suffering, not knowing this process of craving is precisely what causes suffering.
Self-Realization, Partial Duality
By the practice of contemplating on the Source of experiencing ("Who am I?", "Who is the Source?"), we trace the radiance back to the essence of mind-consciousness. At the moment where the seeker reaches the pinnacle of his self-inquiry, one has a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate perception of the self-luminosity of mind's Presence. The self-felt certainty arising from the non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception (NDNCDIMOP) of mind's luminosity leads to a self-felt certainty that results in utter conviction of having touched the essence of being and existence. As all doubts pertaining to the nature of one's identity can no longer linger, one's self-inquiry into 'Who am I' comes to a closing conclusion. Being absolutely intimate as a sheer sense of Presence, Beingness, and Existence, shining in plain view prior to conceptual sullying, it is nevertheless immediately reified due to the paradigm and view of duality and inherency, even though in itself it is a non-dual perception.
What it is reified into is a grander entity than the psychic entity conceived as locating in the body as previously conceived. Though the psychic entity located inside the body, aka. the ego, is now being released through seeing the falsity of a personal self, the Identity remains intact at large, now expanding to become a Metaphysical entity transcending space and time, the grand, impersonal, and universal Self that is birthless and deathless. Due to the view of duality still largely being intact - Presence and Awareness is also seen as the Eternal Witness, an impartial and unchanging watcher of all phenomena that passes. 'I' am God, the ground of being, the source of all animate and inanimate objects, the universal consciousness underlying all my manifestations which comes and goes like waves in the ocean of Being.
All along not knowing that what they have realized is simply an aspect of luminosity pertaining to non-conceptual thought, a manifestation of mind-cognizance, and is as such nothing ultimate or special (as compared to any other manifestations).
Non-Duality
Via the contemplation into the absence of a separate self or the seamlessness of awareness and its contents, a direct and experiential realization that the subject-object separation and dichotomy is illusory arises. Everything is experienced at zero-distance in the absence of the bond of dualistic psychic construct.
Nevertheless at the beginning, as the insight of non-duality arises but not the insight into no-inherency, one ends up falling into:
Substantial Non-duality
- subject-object dichotomy collapses, and is subsumed, into inherent oneness
- due to the view of inherency (that reality must have 'existence' located somewhere and somewhen, even if it is Here and Now), the vivid 'realness' of non-dual luminosity is being treated as something Absolute, as having inherent, independent and unchanging existence, and is being reified into Noumenon (in contrast to illusory phenomenon), and as being the ultimate non-dual Self
- the intimacy experienced via the collapse of subject-object dichotomy is being referenced to a grandiose all-pervasive Self ("I am Everywhere and I am Everything")
- all phenomena are seen to be illusory projections of a single underlying source, such that all phenomena are self-expressions of the single nature of Awareness, as depicted by the analogy of the mirror and its reflections - reflections as such do not have an objective, independent existence outside the mirror - and in fact only the Mirror is seen to have absolute, independent, inherent existence - only the Mirror is Real, and the appearances are only Real as the Mirror
- appearances are inseparable from the Source, and yet the Source is independent of appearances
Insubstantial Non-duality
- also known as the arising insight into anatta, it is seen that seeing, cognizing, awareness is precisely and only what is seen, heard, tasted, touched, manifesting
- the intimacy experienced via the lack of separation has no frame of reference due to the lack of something inherent - in the seeing is just the seen, in the hearing is just the heard, there is no True Self of any sorts - the world only references itself without an agent
- there is no grandiose, universal consciousness, only individual bodies and mindstreams interacting with each other due to interdependent origination, without any conceived 'underlying oneness behind multiplicity' - absolutely no identity remains, even the notion that "I am you and you are me" is seen as absurd
- there is no such thing as 'seamlessness of awareness and contents' or 'inseperability of awareness and its contents' - for awareness IS the process and activities of cognizance only, there is no such thing as 'awareness + its contents'
- seeing, cognizing, awaring never exists as nouns pointing to a noumenon but as verbs collating various activities of cognizance - what is seen, heard, taste, touch, are activities manifesting on its own accord with the presence of requisite conditions and factors via interdependent origination, without an agent, perceiver, controller, doer
- further penetration into anatta reveals that all phenomena are disjoint, unsupported, unlinked, bubble-like, insubstantial, dream-like, and self-releasing - there is absolutely nothing, not even an Awareness that underlies two thoughts, two manifestations - in fact there is not even two thoughts as such, just this thought, which spontaneously self-releases upon inception leaving absolutely no traces
- there is absolutely no collapsing of subject-object dichotomy into a base existing somewhere, even as a Here/Now - there is no linking base or source at all, only the experience of dispersed-out and de-linked multiplicity
- all manifestations are intrinstically luminous and vivid yet insubstantial and vanishes without a trace upon inception like drawing pictures on water manifests vivid appearances that does not leave trace - no existence of any sorts can leave traces when reality is a dream-like process with no inherent existence, like an illusion but not an illusion
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
On the contrary, Richard says that everybody has had PCEs some point in their lives before.
....................
Richard: A PCE is when one’s sense of identity temporarily vacates the throne and apperception occurs. Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself … it is a pure awareness . Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception is when the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is not and an unmediated awareness occurs. The pure consciousness experience is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear.
This is knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any ‘self’ whatsoever. One is able to see that ‘I’ and ‘me’ have been standing in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential character of this moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is in abeyance. One is the universe ’s experience of itself as a human being ... after all, the very stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no ‘outside’ to the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity.
Apperception is something that brings the facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual . Then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence.
To get out of stuckness and induce a Pure Consciousness Experience one gets off one’s backside and does whatever one knows best to activate delight. From the position of delight, one can vitalize one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. Then one is no longer intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sense away. Such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence ) the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one stares intently at the world about by glancing lightly with caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and I am the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
When one remembers a PCE – or precipitates another – then one is well on the way to freedom ... this is what actualism is all about. Scattered along the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom are as many PCEs as one may need ... repeated peak experiences may very well be brought about on maybe a daily basis with constant application of reflective and fascinated contemplation . In such pure contemplation, ‘I’ cease seeing and seeing takes place of its own accord. ‘I’ can never be here now in this actual world for ‘I’ am an interloper, an alien in psychic possession of the body. ‘I’ do not belong here.
All this is impossible to imagine which is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. This confidence is born out of knowing, which is derived from the PCE, and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. One does not have to generate confidence oneself – as the religions require of one with regard to their blind faith – the purity of the actual world bestows this confidence upon one. The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore.
...............
RICHARD: As a generalisation, pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) are more prevalent in childhood and the memory is tucked away in an area of the brain not normally accessed. Because a PCE has no emotional/ passional qualities whatsoever – there is no affective being present to record the memory in its affective memory banks – it cannot be remembered in the normal way (reverie, reminiscence, nostalgia, and so on).
Also, ‘I’ can have a vested interest in disremembering a PCE as it could very well be the beginning of the end of ‘me’.
Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things such as washing the dishes (for instance) and can be quite brief ... I can recall being on a farmhouse veranda at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within.
Often in my early childhood there would be a ‘slippage’ of the brain, somewhat analogous to an automatic transmission changing into a higher gear too soon, and the magical world where time had no workaday meaning would emerge in all its sparkling wonder ... where I could wander for hours at a time in gay abandon with whatever was happening.
They were the pre-school years: soon such experiences would occur of a weekend ... so much so that I would later on call them ‘Saturday Morning’ experiences where, contrary to having to be dragged out of bed during the week, I would be up and about at first light, traipsing through the fields and the forests with the early morning rays of sunshine dancing their magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; where kookaburras are echoing their laughing-like calls to one another and magpies are warbling their liquid sounds; where an abundance of aromas and scents are drifting fragrantly all about; where every pore of the skin is being caressed by the friendly ambience of the balmy air; where benevolence and benignity streams endlessly bathing all in its impeccable integrity.
This magical world is what occasions me to write like this:
Pls explain in clearer simpler layman terms.
No offense to you though.
-
I have a feedback.
I do worry about the people who visited your blog.
They might get confused.
Please also use simpler and layman terms in your blog and keep everything simple.
I went to your blog and find It too chim and advanced.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Pls explain in clearer simpler layman terms.
No offense to you though.
Ok.
PCE: Pure Consciousness Experience.
What it means: Suddenly, the sense of self dissolves. For a moment you don't feel like 'You' are a self inside your body, looking outwards at the world, through your eyes. For a moment, 'You' go into abeyance - 'You' dissolve.
Suddenly it is like seeing, hearing takes place on its own accord - the tree being seen is itself the seeing. There is no distance between a seer and seen, because there is no conceived seer at that moment, so there is absolute intimacy with everything. Everything is experienced as being alive and wonderful.
Who has it: everybody has it, but most people had it in childhood, and have forgotten. Due to the lack of emotions and feelings in a PCE event that can be easily registered in memory, you may have a hard time remembering it. But if you try to recall you may suddenly remember.
Note: PCE is not realization of Anatta. It is a temporary peak experience.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Ok.
PCE: Pure Consciousness Experience.
What it means: Suddenly, the sense of self dissolves. For a moment you don't feel like 'You' are a self inside your body, looking outwards at the world, through your eyes. For a moment, 'You' go into abeyance - 'You' dissolve.
Suddenly it is like seeing, hearing takes place on its own accord - the tree being seen is itself the seeing. There is no distance between a seer and seen, because there is no conceived seer at that moment, so there is absolute intimacy with everything. Everything is experienced as being alive and wonderful.
Who has it: everybody has it, but most people had it in childhood, and have forgotten. Due to the lack of emotions and feelings in a PCE event that can be easily registered in memory, you may have a hard time remembering it. But if you try to recall you may suddenly remember.
Note: PCE is not realization of Anatta. It is a temporary peak experience.
Yes. I got this experience. I looked at a tree. There was only the image of tree nothing else and no observer looking at It.
It's a short experience. The sense of self quickly returns.
The experience abt a few seconds.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Yes. I got this experience. I looked at a tree. There was only the image of tree nothing else and no observer looking at It.
It's a short experience. The sense of self quickly returns.
The experience abt a few seconds.
Ah.. that's great. When did that happen? Were you practicing something? Or did it just happened?
-
It is important to remember a PCE.
Richard:
To get out of stuckness and induce a Pure Consciousness Experience one gets off one’s backside and does whatever one knows best to activate delight. From the position of delight, one can vitalize one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. Then one is no longer intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sense away. Such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence ) the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one stares intently at the world about by glancing lightly with caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and I am the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
When one remembers a PCE – or precipitates another – then one is well on the way to freedom ... this is what actualism is all about. Scattered along the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom are as many PCEs as one may need ... repeated peak experiences may very well be brought about on maybe a daily basis with constant application of reflective and fascinated contemplation . In such pure contemplation, ‘I’ cease seeing and seeing takes place of its own accord. ‘I’ can never be here now in this actual world for ‘I’ am an interloper, an alien in psychic possession of the body. ‘I’ do not belong here.
All this is impossible to imagine which is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. This confidence is born out of knowing, which is derived from the PCE, and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. One does not have to generate confidence oneself – as the religions require of one with regard to their blind faith – the purity of the actual world bestows this confidence upon one. The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
It is important to remember a PCE.
Richard:
To get out of stuckness and induce a Pure Consciousness Experience one gets off one’s backside and does whatever one knows best to activate delight. From the position of delight, one can vitalize one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. Then one is no longer intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sense away. Such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence ) the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one stares intently at the world about by glancing lightly with caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and I am the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
When one remembers a PCE – or precipitates another – then one is well on the way to freedom ... this is what actualism is all about. Scattered along the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom are as many PCEs as one may need ... repeated peak experiences may very well be brought about on maybe a daily basis with constant application of reflective and fascinated contemplation . In such pure contemplation, ‘I’ cease seeing and seeing takes place of its own accord. ‘I’ can never be here now in this actual world for ‘I’ am an interloper, an alien in psychic possession of the body. ‘I’ do not belong here.
All this is impossible to imagine which is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. This confidence is born out of knowing, which is derived from the PCE, and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. One does not have to generate confidence oneself – as the religions require of one with regard to their blind faith – the purity of the actual world bestows this confidence upon one. The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore.
A few years ago in a park.