Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by pegembara »

"Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?

"The mind is burning, ideas are burning, mind-consciousness is burning, mind-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

"He finds estrangement in the mind, finds estrangement in ideas, finds estrangement in mind-consciousness, finds estrangement in mind-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
‘Bhikkhus, I say that the end of the world cannot be known, seen, or reached by travelling. Yet, bhikkhus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering,’ I understand the detailed meaning of this synopsis as follows: That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world . The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world. That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.

conceive=create/construct

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.116/en/bo ... ight=false
What's left when all is brought to an end?
Nothing? Or something?
Liberated from what?
...........................................................
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

auto wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 4:14 pm Reading the reddit link, it seem you are against the idea that there is vacuum nothingness, blackout state. I don't know if you are a subtle channel in body meditation person, who would unlock the .. centers in body, head?
You misunderstood. First of all that link is not written by me but I completely agree.

Secondly, the author of that article did not say he is against the blackout state, just that it cannot be taken as stream entry according to suttas.
There is a place in the head where the senses converge, if to switch from seeing to hearing, there is impact felt in that center.. i don't know how micro or macro the cycle is but if to concentrate on it(by focusing on upon yourSelf, which makes the clear aspect more clear, obscure free) then there are couple of empirical experiences before the blackout happens tho and it happens once, which is enough for knowing the transience of the small self and then you first handedly know the True self.
The difference between true and transient self is that the transient self makes you possible to walk around, it is what appears in the body and you become conscious. The true self is behind the lines.
Blackout state is without the transient self, obscurities removed. And when you emerge from that state, in waking state, you will attain the fruition of that state by using regular thinking, based on the state(blackout) you experienced, perhaps couple days later, just reflecting on it and 'the thing what can be removed' is there to be removed and you remove it.
In short the fruition is attained on a regular state based on the state experienced. To shun the sceptics who seem lack details and make wrong allegations.
Knowing True self is just the I AM stage in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html -- it is not the anatman and dependent origination realization (Stage 5 and above) which marks true stream entry.

We are not skeptics, we are just saying this is not stream entry. Knowing true self is enlightenment in Hinduism but not the Buddha's level of enlightenment.

Also you should know there are a few types of blackout states. There is the unconscious type of blackout states advocated by Mahasi tradition, and then there is the 'senses shut, only pure consciousness remain' of Nirvikalpa Samadhi in Hinduism's term. The latter is related to I AM. The former may or may not be related to Thusness Stage 3.
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 2:56 pm Knowing True self is just the I AM stage in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html -- it is not the anatman and dependent origination realization (Stage 5 and above) which marks true stream entry.

We are not skeptics, we are just saying this is not stream entry. Knowing true self is enlightenment in Hinduism but not the Buddha's level of enlightenment.

Also you should know there are a few types of blackout states. There is the unconscious type of blackout states advocated by Mahasi tradition, and then there is the 'senses shut, only pure consciousness remain' of Nirvikalpa Samadhi in Hinduism's term. The latter is related to I AM. The former may or may not be related to Thusness Stage 3.
The blackout state in that form how i described, happens only once. It has pre-steps, like focusing on the space through the eyes in front of you to open the cavity there and 'enter it' resulting in standstill state, it is that same blackout state but earlier form.
And there is another standstill state, it is a state where you acquire the knowledge how to concentrate on the sense of self or presence. It is literal mind-based concentration. Its not about thinking 'who i am'.
Concentrating that way also results in one-pointed concentration on the breath, call it yet another standstill. The standstill state makes it possible to notice sense of self in the breath, rising with it, or were it pre breath standstill..
When breathing there are effects at the ends of breath what can be noticed eventually, it cultivates this substance. Likewise the concentration on the sense of self is a means to cultivate that substance, which will result in opening the cavity(center) in brain.

When the blackout happens, it is due to intense, forced concentration, long term, over the weeks. It is head based. After this blackout, eventually one can notice the ability to concentrate on the place in lower belly which will initiate the process of meditation- that cycle will end with a blackout like state too but its different, there is body awareness or knowledge about the body also the black has form now.

The blackout literally is a state of black luminous state, like night. Its not like there is the True self: it is you being consciously present with no trace of movement in mind, till a thought appears and you emerge from that state. Firsthand experience of the permanent component what people report knowing when they are aware, present, in the now moment.
In waking state you can have those moments too but you(self) are not there, and also only once it is not repeatable till next time. But can see that the awareness comes from dark place or absence of anything.

There is a drop from head, tangible and it reaches the bottom of the belly and there are shock waves. Like something drops into a water. Thus i would call it watered down misuse of taoist or was it some other tradition terms, since the state descriptions are empirical so that you could on spot know these.
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html wrote:"Associating 'death of I' with vivid luminosity of your experience is far too early. This will lead you into erroneous views because there is also the experience of practitioners by way of complete surrendering or elimination (dropping) like Taoist practitioners. ..
There are also experience where the black space has a luminous opening in the sky and little luminous orbs are rising into it. Also the original blackout when emerging from it there is luminous light dot seen, if i remember correctly.

there is no shortage of weird experiences.

And all that is prior the energy starts growing and you can call it out often and that is still mind only, allegedly it eventually becomes real(true positive).
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html wrote:All senses including consciousness are shut and fully absorbed. Awareness of 'anything' is only after emerging from that state.
This is confusing, because it is not(meant, based on the things said in the full paragraph) empirical what is told in the above quote and prolly misleading people who try achieve results on physical grade.
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Jack19990101 »

mjaviem wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:48 am
Jack19990101 wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 3:01 am I think the argument is, in gist,
Is there awareness in Nibbana.

Let's first resolve a simpler argument before taking on that one -
is there awareness in Samadhi.

If we can't agree on the simpler one, it is far reaching to try to argue about nibbana.
Everything is aflamed but all this can be quenched. We've learned that when greed, lust, hatred, and the delusion of a self are extinguished there is no more delight, no more becoming. I would say things are no more, there is only suchness. So I would answer that no, awareness is no more, there is only awareness as such, extinguished. Functioning but not subject to clinging. Cooled down. Just nature, not me, mine, or myself. No interest in it. Not driven by any selfish interest.
I am not quite following this A. But we can talk an even simpler snippet -
Is there always eye consciousness in seeing.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22401
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

Jack19990101 wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:22 pm
mjaviem wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:48 am
Jack19990101 wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 3:01 am I think the argument is, in gist,
Is there awareness in Nibbana.

Let's first resolve a simpler argument before taking on that one -
is there awareness in Samadhi.

If we can't agree on the simpler one, it is far reaching to try to argue about nibbana.
Everything is aflamed but all this can be quenched. We've learned that when greed, lust, hatred, and the delusion of a self are extinguished there is no more delight, no more becoming. I would say things are no more, there is only suchness. So I would answer that no, awareness is no more, there is only awareness as such, extinguished. Functioning but not subject to clinging. Cooled down. Just nature, not me, mine, or myself. No interest in it. Not driven by any selfish interest.
I am not quite following this A. But we can talk an even simpler snippet -
Is there always eye consciousness in seeing.
According to Classical Theravāda and the Sautrāntika eye-consciousness is the seeing. According to the Sarvāstivādins it is the eye which sees.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Jack19990101 »

I am unaware of the 2nd school. For classic Theravadin,

is it possible a misunderstanding -
A teacher states defiled perceiving involves sense consciousness, but mistaken that all states of perceiving is too.

If we consider seeing must involve eye consciousness arising, it blocks from the first two chains in the d.o.

Also it can't make sense of immeasurable form vs limited form, which is the superiority ranking of state of perceiving.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by mjaviem »

Jack19990101 wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:22 pm I am not quite following this A. But we can talk an even simpler snippet -
Is there always eye consciousness in seeing.
There is seeing and there is "I see". There's visual cognition and there is "I cognize visually". One seeing is quenched while the other is aflamed.

Eye-consciousness always is as long as eye and form are. But as soon as the eye and form end to be then eye-consciousness ends to be. The teaching is about ending suffering and nothing more. Don't go looking for explanations of the physical or the metaphysical. We simply need to practice to understand eye-consciousness is not me, not mine, not my self.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by pegembara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:45 pm
According to Classical Theravāda and the Sautrāntika eye-consciousness is the seeing. According to the Sarvāstivādins it is the eye which sees.
And what is the "eye"? Can you find the eye?
Is it the eyeball, cornea, lens, iris, retina, fluid parts, the visual pathways, and the visual cortex?

It rains. What is the it that rains?
I or Eye see. What is it that sees?

Is there a difference?
Or could they actually be the same?

What about thinking?
Is the "I" thinking itself?

What about knowing(the one who knows or Buddho)?
Is there an I there?

Isn't everything the result of causes and conditions, without essence, coreless? Pure emptiness like a dream/mirage.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/wp-cont ... ana-07.pdf
Attachments
released consciousness.JPG
Last edited by pegembara on Sat May 14, 2022 2:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

pegembara wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 1:56 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:45 pm
According to Classical Theravāda and the Sautrāntika eye-consciousness is the seeing. According to the Sarvāstivādins it is the eye which sees.
And what is the "eye"? Can you find the eye?
Is it the eyeball, cornea, lens, iris, retina, fluid parts, the visual pathways, and the visual cortex?

It rains. What is the it that rains?
I or Eye see. What is it that sees?

Is there a difference?
Or could they actually be the same?

What about thinking?
Is the "I" thinking itself?

What about knowing(the one who knows or Buddho)?
Is there an I there?
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/wp-cont ... ana-07.pdf
Also in anatta, a 'Knowing' that could stand alone besides the seen, heard, smelled is deconstructed and seen through.

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/searc ... vani%20Geo

There is only sound
Geovani Geo wrote:

We hear a sound. The immediate deeply inbuilt conditioning says, "hearing ". But there is a fallacy there. There is only sound. Ultimately, no hearer and no hearing. The same with all other senses. A centralized, or expanded, or zero-dimensional inherent perceiver or aware-er is an illusion.

Thusness/John Tan:

Very good.

Means both stanza is clear.
In hearing, no hearer.
In hearing, only sound. No hearing.
Labels: Anatta, Geovani Geo 0 comments | |
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by pegembara »

xabir wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:23 am
We hear a sound. The immediate deeply inbuilt conditioning says, "hearing ". But there is a fallacy there. There is only sound. Ultimately, no hearer and no hearing. The same with all other senses. A centralized, or expanded, or zero-dimensional inherent perceiver or aware-er is an illusion.
What is "hearing" but an empty process?
Sound waves, vibrations, electrical impulses, chemical processes etc.

What is "breathing"?
Muscles contracting, air movement, lung and chest movements, biochemical processes, driven by lack of oxygen and excess CO2.

What does "eating" even mean?

Mere constructions/fabrications.

The human mind cannot pin down reality.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by mjaviem »

xabir wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:23 am ...
There is only sound
...
No hearing.
...
... “‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle:... –SN 12.15
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by pegembara »

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist.

And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.94/en/bod ... light=true
Once there was a layman who came to Ajahn Chah and asked him who Ajahn Chah was. Ajahn Chah, seeing that the spiritual development of the individual was not very advanced, pointed to himself and said, “This, this is Ajahn Chah.”

On another occasion, someone else asked Ajahn Chah the same question. This time, however, seeing that the questioner’s capac- ity to understand the Dhamma was higher, Ajahn Chah answered by saying, “Ajahn Chah? There is no Ajahn Chah.”
Both times Ajahn Chah was not lying!
There is no real Ajahn Chah, only the unreal appearing as real!
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

As You Like It.
W Shakespeare
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:23 am Also in anatta, a 'Knowing' that could stand alone besides the seen, heard, smelled is deconstructed and seen through.

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/searc ... vani%20Geo

There is only sound
Geovani Geo wrote:

We hear a sound. The immediate deeply inbuilt conditioning says, "hearing ". But there is a fallacy there. There is only sound. Ultimately, no hearer and no hearing. The same with all other senses. A centralized, or expanded, or zero-dimensional inherent perceiver or aware-er is an illusion.

Thusness/John Tan:

Very good.

Means both stanza is clear.
In hearing, no hearer.
In hearing, only sound. No hearing.
Labels: Anatta, Geovani Geo 0 comments | |
What about pure mind? there is an actual layer(clinging aggregates). Deconstructing awareness seem off, since one need tag the true mind instead of the clinging aggregates. Clinging aggregates remain intact.
surangama wrote: Your bodies and minds are just appearances
within the wonderful, bright and pure Profound Mind.
..
‘(Mind’s) dimness creates (dull) emptiness and both, in
the darkness, unite with it to become form. The mingling of
form with false thinking causes the latter to take the shape of
a body, stirred by accumulated causes within and drawn to
externals without. Such inner disturbance is mistaken for the
nature of mind, hence the false view of a mind dwelling in the
physical body and the failure to realize that this body as well
as external mountains, rivers, space and the great earth are
but phenomena within the wondrous bright True Mind.
clinging aggregates,
https://suttacentral.net/mn44/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:“Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity.
“Pañca kho ime, āvuso visākha, upādānakkhandhā sakkāyo vutto bhagavatā,
That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
seyyathidaṁ—rūpupādānakkhandho, vedanupādānakkhandho, saññupādānakkhandho,
(based on surangama sutra quote)how do you get rid of the false view about the mind dwelling in the body? it doesn't suggest that the perceiver is an illusion, but because of dull emptiness there is the misperception of a perceiver in the body.
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

pegembara wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:31 am Mere constructions/fabrications.

The human mind cannot pin down reality.
Mind has a concept, derived from what one goes through at the moment. This concept is assigned to a physical datum. Physical datum, what matters there is the feeling of heaviness or difficulty, prodding it there could cause a perception to arise which has a kamma object, after which its feeling of lightness or ease. Kamma object is developed like over the months, years before it is seen without the physical datum.
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

mjaviem wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 3:03 am
xabir wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:23 am ...
There is only sound
...
No hearing.
...
... “‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle:... –SN 12.15
See: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/ ... eness.html

There's No Such Thing As Awareness / Redditors Who Realized Anatta
Also see:

Kenneth Folk on Anatta
Three levels of understanding Non-Dual
No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness


Redditors who clearly realized anatta:

https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha (Kyle Dixon/asunthatneversets)
https://www.reddit.com/user/danielmingram
https://www.reddit.com/user/HakuninMatata
https://www.reddit.com/user/RealDharma

The last redditor wrote something quite good here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comme ... awareness/

There's No Such Thing As Awareness

Anecdote
Five days ago I posted an anecdote thread on /r/Buddhism here labelled "Do Nothing or Do Something?". Something else was missing though. I know it's only been five days but I've had a much deeper insight in between that and now.
This all started from the Buddha's own words in the Sabba Sutta:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All?
Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds,
nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body
& tactile sensations, intellect & ideas.
This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will
describe another,' if questioned on what
exactly might be the grounds for his
statement, would be unable to explain,
and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."

When I first read this sutta in the past, it never gave any insight. With this new insight, I suddenly understand what the Buddha meant - it has an extremely deep meaning! To me at least, he was describing the true nature of Mind, of reality.
I'll start with the backstory.
My past was in Theravada, Thai Forest, the Pali Canon, as well as other schools of Buddhism like Mahayana (Pure land, Ch'an/Zen, Tiantai, and so on) as well as the Vajrayana (Nyingmapa's Dzogchen, Kagyu's Mahamudra, Gelug's Prasangika, and so on). All of that and personal inquiry/exploration with meditation, along with the help of an eminent monastic teacher, built up to this.
I've done nearly my whole Buddhism life thinking there was awareness. Ajahn Chah taught the Mind as Awareness, the Mahayana taught the purified Eighth Consciousness as Awareness, the Vajrayana taught the Awareness (rigpa) as the base beyond that of the eight consciousnesses.
My understanding moved in this sequence:

Awareness looks at objects. There is a clear witness and a clear object being witnessed. So if we witness the breath, we call it breath meditation; If we witness a kasina, it is kasina meditation.
Awareness with varying occupation with objects. This means that awareness can be focused like a laser to produce intensified jhana states (Samatha, called 'Hard Jhana' by some). If it was less focused and more lightly balanced, it is called 'Soft Jhana'. However, also, this means awareness can be completely expansive to encompass all the four bases of mindfulness arising and passing away (also called Vipassana).
Awareness is not a Subject. Before, I had the insight of there being a subject and an object - so there was a subject-object duality. No matter how I meditated, there was always a sense of there being a meditator when I emerged. In this phase, I suddenly understood that any feeling, sensation or perception that arose as a 'sense of self' are actually Objects. There are never any Subjects. For example, an eyeball can only see things outside, it cannot see itself. Likewise, Awareness cannot see itself, it can only see other Objects - therefore any sense of self is necessarily an object.

So reaching the 3rd phase was liberating and freeing. I thought I had reached a good understanding of emptiness. But then I was so wrong.
This fourth insight phase hit me five days after my previous post, and I would call this insight "No Such Thing As Awareness".
This was a development from the third phase. I had already said that an eyeball is not able to see itself, and that it can only see things outside of itself. The Awareness likewise, can only see things outside of itself and not Awareness itself. This is where everything was wrong.
By assuming that there was something outside of Awareness, I made it a Awareness-Object duality. It was a duality of Perception and Non-Perception. Even though Awareness is not a Subject, by assuming that Awareness can only see something outside of itself already means that there are two things: Awareness and outside-Awareness-objects.
My insight is this: Awareness IS the object.
Referring back to the Blessed One's words in the Sabba Sutta, he had said -

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.

This was a perfect description of everything in reality, everything in experience, everything that can ever be right now in the moment, in experience, in time and space. This is what everyone experiences.
Buddha then continues:

Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Did the Buddha ever talk about Awareness as part of the All? No way! Because it lies out of range, it is Nibbana. It is completely impossible to have something outside of the Six Senses.
This corresponded exactly to my own understanding here, because I realized that when I saw a bird flying out there in the sky, this bird was not something apart from my mind. It WAS my mind, it WAS awareness.
How far was the bird to my mind? Zero distance! If it had to travel distance or take time, then I would not have experienced this bird right here and now. It HAD to be part of my mind!
Now the paradox is that the Sixth Sense, the mental faculty, is going to become noisy and construct an 'experiencer', a Subject. It is going to also generate a false sense of an Awareness.
If you really, really, really analyse this right now in your experience. You will suddenly realise this clear as day: Awareness is a complete inference.
If you try to look for your Awareness, you will find nothing. You may find a sensation, a feeling, or a perception. But Awareness cannot exist, it only exists as a complete inference, a conjecture, a made-up projection.
This brings to me a famous Zen story between the First and Second Patriarch:

“Bring your mind here and I will pacify it for you,” replied Bodhidharma.

“I have searched for my mind, and I cannot take hold of it,” said the Second Patriarch.

“Now your mind is pacified,” said Bodhidharma.

Why? Because there is no Mind to grasp onto. There is no stain-able Awareness. It is a mere projection, inference, conjecture. Again, the Sixth Zen Patriarch illustrated this wonderfully in his poem:

Originally, Bodhi has no tree

And a mirror has no stand

If originally there is nothing (true nature is pure)

So where can dust rest on?

However, when the master of the Sixth Zen Patriarch saw this, he shook his head and said that he was not enlightened, asking Hui-Neng to see him in his room in private where he gave further pointing-out instructions and transmission.
The reason why is this... the Mind should not be thought of as Space either. Empty-space is also a perception, it is within the realm of appearances.
Instead, the Mind is whatever appears as the Six Senses.
Suzuki Roshi very wonderfully put it this way:

You may say, “The bird is singing there—over there.” But we think, you know—bird—when we hear the bird, bird is “me,” you know, already. I—actually I am not listening to [laughs] bird. Bird is here, you know, in my mind already, and I am singing with the bird. “Peep-peep-peep.” [Laughs.]

When we see other beings, it is not "other beings". It is our own mind. "Other beings" is "me". "I" am "other beings". There is no difference whatsoever, because "this being" appears with "other beings" as Awareness itself.
There is a certain freedom, of liberation, that happens when you suddenly realize that Awareness has always been a mind-trick, or at least, "the way we understand Awareness". There is no looker, there is just the looked. The looked itself is Awareness already. There is no looker, no separate thing that makes it lookable, any other processing deviates from what is true right here in experience.
The Mahayana and Vajrayana like to say - "A Bodhisattva is not attached to samsara or nibbana." Samsara is when the Six Senses are full, Nibbana is when it is outside the range of the Six Senses. Perhaps, just perhaps, in my very limited understanding, this is referring to not clinging onto an 'empty awareness space' and a 'filled awareness with objects'.
Hope you liked my little essay. I do not claim to know anything, neither do I want to argue for my essay. I do not reinforce whatever I've written here, neither do I disagree with it. I hope peace will be with you.



=================


Kyle Dixon


Manage

Like
· Reply · 8h
Kyle Dixon

Kyle Dixon I wasn’t sure what to make of this remark though, where he is stating there is always necessarily a mirror.
Manage

Like
· Reply · 8h

Soh Wei Yu Kyle Dixon my impression from reading his posts is that his insight is not very stable. Hovering between Thusness Stage 4 and 5

Recently he wrote about space and content. Seems to be falling back to the fault he originally refuted



============

Update 2021:

I have seen his most recent posts, seems his insights into Anatta and Dependent Origination has stabilized. Worth reading. See RealDharma's response on refuting Brahman:

E.g.

crazymusicman
53 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago

My favorite analogy is a radio and a radio wave.

Consciousness is the radiowave, invisibly vibrating across the universe.

Our bodies are the radio, picking up the consciousness signal.

We are neither the radio nor the radio wave - we are the music.

edit: some have pointed out my error in that this drifts too far away from the Buddhist notion of anatta, or no-self. My apologies, I am forever a beginner.
RealDharma
4 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago

Unfortunately (also to OP: /u/followTheDharma), this is reifying the notion of a universal self (aka Brahman), which is more akin to the lines of Hinduism, in particular, Advaita Vedanta. This is not compatible with the Buddhist teachings. In fact, if you believe in that view, you are going against the Buddha's teaching of anatta (without atta/self).

Why? Because tathagatagarba does not mean a common substance that animates all life. In fact, the Buddha actively denounces that view here:

The Buddha replied, “Mahamati, the tathagata-garba of which I speak is not the same as the self mentioned by followers of other paths. Mahamati, when I speak about the tathagata-garbha, sometimes I call it ‘emptiness,’ ‘formlessness,’ or ‘intentionlessness,’ or ‘realm of reality,’ ‘dharma nature,’ or ‘dharma body,’ or ‘nirvana,’ ‘what is devoid of self-existence,’ or ‘what neither arises nor ceases,’ or ‘original quiescence,’ or ‘intrinsic nirvana,’ or similar expressions.

“It is to put an end to the fear foolish beings have about the expression ‘no self’ that the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones proclaim the teaching of the tathagata-garbha as a projectionless realm devoid of fabrications. Mahamati, bodhisattvas of the present and the future should not become attached to any view of a self.

“Take for example a potter who applies such things as manual labor, water, a stick, a wheel, and a string to a lump of clay to make different kinds of vessels. The Tathagata is also like this, applying wisdom and a variety of skillful means to what has no self and is free from projection. Sometimes I speak about the tathagatagarbha and sometimes no self. Thus, the tathagata-garbha of which I speak is not the same as the self spoken of by followers of other paths. This is what is meant by the teaching of the tathagata-garbha. The tathagata-garbha is taught to attract those members of other paths who are attached to a self so that they will give up their projection of an unreal self and will enter the threefold gate of liberation and aspire to attain unexcelled, complete enlightenment forthwith. This is why the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones speak in this manner about the tathagata-garbha. To speak otherwise would be to agree with the followers of other paths. Therefore, Mahamati, in order to avoid the views of followers of other paths, you should rely on the selfless tathagata-garbha.”

Therefore, you should understand that just like there is nothing to grasp at in space, tathagata-garbha is pointing to this lack of any form of inherent self (or for this matter, "Self").

It is like saying "nothing". Does 'nothing' mean anything at all? No, because there is no-thing you can point your finger to in 'nothing'. In the same way, you are taking the meaning of tathagata-garbha, or emptiness, to be a self, when it is pointing to no-self.

Tathagata-garbha is in fact, pointing directly to the heart of Buddhism, which is the interdependent origination of things, which basically is expressed by this:

"If this exists, that exists.

if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist."

crazymusicman
3 points · 1 year ago

well I certainly appreciate the lesson, stranger. I'll edit the comment.

Unfortunately there is no "beginner" flair for this subreddit or I would be using that. I am always relying on what I so far understand.

I have not been educated on Buddhisms dis-belief in consciousness. Consciousness is real, and it seems to me the only thing which cannot be an illusion. Not the 'reality' consciousness perceives, but the actual awareness cannot be an illusion. The content of consciousness is always changing, but the awareness is ever-present. As I understand Buddhism's no-self, this consciousness is not a sufficient condition for some permanent trait, as it is always reliant on external phenomena as part of the interdependent origination you brought up. But I was not aware Buddhism rejected consciousness as an existing characteristic.

How I interpret that section you've quoted (you got a source by the way?) is that Buddha-nature is the capacity to be completely in the moment without attachment. I suppose this capacity does not require a consciousness, but the Buddha seemed preeminently focused on the suffering of living beings (a consequence of consciousness).

How I see the tathagata-garba is the capacity to remain aware and present as reality constantly shifts where there is no distinct self which things happen to or because, rather things are seen as indiscriminate.
RealDharma
4 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago

you got a source by the way?

The Lankavatara Sutra.

I have not been educated on Buddhisms dis-belief in consciousness.

There is no denial of consciousness (vijñāna) in Buddhism. In fact, its actual translation in some texts is 'dualistic consciousness'. It is not a denial of consciousness, because without consciousness, how can you see, hear, taste, smell, touch and think?

In SN25.3, however, Buddha says:

Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

The error is not in seeing the results of the function of what you call awareness, but taking awareness to be a singular real thing. For example, it is undeniable that there are sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touch and thoughts. We are not denying that. In fact, Buddha says that for every sense-object, there is a corresponding consciousness.

So actually, there are six different sense-consciousnesses:

The eye-consciousness in dependence with sight and the eye-faculty

The ear-consciousness, sounds, ear-faculty...

... The thinking-consciousness, thoughts, thinking-faculty

The error comes when we start to group all these six together within one singular boundary - we reify the sense of a global consciousness that extends throughout these six. In the Mahayana teachings, this is explained as the seventh consciousness grasping at what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched or thought of as Objects, and at the seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching/thinking faculties as the Subject.

Here is an analogy:

When we say the word 'Shapes' what comes to mind? We can say rectangles, squares, stars, circles, lines, polygons, parallelograms, and more. However, if we simply said the word "shape", this word by itself would not mean anything without the rectangles, squares, stars [...].

This is what we call in language, an abstract noun. In the dictionary, it says this as the definition: "a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object".

In the same way, we have a tendency to abstract-ize things and form very concrete ideas of them existing. Does it mean that rectangles, squares [...] are not shapes? It does not mean that. However, the word "shape" by itself is very meaningless - we conventionally call it a shape for the sake of convenience. In fact, we just assume that it exists just for the sake of convenience.

In the same way, when sights, sounds, tastes, smells, sensations, and thoughts arise, we group them all together as "sense objects" or "experience". These are just names, just conceptual designations, that are abstract ideas pointing to what is directly there in experience. The problem when taken to extreme is that it is solidified as "Objects".

In the converse way, when the seeing-consciousness [...] are grouped in an abstract way, we take it as a singular consciousness. Even more erroneously, we can even go as far as to extend this abstraction to every being on the planet. Again, this is just a name, an abstract idea, pointing to the six consciousnesses. When taken to the extreme, it is solidified as a "Subject".

In fact, this subject-object duality is the root of a lot of problems. We love abstract-ifying things and then solidifying that abstracted idea into something that seems very real. For example, we can take a bunch of common bodily sensations and think that we are "right here". If you examine carefully, these sensations have already disappeared, and are replaced with another bunch of rapidly arising-and-passing-away sensations in random locations.

To end this reply, I would also like to quote this sutta (Ud 1.10) which points directly to the heart of no self:

'In the seen will be merely what is seen;

in the heard will be merely what is heard;

in the sensed will be merely what is sensed;

in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'

In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen...

in the cognized is merely what is cognized,

then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.'

When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,'

then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.'

When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,'

then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.

Just this is the end of suffering."
Post Reply