"Sometimes the experiences of practice are given a lot of importance by new practitioners, who become attached to them. But actually, although experiences inspire us to have faith so that we can go beyond ordinary samsaric phenomena, having experiences means that there is still a connection with substance. All experiences only exist in relation to the practitioner's path of enlightenment and not in relation to the result of enlightenment, since they still exist within circumstances. As long as there is attachment, there is experience. All practice has the intention of increasing new experiences in order to release us from former experiences until we are released from all experiences to the natural quality of enlightenment." ~ Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, "White Sail," Chapter on "Love and Faith"
For any Vajrayana practitioner out there... recommend new book here...
http://buddhaspace.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-monumental-work-of-over-350-pages.html
Recommend this set of Dohas (Songs of Realisation)
http://www.dharmasanctuary.org/pdf/Doha_Treasures.pdf
Originally posted by Fugazzi:With any practice one’s mind is involved. For eg when i say ’’I meditate or practice ..’’ As long as this questioning(#) does not arise and that is: who is the ’’I’’ who is … n for what and for whom, the mind is at play and the meditation that is practised is to most likely reach/attain a goal. Any goal, any craving, any desire does not emanate from one’s being (presence or present) but from dipping into the past aka knwoledge, books, someone, sutras, texts and …. it cannot be from the present or presence of the moment. If one maintains this stance of practising without the (#) one is alreadly futurizing and one may reach/attain to that desired goal or … cos it is herenow; the practice is to get something that is not already here.
However, when the (# ) is there, the mind is challenged to find out who is actually meditatiing? When one introspects one would realise that sth is absent and one is striving to attain what is absent - stemming from this one denies the presence of what is already present. Antything that is gained ffrom such a practice is temporal, it wont stay, cos its nature is not of eternity!
However, the questioning of who is the meditator and what is the purpose of meditation may elicit ''answers'', which is only possible on introspection.Realization is never a discovery but a a recognising and of course, one has to dig the well of one’s being and the removing of all concepts, traditions, isms and the not so palatable emotions,feelings or … is bound to surface. All that is needed is this: earnestness and longing to recognise
Expereince that is psycholoigcal and having some social relevance is not a reality, existential experience is reality. Of course, the latter cannot be conceptualized cos one’s perceiving is always relative to one’s conditioning, beleigfs and ….
If the implication of view is not understood, then one may get the impression that all that is necessary is to realize the I AM, the pure Beingness, and abide in the pure non-conceptual Presence-beingness 24/7.
However, once the Implication of View is understood, you will understand also why learning the books, the texts, trying to have correct understanding is so important to advance on one's realization.
Also, practice, in the form of contemplation, is necessary for realization.
I wrote in http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/443643?page=1#post_10459560
Excerpt:
Implication of Views
The implication of views wasn’t very clear to me until more recent
months (some time after I realized Anatta and Shunyata), when I
began to see that what was causing grasping, clinging, the wrong
way of perception, sense of self and so on was actually the latent
view of inherency and duality. Even though previously realization
has arisen that clearly done damage to such views, the impact of
views in our experience and living wasn’t fully clear until more
recently.
What is view? View is a deeply held notion, belief, position,
stance, with regards to the reality of self and objects. This view
has direct implications on how we view things - how we form a
mental conception of self and things which causes grasping and
contraction. When you want to cut ignorance, you go for its roots,
not cut off its leaves and branches. In this analogy, sense of
self/Self is its manifest form (leaves and branches) in the form of
a sense of contraction, alienation and self-grasping in the form of
craving and emotions, while the latent view is its roots.
As an example: if you view that your self abides in the heart
center, then you may sense a contraction in the heart center, if
your belief/position is that your self abides in the head, you may
sense a contraction or clinging there, as well as that sense of
alienation from the sensate world at large, a sense that there is
this seer behind the eyes looking outwards at the world in a
distance. That felt-sense of contraction and alienation, that sense
of self/Self, is its manifest form, while the
self-view/position/belief/ignorance is its root. This is why we
cannot successively get rid of the sense of self/Self by will and
effort without effectively cutting off self-view from its root
through a paradigm shift via realization. There times of peak
experiences which everyone has experienced some time in their lives
(usually in childhood) where the sense of a self/Self goes into
temporary abeyance and there is just the sensate world, magnificent
and wonderful, untainted by any sense of self or emotional
contents, just the pristine purity and clarity of the sensate world
at large. Yet most of us tend to forget those moments, and continue
our lives not transformed by such experiences at all. Why is that
so? Our self-view is intact, and no amount of glimpses of PCE (Pure
Consciousness Experience) or NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual,
direct, immediate mode of perception) is fundamentally going to
transform us unless we cut off the roots of ignorance.
It should be understood that these latent tendencies or view of
inherency and duality runs so deep down in our psyche that it is
not merely a matter of conceptual belief but a deeply rooted,
habitual way of perceiving things through a particular paradigm or
framework... so deep and habitual that it cannot be removed even if
one has come to an intellectual conclusion or inference that the
doctrine of anatta and emptiness is actually something that makes
more sense than the view of duality and self. For instance, I
myself have faith and am convinced intellectually about the truth
of anatta and emptiness way before I had a direct experiential
realization that effectively resulted in the liberation of false
view. But I can say in those years where I remain a mere
intellectual or conceptual conviction or inferred understanding of
this matter, I do not experience any sense of a freedom from
self-contraction, from afflictive emotions, and so on... all these
come from tendencies so deeply latent that it cannot be resolved by
a mere intellectual transformation of views and beliefs (such as by
training yourself in the Madhyamaka reasonings). For false view run
far deeper into our psyche that require you to truly realize things
from experiential awakening/knowledge and vision of things as they
are.
Also, a lot of people think 'The Right View is No View' which is
true since all metaphysical views pertain to false views of
existence and non-existence, however the way they go about
resolving the problem is by 'forgetting all concepts'. They think
that by suspending all beliefs, by forgetting all concepts and
sitting quietly in a state of pure awareness, somehow merely by
that, they can overcome false views. Let me offer something for you
think about: every day we go into a state of deep sleep where all
our beliefs, concepts, views, thoughts are temporarily suspended.
But when we wake up, what happens? We are as ignorant as ever. Our
framework of viewing self and reality is still the same. We still
experience the same problems, the same sufferings, the same
afflictions. This analogy should clearly show you that sustaining a
state of non-conceptuality or mastering a state of 'forgetting the
self' is not going to result in a fundamental change or
transformation or effortless seeing, unless true wisdom and insight
arises. I shall offer two more analogies which are related: a
person deluded as to see a rope as a snake, will live in fear,
trying to tame the snake, trying to get rid of the snake, escape
from the snake. Maybe he managed a way to distant himself from the
snake, yet the belief that the snake is still there is nevertheless
going to haunt him.
Even if he managed to master the state of
forgetting the snake, he is nonetheless in a state of delusion. He
has not seen as it truly is: the snake is simply a rope. In another
analogy, the child believes in the existence of santa claus and
awaits eagerly for arrival of his presents on Christmas day. One
day the parents decide that it's time the child be told the truth
about santa claus. To do this, beating the hell out of the child is
not going to work. You simply need to tell the child that santa
claus doesn't truly exist. In these analogies, I try to showcase
how trying to deal with the problem of false views through means of
'forgetting conceptuality, forgetting the self' is as useless or
deluded as 'trying to forget the snake, trying to tame the snake,
trying to beat the hell out of the child' when the simple, direct
and only true solution is only to realize that there is only a
rope, and that santa claus isn't real. Only Awakening liberates us
from a bondage that is without basis.
Without the right contemplation and instilling of right view, you
can 'sit quietly in pure awareness' for an entire lifetime without
waking up. I cannot stress this point enough because this is a very
prevalent erroneous understanding - even someone at the I AM level
of realization will talk about non-conceptuality, non-conceptual
Presence-Awareness and think it is final. Same goes for other
stages. By overemphasizing on non-conceptuality, they will miss the
subtler aspects of insight, they will fail to grasp right view,
they will fail to tackle the subtler imprints and mental framework
of viewing dualistically and inherently. They will not even see
their framework of perceiving self and things as false that is
causing some subtle effort and clinging (to a Self or to an actual
ground here/now or to an actual world), just like you will never
see your dream as a dream until well... you wake up.
As Zen writer and speaker Ted Biringer says, "Accurate
understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time,
authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without
accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right
understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic
realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even
the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen
practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should
inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his
guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is
that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do
the inquiring."
Non-conceptuality does not mean non-attachment. For
example when you realize the I AM, you cling to that pure
non-conceptual beingness and consciousness as your true identity.
You cling to that pure non-conceptual thought very tightly – you
wish to abide in that purest state of presence 24/7. This clinging
prevents us from experiencing Presence AS the Transience. This is a
form of clinging to something non-conceptual. So know that going
beyond concepts does not mean overcoming the view of inherency and
its resultant clinging clinging. Even in the substantial non-dual
phase, there is still clinging to a Source, a One Mind – even
though experience is non-dual and non-conceptual. But when inherent
view is dissolved, we see there is absolutely nothing we can cling
to, and this is the beginning of Right View and the Path to Nirvana
– the cessation of clinging and craving.
So as you can see, non-conceptual, even non-dual experience does
not liberate - so we have to use the intellect to understand right
view, and then investigate it in our experience. This is like a
fire that in the end burns up the candle it is burning on,
consuming itself in the process, leaving no trace even of itself.
In other words, conceptual understanding of right view, coupled
with investigative practice, results in true realization that
dissolves concepts leaving non-conceptual wisdom - but without that
process of investigating and trying to understand right view,
merely remaining in a state of non-conceptuality isn't going to
help you get free. People who fear engaging in thought, trying to
understand the right view, challenging their views and
understanding of things, are unfortunately going to stick with
their own deluded framework of perceiving things.
Now having diverted our attention so much, let us return to the
subject at hand.
There are two kinds of views (with sub categories):
1. View of Subject-Object Duality
The view of subject-object duality is prevalent in everyone up to
the realization of I AM. If you have not realized I AM, it is felt
as a sense of alienation, separation, distance, between I as a
subjective perceiver inside my head looking at the world 'outside'
from a distance.
Having realized the I AM, one no longer doubts one's Existence,
Pure Presence, Consciousness. It cannot be unseen, because
luminosity is the unconditioned characteristic or essence of mind
that can never be removed from sight. In that moment of
realization, there is no longer any doubts as it is a direct
non-conceptual realization of a fundamental fact of reality.
Yet, due to the taints of dualistic view, this luminosity is
abstracted from other experiences (from sense perceptions,
thoughts, etc). Due to the view that there is a subjective self, or
observer, apart from the perceived objects, there is always this
split between Me, the Observing Awareness, and 'that' - the
observed objects. Even if one perceives Awareness to be an infinite
background container and manifestations to be finite appearances
popping in and out of this background container awareness like
waves on the ocean, there is always this split between 'awareness'
and 'contents of awareness'. Contents of awareness appears 'in'
awareness, but is not awareness. The view that Awareness is a
container for phenomena but is not a phenomena is a kind of
dualistic view/position/stance that is unfounded, but in ignorance
taken to be true. This is the subject-object dualistic division.
When one realizes non-duality, one no longer sees awareness as the
background container of appearances.
However even though dualistic bond is gone and one no longer sees
distance, separation, inside or outside, but an intimacy with
everything, nonetheless there can still be the bond of inherency -
seeing Awareness as something inherent (independent, unchanging), a
subtle clinging to the view of a Subjective Self even though
usually seen as impersonal [in fact probably seen to be universal]
and furthermore without subject-object division: 'IT' is
inseparable from, and manifesting itself as, all
appearances.
2. View of Inherency
The view of inherency is twofold: the view that a subjective self
[whether personal or universal], and the view that
objects/phenomena have intrinsic, objective substantiality (whether
gross such as 'a tree', or subtle, such as elemental existence of
atoms).
All metaphysical views come down to 'is' or 'is not'. Either
something exist, or something does not exist. The former is
eternalism, the latter is nihilism. Both views are extremes and to
be rejected according to Buddha.
What is subjective self? Self is seen as being an unchanging
subject - in other words, moment by moment, the objects of the
field of experience come and go, but there is this unchanging
subject or Self that remains unchanged and independent of the
objective field of things and events. There is something that is me
(what I feel as subjectively existing, unchanging and independent),
and something that is not me (that which is experienced apart from
myself). The former is subjective self, the latter is the objective
pole.
For example, the view that there is a self in here, in this body,
that remains unchanged even as the body undergoes birth, growing,
ageing, and so on, even death for some (view of eternalism - a soul
remains unchanged and continues into eternity even after death) or
perhaps only in this life (view of annihilation - the self ceases
upon death) constitutes the view of a subjective self or soul. If
you were to lose your hand, you still feel "I am the same old me".
That view that the self remains unchanged pertains to the stance or
position of an existent self.
However, exactly how we view subjective self can get more
complicated than that, and this view changes and transforms
accordingly, it differs from person to person, and depends also on
your spiritual practice and experience (if you have one).
The view of what Self is can be very coarse or subtle. For most
people, their view of self is not very clear - if you ask them do
you think you exist? They will say 'yeah, of course I do'. If you
ask them, do you feel you exist as a self? They will say 'yes, of
course I FEEL [perceive/project/believe/sense] that I do exist'.
But if you ask them, where you located? They usually cannot answer
you immediately. They may give you vague answers like, well, I'm
here, of course. But if you probe them where is the 'here' they
refer to, they need to think. They aren't sure (unless they have
contemplated about it before). You ask them, are you located in
your hands, your legs, and so on? Doesn't seem like likely
candidates since if you remove your hands or legs, you still feel
like you're there, unchanged - in other words hands and legs are
seen as possessions (mine) rather than self (me). As they try to
pinpoint where the Self is, usually some will point to the center
behind the eyes inside the head, or somewhere in the heart region.
Depending on where they cling to as their seat of the Self, they
will feel some tension, tightness, and contraction to that region
of self.
Also, regardless of where you pinpoint your self to be at, there is
always this ongoing sense of alienation from the sensate world at
large, a sense that there is this seer behind the eyes looking
outwards at the world in a distance. This clinging to a subjective
self veils us from having an intimate, non-dual, non-conceptual,
direct, immediate mode of perception of the sensate world as it is.
It keeps "us" in a distance (there will always be a sense of
distance when there is a sense of a separate self).
This view of self transforms when you undertake practice of
self-inquiry. At the moment of self-realization, the view of Self
completely undergoes a life-changing shift. There is this
undoubtable insight of what Consciousness IS, what Existence IS,
what Presence IS. And this Consciousness is undoubtably present,
intimate, YOU, closer than your breathe. This undeniable fact of
BEING is taken to be the true self. It has nothing to do with the
body, nothing to do with the world... so the previous views of a
self being inside the body or having to do with a body is
overthrown. Rather, all experiences (including the body and mind)
are seen to be happening TO a background pure
existence-consciousness... and soon (for me in two months) it
becomes the ultimate impersonal container of everything - the
trees, the door, the floor, the birds, the mountains, everything is
not happening outside of me, but is all happening in one universal
space - Consciousness doesn't belong to me any more than it belongs
to the door or the cat's, it is all just One Existence, One Life
expressing itself in every form and being.
At this point the view of Self becomes more impersonal - you see
that this entire universe is simply an expression of this
impersonal, universal space, and that this universal source is what
you truly are. So again, the view of Self shifts accordingly to
your progression in insight and experience. Still, the view of Self
is tightly held - coarse in fact, because now you have a very solid
(rather than vague) sense of what You are, in contrast to the
uncertainty of what Self is before Self-Realization.
This view can potentially be a hindrance to progress because if you
cling too tightly to the view that this I AM or Beingness (which
actually simply is a manifestation pertaining to the non-conceptual
thought realm) is your truest identity, something most special and
ultimate, you will crave or cling very tightly to it. This will
prevent non-dual from being experienced in other sense doors and
experiences.
But if you are able to let go of this clinging, focus on advancing
the I AM in terms of the four aspects and with the right pointers
and contemplation, your practice progresses and you will come to a
point of realization that Awareness/Consciousness/Existence has
never been separated in terms of a subject and an object. This is
the point where dualistic view is removed (as mentioned earlier)
but not the inherent self view yet. All perceptions, experiences,
manifestations, sights and sounds are completely non-dual with
Consciousness. In other words, they are not happening TO or IN
Consciousness, but AS Consciousness. Consciousness is itself taking
shape and experiencing itself as the mountains, the rivers,
everything IS Consciousness in expression, everything is
Consciousness, All is Mind. At this point, the view of Self shifts
again - now it is no longer a Subjective Witness, the sense of a
subjective Witness completely dissolves... into One Mind, an
indivisible/undivided field of Consciousness expressing itself as
everything. The view of Self at this point takes this One Mind,
this undivided One Naked Awareness to be the Self. Even though it
is indivisible from everything, expresses itself in everything,
nevertheless this One Awareness is unchanging and truly existing.
Non-duality at this point is understood not as no duality (in which
case there is absolutely no Subject, not even an unchanging
Awareness), but as the inseparability of subject and object, a
collapsing of dualities into Oneness. As an analogy, Awareness is
seen to be an unchanging mirror, which nevertheless cannot be
separated or divided from the contents in the mirror - Awareness
and the contents of Awareness are completely One - there is only
One seamless field of experiencing - the One Naked Awareness. Even
though seamless, even though not seen as anything personal or
separate, Awareness is still seen as an unchanging Subjective Self
manifesting itself as the field of experience. So this seamless One
is now deemed as the Self.
When we come to the realization of Anatta, the last vestige of
(Subjective) Self-View collapses, resulting in what Buddha calls
Stream-Entry and the eradication of self-view (sakkayaditthi). At
this point, NOTHING at all - not even Consciousness can be deemed
as a Self. And how is this so? By seeing Awareness, deemed as Self,
as also not-self, in the manner of 'in seeing always just the
seen', 'seeing is just the experience of sight' - not I, not me,
not mine, only a selfless process of self-luminous activities
without agency. You know self-view has been overthrown when there
is through experiential knowledge and vision that there is no self
to be found inside or apart from the process of five aggregation.
There is simply no You in reference to what is seen and experienced
in any manner (to, in, etc) - in seeing just the seen. At this
point you see as the suttas state, that the aggregation cannot be
said to be happening TO a self, IN a self, nor can it be deemed a
self exists IN the aggregates (like a soul located inside the
body). As the Buddha explains, "But, lady, how does self-identity
not come about?"
"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble
ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed &
disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity,
is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume
form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in
the self, or the self as in form." in Udana Sutta, and in Bahiya
Sutta he says "When for you there will be only the seen in
reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard,
only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in
reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms
of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you
there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder
nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Once the Subjective Self-View has been dissolved through anatta
realization, the view of objective existence still occurs. Even
though there is no view or sense that there is a seer seeing the
red flower - only the experience of the red flower, nevertheless
the view of objective existence is that the sensate world we
experience actually references an objectively existing world, such
that if I close my eye, the red flower I previously saw is actually
still truly existing out there in a substantial manner. Perhaps,
for more intellectual people, they can adopt a more agnostic kind
of view with regards to the world - perhaps it is real, perhaps it
is unreal, but whether the world truly exists out there however
cannot be known by me. Or perhaps, they can even adopt the view of
emptiness (through inference and study on emptiness teachings), yet
without true experiential realization, the view of objective
existence cannot be dissolved... just as even if you adopt the view
of anatta through inference (through analogies such as the
Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning), nonetheless as I said earlier,
with this inferred understanding you will still experience clinging
to the sense of self, a sense of contraction and alienation despite
the intellectual acceptance of the doctrine, until you have
resolved this matter through direct experiential insight.
However, to get a sense of how this view of objective existence is
actually untenable, with the example of the red flower I said
earlier as an example (that whether I close my eyes, the red flower
truly exists out there), consider this: If we were to observe a red
flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness”
only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so.
Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot
perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the
mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic
structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere
found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes
and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence
is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes,
form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances
without inherent/objective existence.
When realization is experientially realized, the entire sensate
world, including all thoughts, are seen to be completely empty of
any inherent objective existence. You can no longer believe or view
objects as having an independent core or substance out there. There
is simply no way of clinging at sensate world in terms of 'the
flower exists in this way' - there is no more clinging to objects
and characteristics or objects as possessing certain
characteristics, no longer false views about being able to locate
or pin down an actuality of objects, no more grasping them as truly
existent. Everything appears as completely illusory yet vividly
appearing, having a magical quality (literally 'appearing like
magic') to them.
Originally posted by Fugazzi:With any practice one’s mind is involved. For eg when i say ’’I meditate or practice ..’’ As long as this questioning(#) does not arise and that is: who is the ’’I’’ who is … n for what and for whom, the mind is at play and the meditation that is practised is to most likely reach/attain a goal. Any goal, any craving, any desire does not emanate from one’s being (presence or present) but from dipping into the past aka knwoledge, books, someone, sutras, texts and …. it cannot be from the present or presence of the moment. If one maintains this stance of practising without the (#) one is alreadly futurizing and one may reach/attain to that desired goal or … cos it is herenow; the practice is to get something that is not already here.
However, when the (# ) is there, the mind is challenged to find out who is actually meditatiing? When one introspects one would realise that sth is absent and one is striving to attain what is absent - stemming from this one denies the presence of what is already present. Antything that is gained ffrom such a practice is temporal, it wont stay, cos its nature is not of eternity!
However, the questioning of who is the meditator and what is the purpose of meditation may elicit ''answers'', which is only possible on introspection.Realization is never a discovery but a a recognising and of course, one has to dig the well of one’s being and the removing of all concepts, traditions, isms and the not so palatable emotions,feelings or … is bound to surface. All that is needed is this: earnestness and longing to recognise
Expereince that is psycholoigcal and having some social relevance is not a reality, existential experience is reality. Of course, the latter cannot be conceptualized cos one’s perceiving is always relative to one’s conditioning, beleigfs and ….
As Dungse Rinpoche says ,
As long as there is attachment, there is experience. All practice has the intention of increasing new experiences in order to release us from former experiences until we are released from all experiences to the natural quality of enlightenment
We do not know whether our present state is an experience tinged with attachment or not. Basically, if one is liberated, why is there a need to hold on to a 'present/now'? If we need to maintain a state, then it is not the primordially liberated Buddha nature which is free from any slightest fabrication / holding. If we need to maintain something, it means we can lose it. If we can lose it, then it is not realisation. It is not freedom.
truth or untruth is in itself a conceptualisation.
what if there is no such thing as truth? And what if what you are considering 'true' now is another subtle conceptualisation by you?
not arguing, but submit for your consideration.