Many of us know you already from facebook groups and other forums/blogs. Thanks for taking the time to introduce yourself at Liberation Unleashed. Please write a little bit of your history, insights, etc. Also, if you don't mind, please take a minute to answer the following 5 "confirmation questions" which we traditionally use at LU. Thanks!
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
3) How does it feel to see this?
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.
5) What was the last bit that "pushed you over" and made you see through the illusion of self?
Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
Hello,
My name is Taiyaki and my real name is Albert Hong.
My love affair with Buddhism has been on and off for about three years. We have been in constant battle and she always turns out to be right. I find that as a male it is always wise to listen to the females in our life. I dabble with zen on rainy days but most of the time I practice Dzogchen, she's hot.
I had my first non dual experience about a year to two years ago. I would categorize it as the I AM realization, which is pure presence/awareness.
It was an interesting realization, which brought lots of peace and clarity.
But there was a sense of oddness about it. I intuitively understood there was still more to come.
Coming from a Buddhist background and learning about emptiness...I didn't know how to bridge the gap between the two insights.
Through basically reading the hell out of Who Am I and Awakentoreality, I've come to realize anatta and now I am starting to work with dependent origination and how that relates to the lack of inherent existence of everything. And also how that relates to consciousness. I am slowly learning how suffering is constructed and how suffering goes bye bye. And I also learning the variety of mystical experiences and realizations one can have. From the sense of oneness, to the opening of the heart center, to the sense of release, to the sense of spaciousness and the dissolving of that sense of spaciousness, to how everything that is experienceable is a fabrication thus not really worth holding onto, etc.
My definition of enlightenment has changed significantly throughout my practice and study. Currently I hold the idea that enlightenment is the end of fabricating a thing, thus releasing consciousness. And nirvana is the complete end of all causes/conditions for ignorance, aversion, attachment.
Well lets answer some questions!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
The me is only a convention on the basis of body and mind. Now if this is apprehended as an empty appearance then there is no suffering. If the self is believed to be real, then that will condition suffering. So the ontological status of whether there is a self or there isn't does not matter. Was there ever a self? I'd have to say we have assumptions on what the self is and the self that we believe is purely a fabrication.
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
Belief in thingness brought about through conditioning. On the basis of thing, we create the reference point called self and in turn create other than self. We solidify this self through aversion and attachment aka clinging. Add society, culture, language and bam we have a solid sense of self.
3) How does it feel to see this?
It is very interesting to deconstruct how the self becomes solidified and how it fades. Studying dependent origination/emptiness has helped tremendously in my meditation. I feel like a scientist experimenting with the suffering that arises. It is very empowering to understand how suffering works and how to in a way release suffering through insight and not feeding the causes/conditions for suffering to arise.
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.
It is like relearning everything and completely deconstructing our beliefs/fabrications, which in turn create this reality. The very sense of lack arises because of this illusory split. And naturally we look outwards for solutions and we distract ourselves endlessly. It all starts with the fundamental assumption that I am real, substantial, independently existent.
5) What was the last bit that "pushed you over" and made you see through the illusion of self?
Studying the Bahiya Sutta was key to the realization of anatta. This broke down oneness into the six streams of consciousness. In hearing, just sound, no hearer. In thinking, just thought, no thinker. The subject is always an inference an assumption of a source that the experience is pointing to be it a contraction in the forehead or awareness itself. There is no sound and awareness. There is sound as awareness. This realization made the non dual suchness apparent. Its always been this way! But that realization isn't enough because one can reify the sounds, smells, tastes, thoughts, etc. The emptiness of these must be seen as well!
Hope this serves as a basic intro. I just wanted to share some things I am currently exploring and am passionate about. Much love brothers and sisters.
My name is Taiyaki and my real name is Albert Hong.
My love affair with Buddhism has been on and off for about three years. We have been in constant battle and she always turns out to be right. I find that as a male it is always wise to listen to the females in our life. I dabble with zen on rainy days but most of the time I practice Dzogchen, she's hot.
I had my first non dual experience about a year to two years ago. I would categorize it as the I AM realization, which is pure presence/awareness.
It was an interesting realization, which brought lots of peace and clarity.
But there was a sense of oddness about it. I intuitively understood there was still more to come.
Coming from a Buddhist background and learning about emptiness...I didn't know how to bridge the gap between the two insights.
Through basically reading the hell out of Who Am I and Awakentoreality, I've come to realize anatta and now I am starting to work with dependent origination and how that relates to the lack of inherent existence of everything. And also how that relates to consciousness. I am slowly learning how suffering is constructed and how suffering goes bye bye. And I also learning the variety of mystical experiences and realizations one can have. From the sense of oneness, to the opening of the heart center, to the sense of release, to the sense of spaciousness and the dissolving of that sense of spaciousness, to how everything that is experienceable is a fabrication thus not really worth holding onto, etc.
My definition of enlightenment has changed significantly throughout my practice and study. Currently I hold the idea that enlightenment is the end of fabricating a thing, thus releasing consciousness. And nirvana is the complete end of all causes/conditions for ignorance, aversion, attachment.
Well lets answer some questions!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
The me is only a convention on the basis of body and mind. Now if this is apprehended as an empty appearance then there is no suffering. If the self is believed to be real, then that will condition suffering. So the ontological status of whether there is a self or there isn't does not matter. Was there ever a self? I'd have to say we have assumptions on what the self is and the self that we believe is purely a fabrication.
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
Belief in thingness brought about through conditioning. On the basis of thing, we create the reference point called self and in turn create other than self. We solidify this self through aversion and attachment aka clinging. Add society, culture, language and bam we have a solid sense of self.
3) How does it feel to see this?
It is very interesting to deconstruct how the self becomes solidified and how it fades. Studying dependent origination/emptiness has helped tremendously in my meditation. I feel like a scientist experimenting with the suffering that arises. It is very empowering to understand how suffering works and how to in a way release suffering through insight and not feeding the causes/conditions for suffering to arise.
4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.
It is like relearning everything and completely deconstructing our beliefs/fabrications, which in turn create this reality. The very sense of lack arises because of this illusory split. And naturally we look outwards for solutions and we distract ourselves endlessly. It all starts with the fundamental assumption that I am real, substantial, independently existent.
5) What was the last bit that "pushed you over" and made you see through the illusion of self?
Studying the Bahiya Sutta was key to the realization of anatta. This broke down oneness into the six streams of consciousness. In hearing, just sound, no hearer. In thinking, just thought, no thinker. The subject is always an inference an assumption of a source that the experience is pointing to be it a contraction in the forehead or awareness itself. There is no sound and awareness. There is sound as awareness. This realization made the non dual suchness apparent. Its always been this way! But that realization isn't enough because one can reify the sounds, smells, tastes, thoughts, etc. The emptiness of these must be seen as well!
Hope this serves as a basic intro. I just wanted to share some things I am currently exploring and am passionate about. Much love brothers and sisters.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
Thanks for posting, Albert!
I'd like to probe you some more on some of the questions.
Is there a difference in reality between "solid sense of self" and "sense of self in abeyance"?
Was it a sudden realization, or gradual shift? We're trying to get a feel for your direct experience, as opposed to an intellectual understanding.
Thanks!
Nick
I'd like to probe you some more on some of the questions.
When you say "we create the reference point called self and in turn create other than self"... what is it that does the creation? What is the sense of self made of?2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
Belief in thingness brought about through conditioning. On the basis of thing, we create the reference point called self and in turn create other than self. We solidify this self through aversion and attachment aka clinging. Add society, culture, language and bam we have a solid sense of self.
Is there a difference in reality between "solid sense of self" and "sense of self in abeyance"?
Can you describe some more the emotions, feelings, etc. of seeing through the illusion of self?3) How does it feel to see this?
It is very interesting to deconstruct how the self becomes solidified and how it fades. Studying dependent origination/emptiness has helped tremendously in my meditation. I feel like a scientist experimenting with the suffering that arises. It is very empowering to understand how suffering works and how to in a way release suffering through insight and not feeding the causes/conditions for suffering to arise.
Was it a sudden realization, or gradual shift? We're trying to get a feel for your direct experience, as opposed to an intellectual understanding.
Thanks!
Nick
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
When you say "we create the reference point called self and in turn create other than self"... what is it that does the creation? What is the sense of self made of?
Is there a difference in reality between "solid sense of self" and "sense of self in abeyance"?
-The mind creates self, other, thingness, etc. Everything is a construction of mind and even the mind itself is a construction. The sense of self can be anything that is taken to be existent. So for instance it can be the body, it can be awareness, it can be spaciousness, it can be a sensation of bliss. Anything that is seen as real, solid that we cling to as a sense of self.
When there is a solid sense of self there is suffering. There is a sense of I am here as this reference point and there is everything else that is distinct from that which I am.
So one can bring together this sense of I am with the sense of external phenomena and construct the sense of oneness. This can be illustrated by the simple math equation such as 1+1 = 1. Now the sense of self is extremely diminished because no long is the self identified with the body or mind but with awareness/presence. This is the traditional idea of Atman.
But that is only a stepping stone in my practice. The atman itself is just a gigantic self, a gigantic reference point.
The realization of one mind into no mind (oneness into the six streams of consciousness) brings about a groundlessness. No longer is there a reference point called self, but what there is, is constantly moving processes of smell, taste, sensation, color, thoughts, and sounds. The body is color, it is sensation and through these distinct appearances we construct this wholeness called body. And the appearance of the body is in fact the appearance of consciousness. Not as thing, but a constantly changing process.
Can you describe some more the emotions, feelings, etc. of seeing through the illusion of self?
Was it a sudden realization, or gradual shift? We're trying to get a feel for your direct experience, as opposed to an intellectual understanding.
-Heh I've always taken the insight into experience approach. As insight is always right, whereas experiences always pass. Realization of anatta brings an end to striving to maintain awareness or presence. Because already the very reality is the full functioning of dependent origination. So the purpose of all of this for myself is to end suffering. It isn't to abide in consciousness, or to be blissed out. I desire fully to understand how suffering functions and how suffering goes bye bye. I would say at first it was a sudden realization that oh my everything is empty of self but that realization now is being investigated further. Emptiness must be explored fully in all circumstances as ignorance is like cancer.
For instance in my current practice there are sensations of suffering. Such suffering has no true story or reason why it appears. So I've been investigating. What causes this suffering is a sense of aversion that the body/mind just fall into. This aversion is so small but it builds and feeds off itself. And I find a reason for it. Oh I must be stressed from work, or this or that. A story is created and that perpetuates it even more. But it was just aversion to aversion, which came about because there was a belief in thingness to say shoulder pain.
Now in my practice I would relax the body and gently examine the pain or suffering. Is it really solid? Is it really pain? And when I investigate and not feed the aversion towards it by allowing it, the pain dissolves.
What is left is presence, clarity, lightness, energy, even joy.
That sense of release is key. But what is most key is the insight. The learning. The exploration and seeing directly what causes suffering and what causes release.
So in a way it isn't always a sense of self that we are deconstructing in experience. The self needs something to build on. Be it a sensation or a thought. If we examine the phenomena and see that both self and phenomena are equally unfindable and ungraspable.
Then something magical happens. Perception of the six senses start to dissolve and boy is that peaceful.
Is there a difference in reality between "solid sense of self" and "sense of self in abeyance"?
-The mind creates self, other, thingness, etc. Everything is a construction of mind and even the mind itself is a construction. The sense of self can be anything that is taken to be existent. So for instance it can be the body, it can be awareness, it can be spaciousness, it can be a sensation of bliss. Anything that is seen as real, solid that we cling to as a sense of self.
When there is a solid sense of self there is suffering. There is a sense of I am here as this reference point and there is everything else that is distinct from that which I am.
So one can bring together this sense of I am with the sense of external phenomena and construct the sense of oneness. This can be illustrated by the simple math equation such as 1+1 = 1. Now the sense of self is extremely diminished because no long is the self identified with the body or mind but with awareness/presence. This is the traditional idea of Atman.
But that is only a stepping stone in my practice. The atman itself is just a gigantic self, a gigantic reference point.
The realization of one mind into no mind (oneness into the six streams of consciousness) brings about a groundlessness. No longer is there a reference point called self, but what there is, is constantly moving processes of smell, taste, sensation, color, thoughts, and sounds. The body is color, it is sensation and through these distinct appearances we construct this wholeness called body. And the appearance of the body is in fact the appearance of consciousness. Not as thing, but a constantly changing process.
Can you describe some more the emotions, feelings, etc. of seeing through the illusion of self?
Was it a sudden realization, or gradual shift? We're trying to get a feel for your direct experience, as opposed to an intellectual understanding.
-Heh I've always taken the insight into experience approach. As insight is always right, whereas experiences always pass. Realization of anatta brings an end to striving to maintain awareness or presence. Because already the very reality is the full functioning of dependent origination. So the purpose of all of this for myself is to end suffering. It isn't to abide in consciousness, or to be blissed out. I desire fully to understand how suffering functions and how suffering goes bye bye. I would say at first it was a sudden realization that oh my everything is empty of self but that realization now is being investigated further. Emptiness must be explored fully in all circumstances as ignorance is like cancer.
For instance in my current practice there are sensations of suffering. Such suffering has no true story or reason why it appears. So I've been investigating. What causes this suffering is a sense of aversion that the body/mind just fall into. This aversion is so small but it builds and feeds off itself. And I find a reason for it. Oh I must be stressed from work, or this or that. A story is created and that perpetuates it even more. But it was just aversion to aversion, which came about because there was a belief in thingness to say shoulder pain.
Now in my practice I would relax the body and gently examine the pain or suffering. Is it really solid? Is it really pain? And when I investigate and not feed the aversion towards it by allowing it, the pain dissolves.
What is left is presence, clarity, lightness, energy, even joy.
That sense of release is key. But what is most key is the insight. The learning. The exploration and seeing directly what causes suffering and what causes release.
So in a way it isn't always a sense of self that we are deconstructing in experience. The self needs something to build on. Be it a sensation or a thought. If we examine the phenomena and see that both self and phenomena are equally unfindable and ungraspable.
Then something magical happens. Perception of the six senses start to dissolve and boy is that peaceful.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
Shit still sounds intellectual!!
I would have to say experientially life is a magical display. Everything is just utter magic. This whole thing is just empty phenomena rolling endlessly.
And in a way spontaneous activity is the best way to describe life.
Everything is the crest of jazz. Each instant being the first and last instant. The first big bang of bam sound then utterly gone, traceless. Then again, then again, then again. Nothing solid, absolutely nothing happening, yet the magic display occurs.
Just sweet oh sweet presence/awareness as the empty clarity rolling on and on and on touching absolutely nothing.
And how this melts the heart. How everything becomes so boundless, pure and significant.
What an orgasm life is.
Better?
I would have to say experientially life is a magical display. Everything is just utter magic. This whole thing is just empty phenomena rolling endlessly.
And in a way spontaneous activity is the best way to describe life.
Everything is the crest of jazz. Each instant being the first and last instant. The first big bang of bam sound then utterly gone, traceless. Then again, then again, then again. Nothing solid, absolutely nothing happening, yet the magic display occurs.
Just sweet oh sweet presence/awareness as the empty clarity rolling on and on and on touching absolutely nothing.
And how this melts the heart. How everything becomes so boundless, pure and significant.
What an orgasm life is.
Better?
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
yeah, cool, thanks for posting again. I appreciate your effort to strip away some of the intellectual stuff and reveal yourself in a simpler, more ordinary way.
It's obvious that your understanding of the illusion of self is very clear. Can we zero in closer on your own direct experience? Please elaborate some more, less technical and more intimate like your 2nd and 3rd posts... what's it like? Just what is here and now.
What does "me" mean to you?
Are you more real than Batman?
What is it that sees through the illusion of self?
:)
It's obvious that your understanding of the illusion of self is very clear. Can we zero in closer on your own direct experience? Please elaborate some more, less technical and more intimate like your 2nd and 3rd posts... what's it like? Just what is here and now.
What does "me" mean to you?
Are you more real than Batman?
What is it that sees through the illusion of self?
:)
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
In my direct experience there is just the sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, colors (shapes, forms), and thoughts. Everything arising and then self liberating. Each instant of consciousness rolling on and on and on and on, with no sense of time, no sense of location, and no sense of self/ownership/reference point.
I would have to say right now there is a direct relationship between no relationship and relationship. By no relationship I mean there is no objects out here or anywhere (inside, outside).
And by relationship I am still living in this world with the apperance of a body/mind and in this appearance there are subjects interacting with objects. But this appearance is seen as void, lacking of any kind of thing or solidity. So truly it is like a magical display that really has absolutely no grounding in anything.
Now when it comes to the other spectrum of my practice...that is dealing with a healthy sense of self. That is full of positive qualities. So the me or individual is utterly adaptable to any circumstance. And rather than a denial of life my practice and study have brought an affirmation of the human condition in all its bad and good. Just intimacy with what is. Whatever is there, to see fully that, that is the dharma, the buddha nature arising in this interdependent universe. Ahh no aversion or attachment. Just that released, gone. Beautiful.
I am not sure what is real anymore. Real and unreal kind of lose meaning and function. This reality free from fabrication shouldn't be made into another fabrication. Is the self real? Well I don't really have a stance on it, as any stance will just perpetuate the fabrication lol.
The mind is what sees through the illusion of self and this mind is utterly not findable.
To get really intimate. Emptiness and life are utterly connected. This life is the very functioning of emptiness. And the movement in living this life has become one of more openness. With the sense of nothing to lose, there is a tremendous release of creative energy. This energy is used in living life, doing things, joy, love, etc. Fully living life, yet utterly seeing past it. Not being caught. And when the mind falls into ignorance again, then to know how to look and how to unhook.
I would have to say right now there is a direct relationship between no relationship and relationship. By no relationship I mean there is no objects out here or anywhere (inside, outside).
And by relationship I am still living in this world with the apperance of a body/mind and in this appearance there are subjects interacting with objects. But this appearance is seen as void, lacking of any kind of thing or solidity. So truly it is like a magical display that really has absolutely no grounding in anything.
Now when it comes to the other spectrum of my practice...that is dealing with a healthy sense of self. That is full of positive qualities. So the me or individual is utterly adaptable to any circumstance. And rather than a denial of life my practice and study have brought an affirmation of the human condition in all its bad and good. Just intimacy with what is. Whatever is there, to see fully that, that is the dharma, the buddha nature arising in this interdependent universe. Ahh no aversion or attachment. Just that released, gone. Beautiful.
I am not sure what is real anymore. Real and unreal kind of lose meaning and function. This reality free from fabrication shouldn't be made into another fabrication. Is the self real? Well I don't really have a stance on it, as any stance will just perpetuate the fabrication lol.
The mind is what sees through the illusion of self and this mind is utterly not findable.
To get really intimate. Emptiness and life are utterly connected. This life is the very functioning of emptiness. And the movement in living this life has become one of more openness. With the sense of nothing to lose, there is a tremendous release of creative energy. This energy is used in living life, doing things, joy, love, etc. Fully living life, yet utterly seeing past it. Not being caught. And when the mind falls into ignorance again, then to know how to look and how to unhook.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
When there is self there is a closing of awareness. Kind of like an aperture on a camera lens.
When there is less of a sense of self then there is a wider awareness. And such awareness can be spacious, silent, loving, joyful, calm, etc.
And eventually even the sense of awareness goes. The sense of spaciousness goes.
But it is black and white in experience the difference between living in ignorance or living in wisdom. One is closed and the other open.
And ultimately even beyond both closed and open.
Thought I'd share that.
When there is less of a sense of self then there is a wider awareness. And such awareness can be spacious, silent, loving, joyful, calm, etc.
And eventually even the sense of awareness goes. The sense of spaciousness goes.
But it is black and white in experience the difference between living in ignorance or living in wisdom. One is closed and the other open.
And ultimately even beyond both closed and open.
Thought I'd share that.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
Albert,
It is clear to all of us that you have deep insights from your buddhist practices and investigations. The consensus amongst our group at LU is that your doctrinal understanding is very strong, but that you are not yet fully enjoying the direct experience of no-self, which is our particular area of interest here in LU. For some of us, like myself, it's the opposite; the apparent person known as Nick has dissolved permanently, but I have alot of trouble putting it into words or fitting the understanding into a conceptual framework, lol.
Thanks again for your introduction and great writing. We are going to keep you in "green" status on our forum for now. If you are interested, I would be happy to continue this dialog with you here on our forum. We could converse one-on-one, or as a group with multiple LU guides if you prefer. Your understanding is top-notch, but it's possible that we could help you to really SEE the self as it is constructed by thoughts and beliefs, and to really FEEL as it falls away permanently, which is a whole different kettle of fish. It might surprise you :-)
If you think you could go deeper and want to try, let me know!
Your friend,
Nick
It is clear to all of us that you have deep insights from your buddhist practices and investigations. The consensus amongst our group at LU is that your doctrinal understanding is very strong, but that you are not yet fully enjoying the direct experience of no-self, which is our particular area of interest here in LU. For some of us, like myself, it's the opposite; the apparent person known as Nick has dissolved permanently, but I have alot of trouble putting it into words or fitting the understanding into a conceptual framework, lol.
Thanks again for your introduction and great writing. We are going to keep you in "green" status on our forum for now. If you are interested, I would be happy to continue this dialog with you here on our forum. We could converse one-on-one, or as a group with multiple LU guides if you prefer. Your understanding is top-notch, but it's possible that we could help you to really SEE the self as it is constructed by thoughts and beliefs, and to really FEEL as it falls away permanently, which is a whole different kettle of fish. It might surprise you :-)
If you think you could go deeper and want to try, let me know!
Your friend,
Nick
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
yum!
Alright lets go deeper.
Alright lets go deeper.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
Just some more thoughts to doodle out:
In the direct experience of vision the eyes move around. That movement or volition is impersonal and spontaneous. But with the realization of anatta the sense of watcher looking from here to the object out there has vanished. There is a no dimensional flat appearance as colors, shapes and forms. When looking at the color the very color itself is awareness and it is total clarity, crisp with zero distance between what I once grasped as the eye looking outwards at the object. So in seeing, just the seen, no seer. The seer just being an assumption of thought referencing back to a sense of watcher or a position that is held in the body/mind. Even the body is color and shapes. For instance the hand is typing on the keyboard. Is there a true distinction between the hand and keyboard? Is this me? Is this mine? Is there an agent controlling? Everything is spontaneously happening. The difference between the hand and keyboard is only a thought. And we say that is my hand, which is also a thought. And these thoughts self liberate. They are just sounds.
So what if we consider the color as self. This appearance is the self, this is me. This awareness is me. But that too is a thought, an assumption of mind. What exactly is color? Isn't that an imputation as well? This magical display rolls on without a doer, without a self, without even objects or things. And that is just for the act of seeing.
In sensation there is only sensation, no feeler. No person owning the sensation. Just a sensation arising and falling. We label the sensation as soft or hard. Is the sensation arising in the body mine, me or I? No just a sensation. If the thought arises this is my body, that is just another thought. The thought a sound. The sound thought a vivid appearance arisen spontaneously.
So the self is a total construction. If the thoughts are taken to be reality then the world is built on that assumption.
But its not the self that is just a construction, it is what we consider self as well. All the sensations, colors, smells, tastes, thoughts, sounds. Even the perceptions. Even the intentions/volition. Even the sense of awareness/presence. All of these are absent of thingness. Totally not findable and a total construction on the basis of an assumption of a thing.
This has brought in a way a permanent shift into the fact and obviousness that reality has always been as such with no doer, no subject, no objects. Just impersonal magical arisings. Without thought nothing is connected. Everything is diverse. Thoughts arise and have nothing to do with anything. There is no link. Sounds arise and have nothing to do with any of the other senses.
Vision and thought are completely separate. The construction begins when we connect thought with vision. When we believe that the color is out there and the seer is in here and that these things are actual. It is just a thought construction. From this the push and pull and from that the closing in of awareness and the solid sense of self.
In the direct experience of vision the eyes move around. That movement or volition is impersonal and spontaneous. But with the realization of anatta the sense of watcher looking from here to the object out there has vanished. There is a no dimensional flat appearance as colors, shapes and forms. When looking at the color the very color itself is awareness and it is total clarity, crisp with zero distance between what I once grasped as the eye looking outwards at the object. So in seeing, just the seen, no seer. The seer just being an assumption of thought referencing back to a sense of watcher or a position that is held in the body/mind. Even the body is color and shapes. For instance the hand is typing on the keyboard. Is there a true distinction between the hand and keyboard? Is this me? Is this mine? Is there an agent controlling? Everything is spontaneously happening. The difference between the hand and keyboard is only a thought. And we say that is my hand, which is also a thought. And these thoughts self liberate. They are just sounds.
So what if we consider the color as self. This appearance is the self, this is me. This awareness is me. But that too is a thought, an assumption of mind. What exactly is color? Isn't that an imputation as well? This magical display rolls on without a doer, without a self, without even objects or things. And that is just for the act of seeing.
In sensation there is only sensation, no feeler. No person owning the sensation. Just a sensation arising and falling. We label the sensation as soft or hard. Is the sensation arising in the body mine, me or I? No just a sensation. If the thought arises this is my body, that is just another thought. The thought a sound. The sound thought a vivid appearance arisen spontaneously.
So the self is a total construction. If the thoughts are taken to be reality then the world is built on that assumption.
But its not the self that is just a construction, it is what we consider self as well. All the sensations, colors, smells, tastes, thoughts, sounds. Even the perceptions. Even the intentions/volition. Even the sense of awareness/presence. All of these are absent of thingness. Totally not findable and a total construction on the basis of an assumption of a thing.
This has brought in a way a permanent shift into the fact and obviousness that reality has always been as such with no doer, no subject, no objects. Just impersonal magical arisings. Without thought nothing is connected. Everything is diverse. Thoughts arise and have nothing to do with anything. There is no link. Sounds arise and have nothing to do with any of the other senses.
Vision and thought are completely separate. The construction begins when we connect thought with vision. When we believe that the color is out there and the seer is in here and that these things are actual. It is just a thought construction. From this the push and pull and from that the closing in of awareness and the solid sense of self.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
I break down the six consciousness streams for the sake of conversation.
In experience there is a sense of oneness. Not as a thing, but rather everything is the of the essence of emptiness. Be it a thought, smell, sensation or any experience, it lacks any kind of substance. One cannot find such asserted objects. They are unfindable, ungraspable and seen to be a total construction of mind. The thought itself creates the form and the solidity is built by push and pull.
So everything is the display of clarity-emptiness. Thoughts about self, thoughts about objects. These too are the display. Sensations, colors, etc. All roll on and on and on. Yet there is no sense of location, sense of subject, sense of object, sense of time, sense of anything. Perception fades.
So the experience is like living in an empty shell. Sensations referencing nothing. Colors referencing nothing. Just the luminous display of mind arising spontaneous. No core, no substance. No me, no my, no i, no mine. No doer, nothing to even make into a reference point. Even when there is an assumption of reference point it too is seen as utterly a construction thus void.
So there is a very oddness about this reality. Everything is in a way just magical. And really a sense of wonder pervades. Just happenings with nothing happening and no one to happen to.
In many ways its like dying prior to physical death. But that is a poetic expression and also a construction.
I'd love to deepen this no self. But in some sense I feel that the attempt to deepen is in fact perpetuation of selfing processes. How can a fabrication that is seen as a fabrication be deeper.
But I do believe that clarity and the evolution of clarity and integration with life is infinite.
So I am very curious what practices or dialogue we will have.
much love.
In experience there is a sense of oneness. Not as a thing, but rather everything is the of the essence of emptiness. Be it a thought, smell, sensation or any experience, it lacks any kind of substance. One cannot find such asserted objects. They are unfindable, ungraspable and seen to be a total construction of mind. The thought itself creates the form and the solidity is built by push and pull.
So everything is the display of clarity-emptiness. Thoughts about self, thoughts about objects. These too are the display. Sensations, colors, etc. All roll on and on and on. Yet there is no sense of location, sense of subject, sense of object, sense of time, sense of anything. Perception fades.
So the experience is like living in an empty shell. Sensations referencing nothing. Colors referencing nothing. Just the luminous display of mind arising spontaneous. No core, no substance. No me, no my, no i, no mine. No doer, nothing to even make into a reference point. Even when there is an assumption of reference point it too is seen as utterly a construction thus void.
So there is a very oddness about this reality. Everything is in a way just magical. And really a sense of wonder pervades. Just happenings with nothing happening and no one to happen to.
In many ways its like dying prior to physical death. But that is a poetic expression and also a construction.
I'd love to deepen this no self. But in some sense I feel that the attempt to deepen is in fact perpetuation of selfing processes. How can a fabrication that is seen as a fabrication be deeper.
But I do believe that clarity and the evolution of clarity and integration with life is infinite.
So I am very curious what practices or dialogue we will have.
much love.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
Great, Albert. The dialog process is simple. I ask questions, you answer, and then I ask another question, etc. When we're both satisfied it's done, we stop and a few other guides review the thread for "confirmation". The goal here is not understanding or description, but rather very simple LOOKING and SEEING. Making sure that you're seeing it in reality and not just with words.
You've written a lot of stuff above demonstrating an understanding of emptiness. If you don't mind, just forget about it on a temporary basis. Assume the position of the ordinary human Albert that walks around and goes to work, hangs out with friends, etc. The work we do here is aimed at dissolving the false belief in self which can be super subtle identification with a subjective entity. So think of it as a more macro level approach aimed at the individual, as opposed to the micro approach of breaking down all phenomena into emptiness.
For the purpose of our conversation I am going to assume (on a provisional basis) that some "things" are real and some are imaginary. I'm aware that this distinction doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny.
Real things would be tangible objects like chairs, keyboard, human body, etc.
Imaginary things are fake concepts like Batman, unicorn, Santa, etc.
There could be a third category of things like the word "University". There is no such thing that can be pinpointed in reality, although there are buildings, books, students, etc which are collectively called a University.
-------------------------------------------
So here come the questions:
You don't exist. You are no more real than Batman. Considering this, what feelings or emotions come up? Are there any subtle doubts? Is there any fear? Don't answer with what your mind knows, answer with what your heart feels :)
You've written a lot of stuff above demonstrating an understanding of emptiness. If you don't mind, just forget about it on a temporary basis. Assume the position of the ordinary human Albert that walks around and goes to work, hangs out with friends, etc. The work we do here is aimed at dissolving the false belief in self which can be super subtle identification with a subjective entity. So think of it as a more macro level approach aimed at the individual, as opposed to the micro approach of breaking down all phenomena into emptiness.
For the purpose of our conversation I am going to assume (on a provisional basis) that some "things" are real and some are imaginary. I'm aware that this distinction doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny.
Real things would be tangible objects like chairs, keyboard, human body, etc.
Imaginary things are fake concepts like Batman, unicorn, Santa, etc.
There could be a third category of things like the word "University". There is no such thing that can be pinpointed in reality, although there are buildings, books, students, etc which are collectively called a University.
-------------------------------------------
So here come the questions:
You don't exist. You are no more real than Batman. Considering this, what feelings or emotions come up? Are there any subtle doubts? Is there any fear? Don't answer with what your mind knows, answer with what your heart feels :)
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
You don't exist. You are no more real than Batman. Considering this, what feelings or emotions come up? Are there any subtle doubts? Is there any fear? Don't answer with what your mind knows, answer with what your heart feels :)
In this moment there is just presence with the sense of release in the body.
When the heart connects with that then that is pure confidence as clarity. So there is no doubt in this moment that everything is empty of inherent existence. Its as if with the whole sense of beingness there are hands and nothing is graspable, even the sense of beingness.
At this moment there is no fear. Just stillness and silence.
Connecting to the heart and feeling that no self exists brings a release, a lightness. There is a tenderness to the heart, which instantly reminds me of being a child. A sense of play in a way. There is a real sense of okayness.
In this moment there is just presence with the sense of release in the body.
When the heart connects with that then that is pure confidence as clarity. So there is no doubt in this moment that everything is empty of inherent existence. Its as if with the whole sense of beingness there are hands and nothing is graspable, even the sense of beingness.
At this moment there is no fear. Just stillness and silence.
Connecting to the heart and feeling that no self exists brings a release, a lightness. There is a tenderness to the heart, which instantly reminds me of being a child. A sense of play in a way. There is a real sense of okayness.
Re: Taiyaki, welcome to LU!
I sat with that emphasis on the heart and its relationship to lack of self for a little bit and an innocent joy started to develop. That previous confidence has turned into joyful trust.
And it isn't like I am enjoying this. Its more like joy itself wants to be seen, wants to be expressed. Joy itself wants to enjoy itself.
I am currently exploring that and it seems it is endless for in a way joy just spins for joy. Joy arising spontaneously, happening to no one. As if in this instant the whole universe is expressing itself as joy. The wind blowing onto the face, how joyful and light. The heart melts with warmth, which brings a softness to how the body moves.
Nothing to maintain or defend. Nothing to lose, nothing to gain. A deep resting in the heart, holding the world like a kitten.
And it isn't like I am enjoying this. Its more like joy itself wants to be seen, wants to be expressed. Joy itself wants to enjoy itself.
I am currently exploring that and it seems it is endless for in a way joy just spins for joy. Joy arising spontaneously, happening to no one. As if in this instant the whole universe is expressing itself as joy. The wind blowing onto the face, how joyful and light. The heart melts with warmth, which brings a softness to how the body moves.
Nothing to maintain or defend. Nothing to lose, nothing to gain. A deep resting in the heart, holding the world like a kitten.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 30 guests