Seth is giving up Buddhism!

[xabir2005]

And you can call luminosity God. And you can call interconnectedness "oneness." We are all One vs. We are all interconnected. What's the difference?

 

Your distinctions between theism and emptiness are absolutely arbitrary and just intellectual play. All those essays on differences between truths of this and that religion is not that important. They are just different ways of describing the transition from the ego mind to universal mind, from self-awareness to just awareness, duality to non-duality, head to heart.

 

The degree of transition is just different and the mind interpreting it in varying religious lingo is what's at the base of all the clinging to terms and stages of enlightenment. The more you let go, the less there is. It's strange, you are understanding less and less as the experience of living becomes more mysterious. It's probably because all that dogma and certainty in your head is melting (maybe literally too) away, but you find that energetically, you feel more at home, more integrated to each moment.

 

I don't, or can't stand, scripture or spiritual language in the recent months. When I come across them I can feel everything being crumbled into dualities and pseudo mental structures. Your mind just becomes a slave to another model.

 

I realize that in the last 3-4 years that I have been studying, meditating, debating spirituality I have gained nothing in terms of intellectual understanding of the world or what I am. Whether things are interconnected, disjointed, one, made by God, biological phenomenon, or any number of theories I have entertained, I have no clue what all this is. There is just this mysterious awareness.

The problem of calling it God is when the person really sees luminosity as an ultimate source behind things. I have directly seen that the Source is a false notion that causes a subtle clinging that prevents the full opening to the transience of life.

 

There is always in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard. Just that is luminosity. If you still want to call it God, I have no problems with it, just that it is meaningless - since God implies Source, and the idea of Source is false. I do not conceive a self, I do not conceive things coming out from a source. There is just the suchness of seeing and hearing without conceiving of a subject, and object, or a source.

 

Yes, I have no notions, not even of God, and not even of anatta, not even of emptiness. (anatta and emptiness is just a raft to let you relinquish all proliferations, not itself something to cling to)

 

This is my every moment experience:

 

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

 

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime. - Kalaka Sutta

 

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.

 

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you. - Mulapariyaya Sutta

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Aetherous]

I have directly seen that the Source is a false notion

 

I have directly seen that it's a true notion.

 

What human being can say that they have acquired the experience necessary to rule something out of their world view?

 

If you haven't experienced it, then how can you consider yourself worthy to speak of it?

 

...maybe I should hop out of the Buddhist section.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Scotty

[xabir2005]

Something I wrote to the article http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21871-experience-realization-view-practice-and-fruition/ :

 

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. 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 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.

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I have directly seen that it's a true notion.

 

What human being can say that they have acquired the experience necessary to rule something out of their world view?

 

If you haven't experienced it, then how can you consider yourself worthy to speak of it?

 

...maybe I should hop out of the Buddhist section.

No...

 

I have directly experienced and realized the I AM that you did.

 

The I AM does indeed seem like the source of everything. But it actually is due to dualistic and inherent framework, but we didn't recognise it.

 

Until further insights unfold. The I AM is not denied but the framework of viewing things through duality and inherency is removed via realization. As the Masters say, "keep the experience, refine the view".

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Aetherous]

You're just assuming that you know what I'm referring to...

 

I'm not looking for a conversation with you, and am out of here.

[Seth Ananda]

you have a roomate that is gone 11 months of the year

Yep, good house mate to have huh? Very quiet... lol

 

 

Interesting. I especially found your comment on the practices being better suited to a monastic than a lay environment interesting.

 

 

Two questions Seth.

 

My impression has been that those who hang out at thedharmaoverground.org and kennethfolkdharma do get very fast and very real results with vipassana and also in terms of getting into jhana very fast. Especially after stream entry they have xtremely good Jhana results. Compared to those who go on retreat after retreat without practicing with the (updated) maps and techniques they use at these sites at least they get waaay more progress. As there is a lot of overlap between those sites and thetaobums I would have thought you were familiar with them. Have you used the maps and techniques discussed there? How would you judge the progress of those who hang at those sites?

 

Your comment about getting deeper faster with practices from other traditions triggered my interest. May I ask what practices you have found most effective for getting into deeply concentrated states and most effective in general for cultivation? You have such wide and deep experience I have been wanting to ask you this for a long time.

 

Well for question 1, my house mate is a big Ingram fan, hence the stream of intense retreats. As far as I know no one gets Ingrams stuff without doing proper retreats.

 

And for question 2, the practices that really work for me, are because of my personal background, and may not be Awesome for everyone else...

But, Remembrance is for me the Ultimate practice. I spent so long in the Devotional path, doing epic stints of devotional practices, that my energy, my neurology are all hard wired to respond with hair trigger sensitivity to Devotion...

I Intuit the Being behind everything, I feel the light for every second possible, I surrender myself to it, attempt to be transparent to it, I feel its Intelligence, I pray without ceasing, I follow its prompts without hesitation, I use mantra where helpful, and I try to loose my self in God.

 

All in all, what ever I am doing, i am either focusing on the magnificent Being behind everything, or I am trying to and possibly failing badly, depending on the strength of my attachments...

That's the path of remembrance.

 

There is that saying in Sufism that the second you even think of turning towards God, God is already rushing open armed towards you.

That is my experience and why I find it so strong.

I could sit and focus on my breath but that would be boring and I would be regularly distracted.

But If I turn my feeling/attention to the great Being/Oneness I experience an exhilarating surge of energy as if it has been waiting for me, and my heart becomes uplifted, my mind becomes steady and focused, and Light or Heavenly chi starts to fill up my body, and stimulate the higher capacities...

{Reminds me of a Jesus quote: If thine eye be single, thine whole body shall be filled with light}

 

On a really really good day, I can dissolve myself via the crown chakra, Into the Light and Sound, and even have short experiences of what mystical traditions refer to as Omniscience. I am uncomfortable with that term and have no way of knowing how accurate it really is, but in that state I am certainly able to know all kinds of things about subjects that Interest me.

[xabir2005]

Yep, good house mate to have huh? Very quiet... lol

 

 

 

 

Well for question 1, my house mate is a big Ingram fan, hence the stream of intense retreats. As far as I know no one gets Ingrams stuff without doing proper retreats.

 

And for question 2, the practices that really work for me, are because of my personal background, and may not be Awesome for everyone else...

But, Remembrance is for me the Ultimate practice. I spent so long in the Devotional path, doing epic stints of devotional practices, that my energy, my neurology are all hard wired to respond with hair trigger sensitivity to Devotion...

I Intuit the Being behind everything, I feel the light for every second possible, I surrender myself to it, attempt to be transparent to it, I feel its Intelligence, I pray without ceasing, I follow its prompts without hesitation, I use mantra where helpful, and I try to loose my self in God.

 

All in all, what ever I am doing, i am either focusing on the magnificent Being behind everything, or I am trying to and possibly failing badly, depending on the strength of my attachments...

That's the path of remembrance.

 

There is that saying in Sufism that the second you even think of turning towards God, God is already rushing open armed towards you.

That is my experience and why I find it so strong.

I could sit and focus on my breath but that would be boring and I would be regularly distracted.

But If I turn my feeling/attention to the great Being/Oneness I experience an exhilarating surge of energy as if it has been waiting for me, and my heart becomes uplifted, my mind becomes steady and focused, and Light or Heavenly chi starts to fill up my body, and stimulate the higher capacities...

{Reminds me of a Jesus quote: If thine eye be single, thine whole body shall be filled with light}

 

On a really really good day, I can dissolve myself via the crown chakra, Into the Light and Sound, and even have short experiences of what mystical traditions refer to as Omniscience. I am uncomfortable with that term and have no way of knowing how accurate it really is, but in that state I am certainly able to know all kinds of things about subjects that Interest me.

Surrendering to a higher power is an effective way to experience impersonality. However there are other aspects of no-self that should not be overlooked. I have described your experience in my new article "on view, ...."

[Seth Ananda]

I have directly seen that it's a true notion.

 

What human being can say that they have acquired the experience necessary to rule something out of their world view?

 

To me this is the perfect response really.

 

Xabir has 'seen' it, and you have 'seen' it differently.

 

To me it is all about filters. I can see the light as dependently arising, according to the Buddhist thought, and from that view recognise it as having no Inherit existence, yet from another view the light is always there, underlying everything, and simultaneously being everything.

 

For me there is a Chicken or the Egg conundrum around perceptual Filters and experience. Which came first?

Vmarco no doubt would say that all Theism is to do with the minds beliefs, and thus can not be of the heart, but what about an atheist's near death experience where he experiences an infinitely loving and Intelligent universe show him his life's purpose? Or a Shaman in the Jungle opening up to the All or tripping on jungle juice, and experiencing the Interactive Great Mind or Spirit, that all small spirits are made of?

 

 

Xabir thinks he is absolutely right about his perceptions, but he sounds like a Robot most of the time. I get the vibe of a massive Intellect from him, but he never has sounded to me like he is really really happy, or reading his posts never made me thnk, wow, he has a Big Heart... {sorry Xabir, I like you, but that is how you come across to me}

I think, wow if he is the pinnacle of existence, then I don't want it.

Then I think of a Sufi Shaik who feels like a sun has replaced his heart chakra, and is an actual embodiment of the deepest Love in existence... Wow!

 

 

Buddhism has an amazing logical system of thought and debate that really works to take those suited to greatness, but in reality that does not give it any Authority over the Irrational, the Mystical, the Intuitive...

Buddhism is very fulfilling mentally, but I feel like my heart has been living in a desert for the last few years, even with loving kindness practice.

My heart longs for communion, as my heart is relational in nature. What is it My heart longs to join with most?

The Beingness that it Intuits so clearly. Total Universal connection.

For me this is the only thing that really satisfies my heart, and if I have to choose, I would rather have a satisfied heart than a satisfied mind.

 

Personally Buddhism leaves too many questions unsatisfactorily unanswered.

Like Why? The Big Why? Dependent origination is not an answer, it is an engineering statement.

And If I choose to approach the source as sentient, then ask it a question, why does it give me the answer? {if it deems the question relevant}

Why does prayer work so well, and why do certain prayers elicit a much faster response than others... It doesnt seem to give a shit if I want a new car, but when I actually need a car, there it is. Or if I pray to become closer to it, well that seems to be its favourite prayer full stop, and shit will hit the fan for a few days, as 'circumstances' magically seem to know exactly what was stopping me from communing with it on a deeper level, and conspire to free me of the burden...

E&DO cant explain half the weird stuff one experiences in an Interactive Universe.

 

What about an Issue you might have, that you have for 20 years, but when you are finally ready to let it go, the exact situation just 'pops' up to help you do it? There is an astonishing Intelligence behind the flow of events and things that E&DO can not do any justice to in explaining.

 

 

Padmasambhava acknowledged that Bramha and Rigpa are the same thing, when he described what all the different traditions call 'this wonderful awareness' although he obviously thought that he had the most refined view of it...

 

Saraha was part Kashmir Shavite and part Buddhist, and one of the 84 Maha Siddhas, and his Queen Doha makes Buddhist scholars quite uncomfortable with all its refrences to enlightened Hindu Yogis... So much so that many translations edit those bits out, or change it...

 

 

To finish off, I believe in an underlying mystical reality to existence, that gets seen and described in slightly different ways by different traditions.

I think the exact reason that religion has had such a powerful sway over humanity, is that it is at least loosely based on what we deep down know is present. This allowed corrupt individuals or whole governments to claim Authority and 'add' a whole bunch of crap to the 'God' or 'spirit' or 'Being' experience.

Hence the fact that in the Abrahamic world most Mystics were murdered, for saying God is nicer than what they tell you...

 

But the good side is the religions are evolving towards being accurate representations of mystical reality.

Many Christians now believe and experience that God is Love.

I think it would be hundreds + years since a Jewish father dragged a disobedient son to the council steps to demand his rights [Deuteronomy] to stone him to death...

Islam, outside of the Sudan and like places is becoming quite a force for good.

 

They are actually worshipping a different God to the one they used to. Even if they believe it is the same, The God of hate and vengeance is in their minds alone, {and maybe lower astral realms} but as the image changes to the 'God' that is the actual 'experience' of Mystics, near death survivors, Shaman, everything gets better.

I saw this in my own family. I grew up in a fire and brimstone religion, and spent many years waiting for the lightning bolt. That god was not real. I blasphemed in every way I could, I ritually sodomised 'his' Christ, and demanded that he strike me dead for the Insult. It was not till later that when possessed by Pan, I had my first experience of the All within everything.

My Family seemed almost dead except for the twitches of hate that occasionally animated them, but slowly slowly, the words of Christ about Love, and caring penetrated them. They became more peaceful, light seemed to shine from their eyes and their whole way of relating to the world transformed. A year before my Dad passed on he stated that he couldn't believe that he had been Christian all those years without having the slightest clue or experience of what God was like.

He died in a state of Grace.

 

Anyway I am up too late, and I think I have been rambling on for too long in a tired state already...

 

Peace

[xabir2005]

Xabir thinks he is absolutely right about his perceptions, but he sounds like a Robot most of the time. I get the vibe of a massive Intellect from him, but he never has sounded to me like he is really really happy, or reading his posts never made me thnk, wow, he has a Big Heart... {sorry Xabir, I like you, but that is how you come across to me}

Thats funny because I smile a lot, laugh a lot, joke a lot (in real life), am very lively when talking with people (in real life) but yes indeed I do sound like a robot online and that's just my style of speaking here, and something when you get used to, you don't change easily (and I don't have a big will to change my behaviour). I get blissed out a lot (I often tell others you cannot even imagine the state of intense bliss I am in). People sometimes wonder why I smile or have the blissed out look (an awkward moment, but that doesn't bother you at all). In Vajrayana, they talk about the union of bliss and emptiness. Luminosity is bliss. Emptiness and luminosity is inseparable.

Buddhism has an amazing logical system of thought and debate that really works to take those suited to greatness, but in reality that does not give it any Authority over the Irrational, the Mystical, the Intuitive...

Thats because you are studying Madhyamaka, which is intellectual, this is why you get the idea that Buddhism is only about rationality.

 

I don't study Madhyamaka and whatever I talk about, whether it is anatta, emptiness, etc, I don't approach it from an analytical point of view. Does Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Zen approach things intellectually? No it doesn't, so you know its just perculiar to Madhyamaka (as well as other philosophical schools like Yogachara).

 

I don't tell people to understand emptiness through inference and logic.

 

I tell people to investigate it in their experience and see it for themselves... anatta and emptiness is alive, and wonderful... and sorry but I can't express it. I just suck at expressing and sound like a robot... but it really is wonderful, intensely alive and blissful (oh words can't even begin to capture it), but with my inability to express things and my monotonous robotic tone you just have to see for yourself, lol

The Beingness that it Intuits so clearly. Total Universal connection.

 

What you are talking about is precisely what I said, the impersonality experience.

 

Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

 

2. Impersonality

 

This is the case when practitioners experienced that everything is an expression of a universal cosmic intelligence. There is therefore no sense of a personal doer... rather, it feels like I and everything is being lived by a higher power, being expressed by a higher cosmic intelligence. But this is still dualistic – there is still this sense of separation between a 'cosmic intelligence' and the 'world of experience', so it is still dualistic.

 

I experienced impersonality after the I AM realization, however some people experience it before I AM realization. Theistic Christians may not have I AM realization (it depends), however through their surrendering to Christ, they can drop their sense of personal doership and experience the sense of 'being lived by Christ', as in Galatians: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.". This is an experience of impersonality that may or may not come with the realization of I AM.

 

However you should understand that to extrapolate this experience of impersonality into a 'Universal Mind' or an ultimate agent or 'God' is simply an extrapolation.

 

There is something I want to share, a conversation with Thusness when I was beginning to experience the impersonality phase in May 2010:

(1:19 PM) Thusness: what is ur reply about 'impersonality'?

(1:20 PM) AEN: i said its the separation of 'individuality' from awareness

(1:21 PM) Thusness: there is the problem of saying more than what that is necessary. It comes from a clinging mind.

(1:22 PM) Thusness: why is stripping of 'individuality' becoming an 'Universal Mind'?

in this case, is it seeing thoughts as thoughts

perception as perception?

(1:22 PM) AEN: hmm

i think not?

(1:23 PM) Thusness: in seeing, just the seen...is there any extrapolation?

any attempt to deduce any thing?

(1:23 PM) AEN: no

(1:23 PM) Thusness: it is just simply 'what is'.

(1:24 PM) Thusness: when u experience 'impersonality', it is just 'impersonality'

isn't it?

(1:24 PM) AEN: ya

(1:24 PM) Thusness: so how does it come to become an 'Universal Mind'?

(1:25 PM) Thusness: Because of u clinging, that is precisely the very cause that prevents the seeing.

(1:25 PM) Thusness: if u go further to reinforce this idea, it becomes a made belief and appears true and real.

(1:25 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:26 PM) Thusness: therefore when u say 'impersonality', u are not being blinded

u r merely describing what u have experienced.

(1:26 PM) AEN: icic..

(1:27 PM) Thusness: isn't this Mind still an individual mindstream?

(1:28 PM) Thusness: although impersonality leads u to have that sort of 'sensation', u must correctly understand it.

(1:28 PM) AEN: i guess its the intuition that there is no individual selves or centers to which awareness belongs

oic

(1:28 PM) Thusness: Buddhism never deny this mind stream

(1:29 PM) AEN: ic..

(1:29 PM) Thusness: it just deny the self-view

(1:29 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:29 PM) Thusness: it denies separation

it denies an observer, a thinker

(1:30 PM) Thusness: it denies, a perfect controller

an independent agent

(1:30 PM) Thusness: that is what 'Self' is

otherwise, why is it a 'Self'?

(1:31 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:31 PM) Thusness: which part of it is 'Self'?

what makes 'Self' a 'Self'?

(1:31 PM) Thusness: an individual mindstream remains as an individual mindstream

but nothing self.

(1:32 PM) AEN: icic..

(1:32 PM) Thusness: so u understand liberation from right understanding

u understand liberation correctly

u do not seek otherwise and get urself confused

(1:33 PM) Thusness: there is the experience of non-dual, anatta, TATA, stainlessness

that has nothing to do with Self.

(1:34 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:34 PM) Thusness: if u want to understand Presence, then u must clearly and correct understand Presence

(1:35 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:36 PM) Thusness: now is to refine ur understanding of Presence

what is it?

what are the 4 aspects i told u?

(1:37 PM) AEN: impersonality, degree of luminosity, dissolving the need to re-confirm and understanding why its unnecessary, and effortlessness

(1:37 PM) Thusness: so is any of the 4 aspects over stating anything?

(1:38 PM) Thusness: is there any extrapolation?

(1:38 PM) AEN: no

(1:38 PM) Thusness: they are what exactly u r experiencing now

and requires improvement that u can progress from "I AM"

(1:39 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:39 PM) Thusness: there is the experience of impersonality

(1:40 PM) Thusness: and what is this 'impersonality' and what insights can arise from this experience?

(1:41 PM) AEN: impersonality is like awareness is not tied to individuality or personality... the notion and sense of awareness as being an individual self is dissolved. then theres also an intuition of its universal nature

(1:42 PM) Thusness: now what experience does dissolving of 'personality' result?

(1:43 PM) Thusness: u do not dissolve the 'individual self'

(1:43 PM) Thusness: u merely stripped off the 'personality aspect

(1:43 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:43 PM) Thusness: and it causes u to link to a higher force

(1:44 PM) Thusness: as if a cosmic life is functioning within u

(1:44 PM) AEN: ic.. ya

(1:44 PM) Thusness: rem casinoking?

(1:44 PM) AEN: yea

(1:44 PM) AEN: he's talking about that?

he also experienced impersonality isit

(1:45 PM) Thusness: he has experienced of this impersonal life force...

(1:45 PM) AEN: oic..

(1:45 PM) Thusness: now dwell further into this experience of impersonality

(1:46 PM) Thusness: why is this different from "I M"

know the causes and conditions for the arising of these insights and experiences

(1:46 PM) AEN: icic..

(1:47 PM) Thusness: stripping off personality always what?

(1:48 PM) AEN: results in impersonality?

(1:48 PM) Thusness: ai yoh...

relate ur experience lah

tell me tonight about "I AM" and "impersonality"

(1:49 PM) AEN: oic.. ok

(1:51 PM) AEN: stripping off personality leads to a sense that i'm not a personal self.. that this body and mind and everything else is actually part of a much vaster and impersonal awareness

(1:51 PM) AEN: theres no sense of an individual doer and experiencer

only pure impersonal functioning and perceiving

(1:52 PM) Thusness: as if it is all the functioning of a higher power, that is life itself is taking the functioning

(1:54 PM) AEN: ic.. yah.. in fact yesterday i remembered a quote that i think is very apt, its a christian quote

(1:54 PM) Thusness: so dissolving 'personality' somehow allows u to get 'connected'

(1:55 PM) AEN: "

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. " - Galatians 2:20

oic..

(1:55 PM) Thusness: yes

(1:55 PM) Thusness: u surrender to this greater power

it is not u, but the life in you that is doing the work

(1:56 PM) AEN: ic..

(1:56 PM) Thusness: is this the experience of "I AM"?

(1:57 PM) AEN: its more impersonal than the initial experience i think

(1:58 PM) Thusness: and this is not the non-dual sort of experience

(1:58 PM) AEN: ic.. ya

(1:58 PM) Thusness: it is not about non-separation

and it is also not anatta

(1:59 PM) Thusness: nor is it the certainty of being

(1:59 PM) Thusness: "I AM" allows u to directly the experience of 'your' very own existence

the beingness, the inner most essence of 'You'

(2:00 PM) AEN: ic.. ya

(2:01 PM) Thusness: a true and genuine practitioner must arise all these insights, the causes, the conditions that give rise to all these experiences and not mixed up

(2:01 PM) Thusness: many mixed up no-self of this as no-self of that.

(2:02 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:02 PM) Thusness: no-self of non-dual, no-self of anatta, non-inherent existence and impersonality

(2:03 PM) Thusness: but all are not refering to the same experience that resulted from dissolving certain aspect of the tendencies

(2:03 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:04 PM) Thusness: so a practitioner must be sincere in his practice to clearly sees and not pretend that one knows.

(2:04 PM) Thusness: otherwise practice is simply just a mixed-up, confused and nonsense.

(2:04 PM) Thusness: it is not that it cannot be known, just the mind isn't clear enough to see the causes and conditions of arising

(2:05 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:15 PM) Thusness: why post so fast before u have quality experience?

(8:16 PM) Thusness: told u not to talk too much about me.

(8:16 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:16 PM) Thusness: however what u posted in the certainty of being is a good description of the next phase that u will be undergoing.

(8:17 PM) AEN: icic..

u mean the innerfrontier

(8:17 PM) Thusness: yes. The http://www.innerfrontier.org/Practices/JacobsLadder.htm

(8:18 PM) Thusness: It described very well the phases of "I AM"

(8:19 PM) Thusness: don't be too keen to talk too much about it first...just experience and refine ur understanding

(8:19 PM) AEN: oic.. ok

(8:20 PM) Thusness: can u see the differences in experience and realization?

(8:20 PM) Thusness: otherwise are these are just words.

and there is no understanding whatsoever.

(8:21 PM) Thusness: when u posted the article in http://www.innerfrontier.org/Practices/JacobsLadder.htm, can u clearly understand what it means?

(8:22 PM) AEN: ya i guess so.. it describes the I AM and the impersonality... this part seems like describing the degree of luminosity:

Gradually, consciousness itself grows porous. Then, with the whole of our being, we simultaneously reach out toward and open to a greater world beyond ourselves, beyond consciousness, and begin to perceive the world of sacred light. Inwardly calling out to the Divine, we repeatedly open to that ultimate, creative light until only it remains. All separateness, all the ten thousand things merge into that Primordial Sacred Sun. That light is part of our nature, the source of wisdom. We become the light, basking in unimaginable joy.

(8:23 PM) Thusness: not so much about the degree of luminosity yet

(8:23 PM) Thusness: i mean when u send the article to me the other time, did u know what the author is talking about?

(8:23 PM) AEN: nope

not as much i guess

(8:24 PM) Thusness: u do not know what it meant after the experience "I AM"

what is blinding u from the understanding?

(8:24 PM) AEN: not so sure

maybe im not so clear about the phases yet?

(8:25 PM) Thusness: what have u dissolved besides the 'personality aspect'

(8:25 PM) Thusness: it is the subtle attachment to 'that' that is blinding u

(8:26 PM) Thusness: when i tell u about impersonality, what am i telling u to experience?

(8:27 PM) AEN: dissolving the personality aspect?

(8:27 PM) Thusness: yes but what else?

(8:27 PM) Thusness: what have u experienced?

(8:28 PM) AEN: like we are all being lived/functions of a higher power

(8:29 PM) Thusness: yes but before u refine ur understanding, do not post too much..

(8:29 PM) AEN: oic.. ok

(8:30 PM) Thusness: it is the key of getting 'connected' to a higher power...to a divine life...to a sacred power.

(8:30 PM) Thusness: u want to lose urself for this divinity to work through you.

(8:30 PM) AEN: ic..

(8:30 PM) Thusness: this what i meant by stage 3.

the 'I' is the block.

(8:31 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:31 PM) Thusness: i go makan first

(8:31 PM) AEN: ok

 

 

(8:54 PM) Thusness: when u read that article, what are the important points u picked up?

(8:55 PM) AEN: that there is something deeper than the 'innermost center' that we become the 'outside' to the 'sacred will of the world' who is the 'source', and the will comes through us as us, and continuous creates and sustains the universe

(8:58 PM) Thusness: when u completely surrender, the divine will will become ur 'will'

(8:58 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:18 PM) Thusness: but do not write this in a buddhist forum...u r confusing ppl.

(9:18 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:19 PM) Thusness: for one hand u are talking about anatta and on the other hand, u spoke of "I AM" and Divine force.

(9:19 PM) Thusness: just understand this as a phase u undergone.

(9:20 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:36 PM) AEN: ...I am at a point now where this energy/presence is guiding me to turn inwards in a more significant way. I almost get the impression that this inner energy/consciousness is taking over and my life is not "mine" anymore. It belongs to "It" the

(9:37 PM) AEN: pure consciousness that is arising... When the energy/consciousness is flowing nothing else matters at all, it is like a nectar of the gods. I have tried on many occasions to surrender completely to this energy but somehow I have not been successful...

- JonLS

is talking about the same thing right

http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/210722

(9:38 PM) Thusness: yes

(9:38 PM) AEN: ic..

(9:40 PM) Thusness: so u only understand it 4 yrs later.

(9:40 PM) AEN: lol

(9:41 PM) Thusness: what that is pointed out then is his lack of experience of non-dual.

(9:41 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:43 PM) Thusness: there must then be full integration of all these experiences and insights

(9:44 PM) Thusness: that is what i meant by one mind.

(9:44 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:44 PM) Thusness: what is the purpose of intensity?

(9:45 PM) AEN: the degree of luminosity?

(9:45 PM) Thusness: yes for what purpose?

(9:46 PM) AEN: i think it will help dissolve the mind and the self more... like when u experience the intensity, one automatically 'surrenders'

(9:46 PM) Thusness: no

it is actually for the purpose of non-dual

(9:46 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:47 PM) Thusness: the degree of luminosity must be divert to the 'outside' world

(9:48 PM) Thusness: until someone pointed out to u about 'non-duality'...that is what i meant by degree of luminosity

(9:48 PM) Thusness: similarly, the practice of impersonality is to allow u to get to this experience of 'life working through u'

(9:48 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:49 PM) AEN: but the degree of luminosity doesnt necessarily mean non dual right

(9:49 PM) Thusness: there is a post that jonls wrote in now-for-u that i said is very good

(9:49 PM) AEN: oic.. ya i remember

(9:50 PM) Thusness: it is bring awareness into direct connection with everything in terms of luminosity, vividness

(9:51 PM) Thusness: iti s bringing this quality of Presence into 'forms'

(9:51 PM) Thusness: and this is a different experience from 'impersonality'

otherwise jonls would not write about it.

(9:52 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:52 PM) Thusness: because it is not an experience of surrendering to a divine power.

(9:52 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:31 PM) Thusness: there is another aspect that is 'oneness'

but that i will tell u later.

(10:32 PM) Thusness: because i want u to arise certain insight about 'oneness', to understand 'determinism and free-will'. But that is another matter.

(11:14 PM) AEN: back

(11:14 PM) AEN: oic..

oneness is non duality rite

(11:38 PM) Thusness: It is closely linked

Padmasambhava acknowledged that Bramha and Rigpa are the same thing, when he described what all the different traditions call 'this wonderful awareness' although he obviously thought that he had the most refined view of it...

Brahman is simply luminosity. But it is luminosity reified into something inherent thus causing grasping and wrong view.

 

Don't forget that in the same text, Padmasambhava criticized the Tirthikas who teaches Atman:

 

The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of Eternalism as against nihilism

Saraha was part Kashmir Shavite and part Buddhist, and one of the 84 Maha Siddhas, and his Queen Doha makes Buddhist scholars quite uncomfortable with all its refrences to enlightened Hindu Yogis... So much so that many translations edit those bits out, or change it...

The only difference between Kashmir Shaivite and Buddhism is that KS teaches realism or substantialist non-duality. Advaita says the world is illusory, brahman alone is real, brahman is the world. Kashmir Shaivism says no no... Advaita is wrong, the world is not illusory, the world is real, because the world is Shiva. Basically the same thing really, but Kashmir Shaivism focus on the last step - seeing the world as Shiva, as Consciousness. They say that to separate the world from ultimate reality is wrong, ultimate reality is the world, the world is real as ultimate reality. Whereas, Advaita aims for the I AM first (world is illusory, Brahman alone is real) and only then see that Brahman is the World (substantial non-dual). Different emphasis but finally the same.

 

Basically, this is substantial non-dualism. All subject-object duality ceases, one no longer sees Consciousness and contents of consciousness as two... rather, it is Consciousness expressing itself as the manifold.

 

However, Consciousness is still taken as substantial, real, Self.

 

Saraha was a Shaivite (I don't think he is a Shaivite after getting into Buddhism), but whether he was Shaivite or Buddhist doesn't matter - I'm sure he no longer teaches a substantialist view.

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Then I think of a Sufi Shaik who feels like a sun has replaced his heart chakra, and is an actual embodiment of the deepest Love in existence... Wow!

 

Now this is interesting because I don't have this experience a lot. But I did have a similar experience once, and that is the first and last time I did metta/loving-kindness practice (I probably should do more because it is wonderful).

 

Here's what I wrote to Thusness and his reply to me:

 

 

On 16-Aug-2011, at 9:33 PM, AEN wrote:

 

> I was reading the book 'beyond mindfulness' by bhante gunaratana, its a book about jhana practice. He recommends either metta or breathing mindfulness to reach jhana.

>

> He said metta can lead to jhana cos the feeling of metta is very close to jhanic bliss. I didn't understand this until I practice metta today... Just thinking over, may others be well, happy, and free from afflictions... Then there's this feeling of metta like emanating from the heart region and its blissful, I can definitely see how this can lead into jhana. There is also a freedom from all unwholesome mental states, aversions, etc... Even tho I wasn't practicing that in a meditation setting, just standing.

> Sent via BlackBerry from SingTel!

 

 

Thusness:

 

Yes and indeed an important practice. Do not think of the experience of jhana but rather relax and with utmost sincerity practice and metta.

 

May others be well, happy and free from affiictions.

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

[xabir2005]

Too humanistic a point-of-view.

 

1. Buddha said, ”From beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things and, having lost the original mind, are turned around by things."

 

Steven Hawking said, since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time.

 

So,...forgot about the humanistic point-of-view of chicken and eggs,...the only conundrum is ego (the sixth sense).

 

2. Heart-Mind is Unconditional,...conditions, beliefs, humanistic points-of-view, cannot enter. Their is no merging of humanistic views (the 5 Aggregates) and Unborn Awareness.

 

"Find the consciousness you had before you were born" Sort of like being aware of the dreamer within the dream.

 

No definition of god or theism is compatable with Undivided Light.

 

V

Perhaps when you drop the sense of personality and experience everything, every being, every creature, every trees and mountains and the universe as being lived by an impersonal living force, an impersonal living force that is alive, intelligent, that grows your finger nails and spins the planet poetically speaking... you will understand the basis why people talk about God.

 

Not that I believe in God, anyway... As I know notions of 'God' or 'Universal Mind' is just a false extrapolation of an actual experience. The experience is precious... but without right view, it is misinterpreted.

 

But... By overly emphasizing on the I AM like you're doing, you will miss out some precious experiences that other practitioners like Seth Ananda is talking about. Impersonality is equally important.

Edited December 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[steve]

I've always thought that religion isn't required to reach divine energy.

I haven't always thought that way but have now for a very long time.

If divine energy is what religionists claim it to be, we cannot be separate from it.

It is always already there. It is us. It is our consciousness, our radiance.

It is never absent, we are just distracted by our minds.

That is why the mystics tell us that we cannot ever speak about what it is, only what it is not.

We cannot add anything, anything we add leads to distraction and suffering.

We can only take away - our concepts, our ideas, our attachments, our programming.

When we let everything drop away, what is left is reality.

 

 

Conduits are necessary. Religion may or may not be one of them. Although dwindling in numbers, there are still individuals who devote themselves to good works out of religious piety, and through this, find the connection they need in order to reach some degree of spiritual realization and become instruments of peace, hope, joy and fulfillment for others. Its not so much by what means, but how these means are encapsulated and integrated into one's day-to-day living that matters. We ought not to discount the efficacy of devotional practices.

I will respectfully disagree with your first statement but not necessarily with the rest of it.

Methods and paths can be beneficial to some but if you look at the number of people subscribing to devotional practices and the numbers who successfully transcend suffering over the long term as a consequence, I don't think these practices have such a great track record.

Certainly no worse than many other practices, most of which reinforce attachments and confusion.

However, it is also clear to see that devotional practices can be simply a different type of conditioning and easily exploited at an individual and institutional level.

[steve]

[Vmarco]

I'm appreciative towards how it all started with everything being an expression of "God," "God's love;" but now it's much different in a way...Being totally "intimate" with each moment...There isn't a need to subsume anything to a "source" anymore; the vivedness and aliveness, is so "complete" in each passing moment without a need for a "support" of any kind.

 

Lol, sorry for the rant, haha! Just sharing some bullshit here...

 

EDIT: Forgot to add this shit

 

 

The BS you shared is quite enjoyable. It is amazing how people arrive at various beliefs to make their illusions more palatable. This idea of theism (which Seth broached in the top post) is wholly bizarre for those who take a look at it. It is indisputable that the Abrahamic god, from whom the majority on the planet get their belief from, is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional god. And amazingly, a god who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

 

In the Bible, it only suggests the idea that their God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. And as for their definition of love,...it's insane. Their Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; for example, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7, has nothing to do with love (or compassion). Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs.

 

Buddhism is fully contrary to bearing, believing, hoping, and enduring. Tilopa said, that to transcend the mind's dualities all hope must die. "the highest goal is being devoid of hope and fear." But Christianity advocates hope and fear (of their Lord).

 

Some may ask, why did the Buddha object to hope. Simply look up the word.

 

hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an expected payoff.

 

Is there a more dishonest, perniciousness word than hope?

 

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition, a belief, and attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

 

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Mind or Open-Heart ? The belief of hope is a barrier that obscures the present. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack or need, nor see positive or negative as good or evil, beauty or blight.

 

Someone, perhaps a Buddhist said, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

V

Edited December 17, 2011 by Vmarco

[Lucky7Strikes]

The problem of calling it God is when the person really sees luminosity as an ultimate source behind things. I have directly seen that the Source is a false notion that causes a subtle clinging that prevents the full opening to the transience of life.

 

There is always in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard. Just that is luminosity. If you still want to call it God, I have no problems with it, just that it is meaningless - since God implies Source, and the idea of Source is false. I do not conceive a self, I do not conceive things coming out from a source. There is just the suchness of seeing and hearing without conceiving of a subject, and object, or a source.

 

Yes, I have no notions, not even of God, and not even of anatta, not even of emptiness. (anatta and emptiness is just a raft to let you relinquish all proliferations, not itself something to cling to)

There is no problem of calling it God. Your certainty of "no source" is just another form of energetic clinging as to "a source." Denial is just another form of attachment as it is just another form of affirmation. You deny a Source, but you also affirm this moment, of "hearing" of "seen." These are just the same states of mind just directed at different objects.

 

Your suchness, being part of a greater universe, of awareness, is precisely the definition of "Source" or God in esoteric religions. Of being the Son or manifestation of a greater spirit. Or of having the quality of knowing, Nous. Or being an aspect of Brahman, the universe. It's no different. I am Brahman, Brahman is the World, I am the World, all say the same thing.

 

What you are against is an dualistic understanding of a source, between "I" and "Source of I." Liberating into dependent origination is no different than liberating into universal awareness, which is often referred to as, God. All your arguments are strawman argument making the theistic traditions into dualistic modes of perception, when in experience they are not.

 

Your posts lack insight into theism and the insight into the varying ways humans have sought divinity. When have you ever truly studied advaita, taoism, hermeticism, sufism, esoteric christianity, all of which you will dismiss as inferior to Buddhism because they are at "I AM" stage or "clinging to the source"? What varying meditations or energetic practices have you practiced to have genuine knowledge of them? Your quick to judge vipassana practices without spending any time doing them at all.

 

Have you ever practiced other systems outside of Thusness's stuff? Probably not. You filter every spiritual language through Thusness's medium, a prime example of dogma, you judge through the intellect trying to categorize everything into its models. Have you ever let the possibility of an "alternative" into your mind? My guess is no. This is a powerful idea, that perhaps there is an "alternative" to the way you have thought for the past five or so years. Just that slight thought!

 

You sound as always, a very close minded individual, a devotee, a fanatic.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Something I wrote to the article http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21871-experience-realization-view-practice-and-fruition/ :...

This is just pure shit. How long have you been in non-conceptual awareness states? Probably never. You just wrote that whole crap based on what you believe other people do as "mistakes." You never truly experienced any of these state you preach against, and even if you have they were never genuine because all of the Thussness dogma had been sitting in your brain through the whole experience.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[konchog uma]

When i first started to read TTB every day and post here, i was like "oh hi guys btw im a vajrayana buddhist"

 

and people came out of the woodwork to say "oh no the dirty B-word" "hahah a buddhist" and those sorts of things and i didn't get it at all. I was like whoa who are these guys, so called modern taoists

 

But all the logical reductionism, intellectual masturbation, and otherwise stale and uninspired rhetoric that has rendered the last 3 topics i have viewed totally unreadable is getting on my nerves. Hahahah why don't you guys go post on dharmawheel or something?

 

This is why I don't go to sangha... all the buddhists. I'd rather be at home by myself thankyouverymuch.

 

I'm following Scotty, ouuuuuutta here, and i'm keeping my views and practices private, so the buddhist brigade can't critique it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Surrendering to a higher power is an effective way to experience impersonality. However there are other aspects of no-self that should not be overlooked. I have described your experience in my new article "on view, ...."

All you got from that post was "impersonality"?

[xabir2005]

There is no problem of calling it God. Your certainty of "no source" is just another form of energetic clinging as to "a source." Denial is just another form of attachment as it is just another form of affirmation. You deny a Source, but you also affirm this moment, of "hearing" of "seen."

 

I don't affirm hearing or seen. There is just, as Buddha said, the 'suchness of the seen, heard' without cognizing an object seen, nor a cognizer. Of course even 'suchness of the seen, heard' is not inherently there - it's just a label for direct experience, but there is no inherent existence whatsoever. So yes, any label is fine - Suchness is fine, Buddha-nature is fine, God is fine, Satan is fine, but then the problem is that usually God is taken to be something inherently existing... so it is kind of meaningless. Of course, seeing, hearing can also be taken as inherently existing, but that is not what is meant or intended here... I'm just pointing to the unreified experience of suchness. Ultimately, there is no seeing, no hearing, no eye, ear, nose.... etc as what Heart Sutra says. But that does not deny luminosity or suchness of experiencing, since emptiness and luminosity are inseparable.

 

These are just the same states of mind just directed at different objects.

 

Oh yes of course. Six sense consciousness arises dependent on six sense objects and faculties... the eighteen dhatus are completely empty.

 

Your suchness, being part of a greater universe, of awareness, is precisely the definition of "Source" or God in esoteric religions.

 

No. There is no awareness, no source - those are ideas of a Self (especially when seeing is just the experience of sight). There is not even a seeing, a seen, a hearing, an eye, nose, etc... those are ideas of Object. Everything is illusory like a dream, though vividly appearing.

 

For me I concur with the Buddha: in the suchness of cognizing, I no longer conceive of a cognizer, or something cognized.

 

Of being the Son or manifestation of a greater spirit. Or of having the quality of knowing, Nous. Or being an aspect of Brahman, the universe. It's no different. I am Brahman, Brahman is the World, I am the World, all say the same thing.

 

Substantial non-dualism.

 

What you are against is an dualistic understanding of a source, between "I" and "Source of I." Liberating into dependent origination is no different than liberating into universal awareness, which is often referred to as, God.

 

No. Dependent Origination has nothing to do with a universal awareness or God.

 

All your arguments are strawman argument making the theistic traditions into dualistic modes of perception, when in experience they are not.

 

Your arguments show no understanding of dependent origination. You conflate dependent origination with substantialist understanding of something inherent and independent - some universal substance of awareness in which everything arises from or as.

 

Your posts lack insight into theism and the insight into the varying ways humans have sought divinity. When have you ever truly studied advaita, taoism, hermeticism, sufism, esoteric christianity, all of which you will dismiss as inferior to Buddhism because they are at "I AM" stage or "clinging to the source"? What varying meditations or energetic practices have you practiced to have genuine knowledge of them? Your quick to judge vipassana practices without spending any time doing them at all.

 

No comments but I am quite familiar with Advaita. It is not my intention to debate on superiority or inferiority of Buddhism or Advaita - I only talk about my experience.

 

Have you ever practiced other systems outside of Thusness's stuff? Probably not.

Self-Inquiry is Advaita. I practiced that for almost two years before Self-Realization. I also studied something called Actual Freedom, which appealed to me at some point, but as insights developed I saw how incompatible it is with emptiness, so I dropped it. Now the suttas and sutras resonate with me due to my current experience and insight.

 

You filter every spiritual language through Thusness's medium, a prime example of dogma, you judge through the intellect trying to categorize everything into its models. Have you ever let the possibility of an "alternative" into your mind? My guess is no. This is a powerful idea, that perhaps there is an "alternative" to the way you have thought for the past five or so years. Just that slight thought!

 

You sound as always, a very close minded individual, a devotee, a fanatic.

 

I only speak what I see, and just because I adopt Thusness's terminologies does not mean I do not speak from experience. I am not convinced because I had faith in him, or because it sounds intellectually sound. I am convinced of what he said because I've seen it.

 

I can speak in Thusness's terminologies many years ago. I totally understand anatta and non-dual many years ago. Yet what attracted me was the Advaita teachings and other teachings... especially in the I AM and substantialist non-dual phase. I go through those stuff myself. (Between 2008 to about mid 2010, I mainly read Advaita stuff and am really attracted to it.) I have to see things for myself. Whatever I learnt from Thusness, while intellectually I may get it, still, unless I see and experience for myself, they don't mean much really.

 

If someone else is able to point me to a deeper experience apart from what I have already experienced and is able to give valuable pointers to my practice, of course why not? I'll be glad to learn whatever I can. I am not as close minded as you think. I visit bookstores to find books from true practitioners often. I don't say "I am the most enlightened person in the world" or "no one is more enlightened than me".

 

But what's seen is seen - you cannot convince me of something there is no doubt or illusion about due to my experiential realization. For example, you cannot tell me 'self exists' - this is bullshit, as illusory as the notion of a santa claus or a rabbit with horns. I've already woken up from that dream and there is nothing you can say that can make me go asleep again - what's seen cannot be unseen. Try as you may, you are like convincing someone who woke up from a nightmare that the monster he saw actually is real - it simply will not work.

 

p.s. Something I wrote to someone a few weeks ago:

 

"Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it.

 

After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on."

[Vmarco]

Edited December 17, 2011 by Vmarco

[xabir2005]

This is just pure shit. How long have you been in non-conceptual awareness states? Probably never. You just wrote that whole crap based on what you believe other people do as "mistakes." You never truly experienced any of these state you preach against, and even if you have they were never genuine because all of the Thussness dogma had been sitting in your brain through the whole experience.

 

Haha... so you think whatever I wrote is from the intellect?

 

Fine... whatever you think.

 

If you want the truth: There is no moment at all that NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) is not my experience. Before anatta realization (Oct 10), I shifted to NDNCDIMOP when dancing in the nightclub in Aug '10 which lasted a few days, I thought it was permanent because it seemed stable unlike previously where NDNCDIMOP only seemed to last less than a minute. Nonetheless the sense of self came back a few days later and I am experiencing Awareness as a witnessing background again. This doesn't mean concepts came up again - I am still experiencing non-conceptual awareness, but as a witnessing background, the background space, because the tendency to cling to a purest identity (the I AM) came back due to lack of investigation. But as insight of non-dual arose due to my ongoing contemplation and challenging of dualistic views and I became doubtless about the one taste of luminosity in everything (no more seeing any particular state as the purest, and seeing everything as flat - no background vs foreground), NDNCDIMOP became rather effortless and continuous, into Sept and Oct. Even though the subject-object split and the tendency to treat a moment of thoughtless pure beingness (I AM) as the most ultimate and purest identity is completely seen through due to seeing the borderlessness, divisionlessness, no subject-object nature of reality and the one taste of luminosity in all manifestations, at that point the inherent view is still present - I see Awareness as this seamless undivided field manifesting as everything.

 

After anatta realization in October '10, NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) becomes truly effortless - I am no longer in ignorance pertaining to a self, it is completely and permanently seen through. After anatta insight deepens, NDNCDIMOP becomes perpetual. Now, there is no moment where I have actually lost sight of this. Every moment is an authentication of 'in seeing always just the seen' - just the direct, alive, gapless, intimate, direct and wonderful experience of everything. There is never any sense of an inside, and outside, a subjective perceiver apart from perceived, or even a sense of a body (not no bodily sensations, but no illusory sense of a body as a tangible thing in the background) - mind/body drop off.

 

But I'm seriously not concerned whether you want to believe me or not. I only write to those interested and open to investigating and seeing things for themselves.

 

p.s. as I wrote in that article,

 

...Having an experience of non-duality is not the same as having a realization... for example, you may have a temporary experience where the sense of separation between experiencer and experience suddenly and temporarily dissolves or there is the sense that subject and object has merged... temporarily. I had such experiences since 2006 (I had a number of similar experiences since then in following years, differing in intensity and length), the first time I had it was when looking at a tree - at that point the sense of an observer suddenly disappeared into oblivion and there is just the amazing greenery, the colours, shapes, and movement of the tree swaying with the wind with an amazingly intense clarity and aliveness as if every leaves on the tree is crystal-like. This had a lot of 'Wow' factor to it because of the huge contrast between the Self-mode of experience and the No-Self mode of experience (imagine dropping a one ton load off your shoulders, the huge contrast makes you go Wow!) This is not yet the realization of non-duality... the realization that separation has been false right from the beginning... there never was separation. ...

 

...When non-dual realization arise, non-dual experience becomes effortless and has a more ordinary, mundane quality to it (even though not any less rich or intense or alive), as everywhere I go, it is just this sensate world presenting itself in an intimate, non-dual, clean, perfect, wonderful way, something that 'I' cannot 'get out of' even if I wanted to because there is simply no illusion and sense of self/Self that could get out of this mode of perceiving, and there is nothing I needed to do to experience that (i.e. effortless), something that has no entry and exit. In the absence of the 'huge contrast' effected in a short glimpse of non-dual experience prior to insight, there is less of the 'Wow' factor, more of being ordinary, mundane, and yet no less magnificent and wonderful.

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is something I want to share, a conversation with Thusness when I was beginning to experience the impersonality phase in May 2010:....

Lol. That's not a conversation. That's Thusness barking at you. It's like a damn lecture.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Haha... so you think whatever I wrote is from the intellect?

 

Fine... whatever you think.

 

If you want the truth: There is no moment at all that NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) is not my experience. Before anatta realization (Oct 10), I shifted to NDNCDIMOP when dancing in the nightclub in Aug '10 which lasted a few days, I thought it was permanent because it seemed stable unlike previously where NDNCDIMOP only seemed to last less than a minute. Nonetheless the sense of self came back a few days later and I am experiencing Awareness as a witnessing background again. But as insight of non-dual arose due to my ongoing contemplation and challenging of dualistic views and I became doubtless about the one taste of luminosity in everything, NDNCDIMOP became rather effortless and continuous, into Sept and Oct.

This is far different experience than the theoretical "clinging of practitioners" you rambled about. Your experience of these states are all backed by previously learned states and convictions in which you had great faith in, namely Thusness's methods. It's pretty clear your investigations are not really investigation rooted in personal efforts but just following in the voice of Thusness. Hence imo you lack empathy into other practitioners stages and that's why you have such difficulty connecting to spiritual seekers on this forum. Your doubts were never really doubts, just a little passing phase to get to that next Thusness stage. As GIH once mentioned, you are a mere voice hearer.

 

I like these kinds of posts a lot better than whatever you usually put out here. Speak about personal experience. You spoke about bliss. Why don't you describe that a little further? How do you experience it? What is it like? As in show it. For someone who is so open to the transience of life, you sure depend a lot of second hand analytical language. Any third person reading through these posts can see that Seth is very much more open than you are. You just seem all in the head.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes