The Body is Not You

...

"One simple post positing "you are not the body" has generated all of this conceptual masturbation.

Practice."

I understand that you are a very experienced practitioner, Augustleo. But humans are humans and can take a while to "get how simple it is" . Sometimes they need a little more convincing than these one sentence answers. Yes, it is that simple. You practice and you will know it yourself. But come on, man, maybe you could shed some more light on what YOU did? I think you could be a bit more helpful than flyby remarks . Inspire us!

And it IS fun and useful at times to talk about this stuff but at the same time, practice. It certainly helps clarify certain things for me. Your one word answers don't help my simpleton brain that much. I am practicing and I would LOVE to hear more about your practice because I believe you could offer so much more than these brief remarks (which I happen to agree with) . People do need to practice more than intellectualize, but people are people.

I hope you contribute more because you are not such a frequent poster. Think about us ignorant lot. Help us!

...

"I understand that you are a very experienced practitioner, Augustleo. But humans are humans and can take a while to "get how simple it is" . Sometimes they need a little more convincing than these one sentence answers. Yes, it is that simple. You practice and you will know it yourself. But come on, man, maybe you could shed some more light on what YOU did? I think you could be a bit more helpful than flyby remarks . Inspire us!

And it IS fun and useful at times to talk about this stuff but at the same time, practice. It certainly helps clarify certain things for me. Your one word answers don't help my simpleton brain that much. I am practicing and I would LOVE to hear more about your practice because I believe you could offer so much more than these brief remarks (which I happen to agree with) . People do need to practice more than intellectualize, but people are people.

I hope you contribute more because you are not such a frequent poster. Think about us ignorant lot. Help us!"

palabra
mucho palabras estan muy bien

"palabra
mucho palabras estan muy bien"

Nicolai-- estas tan gentil; como dice Miguel...

PS-- hope I've said what I meant to say: my Espanol is ancient and rusty for lack of use.

"PS-- hope I've said what I meant to say: my Espanol is ancient and rusty for lack of use.-Roomy"

You said, "My hovercraft is full of eels." But you said it with your characteristic charm and panache.

"Nicolai-- estas tan gentil; como dice Miguel..."

El español es no hay problema cuando usted usa a un traductor. Este es para aquellos que no pueden decir el español y son curiosos en cuanto a lo que está siendo dicho.

webtranslation.paralink.com/

[edit] - oops! it does not come out the same when put back through the translator.

"You said, "My hovercraft is full of eels." But you said it with your characteristic charm and panache. "

Well, I'd run it through a translation program, but for now I've got a bunch of eels to cook before my hovercraft starts to stink!

Gracias, Roomy por el cumplido. Ustedes todos merecen un abrazo grande.

Palabra!

By "thinking" I meant "active investigation", not necessarily verbal. Sorry for the confusion.

"But to assert that it doesn't exist is to reify the one who asserts."

A thing which exists, exists conditionally. A thing which doesn't exist, doesn't exist conditionally. A thing which is unconditional can not be said to exist or not exist, and this sentence is rendered null. If Awareness exists (or is somehow part of observable reality), then it is conditional and not what you think. If Awareness is unconditional, then this sentence is rendered null.

Leo, if you can accept body, sensations, feelings, etc. as a part of conventional reality, why can't you accept "I" as a part of conventional reality?

"A thing which exists, exists conditionally. A thing which doesn't exist, doesn't exist conditionally. A thing which is unconditional can not be said to exist or not exist, and this sentence is rendered null. If Awareness exists (or is somehow part of observable reality), then it is conditional and not what you think. If Awareness is unconditional, then this sentence is rendered null.-OMH"

I used to go to Bill H. from time to time with some clever insight. He would grin at me and say, "I hear you talkin'..."

This is not an exercise in logic. You know that, right? You've been quite active on the boards, but I haven't seen your practice journal yet. So far, it's all speculation, cryptic comments, and anonymity. When can we get down to business? I'm here for you whenever you want to get serious.

Metta,

Kenneth

"I used to go to Bill H. from time to time with some clever insight. He would grin at me and say, "I hear you talkin'..."

This is not an exercise in logic. You know that, right? You've been quite active on the boards, but I haven't seen your practice journal yet. So far, it's all speculation, cryptic comments, and anonymity. When can we get down to business? I'm here for you whenever you want to get serious.

Metta,

Kenneth

"

the lion!

"The body is not you.

Sensations are not you.
Feelings are not you.
States of mind are not you.
Thoughts and images are not you.
The sense of existence, of 'I', is not you.

These are just mistakes of perception.

You are the awareness in which these perceptions *seem* to occur.

Kenneth's 3 Speed Transmission will clearly demonstrate this to the practitioner, given adequate practice.

Practice!

AugustLeo
"


I'm with you up until the later stages.

I can objectify body, sensations, feelings, mind-states, thoughts and images. BUT this sense of existence, of "I" is what I can't separate from consciousness (in the five skandhas framework). It's the grand poobah of mistakes, and then when I read "you are the awareness" this points right to my greyest area, the realm of fuzzy, hazy, clouds.

In other words, how does one clarify consciousness enough to disembed from it? How does one correct the mistake, to continue that language, of identifying consciousness with a sense of self? Make sense?

Continued below...

"
Continued below...
"


I mean this coming from a first-gear orientation. Like, to use an example from past experience:

I'm sitting on retreat and after doing four foundations mindfulness noting, also noticing a slight but still arising distinction between "in here" or "me" and "out there" or "world." Then I notice (rather than a body sensation or a thought) just the simple awareness of those phenomena arising and passing away.

Then I notice awareness of that awareness (because I've just noticed it, right). And then I hit a brick wall. Then I go talk with the teacher, who says to me, "You are that awareness." So, then, I'm confused because I thought self was an illusion. Confusion, confusion! Anyways, Jackson diagnosed this perspective as the bystander.

So, assuming for now that's a correct diagnosis, here's my question: if I am that awareness, then what is the WORK to do between the bystander, (which seems synonymous with what the five skandhas framework calls consciousness) and the further perspectives of consciousness leading up to and including primordial awareness? (Witness, etc.)

Is that work even something that can be done through first-gear practice? Do I need to experience a fruition before moving beyond the bystander?

In other words, my goal: See what's beyond bystander, understand reality better, be happier, less confused, more empowered.

I think the phrase "you are that awareness" should be tossed into the sea. It's misleading. I would say this-- "Awareness is." The "you are" part is where you are getting confused. There is no personal identity to pure awareness. It doesn't care about you and me, it doesn't know from you and me. AWARENESS JUST IS. That is what's "beyond the bystander."

Does that help at all?

"This is not an exercise in logic. You know that, right? You've been quite active on the boards, but I haven't seen your practice journal yet. So far, it's all speculation, cryptic comments, and anonymity. When can we get down to business? I'm here for you whenever you want to get serious.

Metta,

Kenneth

"

I am getting down to business.

I agree that this is not an exercise in logic. It appears to be an exercise in ignoring logic. Why is the view that awareness is conditional being flippantly dismissed?

"
It doesn't care about you and me, it doesn't know from you and me.


"

I know. It kind of hurts my feelings.

"I agree that this is not an exercise in logic. It appears to be an exercise in ignoring logic. Why is the view that awareness is conditional being flippantly dismissed?" ~OMH

You're an intelligent person, OMH. I can tell. And I'm sure you are aware that this debate is nothing new. The Madhyamika people have been arguing with the Buddha Nature people for centuries. Nowhere is this more clear than in the debate between the Rangtong (empty of self) and Shentong (empty of other) sub-schools of Tibetan Buddhism. For an excellent overview of the reasoning behind this two views, I recommend chapters 15 and 16 of "Indestructible Truth: The Living Spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism" by Reginald Ray.

As you can tell from my posts, I lean toward the Shentong/"Buddha Nature" side of things. The more I practice, the more I find that my experience is best described with that particular language.

Anyway, if I were you I'd dive into this further before jumping to conclusions and suggesting that logic is being completely ignored at this forum. Rather, I think that logic is just being put in its proper place. Our language is best used to express experienced realities, and not used to shape them.

~Jackson

"I know. It kind of hurts my feelings. "


LOL

"
I think the phrase "you are that awareness" should be tossed into the sea. It's misleading. I would say this-- "Awareness is." The "you are" part is where you are getting confused. There is no personal identity to pure awareness. It doesn't care about you and me, it doesn't know from you and me. AWARENESS JUST IS. That is what's "beyond the bystander."

Does that help at all?

"


Thanks, Chris. Somewhat helpful, yes : )

I've certainly gotten what you're saying intellectually, but it's clearly one of those things that must be experienced/surrendered to....Not that there's anyone who could experience awareness. Nor is there anyone who could not experience awareness. ; )

But, clearly, not everyone who happens to be aware (alive) is really awake to awareness, if that makes sense. What's the practical step from the bystander to the witness and then from witness to transcendent? Possible to put this in really concrete terms?

For easy reference: kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/A+St...n+Model+of+Awakening

And - despite the graphic in that link above -- I'm still foggy on how to consider these things in terms of the 4-path model enlightenment. Strata 13-20 are available to whom?

Strata link for further easy reference:
kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/20+Major+Strata+of+Mind

I'm rather dull when it comes to some of these models. Thanks for your patience, folks.

"Why is the view that awareness is conditional being flippantly dismissed?"-overmyhead

Within the general field of "enlightenment," I identify three distinct understandings, corresponding to the three gears:

1st Gear is about looking at objects, and results in arahatship. We can call this "awakening."
2nd Gear is about inquiring into the subject and results in what has been called "self-realization."
3rd Gear is about the recognition of awareness as awareness. We can all this "enlightenment." (Thanks to AugustLeo for suggesting that we standardize the language instead of using "awakening," and "enlightenment" interchangeably.)

I have met people with any one, any two, or all three of these understandings. My contention is that when all three are present there is a synergy of understanding such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

It is common for someone who lacks one or more of these understandings to deny the importance or existence of the understanding(s) they lack. This isn't surprising, because people who have none of these three understandings (most people), often hold that view that none of them are real or worthy of their attention.

So when someone insists that there is no way to directly apprehend primordial awareness, all they are saying is that they do not yet have the understanding we are here calling "enlightenment."

In summary, "the view that awareness is conditional" is not being "flippantly dismissed." On the contrary, I'm asking that you not be too quick to dismiss enlightenment. This forum is dedicated to helping people find the happiness that is not dependent upon conditions. And the recognition of primordial awareness is central to that endeavor.

Kenneth, I hope you have interest and the means to write a book that brings all of your teachings together in one place. If you need volunteer proof readers etc., I'll sign up