Meta Stages and Development Before, During, and After Awakening

""In some bizarre way, they both are kinda the same perspective. Anybody else run into this?" ~Owen

Yes.

We live in illusion and the appearance of things.
There is a reality, but you do not know this.
When you understand this, you see that you are nothing,
and being nothing, you are everything.
That is all.

~Kalu Rinpoche"

Oh, yeah. That gets the tone of it...

I'm digging the way it flips back and forth, the duality just winding up as aspects of One Taste. But even that's a perspective. Nice when it comes up, but the joy is that I can be just as free in meat mode, which makes me happy to embrace the neurotic catastrophe that's sometimes my life.

""Jackson" (the personality) is illusory. There is no fixed, inherently existing entity called "Jackson."

And yet, here I am.

Awakening opens up the possibility of living in the space beyond self and no-self. You see things how they are, and you let be. This is why integration takes so long. It doesn't take long to see the truth. The habits of trying to nail down a formula or precise explanation of that truth take a while to fizzle out.

See, then let be. (I just made that up. Ha!)"

right... the flashy part of the process is discovering "it" as it is;
the transformative part of the training is to "leave it at that"

"right... the flashy part of the process is discovering 'it' as it is;
the transformative part of the training is to 'leave it at that'" ~jhsaintonge

Nice!

"Someone may offhandedly say "there is no "I" sense any more" but what that should be translated to mean is "I see the "I" sense arising as it always has but I do not associate with it, I do not invest in it, I do not believe it is anything other than just another process.""

I understand not being able to find anything to pin the 'I' onto.
I understand the process of 'I', not just as another arising process like 'pain in big toe' but as a discrimination, like pointing to yourself instead of someone else, but without the need for a finger! (But which often forgets its nature and looks for something to pin itself on, especially in the mornings).
I understand a sense of self that attaches to experience but that can also be seen... as having no signature. Like a sense of self with what the 'I' sometimes wants to be, taken out. (Feels like a not-self self, and makes the whole concern over 'self' a bit of a joke.)

Does this relate in any way to what you are saying? Sorry it's not clear to me.

Tazmic, simply put my experience is that the "I" arises as a duality. Any time there is a sense of subject (me) and object (other) there is either an implicit or explicit sense of "I" present. I can observe the process (explicit) or ignore it (implicit).To the extent that I ignore the arising of "me" and associate with it, believe it, embue it with solidity, importance or associate with it own it, or let it own experience, ignorance is present. What does not happen is that the sense of "I" disappears, never to return. I posted that other comment because we tend to use language that implies there is no more arising of an "I" and that has not been my experience. I was interested in being as accurate as possible about this as imprecise language misleads, even if by accident.

Does that help?

I'm enjoying see how the five step process fits into my life. That, along with the concept of the "mundane" (as opposed to the "supermundane?" ) are my big things right now.
Anyway, I had huge job related stress this morning that had the added thrill for me of involving driving across the Bay Bridge, through San Francisco then over the Golden Gate Bridge and back -- all while stressed.
Anyway the basic good news is that I applied practice the entire time (disembeding, the bystander, basic mindfullness, etc.) and it turned out to be a rich experience in many ways. And, it's amazing how tempting it is to turn whatever happened into a truth that can then turn into a "fall from grace." Know what I mean? Very tempting.
Let's just say two "questions" came up for me:
1. How much normal everyday stress can be reduced just from getting more and more enlightened (if any)?
2. How much can just simple practice skills be used to reduce everyday stress (suffering) while it is actually happening?

I don't know the exact answers yet but for #1 I'll break it down into two parts;
a. It does seem that gaining insight into one's true nature (developmental enlightenment) does bring a varying amount of ability to have more perspective on things which reduces suffering in the "mundane."
b. but, good old fashioned self-improvement, maturation, coping skills, etc. are also vital and are a separate thing from "a" above.
So, developing both a and b would be good. (that is really way brief, I could go on and on about this)
cont.

more:
for question #2:
A HUGE amount. One can really be just about as free of suffering as they want to be instant by instant if they watch, note, disembed, do the "bystander," etc. And this is whether one is very far along ('path" isn't necessary) or not. These are just simple skills that can be learned and improved over time. One just has to be willing to jump in and practice them.
that's what I think now, hopefully I've cushioned the inevitable fall.

The way I interpret it, I get a lot of perspective 2 lately when walking in the woods for example. Don't get any #1 though. So I get half

"We live in illusion and the appearance of things.
There is a reality, but you do not know this.
When you understand this, you see that you are nothing,
and being nothing, you are everything.
That is all.

~Kalu Rinpoche"

I really got into this quote, it struck a chord deep!

What we know is what we have learned. That which we have learned being experiences, concepts or the personal self we consider real. In considering these learned things to be real we ignore that they were learned and therefore metaphorically ( and actually ) "here for a moment". Reality manifests ALL THIS and must be, because we are. This "emptiness" and "being" is paradoxical when conceptualised or scrutinised by the personal self.

I am reminded of the koan "show me your face before you were born".

There can be no fixed positions, including conceptual statements, experiences or personal realizations.

"I really got into this quote, it struck a chord deep!

What we know is what we have learned. That which we have learned being experiences, concepts or the personal self we consider real. In considering these learned things to be real we ignore that they were learned and therefore metaphorically ( and actually ) "here for a moment". Reality manifests ALL THIS and must be, because we are.

I am reminded of the koan "show me your face before you were born".

There can be no fixed positions, including conceptual statements, experiences or personal realizations.

"

BOOM!
there you go, instant embarassment!

but, I guess I disagree with the spirit of your post, garyrh.
Having 'no fixed position" is vital to be free of suffering, to disembed, to be ready for anything. but, at the same time, on another level, it's good to talk about stuff and share our experiences with each other. I mean, hell, think of all the concepts Mr. Buddha layed down -- that dude loved to discuss sh it.
but the four noble truths and the three characteristics and the eight fold path were probably 'not fixed' positions for the buddha but that didn't stop him from going on and on about it.

"BOOM!
there you go, instant embarassment!

but, I guess I disagree with the spirit of your post, garyrh.
Having 'no fixed position" is vital to be free of suffering, to disembed, to be ready for anything. but, at the same time, on another level, it's good to talk about stuff and share our experiences with each other. I mean, hell, think of all the concepts Mr. Buddha layed down -- that dude loved to discuss sh it.
but the four noble truths and the three characteristics and the eight fold path were probably 'not fixed' positions for the buddha but that didn't stop him from going on and on about it. "

Yes on a level concepts are valid, hell they must be because they exist! In fact all things have a validity from the point of there arising. I think the Buddha probably went on about many things and I am guessing he hope that all of it would all get left behind.

Everything truly must be empty while at the same time there is reality, my point is the only way to resolve this paradox is to have no fixed position.

"Yes on a level concepts are valid, hell they must be because they exist! In fact all things have a validity from the point of there arising. I think the Buddha probably went on about many things and I am guessing he hope that all of it would all get left behind.

Everything truly must be empty while at the same time there is reality, my point is the only way to resolve this paradox is to have no fixed position.

"

nice

"Tazmic, simply put my experience is that the "I" arises as a duality. Any time there is a sense of subject (me) and object (other) there is either an implicit or explicit sense of "I" present. I can observe the process (explicit) or ignore it (implicit).To the extent that I ignore the arising of "me" and associate with it, believe it, embue it with solidity, importance or associate with it own it, or let it own experience, ignorance is present. What does not happen is that the sense of "I" disappears, never to return. I posted that other comment because we tend to use language that implies there is no more arising of an "I" and that has not been my experience. I was interested in being as accurate as possible about this as imprecise language misleads, even if by accident.

Does that help?

"

Thanks, cmarti, that's a lot clearer.

I found the last part of this chapter, starting at

"Once the sense of self is transcended, its polar opposite '” the sense of something standing in contradistinction to a self '” is transcended as well."

to be quite appropriate to where this thread has gone, regarding having no fixed position:

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/than...ro/likefire/2-3.html

"When I'm walking around in any kind of expansive environment now days, or when I just notice, I seem to flip between two "modes".

1. Everything in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel whole
2. Nothing in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel free

In some bizarre way, they both are kinda the same perspective. Anybody else run into this?
"

Do you ever have both at the same time?

"Do you ever have both at the same time?"

Yes. That's the way things are before I start thinking about it.

" That's the way things are before I start thinking about it."

I happily validate the accuracy of Owen's reply.

"" That's the way things are before I start thinking about it."

I happily validate the accuracy of Owen's reply.
"

And this... not-self self (1. Everything in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel whole
= 2. Nothing in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel free), is not the same thing as " 'I' arising as a [momentary] duality"

edit: that's a question. To clarify, there is, lets say, the 'I' arising out of functional necessity, but also, a contracted version of 1. (sense of self) arising, but one that fails to hide it's self similarity with a contracted version of 2., that simultaneity rendering "associate with it, believe it, embue it with solidity, importance or associate with it own it, or let it own experience" redundant.

Well, the small 'I' is just an experience, so it is part of my perceptual field, therefore part of me - but not the whole show. It is not any different from anything else of which I am aware. The sense of the small "I" is something that arises temporarily, is a source of suffering if held on to, and not me. Same as everything else. Not special.

I don't know if this will work for you or not, but something I've been playing with.
A way to get a quick taste of it is to notice that your experience of conceptual thought is non-conceptual.
Give it a try.

..........

Removed my non-contextual comment.

"I don't know if this will work for you or not, but something I've been playing with.
A way to get a quick taste of it is to notice that your experience of conceptual thought is non-conceptual. Give it a try.
"

Yes, conceptual thought involves referents to inferential imaginations and ones experience of conceptual thought involves non of those. The 'work' could be seen as putting things in their place, the end of reification, if you like. An unclear awareness includes inferential imaginations as realities which necessarily force a perspective onto ones experience.

"Well, the small 'I' is just an experience, so it is part of my perceptual field, therefore part of me - but not the whole show. It is not any different from anything else of which I am aware. The sense of the small "I" is something that arises temporarily, is a source of suffering if held on to, and not me. Same as everything else. Not special.
"


You are touching a very interesting subject, Owen. As the result of investigation it appears that the feeling "I" (or sense of self) arises together with experience. If held onto long enough we soon realize that it is nothing more than an object, a thought or an experience that may eventually vanish to reveal the non-dual nature of awareness. What I have also discovered is that this sense of self tends to get identified with a cluster of thoughts, sensations, feelings and perceptions to create the illusion of a separate self located somewhere within the body.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I'd say that awareness is always clear - however, the mindstream might not yet be developed to the point that it can concentrate or direct awareness in such a way that the three characteristics of existence are obvious and apply to what is arising in the moment.

Once first gear has been practiced enough, the mindstream, in some sense, just gets used to it. Then, the sensations that seemed to make up a self because they appeared to be constant are seen to be just more sensations. When recognition happens enough that a mindstream can't really deceive itself as to the nature of those sensations, arhatship arises.

BTW, using the mindstream terminology to get away from the small "I" vs Real Self debate for a moment. Precise language is very hard and very important with this stuff.

In the same line of investigation, I have been musing with Shantideva's vipashyana practice to realize the 'emptiness of self' to see if it may not be an excellent tool to get to the heart of the matter.

The first step is to identify and clarify the sense of self. Then to investigate to body to realize that the sense of self is not limited to a particular body part, nor can it be found in a particular location outside the body. The next step involves the investigation the mind to realize that the sense of self is not to be found in feelings, sensations, mental states, sense perceptions or thoughts, nor can it be found apart from consciousness. We finally come to the conclusion that the sense of self is neither inside nor outside the body-mind (the 5 aggregates). That it appears to exist, yet cannot be found anywhere and is therefore empty. This realization is the realization of the emptiness of self (as defined by Madhyamika philosophy).

It may first feel a bit conceptual, but soon becomes a bona fide insight knowledge with a bit of practice. We it is clearly realized, we are then supposed to take the emptiness of self as an object of concentration.

From what I can tell, it works as a charm.

"
You are touching a very interesting subject, Owen. As the result of investigation it appears that the feeling "I" (or sense of self) arises together with experience. If held onto long enough we soon realize that it is nothing more than an object, a thought or an experience that may eventually vanish to reveal the non-dual nature of awareness. What I have also discovered is that this sense of self tends to get identified with a cluster of thoughts, sensations, feelings and perceptions to create the illusion of a separate self located somewhere within the body.


"

Thanks Alex,
Right, if you do second gear long enough, it eventually burns out into One Taste.

I'm with you. I keep getting interested in how the small "I" gets to be a problem in the first place. I was reading Ramana a while back and he was talking about it as if it were a natural consequence of the universe growing a body that is observing the universe. Because the subject arises with experience, it seems to be the only part of experience that is permanent. Because it is seen to be permanent it gets seen as the "self", and that's when the sh*t hits the fan.

"
In the same line of investigation, I have been musing with Shantideva's vipashyana practice to realize the 'emptiness of self' to see if it may not be an excellent tool to get to the heart of the matter.

The first step is to identify and clarify the sense of self. Then to investigate to body to realize that the sense of self is not limited to a particular body part, nor can it be found in a particular location outside the body. The next step involves the investigation the mind to realize that the sense of self is not to be found in feelings, sensations, mental states, sense perceptions or thoughts, nor can it be found apart from consciousness. We finally come to the conclusion that the sense of self is neither inside nor outside the body-mind (the 5 aggregates). That it appears to exist, yet cannot be found anywhere and is therefore empty. This realization is the realization of the emptiness of self.

It may first feel a bit conceptual, but soon becomes a bona fide insight knowledge with a bit of practice. We it is clearly realized, we are then supposed to take the emptiness of self as an object of concentration.

From what I can tell, it works as a charm.

"

Looks like the Heart Sutra to me. Lovely.