Relating Buddhism and the PCE

"Yes. Words try to clarify but only serve to obfuscate. I get bored with the uneneding attempts to conceptualize what cannot be conceptualized.

Rather than add more words ... I second what Chris posted.

AugustLeo

"

I don't see words serve to obfuscate, but see it as a measure of my insight. As in zen koans, the students are asked to show their insight to unlock the riddles.

If you don't want to develop your insight to see what twofold Emptiness means, then you won't unlock the meaning.

You may ask what good is insight if I am comfortable in my practice already, well some yogis want to develop insight further, that's all. So words being discussed here serve that purpose.

Well, can you describe "cold" to us so that we experience it just like you do?

"
I find that when I have energy, and am fascinated, then detailed consideration of such things can be quite beneficial. However, when I am bored and/or don't care, detailed consideration of such things seems useless and annoying."

--- beoman


As I said, I'm old

"If you don't want to develop your insight to see what twofold Emptiness means, then you won't unlock the meaning."

Has anyone ever unlocked the meaning of this using words? Can another explain it to you? Can you read about it and "get" it?

"Has anyone ever un;coked the meaning of this using words? Can another explain it to you? Can you read about it and "get" it?

"

well, without words, i wouldn't even have stream entry... words can be useful pointers

Yes, pointers are good. We NEED to communicate and words are a huge part of what we have to do that with. But words do not convey experiences very well. They are imperfect and somewhat untrustworthy. We have to use conventions when we use words and assume that when you say "red" it's the same "red" that I see. In discussions about mind related stuff, dharma and otherwise, that's a very difficult challenge and we miss the mark fairly often. If this weren't the case we wouldn't need to have three bazillion discussions about what a PCE is

"Eran, whatever AEN is talking about, he thinks that it isn't pain or pleasure that's the problem, but the reaction to or judgment of them that is. From the perspective of the PCE, pain is the same as the reaction to it is the same as the judgment of it (and the same for pleasure). Further, he doesn't seem to recognize "being" as referring to anything, but the clearest way I found to understand what it refers to is to see what is suddenly absent in a PCE and let "being" be the label for it. So unless he uses language in a very different way, he's not talking about a PCE. Now, maybe he does use language differently, so it's worth talking about it, but my opinion is that the what he describes isn't a PCE, but may be on the way to it or related to it (as a EE distorted by affect)."


This is a great example of what I mean in regard to words being imperfect.

It's clear (well. at least to me it's clear) that Buddhism regards ignorance as the primary cause of suffering. Ignorance in the dependent origination sense, caused by not having insight into the very nature of the process of perception. Buddhism says that once that insight is present one can break the chain of mental processes that lead to suffering. So pain and pleasure are not the ultimate "problem" but remain and arise yet the process by which they arise is known. This has been my experience. The arising of a subject-object duality can be observed and known, which allows one to experience the phenomena called "pain" and "pleasure" but not attach to them, not claim them as I/me/mine, and thus not suffer.

Is using the term "being" referring to the same thing - the arising of a subject-object duality? EndInSight cannot transfer his experience of "being" to me directly, leaving us with a conundrum.

"It's clear (well. at least to me it's clear) that Buddhism regards ignorance as the primary cause of suffering. Ignorance in the dependent origination sense, caused by not having insight into the very nature of the process of perception. Buddhism says that once that insight is present one can break the chain of mental processes that lead to suffering. So pain and pleasure are not the ultimate "problem" but remain and arise yet the process by which they arise is known. This has been my experience."

Whatever happened to: "My observation is that discussions on dharma message boards tend toward citing authorities like the Buddha to the extent that those commenting are unsure of their comments"?

Only you didn't cite the Buddha, you talked about what "Buddhism" thinks, which is an even more unclear categorization, and usually is equivalent to "a thing that conveys all my opinions".

"Is using the term "being" referring to the same thing - the arising of a subject-object duality? " - it isn't, it's referring, at least in the actualism sense, to that which is equivalent to affect - 'i' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me'. that which is not present in a PCE. my opinion is that it is the same 'being' that buddha called 'becoming', but that's a different matter.

NIce shot, beoman -- except I was describing Buddhism, not citing it as an authority. And as I said quite clearly in my comment, my personal experience syncs up with my description.

So there

"
NIce shot, beoman -- except I was describing Buddhism, not citing it as an authority.

So there

"

hehe true, but Buddhism isn't really a thing... it's a philosophy, a religion, a what-not, whatever the speaker makes of it. so it doesn't really help convey anything. rephrasing all your sentences to use 'my opinion' instead of Buddhism would make for a more accurate rendering, i think..

anyway, the reason i called you out on it is cause we were both doing the same thing - using important words to make our opinions sound like more than opinions. i say we both stop doing it and just speak from experience..

I'm confused about the comment about Buddhism not being a "thing" -- another great example of the inexactitude of words. In my version of things (aka in my experience) a philosophy or a religion qualifies as a "thing." Those "things" can be the subject of a sentence, as in "Buddhism is a religion." It is an object. albeit a concept - which, likewise, is an object.

So help me out here -- what exactly is a "thing" (or an object) in your experience, beoman?


Edited for spelling.

"i say we both stop doing it and just speak from experience.."

Well, that's what I'm doing, beoman. Again, please re-read what I posted. It's also what I'm asking you about in post #60. It's a great example of word meanings passing like ships in the night.

Edited for spelling.

"I'm confused about the comment about Buddhism not being a "thing"..."

What I mean is, 'Buddhism' is a word that means different things to different people. To some, it is a religion, where you worship Buddhas and pray to them to grant you favors. To some it's a philosophy, a way of making sense of the world. To some it's a set of practices. etc.

You think the end goal of 'Buddhism', for example, is a state similar to your own, where you can feel emotions but you don't cling to them. I think that what Buddha laid out in the suttas as the end of all suffering is equivalent to Actual Freedom.

So when you say: "I think Buddhism points to X" all you're really saying is "I think that X is what the goal of practicing is." when you say "Buddhism says X", you're really saying "I think X". There is no 'Buddhism' that says that. It's even more inexact than pointing to a particular sutta.

so when you say: "I think Buddhism says the goal is X. That is my experience." all you're really saying is "My experience is X." the 'Buddhism' part doesn't add anything at all. do you see what i mean?

it also doesn't even lend itself to further investigation. Buddhism said X, really? Which Buddhism? If at least you say "My experience is X, and I think that's what Buddha was pointing to" then one can at least ask you for citations...

you say you're speaking from experience. so i ask: for what reason did you even mention Buddhism in your post at all?

"You think the end goal of 'Buddhism', for example, is a state similar to your own, where you can feel emotions but you don't cling to them. I think that what Buddha laid out in the suttas as the end of all suffering is equivalent to Actual Freedom."

Ah, now I see what you meant. So let me make sure I understand what you're saying -- Actual Freedom is your frame of reference in regard to what the Buddha's objective was in saying when in the suttas when he says, "eliminate suffering." So that's okay, using a frame of reference, a POV, like Actual Freedom, to describe the goal. I understand the utility and validity of that. It makes eminent sense to me to use a familiar concept (Actual Freedom) to put what you mean in the context *of your experience.*


"... for what reason did you even mention Buddhism in your post at all?"

For the same reason you used the term "Actual Freedom." It provided a frame of reference for my comment. It's not necessary to do, as you say, so why in turn did you use the term "Actual Freedom?"

This brings us back, I think, to the original purpose of this topic -- the difference between what people call "PCE" and how it ends suffering as compared to the experience that I and some others have, which is or is not different, depending on how we use the words that describe our experiences to others.

Relating Buddhism to the PCE. Maybe trying to do this will always be a semantic battle

cmarti: "For the same reason you used the term "Actual Freedom." It provided a frame of reference for my comment. It's not necessary to do, as you say, so why in turn did you use the term "Actual Freedom?"'

They're not in the same category of things, though. Actual Freedom is an attainment, very clearly defined and agreed upon by everybody who has claimed to attain it; Buddhism is a thing which even the people who follow it don't agree on what it is. If you had said "MCTB 4th Path" instead of Buddhism, I wouldn't have raised the objection. (And that does seem to be what you're doing - interpreting Buddha's objective in terms of MCTB 4th Path - so that even makes perfect sense.)

cmarti: " the difference between what people call "PCE" and how it ends suffering as compared to the experience that I and some others have, which is or is not different, depending on how we use the words that describe our experiences to others.

Relating Buddhism to the PCE. Maybe trying to do this will always be a semantic battle "

The issue isn't whether a PCE is different than a baseline 4th pather's state, is it? There are clear differences.

"And that does seem to be what you're doing - interpreting Buddha's objective in terms of MCTB 4th Path - so that even makes perfect sense.)"

Well actually, no, not at all. I haven't mentioned 4th Path throughout this most recent discussion, have I? Further, as I've said on this very thread, I don't believe it is full on awakening. I think you've been arguing (or conversing, depending I suppose) with your assumption about what I'm saying. (Another validation of the notion that words are slippery, inexact proxies for our experience.)

"The issue isn't whether a PCE is different than a baseline 4th pather's state, is it? There are clear differences."

The issue seems to be twofold, at least as far as most of these discussions go:

1. What is the nature of the "suffering" that we're all referring to? (Very specifically.)
2. What is the most effective practice to adopt that will end that kind of suffering?

Depending on how you answer those questions you come to different paths.

I am amused to think about how much of a pain Nisargadatta would have been on Internet forums.

"Throw out all your talking, concepts and words! After all, what is the mind?"

I offer this to no one in particular:

Peace only happens moment by moment. Be skeptical of attainments that ask you to forever postpone your awakening into some imagined future. If you have peace in this moment, you have already accomplished your goal. Peace is the same as awakeness. So, a peaceful moment is an awakened moment; it's a manifestation of buddha nature. By seeing clearly in this moment, by opening to this moment of awakeness, you are conditioning another wakeful moment in the future. It doesn't get any better than this; there is no better way to condition future awakeness than by being awake now. You are doing this for your own benefit as well as for the benefit of all sentient beings. It's good enough. It's better than good enough; it's perfect. This is the best practice you can do.

Find a practice that inspires you and do it. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn't work, find something else. No one can do this for you. No amount of speculation can bring you peace. Hold ideas lightly; they will change.

Peace is possible; this is not speculation. When you have the peace you seek, you will become less interested in what others say about which practice is better. If you are obsessing about which practice is better or which outcome is better, you are overlooking a precious opportunity. If you are arguing that your guru can beat up someone else's guru, you are foolishly missing your own opportunity to be free in this moment. Let it go. Find out in this moment what is true, what doesn't hurt, what is pure and untouched even as life storms on. Then you will have something truly worthwhile to say and you can set about the important business of helping others to be free as you are free. If you are free in this moment, speak from that place. If you are not free in this moment, remain silent. This is how you can best help yourself and others.

May you awaken in this lifetime.

Thank you for an amazingly beautiful and true post Kenneth!!

It's not totally clear to me what constitutes a PCE. And I am not very familiar with Actual Freedom. However I do agree with EndInSight that the Heavy Cats of old who dedicated their lives to practice, left behind a legacy that we can learn from. It is also true that over such lengths of time, we can't be certain what was lost in translation or how accurate the recordings we have are compared to what was actually said by the Buddha or others in the past. Luckily even if we may not be able to pin point what specific state or attainment corresponds to which label in the past, the practice instructions seem to have been maintained enough that people may still follow them and awaken. ^__^

We have an opportunity in the present to keep a detailed record of practice, yogi's progress, corresponding instructions, and the state or attainment that said instruction should lead to. And barring some world catastrophe, the ability to preserve this information accurately and sort through it efficiently thanks to modern technology.

Maybe I should mention, that as far as I am aware, I am a post AP ( dark knight ) .. possibly hanging around equanimity for a bit .. but pre-path yogi.

continued...

"A "PCE in non-conceptual thought" is one example of a weird experience. I believe I know what it is and have had it many times. It lasts only momentarily and can then be distorted in memory into something else. Thing is, I don't recognize anything in my experience ever that can be called a non-conceptual thought. I do recognize something that I can label "being" which masquerades as an experience coming through the mind sense-door, but without anything it's "about" (thus presenting as a non-conceptual mind experience), but is actually just a body sensation, and as far as I can see, this experience of a "non-conceptual thought PCE" is some kind of momentary one-pointedness on that body sensation dressed up as a thought. The important further point here is that the body sensation in question is affective (albeit absolutely neutral) so the whole experience is distorted."

When I read over the paragraph above, It seems to describe something I've experienced often in practice, but I don't see how seperating sensations as "body sensations" vs "mental sensations" or thought is useful when speaking of a PCE. Does a PCE lack this sort if inferring of seperation? The most useful perspective seems to be one from high-equanimity, knowledge of formations... when one see's sensations from this view, isn't this information contained within formations.. where thoughts / mental sensations, and bodily sensations are contained as a formation... ie not seperating the sense doors? Does creating a division here, mean we are not seeing things clearly.. or in hindsight what was contained in formations is being processed dualistically after the fact?

continued...

Is there a relation between what some describe as formations and a PCE? While I can seperate thought / mental sensations and the sensations that make up the body.. really they don't seem seperate.. they both seem to contain aspects of one another. Thoughts seem to arise with corresponding bodily sensations, and bodily sensations seem to arise with some mental aspect. To me once I sit for 10-20 mins it's like observing various groups of sensations within a field of awareness arising and passing. I think I have experienced and recognize what Is being described as one-pointedness on a bodily sensation, but can't this occur with any sensation from any sense door? I may have experienced visual sensations in this manner before during practice...

Now when I follow the direct path instruction here on KFD, I experience some energetic sensations, then fairly quickly, I settle into a calm state where tension fades away into a clear openness that is often intermittently peace from suffering .. depending on how long I maintain it. If I maintain this and stabilize it, ( keep my hand on the switch, so to speak ) then eventually what seems to predominate for me are the four Brahmavihara's. I suspect that I have experienced PCE's in my practice and in the past, but still I can't claim I grasp a long sustained PCE or whatever actual freedom is pointing at. I feel awake and short term peace from suffering doing this practice.. but otherwise I mostly feel that I need to pursue the developmental route.