Clarifying this whole 'becoming' thing

By 'becoming', do you all mean a loss of attention that leads to becoming "embedded" again?

Is attention or inattention inextricably linked to "becoming" or are they separate things?

I become when I create an illusory subject that appears to be separate from the objects that seem to be "out there." Overcoming that illusion could easily be called "disembedding."

chris: great - very clear. Do you have an observation of how attention relates to becoming? Are they two sides of the same coin? Is attention a prerequisite for not becoming? Are they correlated, but not tightly bound to each other?

"By 'becoming', do you all mean a loss of attention that leads to becoming "embedded" again?

Is attention or inattention inextricably linked to "becoming" or are they separate things?"

In my experience, being "embedded" relates to becoming. To the extent that the mind can shift between generating craving-clinging-becoming and not, when one is "embedded", the mind has shifted towards generating those things, and so the sense of I / me / mine has become much stronger.

This is definitely related to attention. In the past, I would have to be vigilant with my attention in order not to fall into this kind of experience; but, there was a way of "trying too hard" that was also "embedding", which I generally tried to avoid. (Right now it's the opposite; doing nothing, I am "disembedded" in the sense of having the mind inclined FAR away from clinging-craving-becoming, but I can try to incline it in the opposite direction to get lost in actively...this is effortful for me and there is no reason to do it aside from experimentation.)

But, the core thing is to see it as a separate object of experience. Did you find the pointing-out instructions in the other thread that I gave helpful? If so, we could talk about your experiences working with the breath and concentration, if you were interested in sharing them.

Here's another related thought. To the extent that there is something to possibly be embedded in, there is becoming. (Becoming is the object in which you get embedded.) In that case, it's important to find ways to be less and less embedded. But, there are times when there is literally, absolutely nothing to be embedded in, and so there is no choice of whether to be embedded or not; and that is the goal of Buddhism as I understand it (absolute, irreversible disembeddedness / the end of becoming).

I'm glad you brought this up, orasis. Embeddedness is kind of what this is all about. I've thought about it in passing before but never enough to realize the big connection. So thanks.

Thinking about this, there are actually two factors at work here. Here is a very informal model.

1) How much becoming is there?

2) Given the amount of becoming that there is, how much is my mind inclining away from "falling into it"?

Both of these are related to embeddedness. At times when there's a lot of becoming being generated, it's possible for the mind to place more attention on other parts of experience, and so the becoming hangs out in the background, getting in the way, but actively being resisted, and so one is half-embedded but struggling to extricate itself. And, whether there is a lot or a little becoming being generated, the mind can always "fall into it" and become deeply embedded if the danger of this isn't seen.

My version -- attain the realization that all separateness (me/subject versus it/object) is an illusion. That ends the embedded-ness pretty freakin' quickly.

"
My version -- attain the realization that all separateness (me/subject versus it/object) is an illusion. That ends the embedded-ness pretty freakin' quickly.

"

Hi Chris,

MCTB 4th path? What is this realization, Chris? Is it an ongoing or momentary? Permanent, forgotten then remembered or temporary? How do/did you realize it? Do you sometimes feel separateness and sometimes feel no separateness? Does it depend on what you are doing? Meaning can you realize this while walking around? Or are you continually disembedded 24/7?

Curious,

Nick

"
My version -- attain the realization that all separateness (me/subject versus it/object) is an illusion. That ends the embedded-ness pretty freakin' quickly.

"

This resonates with my experience and I think this is why I have difficulty in investigating this while DO chain thing. If I am attentive enough in a moment to be awake why would I consciously unsettle things by choosing to manipulate my attention to investigate? My states are either lost, awake, or somewhat confused. The confusion happens when I my attention is there to be awake but I am missing some selfing - this feels very similar to the heaviness, confusion, and attention jitter when "I" *try* to investigate the sources of becoming. Frankly, this investigation feels like it could form some bad neural connections compared to just being awake when I remember to be.

"If I am attentive enough in a moment to be awake why would I consciously unsettle things by choosing to manipulate my attention to investigate?"

Because it ultimately leads to happiness.

"Because it ultimately leads to happiness."

Thanissaro Bhikkhu: "The determination to train for peace helps maintain your sense of direction in this process, for it reminds you that the only true happiness is peace of mind, and that you want to look for ever-increasing levels of peace as they become possible through the practice. This determination emulates the trait that the Buddha said was essential to his Awakening: the unwillingness to rest content with lesser levels of stillness when higher levels could be attained." END OF QUOTE

Great read from Freedom From Buddha Nature: www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/than...rombuddhanature.html

""...essential to his Awakening: the unwillingness to rest content with lesser levels of stillness when higher levels could be attained."

"

Bam! That hit me like a ton of bricks. I am enjoying this refreshed spring of good dharma discusion tonight but after reading that quote I am going to turn off my computer and go practice.

"Thanissaro Bhikkhu: "The determination to train for peace helps maintain your sense of direction in this process, for it reminds you that the only true happiness is peace of mind, and that you want to look for ever-increasing levels of peace as they become possible through the practice. This determination emulates the trait that the Buddha said was essential to his Awakening: the unwillingness to rest content with lesser levels of stillness when higher levels could be attained." END OF QUOTE

Great read from Freedom From Buddha Nature: www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/than...rombuddhanature.html "

I'll be honest - I read the words of that article, but the vast majority of it didn't stick. It failed to capture a foothold in my mind. The only thing that was slightly interesting was "First the nouns of natures and identities fall away, as you focus on the verbs of action and choice. Then the verbs fall away, too."

Awakeness in this moment isn't on a path and it seems unlikely to get it to intentionally seek pain.

I guess I best sit on the sidelines and marinate for a while.

"By 'becoming', do you all mean a loss of attention that leads to becoming "embedded" again?

Is attention or inattention inextricably linked to "becoming" or are they separate things?"

Becoming, to me, is the process by which I believe I exist or that I don't exist. IMO, both assumptions can sometimes come from inattention, but other times I think they come from confusion/ignorance and habit.

Inattention leads to disconnection and this perhaps contributes to the illusion of existing as a limited being. So, in this sense, attention can provide a sense of connectedness that reduces the sense of being fragmented or differentiated from the rest of phenomena. If attention remains as "contact" (one of the links in the chain of DO), becoming refines itself.

I also think that ultimately any type of fabrication/karmic formation/sankhara is a subtler way of becoming. So to end this type of becoming, I let all my fabrications arise and cease and this means I let myself be itself so it can cease naturally.

The point I am making is simple -- all the selfing and emotions and the arising of all kinds of wonderful, and/or nasty things doesn't matter and does not cause suffering if the realization that it occurs inside the infinite, timeless, and untouchable awareness is present, all the time, right now. If I'm in that experience right now there is no problem, period, no matter what happens, now or in the future -- a future that need not even be considered unless I have some fear that I will suffer... then. I don't because I have the confidence that whatever occurs will occur in the way THIS is occurring, right now. Emptiness matters

I'm still not sure that the notion that a human being needs to experience *nothing* in order to be awake has a lot of merit. It's just not my experience and it's not the experience of any but an extremely small few. Are those few just more awake than me? Maybe they are! Time will tell. Or, I'll never get there. Either way, it's all good.

Let's refer back to this, the article Jackson posted yesterday and based on comments from the same Thanissaro Bikku that everyone is quoting here these days:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+...T+the+end+of+feeling

"'Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one [after awakening] discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain'¦. Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain'¦. Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it.' '” MN 140 (Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

The above describes the experience of vedana (feelings of pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain) by one who is awake. It's pretty straight forward. After awakening, one can still sense feelings of pain, pleasure, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain. They just don't get caught up in it. They don't obsess over it through passion or aversion. No craving or clinging is involved, and yet there is still vedana."


That is what I'm describing. Nothing sticks, but it is observable. It's still there but it is not causing pain and suffering.

"
The point I am making is simple -- all the selfing and emotions and the arising of all kinds of wonderful, and/or nasty things doesn't matter and does not cause suffering if the realization that it occurs inside the infinite, timeless, and untouchable awareness is present, all the time, right now. If I'm in that experience right now there is no problem, period, no matter what happens, now or in the future -- a future that need not even be considered unless I have some fear that I will suffer... then. I don't because I have the confidence that whatever occurs will occur in the way THIS is occurring, right now. Emptiness matters

I'm still not sure that the notion that a human being needs to experience *nothing* in order to be awake has a lot of merit. It's just not my experience and it's not the experience of any but an extremely small few. Are those few just more awake than me? Maybe they are! Time will tell. Or, I'll never get there. Either way, it's all good.

"

I guess it comes down to perhaps a difference of a mahayana type approach and pali canon sutta approach. I don't see anywhere in the suttas where the buddha talks of what you are pointing to, Chris. He just goes on and on about uprooting the defilements rather than including them in the mix. I may be wrong about the mahayana thing, but I seem to get the impression that Chris' take on it is coming from there.

Chris, are you exaggerating for effect when you say "experiencing *nothing* in order to be awake". Where did you get this idea from?

The idea I see others and myself talking about is just not to suffer the fetters that bind us via 'uprooting' them. To end the flow of becoming, not include it in the mix. No need to include them in the mix as they wont arise anymore. I honestly am perplexed at the resistance towards this idea. The whole 'emptiness matters' sounds mahayana-y. I might be wrong of course not being an expert in such things. I don't see much of that at all in the suttas. Rather 'the end of suffering' matters.

But hey, each to his or her own. I don;t see why a yogi can't have both options. I know I tried the option you described but fond it ultimately unsatisfactory. But that was just 'me'.

(for friendliness)

"
Let's refer back to this, the article Jackson posted yesterday and based on comments from the same Thanissaro Bikku that everyone is quoting here these days:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+...T+the+end+of+feeling

"'Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one [after awakening] discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain'¦. Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain'¦. Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it.' '” MN 140 (Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

The above describes the experience of vedana (feelings of pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain) by one who is awake. It's pretty straight forward. After awakening, one can still sense feelings of pain, pleasure, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain. They just don't get caught up in it. They don't obsess over it through passion or aversion. No craving or clinging is involved, and yet there is still vedana."


That is what I'm describing. Nothing sticks, but it is observable. It's still there but it is not causing pain and suffering.

"

But in the suttas it's about no more becoming. To end becoming. THat is what I keep reading about. But when you maybe have a few moments of perceived no becoming peppered with moments of becoming (self/me-ness etc), then have you ended becoming like the suttas go on and on about? Wouldn't one prefer things to just not arise rather than 'not sticking'. Here I am referring to that which is becoming and ultimately stressful/dukkha.

I ask why would you cling to such an idea of keeping an illusory self around by including it in the mix. I mean it's like seeing dog poop on your shoe and not cleaning it up but just accepting it: 'Got dog poop on my shoe" gonna walk and get dog poop on the carpet". Why not scrap it off and hose the sole down, get rid of the poop?

I guess once again 'each to his or her own'.

"

That is what I'm describing. Nothing sticks, but it is observable. It's still there but it is not causing pain and suffering.

"

But you have not uprooted the problem and it remains just beneath the surface when you least expect it, wont it one day arise to bite yu on the arse and cause suffering once again? I guess that is why the Buddha went on and on about past lives, future lives etc and the flow of becoming conditioning where you end up. if you considered the notion of rebirth and future lives, you'd probably be more inclined to end becoming rather than risk some old dormant karmic fruit from arising. But these days, people are skeptical as hell, having no proof of course, you can't blame them. I guess my goenka indoctrination and quick adherence to all things rebirthy and devas and gods and demons (my mum was/is new age), I like the idea of ending the flow of becoming.

Ah, again it seems that it's all about each to his or her own.

The underlying issue may be due to the fact that many do not see what is missing with awakening (technical 4th path) and how "no-self", "anatta" or "ending the flow of becoming" related to it. Questions like:

- it is a different path?
- something completely new that non-one talked about before?
- the natural unfolding of awakening?
- the suppression of what needs not be a problem?
- madness?
- real enlightenment?
- a deeper deep insight into 'what is', leading to further insights?

I have my own idea about it, but until these essential questions are not clarified, this thread will turn around endless quotes or very technical discussions of Abhidhamma scholars.

"But hey, each to his or her own. I don;t see why a yogi can't have both options. I know I tried the option you described but fond it ultimately unsatisfactory. But that was just 'me'."

Nick, sure, I suspect this dichotomy in the perception of the purpose of the path (either to end suffering by sort of deep digging and then engineering it away or to see suffering as a non-issue from an expansive awareness/emptiness perspective) may indeed be related to personal experience and preference.

Peace, brother!

The above describes the experience of vedana (feelings of pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain) by one who is awake. It's pretty straight forward. After awakening, one can still sense feelings of pain, pleasure, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain. They just don't get caught up in it. They don't obsess over it through passion or aversion. No craving or clinging is involved, and yet there is still vedana."

We all seem to agree about this.

"That is what I'm describing. Nothing sticks, but it is observable. It's still there but it is not causing pain and suffering."

Now you have jumped from vedana to emotions.

The real question is: what did the Awakened One (the Buddha) awaken to?

I agree that we don't want to get into round after round of quoting Buddhist scholars because we can all find hundreds of quotes that will support our own questions and decisions about how to pursue the path.


"The real question is: what did the Awakened One (the Buddha) awaken to?"

Is that a question we could ever realistically find an answer to? I'm not sure it is. Alex, how would we find the answer? Do we refer back to the texts ands the scholars or do we rely on our own experience?