Clarifying this whole 'becoming' thing

About the sense of self, Nick said:

"Why not scrap it off and hose the sole down, get rid of the poop?"

This cracked me up! But I don't do that because I do not see it as poop. It's like everything else that arises - it's empty. It's like saying I should scrape the beautiful sunrise off as well. Whenever I look into the sense of self it disintegrates into thoughts and sensations. There's just no permanent entity there to worry about, Nick. There is no poop!

"
"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?

"


I awakening is awakening to non-dual awareness, the Buddha would have sticked to Vedanta that is much clearer and straitforward to describe this attainment, keeping in mind that for Vedanta also, non-dual awareness is not a thing, cannot be grasped, is unborn, uncreated, unmanifest, etc.

Why did the Buddha speak about No-Atma (anatta) and not no-ego (Skt. ahamkara)?
Why did he talk about emptiness (shunya), suchness (tathata) and co-dependent origination (pratytiasamutpada)?

Did he realize something else that 99.9 contemporary Buddhist teachers have not realized yet?
This is a real question that could seem naive if asked by my 10 years old son, but is essential to clarify "this whole becoming thing".

"

This cracked me up! But I don't do that because I do not see it as poop. It's like everything else that arises - it's empty. It's like saying I should scrape the beautiful sunrise off as well. Whenever I look into the sense of self it disintegrates into thoughts and sensations. There's just no permanent entity there to worry about, Nick. There is no poop!

"

Ha! You are equating the self to the sunrise? I would equate its unneccessary compounding (it only compounds when one isn't paying attention to something) to the dog poop only that is encrusted in my nice pair of converse sneakers, true story.

Of course there is no permanent entity there and we saw that with a lot of clarity at MCTB 4th path. BUT there is this flow of becoming, becoming, becoming which no matter how equanimous and unsticky I make the mind, it still flows and flows and bites my arse and the arses of other beings if i don't constantly hold that equanimity stable (constantly having to be 'on my toes' and aware).

I would prefer to make the default mode free of being stable and not stable. Stability only arises when there is something/someone that has to 'be' stable against something else (ever-changing phenomena).

I chose not to ignore and include the flow of becoming into the mix but to investigate its arising and cessation, to see why it arose and how its cessation came about. It caused a path moment to occur and now virtually no mental suffering remains. There is now a default mode which is for lack of a better word, stability-free. It doesn't need to be stable nor sticky-free against the possible unpleasant vedana that may arise or due to outside occurrences (so far). The difference between 'sticky-free' which was my ongoing experience previous to the last shift and now, post-last shift, is unimaginably better.

Did I mention my wife seems to love me more now? True story.

Nick, I'm not reactive, I have eons more patience than I used to have, my days are filled with what is happening right now and I do not have arguments with people, I have discussions and am able to quickly see things from their POV and reconcile any problems. I'm not anticipating the next moment and I'm not fretting over past ones. When any sense of a "me" arises it is immediately seen for what it is. The thoughts that lead to its arising are ever decreasing in frequency and impact. My wife likes this "me," too, although she loves me the same, I think

Not sure what to make of this but I do agree that Alex has the crux of the question in hand. I just don't know the answer.

"
Nick, I'm not reactive, I have eons more patience than I used to have, my days are filled with what is happening right now and I do not have arguments with people, I have discussions and am able to quickly see things from their POV and reconcile any problems. I'm not anticipating the next moment and I'm not fretting over past ones. When any sense of a "me" arises it is immediately seen for what it is. The thoughts that lead to its arising are ever decreasing in frequency and impact. My wife likes this "me," too, although she loves me the same, I think
"

Keep doing that 24/7 and eventually you might flip the switch off permanently. Then you will be one of us. Mwwwwwwwwhahahahahaha!



P.S. My personality quirks, those which seemed to have nothing to do with ill will or sorrow, or gross cravings, are still arising. So the 'me' that my wife fell in love with still flows to a degree. Just without the bits (the ill will, sorrow, gross cravings) that made her question her sanity when we got married.

"Keep doing that 24/7 and eventually you might flip the switch off permanently. Then you will be one of us. Mwwwwwwwwhahahahahaha!"

Will you have his uniform and secret decoder ring prepared, or should I handle that?

"
Not sure what to make of this but I do agree that Alex has the crux of the question in hand. I just don't know the answer."


This point is crucial and often overlooked. Why? Because the Siddhartha Gautama was already recognized as a liberated yogi before his Awakening. Buddhists often have a naive understanding of Vedanta and Samkhya, assming that they are just blind or stupid. But Samkhya and Vedanta are both very deep and complete. Now what did the Buddha realize that great sages like Ramana Maharishi never addressed? Are they just talking about the same thing? But then why make it so complicated when we can sum it up clearly like Adhyashanti. Why did the Buddha insist on co-dependent origination and on the absence of an abiding absolute Brahman or Atman (which as his time was already defined as non-dual all pervading presence-awareness that is both the source and substance of all things beyond waking, dreaming and deep sleep)? This is a tricky question.

One general point of interest to me is that, as our (my, Nick's, and Owen's) attainment seems to be nothing other than further developmental enlightenment (or "physioenergetic development" if you prefer that), anyone who continues to observe their experience equanimously, if they do it to a sufficient extent, is at some point likely to suddenly find themselves standing in a brand new pair of the boots that our army issues to its new recruits.

"
This point is crucial and often overlooked. Why? Because the Siddhartha Gautama was already recognized as a liberated yogi."

Reference?

I am sure you know this, but the world of vedanta was enormously different in the Buddha's time than it was after it. (Recall that Adi Shankara, who postdates the Buddha, was accused of teaching Buddhism; the influence of Buddhism may well have been so strong as to completely reform various non-Buddhist practices.)

From my standpoint now, I am very hesitant to dismiss the sages of other traditions that postdate the Buddha (which, as far as I know, means all of the "famous" ones).

"Reference?

I am sure you know this, but the world of vedanta was enormously different in the Buddhas time than it was after it. (Recall that Adi Shankara, who postdates the Buddha, was accused of teaching Buddhism; the influence of Buddhism may well have been so strong as to completely reform various non-Buddhist practices.)

From my standpoint now, I am very hesitant to dismiss the sages of other traditions that postdate the Buddha (which, as far as I know, means all of the "famous" ones)."


Sure but this is not my point. I am talking about the fact that the Buddha's teachings about no-self, emptiness, co-dependent origination, the end of suffering, the flow of becoming, etc. was made necessary, because he got into a deeper insight. Something new that turned out to be the end of sufering. And this issue is directly related to the title of the thread. You see my point?

Of course Ramana Maharishi deepened his insight to an amazing level. But basically, we see the same thing. Everything he talks about is clear for me.

But then, this is not the case for the Buddha's teachings. I just don't get most of it. Not because I don't know crap about Buddhism, but because his whole system addresses something deeper that I not yet seen.. clearfly enough at least.

Perhaps one of the reasons he was reluctant to teach it

"Even with his wisdom the Buddha spared no efforts to discover the process of dependent arising and develop a doctrine for teaching sentient beings. When the Buddha attained enlightenment, he hesitated to teach the doctrine because only a handful of people would be able to understand it. In the end, however, the Buddha bore the burden of teaching the arcane and profound Truth because of his great compassion for the sentient beings. Because only a few people could understand the doctrine, we can see how difficult a task it was for the Buddha."

"The doctrine of dependent origination, the core or essence of Buddhism, is profound. For this reason, it is bound to spawn certain issues. These issues can endanger Buddhism, and take the benefits of religious doctrines away from the Buddhists. The Ven. Ananda once told the Buddha he found the doctrine of dependent origination evident and easy to comprehend. The Buddha replied, 'Ananda, do not say so. The doctrine of dependent origination is so profound that sentient beings are unable to comprehend it. They are unable to understand what I teach; likewise, they are unable to perceive the process of dependent arising. Consequently, they are perplexed just like with a ball of entangled thread, a jumble of munja grass. They cannot free themselves from sufferings, state of deprivation [apaaya-bhumi], degeneration, and transmigration.'

what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Bu...Paticcasamuppada.htm

Regarding (Kenneth's?) principle of mapping, that everything looks like everything else, how certain are you that you understand everything that Ramana Maharshi talks about?

Remember, there was a time at which many of us genuinely thought that we understood what the Buddha was talking about...and that that understanding was technical 4th path.

And of course the vast majority of contemporary Buddhist teachers use the Buddha's concept, but to describe other obvious things. A good example, is no-self. Most confuse Self and ego. But Anatta is not seeing through the ego. No why did the Buddha deny the existence of what is obviously the Absolute? How did this lead to the end of suffering? These are the key questions.

"
Remember, there was a time at which many of us genuinely thought that we understood what the Buddha was talking about...and that that understanding was technical 4th path."


This is precisely what I mean. You got my point.

Perhaps the best thing to say is, we will figure it out to our own satisfaction only if and when we reach the end.

Until then, I personally am open to the possibility that other traditions are equally as deep as Buddhism (perhaps, as they greatly postdate it, they have been reformed by Buddhism), but am happy to stick with the Pali suttas, as they are extraordinarily clear and suit my way of understanding things.

I think this is a helpful attitude, but to each their own.

To qualify what I was saying (and perhaps this is more like what you had in mind), I do think an advanced practitioner ought to be able to match their experience up to what's in the Pali suttas, no matter what tradition they practice in...and, if they cannot, they should question whether they have yet to analyze something important about existence.

I am of course not saying that any Tibetan lama or Western dharma teacher is much more enlightened than Ramana Maharishi, nor that I am like Ramana. What I am saying that there are key insights/realizations and degrees of settlement into these realizations. Ramana's insights are not that difficult to get (so to speak), but the sage got very very deeply settled into it (unlike me).

Buddhism is probably not better, but it is clear that a new vocabulary and paradigm was required, because the Buddha got into something that others has not seen before and that most Buddhists may never see.

"To qualify what I was saying (and perhaps this is more like what you had in mind), I do think an advanced practitioner ought to be able to match their experience up to what's in the Pali suttas, no matter what tradition they practice in...and, if they cannot, they should question whether they have yet to analyze something important about existence."


YES. This is exactly the conclusion to which I was leading the discussion.

"Buddhism is probably not better, but it is clear that a new vocabulary and paradigm was required, bedcause the Buddha got into something that other has not seen and that most Buddhists might never see.
"

I get your point now and partially agree with it. (The explicit language of the Pali suttas points directly to what needs to be seen and understood, reducing the risk of confusion.)

However, I still think that it is an open question whether traditions that postdate the Pali suttas (Tibetan Buddhism, Advaita) are talking about something that is not as deep as the suttas, or are talking about the same thing in radically different language.

EDIT: Judging from your last post, I think we are completely in agreement after all.

"I get your point now and partially agree with it. (The explicit language of the Pali suttas points directly to what needs to be seen and understood, reducing the risk of confusion.)

However, I still think that it is an open question whether traditions that postdate the Pali suttas (Tibetan Buddhism, Advaita) are talking about something that is not as deep as the suttas, or are talking about the same thing in radically different language.

EDIT: Judging from your last post, I think we are completely in agreement after all."


Yes. I am well aware that Gaudapada (Shankaracharya's teacher) took a lot from Yogachara and Madhyamika Buddhism and was even called a crypto-buddhist by Hindu scholars. Which shoes that the deepest aspects of the deepest Buddhist schools have been integrated into Shankara's Advaita Vedanta.

"Will you have his uniform and secret decoder ring prepared, or should I handle that?"

You can handle that, but I get to do the hazing/hosing down in the bare concrete room in front of the golden Buddha statue. Should I teach him the secret handshake or you?


;-0 (shady humour)

"You can handle that, but I get to do the hazing/hosing down in the bare concrete room in front of the golden Buddha statue. Should I teach him the secret handshake or you?"

You'll have to do it, as I'll be holding the video camera during and after the hazing.

Could this all come down to just differences in attitude and concepts? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Nik has been driven relentlessly to try to understand exactly what the Buddha attained and also attain it. This drive to understand and feeling like experience was falling short was deeply unsatisfying. Is this the same deep dissatisfaction that the Buddha experienced? Is it basically a conceptual torment that could only be overcome through manifesting what was believed to be possible?

My conceptual drive was to overcome stress, answer questions abut the nature of reality, and enjoy life. At this point, done, done, and done. So, in a moment of mindfulness, I have a choice to either experience perfection of this moment with all its glorious imperfection, or I can get back to this painful work.

My conceptual model is that I also suspect that marinating in awakeness is all that needs to be done - its certainly what Tulku Urgyen's writings have led me to believe.

My point being that perhaps neither result is better than the other, just different outcomes based on the conceptual knots that need to be unbound. Maybe the Buddha needed new language and a new model because he suffered differently than others?

Our point is that there is more to overcoming stress, answering questions about the nature of reality, and enjoying life, than was previously apparent to us (and thus more than may currently be apparent to you).

As for whether marinating in awakeness is all that needs to be done...perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. One way to check to see whether it's having the same effect that we're talking about is to adopt our terminology and compare what the result is and has been.

As for different kinds of suffering, my opinion is that everyone suffers in the same fundamental way.