A Zen exploration of the Bahiya Sutta

I agree with all of that, Alex. The two things do not come as a pair in all cases. Sometimes one comes first, sometimes the other.

"
I agree with all of that, Alex. The two things do not come as a pair in all cases. Sometimes one comes first, sometimes to other.

"

True.

no universal map?? Nooooooooooo!

"I first had experiences of non-dual awareness when the sense of self vanished completely, that lead me to conclude that this was IT."

Thanks for your response so far.

Knowing what you know now (about the path, about maps, etc.), how would you describe this experience?

Endingsight: "I would say, I take Thanissaro's interpretation as my guiding light at the moment, and so profess ignorance as to the ultimate nature of nibbana. I understand the luminousness of phenomena and the inclination to take these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual as the Ultimate, and take that to be an intermediate perception which indicates that I am not an arahant. If I were to become an arahant, I expect I would have a different understanding...but, I also accept that this different understanding is inaccessible to me currently (for that reason), and so not worth worrying about."

Hey!

it is clear that we do not need to be an Arahant to directly apprehend Suchness. No 'progressive' path is implicitly implied nor required. Because it is the natural state of things and our own inherent condition, anyone can spontaniously realise it. The question is temporarily or permanently. The nature of integration of such a realisation as realtime, base-line experience may speak to 'progressive' attainment. But a beginner can see it at any time. I would suggest you have too. There is merely a language and conceptual issue.

Also, there is no dichotomy of ultimates presuposed, implicitly nor explicitly.

There is just this, when you look around the room. That is it. Just that.

The question is, do we see it clearly or not. There is no ultimate substrate nor empty nature as ultimate and separate from the mundane. Just this, as we look around the room and type on the keyboard.

[cont]

If we see things clearly (vipassana - not the 'doing' Burmese 'practice'), then we have seen the same thing the buddha did, nothing else. No absolute implied or assumed.

We have been so conditioned by traditional binary logics, socialisation (which supports survival), dualistic appearances and western theistic metaphysics, that this is a little hard to grasp; and realise in practice.

Let go into just this, and simply allow oneself to be aware of one's experience / reality. Then dualistic fixation falls away.

That's it.

Adam.

"
Thanks for your response so far.
Knowing what you know now (about the path, about maps, etc.), how would you describe this experience?"


What I have learned is that experiences as just experiences. Like everything else, they come and go. The whole point is not to cling to old memories of mind-blowing experiences, but to listen to what they have to tell us about the nature reality, as it is and has always been.

If I take this particular non-dual experience, what it had to tell me is that this "me" is a fiction, that awareness is by nature non-dual, that everything is empty and manifests according to causes and conditions in the absence of a knower and a doer, and that as such, everything is perfect just as it is.

Even if it is so, we may suddenly cling to the idea "I am non-dual awareness", giving satsangs telling people that there is no enlightenment to attain because no one ever gets enlightened. One may also deny the experience and pretend that it never happened (like Brad Warner who doesn't seem to understand that although impermanent, these kensho events do tell us about the nature of things as they are).

Adam, yes, I'm sure we're all basically on the same page, regardless of terminology. (And this moment is pretty sweet...whether we are arahants or not...whether we are speculating over the internet about what arahantship is like or not.)

Alex, thanks.

Last night, after about 30 minutes of 'Bahiya sutta vipassana' practice, I tried to enter into Jhana, initially in order to rise up to the 4th before switching back to vipassana. But as strange as it may seem, I was unable to get into Jhana.

Viccara, Vitaka, Piti and Sukha arose quickly, but the mind refused to lock into Jhana, unable to compound these individual phenomena into one solid absorption state. It is as if the Jhana factors have to be experienced as "me" or "mine", at least to a certain degree, to allow the experience of absorption.

This leads me to think that the strict separation of samatha and vipassana is a later addition, probably due to the overwhelming influence of Buddhagosha's Vishuddhimagga on Theravada orthodoxy.

In the Pali Suttas however, samatha and vipassana are never made into separated practices. Samatha allows one to increase the Jhana factors and eventually lock into an absorption state, while vipassana deconstructs said altered state into its parts, allowing one to rise through finer and higher Jhanas until nothing remains. We are therefore to use both samatha and vipassana to compound and then deconstruct there states until we eventually become so much used to seeing these compound states for what they are (namely compound states), that it becomes impossible to see any of these Jhanas, or their factors, as "me" or "mine", freeing the mind from the desire for rebirth in higher realms.

"

This leads me to think that the strict separation of samatha and vipassana is a later addition, probably due to the overwhelming influence of Buddhagosha's Vishuddhimagga on Theravada orthodoxy.


"

In my teacher, Ngak'chang Rinpoche's, exposition of Dzogchen sem-de [in common with that of Namkhai Norbu's] samatha-vipashyna [shi-ne - lhatong in Tibetan] are the first two of the four preliminary practices that prepare for Dzogchen proper.

See this explanation: www.aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/n/n...rs_ar_01_ncr_eng.php
"I would say that vipassana is a dual approach. It is not a non-dual approach, because one is observing '“ I am observing what arises; I am naming what arises. In lhatong'”in terms of the Four Naljors'”one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises. One can see that it is the same practice; but in Dzogchen it is a non-dual approach '“ one becomes identified. Another vipassana style is where one enters into the empty state and then one contemplates some aspect of Dharma. But in every style there is emptiness; then some form comes '“ and it is what you do with that. With lhatong, whatever arises '“ one identifies; and one finds presence of awareness in the dimension of that which moves. "

Thanks, sure. I especially like the "In lhatong'”in terms of the Four Naljors'”one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises".

This is how the practice these days. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc. out there trying to dis-embed from the seen, the heard... If it seem that someone or something is investigating, seeing, practicing, it soon appears that this sense of a doer, an observer or even this abstract and impersonal sense of being is just thinking, feeling, sensing.

"This leads me to think that the strict separation of samatha and vipassana is a later addition, probably due to the overwhelming influence of Buddhagosha's Vishuddhimagga on Theravada orthodoxy.

In the Pali Suttas however, samatha and vipassana are never made into separated practices. Samatha allows one to increase the Jhana factors and eventually lock into an absorption state, while vipassana deconstructs said altered state into its parts, allowing one to rise through finer and higher Jhanas until nothing remains. We are therefore to use both samatha and vipassana to compound and then deconstruct there states until we eventually become so much used to seeing these compound states for what they are (namely compound states), that it becomes impossible to see any of these Jhanas, or their factors, as "me" or "mine", freeing the mind from the desire for rebirth in higher realms.

"

"The Buddha is said to have identified two paramount mental qualities that arise from wholesome meditative practice" -Taken from the wikipedia article on Samatha.

Like I said in my practice thread, I don't have a sutra to back this up but, what comes to my attention is that they are mentioned as qualities and not practices. If so, then there is only one type of right meditation and samatha and vipassana are just characteristics of this practice. This practice being Bahiya Sutta style, shikantaza, Mahamudra, Dzogche trekchod, etc.

Hi all, I'm AnEternalNow, the one who posted Alex's writings into my blog. I am currently away in australia for a three weeks military training evaluation (still doing my mandatory two year national service in singapore) but taking a bit of time off to surf forums. First of all I just want to thank AlexWeith for his amazingly clear contribution to the community on his insights and experience of anatta, I believe all of us can learn from what he has to share.

A couple of notes I want to share that came up in my mind. When we read the terms of different traditions, it is important to understand that the same word can have vastly different meanings and connotations in the different traditions.

For example, in the Advaita tradition, the unconditioned awareness could be taken to mean a permanent, independent and inherent substance of awareness, even if this awareness is seen to be completely inseperable from phenomena without subject/object dichotomy in the case of one mind, which sounds close to no-mind/anatta but isn't exactly the same (I have an article distinguishing substantial non-dualism and anatta at awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/...tantial-non.html?m=0 ). As Thusness said to me, sometimes some things can sound so close, perhaps 85 percent similar, but it is the 15 percent that is a major leap in understanding that serves as a difference between one phase of insight with another, such as the case of substantial nonduality (one mind) and anatta. Even though there is no subject and object, inside and outside, and you see awareness manifesting as every perception, this is still vastly different from realising that awareness is simply a label collating the five skandhas and eighteen dhatus, there is no "the awareness" at all, no "one mind" subsuming and appearing as everything.

Here, I am reminded of richard herman's explanation on the difference between one mind and no mind (though it should be understood that no mind can remain as a peak experience like pce and may not be a permanent realisation like anatta):

"Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. *No awareness*.

"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."

There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.

That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function."

However it is important to note that "no awareness" does not negate luminous clarity, it simply negates that there is an inherent/independent/unchanging source or "One Awareness" or "One Mind" - awareness simply denotes the self-luminous dhatus.

In the Theravada tradition including the Pali suttas, the term unconditioned is only used in the context of nibbana, nibbana meaning cessation. The sutta which deals with the "unmade, unbecome" is titled parinibbana ("final cessation"), which means the cessation without even the remainder of body and mind, I.e. What happens when the arhat has physically passed away. Nibbana as in the cessation of afflictions, suffering and attachments while the arhat is still alive is not "parinibbana" but "nibbana/cessation with remainder", the remainder being sensory faculties and awareness: these are not ceased/nibbana-ed until the bodily breakup of the arhat. Parinibbana is described by Buddha as being unconditioned, unbecome, no moon and sun, no this world or the next world, etc. It is describing the final cessation.

So in the context of pali suttas, the unconditioned refers to cessation (absence of afflictive conditions and experience), where there is no more afflictive conditions that could give rise to afflictive states of suffering and rebirth. This is the unconditioned that is spoken. It does not in any way denote a metaphysical or transcendental substance or self. The analogy that Buddha gave for nirvana in the pali suttas is this: when the fire ceased on the candle has ceased due to the absence of the conditions (such as the candle or the oil), the fire cannot be comprehended as "going to the east, west, north, south, up or down", and likewise you cannot comprehend in terms of existence, non-existence, where or when of a being having attained nirvana. There is no unchanging substance involved in the Pali suttas: what is spoken is strictly in terms of cessation. However I would also like to note, that Theravadin commentaries posit a subtly eternalistic view of Nibbana, even though not reified as a self or ground of being or source of everything. The Sautrantika school on the other hand do not have this problem but has a subtly annihilistic view of Nibbana.

Then we come to the Mahayana and particularly the Vajrayana sutras, tantras and scriptures. In the Dzogchen tradition, what is spoken of as unconditioned is our intrinsic awareness or buddha-nature. Why? Our primordial awareness has no beginning, has no end and at any time cannot be lost. Even when we are in a state of ignorance, intrinsic awareness, buddha-nature, the inseperability of luminosity, emptiness and functioning, is still as complete and spontaneously perfected as the buddha-nature of a perfectly awakened buddha. So at any time, you can never lose buddha-nature, you can never gain buddha-nature (it never was created through contrived effort and is effortlessly present).

However, while this sounds very much similar or familiar to advaita, there is a fundamental difference there.

When we talk about the unconditioned in mahayana/vajrayana, it simply means "unfabricated, not created by antecedent causes and conditions", and in the sense that "the continuum arises unendingly". It is not something you try to create or fabricate through contrived effort, but something which you can recognise and realise in your immediate, direct experiencing, and is a continuum that has no beginning and end, like a stream or river as padmasambhava says: "It is certain that this primal awareness or gnosis, which is one's intrinsic awareness, is unceasing, like the main channel of a river that flows unceasingly."

However at no time is a permanent unchanging substance being implied. Here I would like to quote the Dalai Lama: "The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the '˜clear light' (abhasvara, '˜od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, '˜dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the '˜mind-vajra'; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered '˜permanent' in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted'¦"

Understanding in this light, even clear light, luminosity, intrinsic awareness is completely empty of an inherent unchanging self or existence. There is simply the flow of direct experiencing which is instrinsic awareness, without a self or observer, luminous yet empty, as padmasambhava says, "And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts), Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer; only a naked manifest awareness is present."

However what many people do not understand is this: when anatta is realized, all manifest phenomena are implicitly and intrinsically self-luminous without an observer, without a subject/object dichotomy. In other words, intrinsic awareness is also realised in the insight of anatta even in Theravada tradition, therefore Vajrayana has no monopoly on intrinsic awareness over Mahayana or even Theravada. Many people don't understand anatta and the implications of the true realization of anatta, and think that intrinsic awareness is peculiar only to Mahayana or Vajrayana, which isn't true.

For example even though the Buddha did not say the word "intrinsic awareness" in pali suttas, all dhammas or phenomena are implicitly seen to be non-dual and intrinsically self-luminous/self-aware when anatta is realised. So in effect what the Buddha is describing in the pali suttas, is actually the experience and insight of intrinsic awareness with the right understanding (not reifying a self or substance out of it), and the realization of anatta is to see intrinsic awareness through right understanding. So, it is only when certain things are not understood well, that further turnings of the dharma wheel is necessary, to spell out the essential points that are missed. The three dharma turnings (the fundamental teachings of 4nt, to emptiness, to spontaneous presence) are turned successively when people failed to realise the full implication of the Buddha's teachings right at the beginning of the pali suttas.

Because people failed to grasp emptiness correctly, prajnaparamita sutras emerged. Because people fail to see intrinsic luminosity and get stuck on conceptual knowledge of emptiness, the third turning of the dharma wheel on buddha-nature is taught. Yet if the original and basic teachings are understood, all these are also understood. Even the most basic teachings of Buddha already contains the deepest wisdom which leads to liberation and true insight/experience.

Therefore I agree with AlexWeith that when your foundational understanding is right, then will your understanding of Mahayana and Vajrayana also be right, because these traditions have their foundations, and in fact are further elaborations of, the basic pali suttas and teachings of the Buddha. When you understand the fundamentals and see the link between the various teachings and traditions, you will not be stuck in sectarian or dogmatic views, but with a non-sectarian mindset you are in a better position of being able to appreciate and intuitively understand the truth that is spoken in the various traditions. This does not mean seeing that everyone is saying the same thing, rather you will simply be able to see what is missing, what is presented well, etc without sectarian bias.

With regards to the opening posts where AlexWeith said technical 4th path is one mind, that would depend what is the definition given. However if you are talking about mctb, mctb is clearly about no mind and anatta, not one mind. The thing lacking in mctb is that it focuses on Thusness first stanza of anatta and not much on second, whereas AF is about the second stanza but not the first (on stanzas see awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/...and-spontaneous.html ). In my and Thusness's experience, it is natural for those who undergo I AM and One Mind to first enter anatta through the second stanza aspect, while for those without prior focus on "intrinsic awareness" or focusing more on impermanence (such as the mctb path which focuses more on impermanence and does not go through I AM realization into non dual, etc, so yes different people have different path) to first enter via the first stanza. Alex weith mentioned that Daniel flirted with the idea of true self in technical 3rd path, this is true and his understanding seems to have deepened into anatta at technical 4th path, while stating that the majority of his ebook was written at a time when he was in technical 3rd path. Therefore some of his writings may not necessarily reflect his current understanding. Also my understanding of the four paths is different from the technical model of four paths: my understanding of the four paths and sotapanna is in accord with AlexWeith I.e. the traditional fetter model, which means to attain sotapanna you need to realize anatta and end self-view, you need to end the other various fetters to attain anagami, arhatship.

What adam west said about not necessarily having to (go the gradual way and) attain arhatship to realise intrinsic awareness is true, as there is a direct path (usually a form of contemplative investigation and questioning, including self-inquiry, koans, bahiya-sutta contemplations, mahamudra and other styles of contemplative inquiry) and gradual path (those focusing on experience, pces, etc) to realization, with theravada generally inclining mostly towards the gradual path. Gradual path leads more to stability of experience before insight, direct path being the other way. I have addressed this issue in my ebook.

Also, I believe Kenneth Folk's seventh stage of enlightenment is the realization of anatta, his descriptions are very clear. Previously his insight of nondual (3rd gear) is more of substantialist nondual and therefore he has a greater appreciation of Advaita, but his more recent insight marks a major shift in understanding into anatta. I'm interested to hear more about the eighth stage, does anyone have info about it?

Lastly, Thusness reads this thread with great interest and I think he wants to give some of his comments and advise so I look forward to his input.

Oh I forgot to mention: the "unborn, unconditioned" can also be spoken from the perspective ofShunyata in the Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings.

Unborn, Unconditioned has different types/levels of understanding. I wrote something about this in awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html

Thanks a lot, Xsurf, for these insightful and scholarly comments. I take the opportunity to once again thank you and Thusness for sharing with us the fruit of years of diligent practice-realization. I am deeply indebted to your blog, e-books and articles.

[This post and next (148-149) are unrelated to Xsurf's intervention, but somehow related to the general topic of this thread, as more and more neo-advaita teachers seem to realizing that there is more to it.]


Jeff Foster, a popular young (ex-)neo-advaita teacher, made the recent announcement:

'I am officially no longer an '˜Advaita teacher' or '˜Nonduality teacher' '“ if, indeed, I ever was one. Life cannot be put into words, and however beautiful the words of Advaita/Nonduality are, they must be discarded in the end. I could never claim to be any sort of authority on this stuff. I will continue to speak, to sing my song to those who are open to listening, but gone is the need to adhere to any tradition, to use '˜Advaita-speak' to avoid real, authentic human engagement, to pretend that I am in any way more or less special than you, to kid you that I know more than you, to play the '˜teacher' by refusing to meet you in the play, to stop listening to you because I see you as '˜still stuck in the dream' or '˜still a person'. This message is about love, in the true sense of the word '“ otherwise it is simply nihilism masquerading as freedom. The '˜Advaita Police' reply '˜Who cares?' I say I do. I do.'

www.lifewithoutacentre.com/read/essays-t...d-advaita-teachings/

What has motivated this courageous declaration seems to be the discovery that claiming and repeating endlessly that 'there is no-one here' is a subtle form of attachment to "the Impersonal" that soon becomes a jail for the neo-advaita teacher, forced to life up with his claim of total impersonality.

(cont.)

Jeff further explains:

'So, I was living in my impersonal castle, believing that I was free from the personal, but secretly I was at war with the personal. I was afraid of the personal, it terrified me '“ we attack what we are most afraid of. Real, honest, authentic human interaction? Scary. Opening myself up to life, admitting that I was wrong about certain things, letting go of my most cherished identities and beliefs? Terrifying. The risk of exposing myself to others and being rejected? No, better to pretend there are no others to interact with. Personal experience is for ignorant dreamers. The impersonal is much more real.'

This shows how clinging to any identity from 'I am Awareness', to 'I am the Impersonal' or even 'I am no-one' soon becomes the worst possible attachment. I salute his courage and radical honesty.

Beyond individual cases, it appears that more and more radial non-dualists are realizing that their non-dual teachings are in reality very dualistic and that their dogmatic 'end of seeking' should not prevent them from gaining deeper insights into subtler aspects of reality. Recognizing the non-dual nature of awareness is not the end of the journey, only the first step.

The deconstruction of the 'non-dual awareness' has been the object of this thread and all that I have written should be seen as notes journaling what seemed relevant at as given moment of the journey. Each new insight is likely to lead to new subtler identifications.

May Manjushri free us from all forms of clinging.
May Avalokiteshvara fill our hearts with humility and compassion.