Not an endless path

[ETA this was double posted with EISs comments] Bruno the quote you provided is a particularly good example of a finite Path!

What to you and anyone else think about these descriptions of contrasts in finite and open paths?

1: Finite paths emphasize(*) seeing clearly the causality of suffering. in practice this means discerning the elements from which suffering are woven and experimenting with the causality between the elements in order to discover what it would take to, removing the cause, remove the result (and finally, finding the motivation to actually finitize the path by implementing the methods that actually removed the result via removing some or all of the causes)
and 2) open paths emphasize clear seeing of suchness or actuality or emptiness or whatever OF all conditioned phenomena, including klesha. from this point forward this kind of path seems to evolve in terms of motivations, in which, the issue is ultimately whether one is sufficiently motivated to actualize the understanding of the true nature of phenomena, in which case, nothing can be harmed or benefited, and one is completely free to act spontaneously (without karmic push and pull). To the extent that klesha can still be felt as suffering, or especially, as capable of pushing or pulling behavior at all (including behavior of body, speech AND mind-a-la-prapanca), then the issue is: "why do "I" want to ignore true nature and act as if this klesha has power right now?".

(*) I say emphasize cuz I don't think an actual path is possible without the insights and approaches of both kinds of path, although certainly most favor one or the other. Even in order to utterly finitize a finite path, one would need an appreciation of the actuality or suchness of all suffering I think, and if one wants to progress on the open path one will need a keen and honest appreciation for the finite truths of the empty impermanence of fabrications.

This is interesting @EndinSight. I'm trying to think of a very mundane, non-technical example that might shed more light. I'll try one, and it might not work, but let's see. Say, for example, that I am terrified of dogs. If a dog is in the same room as me (the dog is just sitting there, not attacking or growling), I feel nauseated, sweating, and have thoughts that it is going to bite me. I am very afraid, and I would certainly use the word suffering in a very ordinary sense to describe that experience. Now say that I am somewhere along the path of insight and more able to see how things arise and that thoughts and sensations are just thoughts and sensations that come and go. Then I might sit there with the dog and notice how my body is sweating and my stomach is clenching and my adrenaline is pumping, and thoughts are arising, but due to deeper insight, I also see that these are just body/mind responses, and do not feel afraid in the same way I used to. Now let's say that I have developed an even deeper equanimity and insight after much more time in practice, and now I am in the room with the dog and I just smile, and remember how it used to frighten me, but there is no fear, no thoughts the dog might kill me, etc. Just me and the dog, sitting in the room, no problem. I would call that last case equanimity towards the dog. In fact now that I am not caught up in my old thoughts and fears, i might appreciate the prettiness of the dog, or feel a bit of fondness towards it, or offer it a piece of my sandwich. So although in all three cases the dog is actually not a problem (in the sense that it poses no threat), in the first case my own delusions create a huge reaction of aversion towards it; in the second case I am starting to see through that reaction and realize it is just a delusion, but still experience it in a fragmentary way; and in the third case it really just isn't an issue.

Does that offer any useful point of discussion?

(Ran out of characters, so just to finish...)
The dog is still in the room in all cases. It doesn't vanish, I don't kill it or send it away. I just develop equanimity towards the dog.

@giragirasol: I see nothing in your example that doesn't match how I think about things, so I would ask you to consider whether what you conceive of as "just sitting with the dog" is the same as what I conceive of as "just sitting with the dog", to see whether we think about things in the same way.

If I were just sitting with the dog, and there was no dualistic thinking whatsoever, I would expect it to be a finding-the-meaning-of-life kind of experience. Something that might be classified as "religious" or "mystical".

If I were sitting with the dog and thought I was just sitting, but was not having such an experience, I would expect that there was a subtle undercurrent of dualistic stuff, many times per second, when (if put into words) would be along the lines of: "there is no problem" / "all is peaceful" / "I am here" / "the dog is here" / "I am no longer worried" / "what a nice dog!" / etc. Feelings of equanimity or unconcern, etc.

Dry insight has helped me see the subtle undercurrent of dualistic stuff clearly...stuff that appears to pervade everyone's experience, constantly, many times per second. (Every experience of a vibration or "flickering" appears to me to be a moment of dualistic something-or-other.)

I have found that dualistic stuff that appears innocuous is not fundamentally different from dualistic stuff that might cause someone with a fear of dogs to cower in the corner, in terms of the quality of the experience (vs. pure nondual experience).

Your thoughts?

I believe there is an error being made here in that folks are equating emptiness and equanimity. Equanimity is not emptiness. Even on steroids it is not emptiness.

Thus, for illustrative purposes and because he says it better than I can, I will quote from a post Alex Weith made on another topic this morning:


"Since it seems that some practitioners are still puzzled, if not shocked, by the idea that self-referencing feelings and the very sense of self may eventually cease to arise at certain stages described by Kenneth Folk in one of his videos, I would like to insist on the fact that if a special [selfless and emotionless] altered state of consciousness is cultivated and eventually turned into a permanent state, the so-called permanent state will never become truly permanent. It will only seem to have become permanent, but only as long as one maintains a certain level of concentration required to suppress the arising. We can uproot bad weeds, but they always come back.

What is required to reach any permanent state is always to gain deep insight into things as they truly are, and not as they appear to be. Eventually, what was seen as a *snake* in darkness turns out to be a *rope* in plain light of day.

Was the rope suppressed, erradicated, uprooted, extinguished? No.
Was the snake suppressed, erradicated, uprooted, extinguished? Yes, but only in the sense that one has clearly seen that there never was a snake in the first place.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

"The functioning of the six senses is a *rope*, while the ego, the sense of self, the belief in a super primordial non-dual inherent awareness standing beyond the five aggregates while containing them within its boundless numinous nature, self-referencing passions, kleshas and other fetters are *snakes*, reason why they can be extinguished through deep insights into impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, selflessness, emptiness, suchness and dependent origination. The more insights, the deeper the insights, the lesser fetters remain.

When all fetters have been erradicated, one may eventualy become an Arahat. At this stage, or earlier in some cases, one may also vow to renounce entering into Nirvana to come back again and again in order to "save all beings" and become a Bodhisattva."

"@giragirasol: ...

If I were just sitting with the dog, and there was no dualistic thinking whatsoever, I would expect it to be a finding-the-meaning-of-life kind of experience. Something that might be classified as "religious" or "mystical".

If I were sitting with the dog and thought I was just sitting, but was not having such an experience, I would expect that there was a subtle undercurrent of dualistic stuff, many times per second, when (if put into words) would be along the lines of: "there is no problem" / "all is peaceful" / "I am here" / "the dog is here" / "I am no longer worried" / "what a nice dog!" / etc. Feelings of equanimity or unconcern, etc...."

It's true if little thoughts like "there isn't a problem" "I'm not afraid" etc keep popping up - even at a quite subtle or half-formed level - that's not really complete unconcern, it's more of a sort of partial/mostly unconcern, with fragmentary blips/undercurrent of concern coming and going. I think it is true that when that utterly subsides one can tend to call such an experience "mystical," though some people might not like that term so much. I don't mind it. It does seem to have that kind of quality in my experience. It seems there is a general trend away from the former towards the latter over time, though I cannot be sure until much more time has passed whether it is a gradual linear change or more of an up and down stair-steppy kind of change. I would expect it to be more like the latter, since a sort of tidal/cyclical experience seems common in the overall progress of insight.

I only disagree that the dualistic stuff that causes cowering in the corner is not much different from the dualistic stuff seen through - the reduction in reaction and suffering once impermanence and emptiness are seen is quite radical, in my experience.

"It's true if little thoughts like "there isn't a problem" "I'm not afraid" etc keep popping up - even at a quite subtle or half-formed level - that's not really complete unconcern, it's more of a sort of partial/mostly unconcern, with fragmentary blips/undercurrent of concern coming and going."

Well, I was trying to express non-linguistic dualistic thinking by putting it into words. I had the case of someone who actually felt quite unconcerned and equanimous in mind.

"I think it is true that when that utterly subsides one can tend to call such an experience "mystical," though some people might not like that term so much. I don't mind it. It does seem to have that kind of quality in my experience."

How would you describe your own experience?

"I only disagree that the dualistic stuff that causes cowering in the corner is not much different from the dualistic stuff seen through - the reduction in reaction and suffering once impermanence and emptiness are seen is quite radical, in my experience."

I agree on the latter point. As for the former, I found the difference between unpleasant and pleasant dualistic stuff (seen through or not) is something that can be conceived of while in thrall to either, whereas the difference between *any* dualistic stuff and no dualistic stuff at all is completely inconceivable when one is in thrall to the former, and more akin to receiving the beatific vision of God while still alive and on earth...a different order of experience (although it is literally just the same experience as before, minus the dualistic stuff).

On reflection, all the dualistic stuff (seen through or not) sort of blurs together in comparison to that...pleasant or unpleasant, it is all more-or-less equally bad. I realize this is not a wholly accurate viewpoint, but (for obvious reasons?) it persists.

"I believe there is an error being made here in that folks are equating emptiness and equanimity. Equanimity is not emptiness. Even on steroids it is not emptiness."

I hope I did not imply that. To me, emptiness is the understanding that all things are empty of a self, happening to no-one, happening spontaneously, etc. Emptiness applies to both dual and nondual experience equally (because it applies to everything).

While this understanding in itself is not equanimity, it does tend to lead to a great deal of equanimity...hence what I said about technical 4th path.

On the other hand, it is possible that (to some extent?) when you say "emptiness" you mean something like what I am calling "nondual experience", but it seems not (since you are always clear to emphasize that it includes dualistic stuff as well).

As for Alex's post, to me there is a sense in which there is a snake, and a sense in which there isn't.

There isn't a snake: all the dualistic stuff that one may believe, is an illusion...it couldn't even possibly be true, whether or not it is experienced.
There is a snake: dualistic experience is a real illusion...one actually experiences the illusion, the illusion itself is happening.

I take understanding emptiness to refer to seeing why there isn't a snake. (One generally understands the sense in which there is a snake from the beginning.) This seems to be what Alex is saying too.

Emptiness is a rather complex notion. Greg Goode wrote a brilliant article on the subject that I invite everyone to read and study:

www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Here is an extract:

"The most common connotation of "nonduality" is "oneness" or "singularity." Many teachings state that everything is actually awareness; those teachings are nondual in the "oneness" sense in which there are no two things.

There is another sense of "nonduality." Instead of nonduality as "oneness," it's nonduality as "free from dualistic extremes." This entails freedom from the pairs of metaphysical dualisms such as essentialism/nihilism, existence/non-existence, reification/annihilation, presence/absence, or intrinsicality/voidness, etc. These pairs are dualisms in this sense: if you experience things in the world in terms of one side of the pair, you will experience things in the world in terms of the other side as well. If some things seem like they truly exist, then other things will seem like they truly don't exist. You will experience your own self to truly exist, and fear that one day you will truly not exist. Emptiness teachings show how none of these pairs make sense, and free you from experiencing yourself and the world in terms of these opposites. Emptiness teachings are nondual in this sense."

(cont.)

"For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

"Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free."

"Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

Emptiness is not a substance
Emptiness is not a substratum or background
Emptiness is not light
Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
Emptiness is not the Absolute
Emptiness does not exist on its own
Objects do not consist of emptiness
Objects do not arise from emptiness
Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind"

We could add:

Emptiness is not fruition
Emptiness is not cessation
Emptiness is not a path moment

And ultimately, emptiness itself is empty:

"Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness".

This page seems relevant and should bring clarity and distinction to the seeming conflicts of perspective in this thread:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/Q+%26+A+on+the+Non-dual

Really, these issues seem to already have been addressed, why are we going around in circles? Lets compare our non-dual AND vipassana AND witness practices and come to our own resolutions. Each is only resolved within it's own perspective.

metta!

Justin

"This page seems relevant and should bring clarity and distinction to the seeming conflicts of perspective in this thread:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/Q+%26+A+on+the+Non-dual

Really, these issues seem to already have been addressed, why are we going around in circles? Lets compare our non-dual AND vipassana AND witness practices and come to our own resolutions. Each is only resolved within it's own perspective.

metta!

Justin"

That's interesting! Thanks for the link. I'd not seen it before.

"This page seems relevant and should bring clarity and distinction to the seeming conflicts of perspective in this thread:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/Q+%26+A+on+the+Non-dual

Really, these issues seem to already have been addressed, why are we going around in circles? Lets compare our non-dual AND vipassana AND witness practices and come to our own resolutions. Each is only resolved within it's own perspective.

metta!

Justin"


Interesting, but I am not sure that this articles address the same issue, probably because the "Emptiness" Daniel Ingram talks about in MCTB and equates with "Fruition" is not what Greg Goode is talking about in his article.

"Bruno, is that your personal experience of the effects of seeing emptiness? Again, I think it's easy to pick and choose passages from the suttas but I fear all we do thereby is reinforce our pre-existing judgments.

"

Chris, merry greetings!

This is my personal experience:

The perspective which I take to be the "emptiness" you are referring to is a way of regarding experience which helps soothe pain --- a pain that has already arisen as vibratory/energetic/affective phenomena. It isn't any particular thing, but a way of looking that makes it seem that nobody's home. I might be surprised when picking my nose, for instance, or how it all is happening automatically, and this is pleasant.

But the psychological pain is still there; there still arise vibratory/energetic/affective phenomena. Now, to the extent that these die down and don't arise (fading and cessation), is the extent to which my perception becomes clear of perturbation, and the extent to which I experience apperception. Apperception, I find, is more than pleasant, it is exquisite. In fact, as far as I could ascertain, apperception is equivalent to the absence of vibratory/energetic/affective phenomena (as the occurrence of the former is always systematically correlated with the fading/absence of the latter).

Does cultivating the perspective of emptiness cause vibratory/energetic/affective phenomena to fade and cease and apperception to occur? I am tempted to conclude otherwise, because of the descriptions of yogi's such as yourself who have cultivated this for a long time. But all I want from my practice is apperception. So emptiness interests me only as a tool which I might one day leave behind.

Bruno

Hi Alex.

I just read through that Q & A, and I felt that it very clearly and thoroughly addressed how developmental practice complements non-dual / direct path practice. These perspectives when taken together can form a balance that can be seen to address the issue of whether the path is "endless".

Also in the last couple pages of this thread, people seem to trying to rectify non-dual awakeness through a vipassana lense and 3c's perspective, the folly of which is clearly pointed out in the Q & A.

These are some of the relevant points I felt the Q & A addressed, and why I think it could be helpful for those involved in the thread to read over it. [=

metta!

Justin

Greetings, Bruno!

"The perspective which I take to be the "emptiness" you are referring to is a way of regarding experience which helps soothe pain --- a pain that has already arisen as vibratory/energetic/affective phenomena."

The emptiness I'm referring to causes it to be abundantly clear that there is no pain. It's not like putting a salve on a wound. It's the realization that the wound itself is empty. The pain is empty. Everything in perception is empty.

"In fact, as far as I could ascertain, apperception is equivalent to the absence of vibratory/energetic/affective phenomena (as the occurrence of the former is always systematically correlated with the fading/absence of the latter)."

Expanding a bit on that: this is the reason why I am surprised of finding advanced practitioners engaging in energetic practices such as Tummo, and that is why I queried, in one of my early posts in this thread "Why cultivate primordial awarenesses and blisses of the inside-the-spine variety?"

Given that energetic phenomena are impermanent and ever-shifting, hence unreliable, that they are not-self, and hence completely safe to do away with, and painful, hence of a negative influence in one's life, why cultivate them at all?

"Greetings, Bruno!

"The perspective which I take to be the "emptiness" you are referring to is a way of regarding experience which helps soothe pain --- a pain that has already arisen as vibratory/energetic/affective phenomena."

The emptiness I'm referring to causes it to be abundantly clear that there is no pain. It's not like putting a salve on a wound. It's the realization that the wound itself is empty. The pain is empty. Everything in perception is empty.

"

It is empty, but is it still there?

Yes, Bruno, it is still there. So is the keyboard I'm typing on. It, too, is empty.

"Expanding a bit on that: this is the reason why I am surprised of finding advanced practitioners engaging in energetic practices such as Tummo, and that is why I queried, in one of my early posts in this thread "Why cultivate primordial awarenesses and blisses of the inside-the-spine variety?"

Given that energetic phenomena are impermanent and ever-shifting, hence unreliable, that they are not-self, and hence completely safe to do away with, and painful, hence of a negative influence in one's life, why cultivate them at all?"

In what way are energetic phenomena (or picking your nose, which you mentioned in an earlier post) "painful"?

"
Yes, Bruno, it is still there. So is the keyboard I'm typing on. It, too, is empty.

"

This may be a terminology problem? Did Alex post that link here? Or on the Zen thread? It's a really useful description of what emptiness means: www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

@Malt - sure! thanks.

My two cents:

In fact, Bruno is talking about "Emptiness of Self". And, yes, this this is the end of the path for Arahats according to Pali Buddhism.

Chris is talking about "Emptiness of phenomena". This is more a Mahayana goal that logically comes after the realization of the "Emptiness of Self". The idea is to not only see that there is no Self/self within or beyond the 5 aggregates, but also to realize that the 5 aggregates are themselves empty, and finally that the aggregates are empty, and emptiness is the aggregates. This is the perfection of Prajna, one of the 6 perfections of the way to Buddhahood.

Then what about 'tummo'? Tummo is part of Vajrayana. The goal here is the 'union of emptiness (of both Self and phenomena) and bliss'.

Then what about Mahamudra? Mahamudra sees the goal of the path in the realization of the 'union of emptiness and clarity'.

One of the most logical path would then be:

1). to disembbed from thoughts, sensations and perception and discover primordial awareness through 1st and 2nd gear practice and attain Kenneth's 5th Stage.

2). to focus more on Direct Mode, 3rd Gear practice, Apperception, Bahiya Sutta, etc. to realize 'Emptiness of Self' (Kenneth's 6th, 7th and 8th Stages).

3). to study, contemplate, look deeply and eventually empty the 5 aggregates and realize the 'Emptiness of phenomena', cultivating compassion to realized the 'union of prajna and karuna'.

4). to eventually become a Mahasiddha, realizing the 'union of emptiness and bliss' through tummo and other energy practices, as well as the 'union of emptiness and clarity' through Mahamudra practice. Ultimately, one may attain the 'rainbow body' accomplishment through advanced Dzogchen practice. This would be the final goal of Vajrayana.