Inside and Outside - Duality or Not?

"Nik: The part about "due to not seeing vedana in vedana" implies that this is the *only* way to break the chain of becoming. This does not ring true to me. In my very recent experience you can also notice the empty and self-arisen nature of *all* phenomena including even a quick moment of tension or self-referencing thought and those phenomena can be automatically self-liberated as they arise in real time.
"

Hi Justin,

I see. I would be interested to compare notes here, in another thread or other forum or PM if you wish. Coming from the background that I do (Goenka), I am biased towards direct vedana approaches but open to other approaches of course.

I'd be interested in how you have seen progress occur via the method you talk of. How does one break the movement to crave, cling and the resultant flow of becoming by not changing the way vedana (part of 'all phenomena' you mention) is habitually experienced/evaluated/reacted to via the approach you mention?

Is vedana not experienced as vedana in vedana automatically when vedana (part of 'all phenomena') is noticed as 'self-arisen'? If one is equanimous and allowing 'all phenomena' to be as it is, is one not also automatically experiencing vedana in vedana at the same time?

In your approach are you not allowing phenomena to be experienced as phenomena in phenomena? Does one cease 'evaluating' and overlaying phenomena with tension/craving when one allows phenomena to self-arise and self-abate with your mentioned approach?

Is not vedana, regardless of whether it is directly observed or 'included in the mix', still seen as vedana in vedana?

P.S. Though to be clear, I did include the following in the post you referenced:

"These are all my own observations so far. No absolutes."

Nik: I'm going to have to wait to reply until I can try to stabilize my mind completely back at that place. I want to avoid writing from memory if I can help it.

Vedana is there in the mix as just more self-luminous phenomena. Focusing on examining Vedana is not naturally there as "focusing of attention" to "examine" is just other self luminous self liberating phenomena that may arise through causes that we label as "effort".

One thing I have noticed is a subtle synastasia where absolutely all phenomena are somehow perceived as "seen".

I am not saying that your perception is incorrect (I also don't fully understand it). I just posit from my experience that no special attention needs to be paid to feeling tone in real time. It may be a great practice. It is just not special. Just empty like everything else.

"Vedana is there in the mix as just more self-luminous phenomena. Focusing on examining Vedana is not naturally there as "focusing of attention" to "examine" is just other self luminous self liberating phenomena that may arise through causes that we label as "effort".

One thing I have noticed is a subtle synastasia where absolutely all phenomena are somehow perceived as "seen".

I am not saying that your perception is incorrect (I also don't fully understand it). I just posit from my experience that no special attention needs to be paid to feeling tone in real time. It may be a great practice. It is just not special. Just empty like everything else."

Hi Justin,

Ok. I hope soon you are able to stabilize the approach you explained and offer more data to how one can reduce or end suffering to whatever degree. Each to his own.

Nick

Hi Justin,

A teacher I meet up with once in a while, is both trained in Vipassana (did a 3-year Mahasi retreat in Panditarama), and is a trained non-dual teacher in the Integral movement.
He praises both the benefits of Nibbana path-moments, and the non-dual state.
Though he keeps telling me to keep the two practices seperate, as they both lead to different results.
So while doing Vipassana, do Vipassana. While cultivating the non-dual state, do that.

It seems to me as if you are trying to apply the insights from the non-dual state to Vipassana, and vice-versa.
(when you say "no special attention to vedana" - which seems to stem from the non-dual state - 'no where to go', while in Vipassana, if you pay enough micro-attention to sensations, path moments will occur, which, from the experience of Yogis such as Nick, who have taken the Vipassana road far - lead to permanent changes in the brain that eliminate certain kinds of suffering forever).

just my 2 cents though.

Yeah. I'm going to take a quite a while to just marinate and play around with this. No conclusions yet other than an experience that appeared to disagree with it being necessary to focus on vedana.

I expect I will backslide for quite a while before I can get back to a point to really understand this.

Yadid: This is a very good point. Thank you for sharing this.

Another difficult thing linguistically here is that I am not describing a practice, I am describing the perception of an experience. Within a non-conceptual experience I could probably blather any arbitrary stark-raving-mad concepts and none of them would be any more or less valid than another from the perspective of the experience. Reading Nisargadatta is a great example of this as he contradicts himself constantly with absolute confidence.

"Though he keeps telling me to keep the two practices seperate, as they both lead to different results. So while doing Vipassana, do Vipassana. While cultivating the non-dual state, do that." -- Yadid

Yes, these are usually separate practices. Yes, they do tend to lead to different results. However, awakening is more mysterious than this kind of linear model would have it. I would be far more cautious about making stark claims (this will get you only that/that will get you only this). I know too many people, myself included, who have benefitted from doing both practices simultaneously, or who have achieved results from doing practice X that are more like those projected to result from practice Y.

YMMV, of course, but my personal experience says the rules the universe imposes on our practices are not all that grok-able by human beings, at least just yet.


"It seems to me as if you are trying to apply the insights from the non-dual state to Vipassana, and vice-versa.
(when you say "no special attention to vedana" - which seems to stem from the non-dual state - 'no where to go', while in Vipassana, if you pay enough micro-attention to sensations, path moments will occur, which, from the experience of Yogis such as Nick, who have taken the Vipassana road far - lead to permanent changes in the brain that eliminate certain kinds of suffering forever)." -- Yadid

I see no reason to favor one practice over another other than personal preference. I think these practices can overlap and can reinforce each other, again, I say this from personal experience.

"I see no reason to favor one practice over another other than personal preference. I think these practices can overlap and can reinforce each other, again, I say this from personal experience."

What is interesting is that I was never big on the non-dual approaches like the 3rd gear 'rigpa' approach etc. Never have had the inclination like some. Past conditioning now doubt.

But the ongoing experiences post past 2 shifts (especially the last one) have left the experience more non-dual than I have ever thought possible. Due to the absence of a full blown felt sense of 'me-ness', the way experience continuously flows makes it seem as though there is absolutely no free will at all, no 'Nick' here controlling the body as Nick is not really felt to exist literally. There is just a flow of a continuum of distinctions if the mind wishes to distinguish phenomena or just a flow of 'stuff' which if not distinguished intentionally or unintentionally, is very much 'one taste' as I see it.

When people explain there practices and experiences of 'one taste' I recognise that as being a natural default option of the absence of any 'me-ness'. Another option is seeing it all as a continuum of distinctions within distinctions within dis...etc.

Even though I have had little interest in developing the 'non-dual' approaches, I see that due to the vipassana practices I've put into action, the natural result is an absent of 'me-ness' to a great degree (some subtle residue still at times arises but is not confusing as post-july) and with this absence, there is a flow of experience that I have simply called 'scenery'. Thoughts, sense impressions, forms in the field of sight, sounds, touch, the sound of my voice are all part of the scenery. Yet no felt sense of someone observing the scenery. All very weird and hard to describe in words.

"Another option is seeing it all as a continuum of distinctions within distinctions within dis...etc."

Yes, and that's more accurate just from my own POV. I have trouble when folks say things that sounds like, "Yesterday I was this, today I am that." (I've been guilty of using this kind of language myself, btw.) But things just don't manifest quite that starkly for me. The universe appears to be made up of an infinite series of shades of gray. The difference can be very stark, but it is not really binary.

"I see no reason to favor one practice over another other than personal preference. I think these practices can overlap and can reinforce each other, again, I say this from personal experience."

Chris,

My understanding of Miles (the teacher I am referring to) advice was to keep the practices separate at certain points in time, not to pick one forever.

And I certainly also do not think that we should favor one practice over the other, and thats why I said that trying to evaluate one practice from the perspective of another is problematic , in response to Justin's assertation that:
"It may be a great practice. It is just not special."

That makes sense, Yadid. Thanks.

Moreover, I feel that all these practices are special, very special, and I am immensely grateful for that

"And I certainly also do not think that we should favor one practice over the other, and thats why I said that trying to evaluate one practice from the perspective of another is problematic , in response to Justin's assertation that:
"It may be a great practice. It is just not special."

"

Ah, sorry - this is a linguistic/conceptual miscommunication.

This is very difficult for me to explain. A lot of our discussion here is around practice methods. Something can be a really great, amazing, wonderful practice as far as practices are concerned, but from the perspective of the awakened mind, all the effort and attention that go into most practices are simply unimportant.

I am really not trying to disparage any practice and I apologize if anyone read it as such. I'm just being challenged by bridging language to the non-dual.

(EDIT: After re-reading the above, I realize that I am not going to get out of this conceptual trap. For the samsaric mind, these practices are the most important and precious things in all of creation. period.)

""but from the perspective of the awakened mind" -Justin"

Hi Justin,

I understand you are trying to communicate something from a certain perspective here, and you are calling that perspective "the awakened mind".
This, in my view, has a kind of shadow side inherent in it. "awakened mind" signifies "the end-all perspective", "the most precious perspective", "THE perspective".. and I'm not so sure it is the final and true perspective, as you yourself report that it fades for you many times, and that, in my opinion, is unsatisfactory.

Let's just call it "Justin's awakened mind perspective which fades", which is what it is, without giving it superior value over the "samsaric mind".
Your opinion, even when spoken from "Justin's awakened mind perspective which fades", is still your perspective, and I don't see how it is superior to other perspectives.

You may speculate that in the end it will stick, but that is just speculation.. who knows what will happen? maybe you will find an even greater perspective, which allows you to see both the relative and the absolute, while giving both their due respect? And then we will call that "the awakened mind"..

"Hi Justin,

I understand you are trying to communicate something from a certain perspective here, and you are calling that perspective "the awakened mind".
This, in my view, has a kind of shadow side inherent in it. "awakened mind" signifies "the end-all perspective", "the most precious perspective", "THE perspective".. and I'm not so sure it is the final and true perspective, as you yourself report that it fades for you many times, and that, in my opinion, is unsatisfactory.

Let's just call it "Justin's awakened mind perspective which fades", which is what it is, without giving it superior value over the "samsaric mind".
Your opinion, even when spoken from "Justin's awakened mind perspective which fades", is still your perspective, and I don't see how it is superior to other perspectives.

You may speculate that in the end it will stick, but that is just speculation.. who knows what will happen? maybe you will find an even greater perspective, which allows you to see both the relative and the absolute, while giving both their due respect? And then we will call that "the awakened mind"..
"

I simply offer a perspective while attempting to really lay my cards on the table.

There is of course not a true and final perspective - there is no absolute truth in perspective period. I will just do my best to articulate which perspective I am coming from.

I am defining awakened mind to be totally free of suffering, which can only exist moment-by-moment. If you prefer to reserve that definition for a hypothetical permanent state, then thats fine and I can use the term "non-dual mind".

I honestly don't know which serves people better.

Sincere thanks for your perspective.

I think the creative tension here is simply that question of what serves people better?

This is just my thought process:

The samsaric mind on the path is attached to the idea of freedom from suffering. The samsaric mind cannot know emptiness. If it knows emptiness, it is not samsaric and is awakened. The awakened mind that realizes emptiness does not prefer samsara over nirvana as they are empty, but the samsaric mind attached to freedom from suffering definitely prefers nirvana over samsara.

So what serves people suffering in samsara? Eliminate the obscurations to nirvana and abide in awakened mind.

I am happy to be wrong about all of this...

"
So what serves people suffering in samsara? Eliminate the obscurations to nirvana and abide in awakened mind.

"

I would agree. Yet I think perhaps our definitions of 'awakened mind' and 'obscurations' and 'nirvana' most probably differ.

My take:

* awakened mind= that which is completely and permanently free from obscurations/all craving
* obscurations= craving and that which is born of craving, unwholesome fabrications, delusional fabrications, fabrications compounding out of ignorance and lack of discernment of their cause and cessation
* nirvana=the ongoing experience that is craving free, absolutely no craving at all. No subtle obscurations as defined above at all, no fabrications at all. A mind cooled and freed of the craving and fabricating tendency, subtle or gross.

And our definitions of craving may also differ. Tricky business this reconciling.

Can you elaborate on what you consider obscurations, Justin?

Disclaimer: This is just a friendly exchange of differing facets info and views in the spirit of pragmatic dharma. There is no need to defend nor persuade nor feel interrogated on both sides.

I agree on obscurations - I would language them more colloquially though less precisely as "ignorance" and then "tension/resistance"

For awakened mind/nirvana I feel aversion to having them defined as anything other than momentary. I also find the momentary definition extremely empowering as the entire goal is here for the taking, right now, if we let go of all resistance.

There are likely extremely precise terms for permanent and momentary aspects in both Pali and Tibetan, but I am ignorant.

My use of "I feel aversion to" does not mean "I am right"

I think it's likely that many human minds are free of suffering on a moment to moment basis. Some minds more often that others, of course. I believe the degree to which one maintains vigilance in the form of moment to moment awareness is what defines one's awakening. I believe awakening is a moment to moment condition, not something that changes from permanent black to permanent white. I believe awakening exists in many shades of gray along multiple axes. To define it in linear terms, along one or two axes, is to do awakening a serious disservice.

Just my humble stake(s) in the ground

The above is probably also a good argument for a yogi to stick with one tradition - at least that tradition will (hopefully) be internally consistent with its concepts.

Actually, I think it's good to know more than one tradition, maybe many, at least to some extent. I think that's the future of dharma no matter what due to technology and such. But I also think it's good to adopt a "home" in the beginning, get a solid footing, find some traction, and then branch out. And... to top it all off, I think the idea that we can reconcile some of the ideas being expressed here as if we were balancing the books at Macy's is a pipe dream. I doubt that's possible given their nature. But I do think it's good to to talk about them in a non-threatening manner, being aware that we're talking about beliefs, not math and physics.

"
Just my humble stake(s) in the ground

"

I guess then the term 'awakening' is also where differences are found and probably is where we all talk passed each other most of the time. I lean towards the definition of 'fully awakened' being a mind that is free of all obscurations of the definition I stated above. Thus by this definition I would place myself at only partially or semi awakened.Thus we have our differing views on leaving be the fabrication of 'self' or uprooting it in toto, as I consider the fabrication of 'self' in all its possible manifestations as that which is born of craving and thus an obscuration.

I understand the aesthetic, usefulness and accessibility of calling the moments of mindfulness and vigilance 'awakening', and if that is more motivating and fits with one's ideals then I'd run with it. Personally though, I would call those ongoing moments of vigilance as 'discernment' and simply a 'factor' among other necessary factors that support the occurrence of an awakening that is permanent and not subject to fade and does not require ongoing vigilance.

I guess over the past 4 years my ideals have morphed and changed and swung back and forth due to pragmatic dharma involvement, but mostly have been informed by the tradition I was sort of schooled in (theravada). Even more so these days as my ongoing experience keeps validating these ideals.

My stake has been uprooted so many times and re-planted so many times, I'm open to many things. I'm open to that which helps others end suffering at least temporarily and permanently. Regardless of what it is termed, if it helps lessen, reduce and/or end suffering, I'm all for it.

"I lean towards the definition of 'fully awakened' being a mind that is free of all obscurations of the definition I stated above. Thus by this definition I would place myself at only partially or semi awakened.Thus we have our differing views on leaving be the fabrication of 'self' or uprooting it in toto, as I consider the fabrication of 'self' in all its possible manifestations as that which is born of craving and thus an obscuration."

Yes, I believe that's where we have a fundamental disagreement.

I think it's important to set goals that fit into one's ethical framework and at the same time fit into what one believes is the band of human characteristics and behavior that is achievable. I'm not convinced that a human mind can be free of all the things you named, Nick, and if it were I'm not sure it would be a truly human mind. I'm not sure what the Buddha meant in some of the commentaries, the suttas. I'm not sure they're translated from the ancient oral tradition as accurately as we like to think and it's pretty obvious that there's an enormous amount of disagreement among lots of very serious and practiced Buddhists over their meaning. At the same time recent developments in the sciences gives those of us here in 2012 a vastly more accurate view of the human condition, what is achievable and what is not. What I believe all that points to is caution in regard to just what our individual goals for this practice should be.

I think on these points I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Thanks for the clarification Justin and everyone.
I agree that the definition of awakened mind as momentary vs. permanent is a point of disagreement, but it shouldn't matter that much, because I find much help and assistance from people who do not share the same end goal as myself, till then.

Since I also started my practice within the Theravada tradition which emphasizes the end of the path as the permanent uprooting of all mental fermentations, I believe it shaped my goals and ideals in that direction.

Chris, in regards to your comment: "At the same time recent developments in the sciences gives those of us here in 2012 a vastly more accurate view of the human condition, what is achievable and what is not. What I believe all that points to is caution in regard to just what our individual goals for this practice should be."

I found this a bit ambiguous. You made your bias quite clear, and so you don't have to use science to back yourself up, but if you do, please provide real references to back up these statements, as I personally have not seen any scientific proof that Dharma practice cannot eliminate all of mental suffering.
In fact, I have spoke to a few people who are living proof of that, and in my view, that is the only real proof (actual experiences of people vs. alleged scientific assumptions)