Bentinho Massaro on beyond non-duality

Here's a caveat -- a discussion of this stuff is perfectly fine - until it becomes a referendum on what Kenneth says/does/teaches as opposed to what someone else says/does/teaches. As we've discussed before, this place is called "Kenneth Folk Dharma" and that implies certain ground rules. As long as that's clear and the conversation is civil and fair I see no problem with it. And... above all else, pissing matches over personal attainments need to be avoided.

"And... above all else, pissing matches over personal attainments need to be avoided.

"

I like what Kenneth said here:

Nick: "Isn't it simply more data for what you are promoting in this quote?"

Kenneth: Yes, everything is data for the long term informal study we are running here. That's why we continue to engage even when we disagree. Learning often happens over months and years. So many times I have been schooled by interactions with posters here. And even if I fought about it at the time, some of it eventually sunk in. Sometimes it just takes time to sort all of this out. And even then, it never stops. As long as we are living, we can learn.

Nick: Please lets not lead what has happened on other threads between Kenneth and myself or others, down the alleyway you have perhaps unwittingly designated it being. It doesn't have to be what you are insinuating, nor is that the intention of neither myself nor End as far as i understand. It therefore is what you are reading onto it and judging it as, whether as fully, partially or simply hinting at it. It only hints at it due to how you perceive it. Why this perception? Past events? It isn't the intention. By moderating things via phrases like "above all else, pissing matches over personal attainments need to be avoided', you have now run the risk of painting and overlaying the situation that Kenneth talks about in the quote above, as something it never was intended to be. Cause and effect, Chris. Please lets avoid setting it up for another round of you know what. And it always started with these types of statements. Ban us now for god's sake. It's only a pissing contest because you react towards it like so. It's data, not a competition.

Smiley face. Of to bed. Night all!

"Part of what's difficult about your question is separating "what changes have actually happened?" from "what changes have happened according to the model being used?" (Is "aiming at X but arriving at Y" based on a switch between actual experiences X and Y, or terms X and Y in a model, or some combination of these?) The two (experience and models) are supposed to match up, but there's never a guarantee."

Yeah, this is exactly what I find intriguing. In other words, what if you start out wanting to be a Zen Buddhist, do all the Zen stuff properly and hardcore and then a few months after awakening you start thinking "yes, all that Zen was not outright wrong, but it seems off base, from where I am now the Advaita teachings seem so much more accurate in describing what's going on!" What seems to be possible is a) you had an imaginary concept/interpretation of what the Zen guys meant when they described things, and when you actually experienced it yourself it didn't match up at all or b) specific experiences are so individually variable that in your case the Advaita stuff just happens to be a more accurate fit to describe your own phenomena, despite you sticking very strictly to the Zen practices. I suspect #a is a very common scenario with a little #b thrown in the mix. You think you know what X is because you've read about it, imagined it, talked to people about it. But when you awaken by the very nature of the experience it can never match your preconceptions. Then you have to reframe things, adjust, etc. But in addition you have your own personality and characteristics, which impact how awakening is experienced... and thus the complexity...

@Nick: My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. I've been moderating message boards for many, many years. I know when things tend to get out of hand so when I see those conditions arise I like to let people know that civility is expected. So....

Carry on, please.

"Either a person is infected with a virus, or isn't. Either a person hears voices that command them, or doesn't. Either a person has a certain gene, or doesn't. Either a person is pregnant, or isn't."

(sorry but here my logical trained brain makes me post. these ar not examples for mental skills. getting infected or pregnant is not a mental skill, nor is having a gene. hearing voices does appear on a continuum.)

even if phenomena don't appear binary in reality, when described they can be categorised inbinary categories:

what would be your definition of full enlightenment? so we can find out if somebody is or not.

"(sorry but here my logical trained brain makes me post. these ar not examples for mental skills. getting infected or pregnant is not a mental skill, nor is having a gene. hearing voices does appear on a continuum.)

even if phenomena don't appear binary in reality, when described they can be categorised inbinary categories:

what would be your definition of full enlightenment? so we can find out if somebody is or not."

"Enlightenment is a mental skill (or like an athletic skill)" is the position under consideration here. It isn't a self-evident truth. I gave the examples I did to illustrate why conceiving of it differently leads to different implications with regard to development.

Hearing voices appears on a continuum, but "hearing voices vs. not" is binary. As I said that my view of enlightenment, direct from the Pali suttas, is the end of craving, "craving" (as in, how much there is) appears of a continuum, but "craving vs. not" is binary...exactly analogous in this respect. Note how this is distinct from e.g. running 100m (apart from the case of a person who can't manage that distance due to impairment). You can run it slow, or fast, or faster, or even faster, or faster yet...

"You can run it slow, or fast, or faster, or even faster, or faster yet..."

You can have a lot, a moderate amount, or just a little bit of craving.

"Hearing voices appears on a continuum, but "hearing voices vs. not" is binary."

Running fast or slow appears on a spectrum. Running vs not running is binary.

"
"You can run it slow, or fast, or faster, or even faster, or faster yet..."

You can have a lot, a moderate amount, or just a little bit of craving.



"

Or none.

By contrast, you can't run 100m in zero seconds, which is what makes "development in running 100m" quite different from things which have an endpoint.

Is that a clear explanation?

Let me make my analogy clearer. You might not be able to run at all. You might also be able to run, but slowly. Or, you might be able to run faster, or even faster, or faster yet...running is a spectrum on which there's a beginning-point but no endpoint. (According to modern physics nothing can move faster than c. But even c isn't an endpoint (however ludicrous and unrealistic it may be), as it takes infinite energy to accelerate you to c, which cannot be applied to you. c is a limit based on modern physics, while "100m in zero seconds" is a limit based on one way of conceiving of time apart from the limitations of modern physics. Even so, "100m in -n seconds" is possible based on another way of looking at things apart from the limitations of modern physics.)

With hearing voices, there is no clear beginning-point (potentially you can hear them as intensely as a mind can: in terms of their loudness, in terms of their commanding qualities, in terms of their intrusive qualities, etc., the maximum development of which is unknown to me). But you can also hear them less often, less loudly, less commandingly, less intrusively, etc. And you can also simply not hear them. A spectrum on which there's an endpoint but no (obvious) beginning-point.

Does that make the way the structure of the situation changes, when considering different analogies for enlightenment, clear?

If you don't like the analogy of hearing voices, surely you can think up another one that has the structural features I'm describing, as those features are fairly basic. (If you think up a good analogy, feel free to share it.)

In any case, messing around with analogies does not clarify the original issue ("how best to conceive of enlightenment?"). The point of an analogy here is merely to illustrate some possibilities for thinking about the original issue.

Well, sorry but it's not very clear to me and I would argue that:

1. It's not clear because we simply don't know enough to understand what is on a spectrum and what isn't in regard to human beings' minds
2. It's not important, doesn't matter all that much

"
Well, sorry but it's not very clear to me and I would argue that:

1. It's not clear because we simply don't know enough to understand what is on a spectrum and what isn't in regard to human beings' minds
2. It's not important, doesn't matter all that much"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_%28mathematics%29

With respect to quantifying a feature of experience or of the world, running speed limited by physics matches up to [0,c), running speed not limited by physics matches up to [0,+inf). Intensity of voices heard matches up to (-inf, 0], or [-r, 0] if there's a beginning-point that I can't conceive of. Not as natural a way to conceive of it compared to an analogy, but more precise. Hopefully that's clearer.

Anyway, we're not going to resolve the issue of what enlightenment is most analogous to, nor are we trying to; that's not why I'd like to hear Kenneth weigh in on what's shaping his viewpoint. I don't expect his opinions, or anyone's, to usher in a final resolution; I'd just like to hear what brought him to them. (I gave mine in #39, though there are probably some unanalyzed personal dispositions or biases involved as well. Note that I chose my name on this forum before thinking about things in the ways described in #39.)

And while you say there's not any real resolution to this - and I agree completely - you're still perfectly happy to lecture me (which insulting, by the way) about how right you are. I think you should reflect on this seeming contradiction. You get into these kinds of situations periodically and I think, once again, this would be a good time to reflect on why and to think about how you can come across as at least a little less righteous.

Thanks.

Chris, I consider your accusations that I'm lecturing you and that I speak out of both sides of my mouth with respect to what I think can and what I think can't be resolved, to be based on unfair and uncharitable interpretations of what's happened in this dialogue.

I could try to explain myself on these points, but I worry that you would consider that further lecturing.

Perhaps it's simply better to disengage politely.

Something I wrote in Facebook in reply to someone who also recently went from 'I AM' to the oblivion of nothingness, and became interested in Bentinho's and Nisargadatta's teachings.

She posted, 'Just read a clear statement on Bentinho's FB page, that he made to someone's earlier post, that is exactly what is happening with me:

" keep intuiting beyondness. It is not a state, it is simply to stay in the intuition/recognition repeatedly that there is beyondness that's the source of consciousness.

If you see consciousness, you can realize you are essentially beyond it. If you don't recognize consciousness, you may assume to be consciousness.

I do not stay in beyondness, i am beyondness. In fact, beyondess is all there is. The illusion is that 'being' 'presence' or 'consciousness' is real. See beingness, and know that you are beyond it.

Not this, not that, nor the knower of this or that.

You are prior to all that."'

I replied:

"Though the experinece is there, what Bentinho said is still within the framework of a subjective self. When anatta is realized, then there is no state or non-state that is seen as a 'you'. So, Consciousness, previously identified as 'You' or the 'ultimate source' - is seen to be simply a state that is arising and passing, nothing ultimate or unchanging. The oblivion of nothingness, previously identified as 'You' or the 'ultimate source' - is seen to be another state that is arising and passing, which is no more absolute or essential than any other - nothing ultimate, truly existing or unchanging. There never was or is a 'You' - ever - whether in conscious waking life (in seeing always just the seen, no seer) or in the oblivion of nothingness which is then falsely identified as the true subject due to a faulty framework. Everything arises due to conditions (including consciousness) and ceases upon the cessation of conditions, there is absolutely nothing that arises 'from' a 'source' - ultimately nothing has arisen and nothing has ceased because there isn't a 'thing' - everything is completely empty and illusory, including consciousness, nothingness, beingness, etc of course.

Check out the first sutta of the middle length discourses of Buddha, MN1, including the commentary of Thanissaro Bhikkhu at the top which is well-written: www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence

In this sutta, the Buddha talked to those who saw infinite consciousness, nothingness, etc as the ultimate source of everything. He criticized this view and asked his students (who were previously from the Samkya lineage and were taught an ultimate source) not to view phenomena this way, and this is the ONLY discourse throughout the many hundreds whereby his students were "displeased" by his teaching (as stated there), however in time to come these students too became liberated and saw the truth in the Buddha's words for themselves.

Now, I am not saying these experiences and insights... into consciousness, nothingness, and so forth are unimportant. In fact they are valuable and important however without the proper view and realization of the twofold emptiness, we will still be as attached or binded - previously binded to form, now binded to the formless. Recently Rob Burbea's article is posted here, I scanned through the article again (as that was a long time ago) and found some things he said which I feel is relevant:

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/07/r...-nature-of-mind.html

Rob Burbea, "One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that's actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it's one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn't say the monks rejoiced in his words.

This group of monks didn't want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha's words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

In the Dzogchen tradition, there's a very beautiful saying '“ very simple but very beautiful. And it says, 'trust your experience, but keep refining your view.' Trust your experience, but keep refining your view - there's a lot of wisdom in that, a lot of wisdom. One of my teachers years ago, when I was describing some of these states to him and questioning, 'Is this right? Is this real? Doesn't seem '¦' And he said to me actually, 'Get attached, Rob. Get attached there, slow down, hang out.' Of course, that was very surprising to hear. 'Really?'

We need to actually hang out in these states, because through time they work their way into the selves and into the view, and they begin transforming the heart and transforming the view long-term. In terms of freedom, in terms of opening, in terms of love. They really have that power. So it's interesting. You get different personalities. People who want to park the bus there, and build the house, and arrive and finish there. Not with the kind of agitated impetus to keep questioning. And other people who want to move through too quick, it's just different personalities. So one needs to get attached but not stop there."

(She says she agrees with not taking 'vast awareness' as source asked about the relation of nothingness and Buddhism)

I wrote: the discourse by Buddha is called the Root Sequence. As Ven. Thanissaro pointed out, "This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha."

In this discourse, the Buddha teaches us all dimensions of existence - from gross (material elements, human dimension, dimension of the gods, etc) - to the subtle dimension and subtlest dimension pertaining to infinite space, infinite consciousness.... and so on. Each of these dimension could be viewed wrongly via a false framework which imputes an ultimate Self, an ultimate Source, in which things emanates from. Each dimension is being refuted, being deconstructed, by the Buddha and we are told in each instance not to view them unskillfully (in terms of self, source, etc).

The vast awareness (infinite consciousness) is not the only dimension that the Buddha said we should not view as an ultimate source or a Self. After the dimension of infinite consciousness, he told us not to view the dimension of nothingness as an ultimate source or Self. After the dimension of nothingness, when the subtle trace of perception vanishes and one enters the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception (still a conditioned state), the Buddha asked us not to view such dimension as an ultimate source or Self.

And by true wisdom into the impermanent, unsatisfactory and self-less nature where pure Subjectivity is fully deconstructed, one through this right wisdom abandons all craving and attachment for everything - gross to subtle to subtlest. What is Nirvana? Nirvana is defined by Buddha to be the Cessation of Craving. It is not a form-based state, nor is it a formless state or reality, it is simply the abandonment, the termination, of craving, proliferation, ignorance, and attachments. This unbinding, called Nirvana, is the Highest in the sense that there is nothing beyond Nirvana - but it is also instructed by Buddha NOT to be viewed as an ultimate Source, as an ultimate Self.

So yes, "keep the experience but refine the view" is a very very apt advise. Because there is nothing that can be denied about experience - yet our view, which is dualistic and inherent, which posits an ultimate existent, ultimate Self, an ultimate source, needs to be replaced by the right view of anatta, emptiness, and dependent origination... initially it may be an intellectual understanding (just as anything else will be at the beginning) but when direct realization of right view arises, this is where a purification of view happens, and by this purification of view the termination of our fetters and afflictions can happen - fetters being the latent tendency towards grasping, craving, and identifying.