Dependent origination

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

***

Not negating
But rather accepting & embracing
Without anticipating or seeking

Our orientation as such in dynamic stillness is the void of emptiness, in heightened potential, like a compressed spring if one is to draw an analogy ... magnetised.

The potential then, as the void, is vibrant in potent power, the latent becoming kinetic as manifested energy.

As such, both aspects being of the same origin or reality, we may say that Shiv & Shakti are one, metaphorically speaking.

***

Yes –totally.

“Magnetized” – Now there is an exceptionally excellent word – if I ever head one…..

*

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Yes all of this is projected "out there" (really in here) as objects.
Silence, mindfulness, even rigpa.
Like you say, all of that and this is mind.

I am it. There is nothing and no place other than here/me to find.

But we are talking about mind so as to not be confusing.
Mental images.

I am not confused about reality. This apple is here, that lamp, this planet I am standing on.
I can experience all of this and myself without mental images.
Direct experience.
And the conceptual is here, language, for my use.

But when I am distracted by mind, I can recognize that,
and in the recognizing I am free of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZOyGOmuwE

Not really free at all as you would still be in local mind.

That is more of a philosophical view.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Gem

The main problem the notion of you are your anger, feelings and so on within a Buddhist context is Buddha taught the aggregates in relation to anatta to convey that there is no self inherent to the aggregates.


A later Tibetan master probably said the opposite (It sounds kinda spiritual-like), and hence we have a contradiction.


But of course one will say not-I and the other will say all-I and both so sure that they are right, when the task is to investigate mind/matter - thought and feeling - and discern for ones self that there is no self, or here called 'foundation', inherent to the phenomena.


So the questions were asked thus:


"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."


He ('he' being Buddha) goes on to say, after such questions: " all (insert stuff here) must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'


And this probably was not given as an answer to some sort of existential question, but as the proper way to regard things in meditation. Hence He concludes by saying:


"seeing thus, (one) gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated." (or something like that)


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....059.mend.html


In view of what Buddha said, it's going to be hard to convince people that they are 'stuff' within a Buddhist philosophical context.

Anger is impermanent is it not?

All things true nature is emptiness.

Everyone focuses on the first part but misses the last part of the sutra.

seeing thus, (one) gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated." (or something like that).

The means. Just because something is impermanent doesn’t mean it isn’t a part of you.

Clearly mental formations are a part of you, it is all mind. Once one becomes passion free or stops attaching to things one has found the way.

You can try and bypass stuff all you want but eventually you will have to work on your attachments. Just like you quoted.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

The means. Just because something is impermanent doesn’t mean it isn’t a part of you.

Clearly mental formations are a part of you, it is all mind. Once one becomes passion free or stops attaching to things one has found the way.

You can try and bypass stuff all you want but eventually you will have to work on your attachments. Just like you quoted.

I think the problem is statements like "you are anger" or "you are everything" leave out too much information. That's why people disagree with them.

As you say, anger is impermanent. So while you can say, "I am anger" when I am angry, when anger is gone, "I'm not anger." I'm the witness to whatever arises. Then all this "spirituality and philosophy and religion" is about how involved "I" am with this stuff that arises. How identified with it I am, how much it affects my actions and experience. What my relationship is with it. How I perceive it, react to it, react with it.

So it's "truthful" to say "I am it," because while we are angry we are angry! , but the statement is misleading due to it's simplicity. More information is required to define it. It's not really "I am anger" more truthful is "I am wholly identifying with anger and therefore, projecting it inwardly and outwardly as representing myself. Yea somebody can observe me and say, "You are anger" but like I say, understanding is missing there. Anger eventually goes and I am something else. So then truthfully.... I am not what I am projecting in any given moment BUT under all of this impermanent phenomena, exists the "I." Me... the unchanging witness which is what we are all trying to get to. The unidentified, the awareness that can project and experience it's nature inwardly and outwardly when it is not identifying with this impermanent stuff. So to get to it, we need self understanding and self awareness that is able to be aware if anger arises and be free of it, so it does not leave a mark inwardly and outwardly. Have the same ability to instantly discard something like anger as we discard someone telling us we are in china when we are in the USA. Things arise, we don't identify with it, we are aware it is not us so the things don't become phenomenal, they don't leave a mark.

I think you said all of this in your way actually.

I am not what I am identifying with and projecting and experiencing in any given moment, I am that which can aware of all of this. (When not in delusion/confusion- un-awake) Then the more awareness I have of what I am identifying with as "truth" and "reality" which really is impermanent and not me the more I project and experience what I really am.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Anger is impermanent is it not?

All things true nature is emptiness.

Everyone focuses on the first part but misses the last part of the sutra.

seeing thus, (one) gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated." (or something like that).

The means. Just because something is impermanent doesn’t mean it isn’t a part of you.

Clearly mental formations are a part of you, it is all mind. Once one becomes passion free or stops attaching to things one has found the way.

You can try and bypass stuff all you want but eventually you will have to work on your attachments. Just like you quoted.

Perhaps if you look at it from a perspective, that each of our mind body ‘unique processors’ deal with it differently. The way in which we approach it in our own mind, body works and supports us as we choose, through that means. As someone who supports or is involved in a practice of meditation, to release anger , then understanding you are not your anger, where you become an observer and release simply by staying fully present with it all in the body, then this still clears the containment. (Regardless of whether you are or are not the anger) the perception of whether you are or are not, doesn’t change the containment. If anger arises then one is still contained. If you clear and assertive, in the lived experience then you will see you’ve developed a means to overcome its reaction.

The whole idea through Buddhist teachings, I am not this or that, could really be seen as giving people permission to enter into difficult, stronger emotions, they often ‘don’t think’ they have within. Or they do not want acknowledge they do. By installing a ‘program’ or ‘teaching’ -it’s not me, it allows an acceptance to be bridged to open its containment. In time you really it’s not you, it was a containment or force holding you from true feelings within it. With true feelings opened at the core of anger, true self can be seen. The ideas around all this are irrelevant to that finding/opening beyond this.

It’s those who acknowledge the teaching, who haven’t integrated its clarity and core containment, that project it without full awareness, that end up look like the ‘fool’. It’s through acknowledgement of the teaching ‘alone’ this is not me, ‘I am not my anger’ you will find aspects of arrogance arise, which is just a side step away from the true source in feeling deeper within that. In many ways they are the ones who can ‘believe’ they are ‘doing the ‘right’ thing, but blissfully unaware they are still contained. They cannot see the trap of their own creation in this way..self sabotaging through this ‘idea’..

To be on the ‘clear’ side of anger dealing with this, opens up ‘how we feel’ feeling this in others, there is a deeper peace within the whole shared space as yourself dealing with these reflections ��

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Funny how we look for an answer as an idea. We are so locked into ideas as reality.

Sometimes I don’t answer posts, because I don’t know how to.
So I will just comment on that last bit.

The mind looks/perceives everything with a conceptual ‘map’.
When it looks at a palm tree – it says to itself – ‘a palm tree’.

But if you throw away the map (the interpreter, the commentator) – then you do not know what it is that you are in the presence of.
With the openness of not-knowing – you remove the wall or the veil of conceptualization and start exploring/sensing the ‘isness’ with your awareness (i.e. not with the mind-map labels. The mind-map is not awareness).
You start using awareness as a 'sense-beyond-the-senses' ... so to speak.

You posted this youtube before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPmgTJGPzlg
Tolle explains the conceptualized, mentalized perception of reality (the mind-map) very well from 5:13 onwards.

*

The moment we extinguish the dualistic mind, we experience Shunyata.
~ Lama Yeshe

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Anger is impermanent is it not?

All things true nature is emptiness.

Everyone focuses on the first part but misses the last part of the sutra.

seeing thus, (one) gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated." (or something like that).

A leading aspect of the meditation is understanding the impermanent nature of phenomena, which aids in being 'passion free'.


Hence meditation is described as "ardent awareness with thorough understanding of impermanance...etc."

The means. Just because something is impermanent doesn’t mean it isn’t a part of you.

The sutta says the exact opposite of that, but I'm not saying the sutta is the answer.

Clearly mental formations are a part of you, it is all mind.

In practice we investigate every aspect of the mind/body and find no self in it at all.

Once one becomes passion free or stops attaching to things one has found the way.

You can try and bypass stuff all you want but eventually you will have to work on your attachments. Just like you quoted.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

A leading aspect of the meditation is understanding the impermanent nature of phenomena, which aids in being 'passion free'.


Hence meditation is described as "ardent awareness with thorough understanding of impermanance...etc."




The sutta says the exact opposite of that, but I'm not saying the sutta is the answer.






In practice we investigate every aspect of the mind/body and find no self in it at all.

When your aware of ‘yourself’ beyond the containment you do realize if you go deep enough, it’s all a temporary arrangement much like it’s installation to begin with.

It is hard when still noticing you in it in any shape or form to see it’s all just temporary clothes one might wear..you can have the teaching of ‘it’s not me’ but the power of some emotions and conditioned mind, will override that conclusion, especially if one is not in a ‘contained’ environment.

As I’ve learned, if your a complete mess through every level of containment, it’s not until you’ve cleared the mess ‘completely’ that you can see yourself differently. You see how it contained you as you. After you see, you hold the map to take out the roots, where it’s been implanted, you then see for yourself more directly, what that emptiness opens as a ‘clear’ canvas. The understanding is gained through walking through it all, for itself both with and without its hold. Sometimes knowing your not the anger or whatever emotion your contained by, because you have the understanding intellectually through the teachings, doesn’t always stop the mind/body from letting go fully. The attachments for whatever reason can have one believe ‘that’s just the way they are’ and it’s best to keep a lid on it. In this way as you would understand, you become a time bomb waiting for its moment, however that may come.

That comparison and experience directly, shows you what you are and what you are not. And sometimes people need that direct learning to truly overcome contained emotions.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

I would say the self is the witness of the aggregates. There is no self in the aggregates, that which carries the awareness of that is the self. Then somebody might say, no, no, Buddhism asserts no-self, and I would say, the thing that asserts no-self is not the self, the witness of that assertion is, and that which realizes the truths to which Buddhism points, the object Buddhism point for and to, is the self. Without a self, Buddhism has no point. Something becomes enlightened, something becomes liberated, something can know silence, something can be full of loving-kindness, compassion, light.

In Buddhist philosophy it would be something like, the truth is there is observation of phenomena and the fact that its all impermanent is an insight into the nature of it. There doesn't seem to be any self-theory regarding that in the philosophy.


The main error I think, made with Buddhist philosophy is that it provides an answer. It seems to me the philosophy is only the reason behind the practice to support why the practice is done the way it is...


In Buddhist philosophy there are no statements about something becoming enlightened, and the desire for enlightenment in itself is somewhat misplaced as craving has a central 'me my mine I' to it.


There is 'knowing' but this sense of knowing is utterly immediate and completely subjective, and no possessed by a continuous, eternal entity, me my mine I.

Both are right. not-I refers to the realization I am the perceiver, not the perceived. all-I refers to the realization everyone is just as me, a perceiver, perception, that is caught up or not caught up in that it perceives.

I don;t think any of it is intended to answer existential questions. I think it's intended to convey the attitude of meditation, so when we recognise the impermanance of phenomena, we have the attitude of no self or it's not me.



You gotta help me out on this one. Is that answer."Indeed, not that, O Lord" basically saying, "Yes (indeed) then No (not that) ?

If so, then it makes sense. I'll simplify it and just say "mechanical thought" instead of "that which is impermanent," so is it proper to regard thought as this is mine, this I am, this is my self? Well yea if one is identified with thought as self. If you are basically your mind, I encounter you as that. You tell me your opinions and beliefs and on and on, all of these temporary impermanent thoughts are what you project as self and so are what you and I experience as self. Then is it also not proper? Yes if one understands mind in all of it's forms as not I (self realization, enlightenment, whatever one calls it,) then such things don't manifest as self nor are they understood as being self.[/quote]



Sure, in the sense that there is no self apart from self-referential thoughts it makes sense to say your feelings are part of you, and it makes sense to say there is no you inherent to these impermanent thoughts, but this is where it gets to the underlying message in Buddhist philosophy: just observe, not because its what you have to do, but because it's true that observation is the case right now. You know it because you immediately see that it goes without saying and I merely state the perfectly obvious... rather than answer anything.


In the sutta when Buddha questioned the monks, they were very obvious questions, not to be answered intellectually, but to state the doubtless. It's merely a reasoning to support the no-self attitude of meditation.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

When your aware of ‘yourself’ beyond the containment you do realize if you go deep enough, it’s all a temporary arrangement much like it’s installation to begin with.

It is hard when still noticing you in it in any shape or form to see it’s all just temporary clothes one might wear..

As I’ve learned, if your a complete mess through every level of containment, it’s not until you’ve cleared the mess ‘completely’ that you can see yourself differently. You see how it contained you as you. After you see, you hold the map to take out the roots, where it’s been implanted, you then see for yourself more directly, what that emptiness opens as a ‘clear’ canvas. The understanding is gained through walking through it all, for itself both with and without its hold. Sometimes knowing your not the anger or whatever emotion your contained by, because you have the understanding intellectually through the teachings, doesn’t always stop the mind/body from letting go fully. The attachments for whatever reason can have one believe ‘that’s just the way they are’ and it’s best to keep a lid on it. In this way as you would understand, you become a time bomb waiting for its moment, however that may come.

That comparison and experience directly, shows you what you are and what you are not.

I often talk about the necessity to purify the mind of these contents, because we can hold past things, hide them in shame and judgment etc which prevents our free self-expression. In the meditation practice these mental contents come to conscious experience, and in the past, each time these peeked into awareness the adverse reaction recurred along with the desire for a pleasant distraction. Hence the thing never came fully to light of conscious awareness to pass. People do this because the emotional storms from the past are so violent an unstable mind would be sent off the edge of sanity, so it's important to understand the necessity and the reason for the reactive process in preserving survival and not open things that are too much for a koala to bear.



Then we start to practice the stability of mind called awareness with equanimity; the ability to go through experience without reaction overwhelming. Hence the meditation is described "... free of aversion and craving toward the world".


At first a novice will find out how easily they react to things, but by practicing equanimity (as opposed to reactivity) they begin to stablise and are no longer perturbed by general discomforts of the body. They can endure greater extremes without being overwhelmed, which means more stable equanimity of mind.


When the surface has stilled somewhat, the deeper contents start to surface, and there comes a point when emotional storms rage. If the novice was schooled correctly with regard to equanimity with their physical discomfort, they will have sufficient stability to endure the storm without being overwhelmed by it, and because they do not react adversely, resist, react, cling and so on, it is free to pass as all things inevitably do. It often feels very uncomfortable like dense tar through the body or something, and one simply continues to practice awareness with equanimity so the storms can arise, pass, stay, whatever. Since there is no reactive dynamic, things pass as they inevitably do. Hence, the meditation is described as 'free of aversion and craving in the world...'.