Nonduality

[forestofsouls]

Dwai,

 

I have a feeling that I am speaking Greek and you are speaking Chinese!

 

Who is the observer observing? This is a great question. In fact, this is my current question. I have found that after a number of years of vipassana, it is easier to separate out the I from the objects. In many ways, the anatta of Buddhism resembles the "neti neti" of Vedanta.

 

My path is the path of awareness. It is not really Buddhist, or non-Buddhist. Humanist, is more like it. The idea is to place awareness on everything in its path, up to and including itself, to thoroughly investigate all arising phenomenon. The further along I get, the less I find a use for philosophical concepts. In some ways, I am becoming philosophically stupid, and find these sorts of concepts slippery.

 

When I look at a tree, it is one thing. If I look at a tree with thinking, it is another. This is why I say thinking obscures.

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

I have a feeling that I am speaking Greek and you are speaking Chinese!

 

Who is the observer observing? This is a great question. In fact, this is my current question. I have found that after a number of years of vipassana, it is easier to separate out the I from the objects. In many ways, the anatta of Buddhism resembles the "neti neti" of Vedanta.

 

My path is the path of awareness. It is not really Buddhist, or non-Buddhist. Humanist, is more like it. The idea is to place awareness on everything in its path, up to and including itself, to thoroughly investigate all arising phenomenon. The further along I get, the less I find a use for philosophical concepts. In some ways, I am becoming philosophically stupid, and find these sorts of concepts slippery.

 

When I look at a tree, it is one thing. If I look at a tree with thinking, it is another. This is why I say thinking obscures.

 

Indeed Matt,

 

It is usually the case.

Are you still doing Tai chi?

[xabir2005]

Edited April 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[erdweir]

It might seem strange to bring up Hegel on this forum, but in this case i think it's actually relevant.

 

In the Phenomenology of the Sprit, Hegel discusses the way consciousness assumes different "shapes". each shape is formed by the mind or spirit dividing itself between a subject and object. this division is actually false according to Hegel. He calls it the opposition of consciousness. As the phenomenology unfolds, the mind keeps becoming frustrated by trying to know the objects it creates because it assumes the objects are separate from it. as each shape implodes, the spirit incorporates the ruins of it shattered illusions into itself and tried to create a new, more sophisticated object for it to know, and in the process creates self consciousness and a great deal of other things. Eventually it comes to know itself as a process of creating and destroying objects for itself to know. This is Hegel answer to the Kantian problem of how to know the "thing in itself". The "thing" we see is not actually existing apart from us, we in fact create it. this goes a great deal further that Berkley's idealism (if a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it...) Hegel actually maintains that the universe is made of mind or spirit and is not separate from it.

 

Hegel goes further with this line of thought in the Science of Logic. He shows how western science tries to get to know things though quantity, quality etc, but these methods all fail. Hegel call this stage of mind which tries to know physical things as absolutes the "understanding". eventually this stage yields to the dialectical phase, where the flaws of the understanding are revealed though their own contradiction. in the third stage, contradictions are resolved through the unity of opposites in the "notion". this is infinite thought according to Hegel. finite thought deals with separate individual objects and their position in space and time, but finite thought cannot give a consistent account of changes and transformations in the world. By the infinite, Hegel means not an endless series of numbers, but a unity of all things with their seeming opposites where all boundaries are transcended.

 

of course all this is purely intellectual and Hegel didnt seem to know much about the transcendent states of consciousness where unity is not just described but experienced directly, and and he tended to value the intellect over religion or art as the best way to know the absolute, but I find Hegel's philosophy strangely compatible with esoteric notions of transcending the individual viewpoint and it's divisions of the self and other. Hegel also values the individual, not just the over all unity, and says that the over all unity and individuals need each other to reveal and complement their natures. There is allot more to it of course, Hegel is notoriously dense reading, and i dont agree with all of it, but I am glad I studied it.

[Dainin]

Much ado about...Nothing!

[forestofsouls]

Xabir,

 

I am glad that you have a teacher that you like and that excites you. Good for you. I invite you to "put down" all this theory and instead practice. Then we can discuss experiences instead of theories, and cite what we observe rather than what so-and-so said. I invite you to re-review the Kalamas Sutta on this issue.

 

What I said is that in many ways, the anatta of Buddhism resembles the neti, neti of Advaita. This is not to draw an equivalence, or run down the path you're running down. How so? In neti, neti, you reject things as not self. In anatta, you also reject things as not self. This is indeed a similarity.

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

I am glad that you have a teacher that you like and that excites you. Good for you. I invite you to "put down" all this theory and instead practice. Then we can discuss experiences instead of theories, and cite what we observe rather than what so-and-so said. I invite you to re-review the Kalamas Sutta on this issue.

 

What I said is that in many ways, the anatta of Buddhism resembles the neti, neti of Advaita. This is not to draw an equivalence, or run down the path you're running down. How so? In neti, neti, you reject things as not self. In anatta, you also reject things as not self. This is indeed a similarity.

Yes, practise is important, but how do you know I am not practicing? Having right view is just as important, otherwise we will get stuck at certain experiences.

 

Sorry if I had earlier on misunderstood what you wrote.

 

 

Anyway, observing the characteristic of anatta is not by the means of rejection as in Advaita and one does not separate the watcher from the process of phenomenality as a result of this practise. Vipassana is not the same as dissociative witnessing (though many may understand it that way). The purpose is not to discard the transient experiences, the purpose is to experience the transience's 'knowing' quality yet not making up a self nor pertaining to self ('mine'). When observing anatta you just observe all sensations arising on their own in a natural causal fashion -- e.g. hearing sound happening on its own naturally without being a separate 'me' or 'mine' nor a 'hearer' separate from sound, bodily sensation happening in the same way, thoughts happening in the same way. When this is directly experienced this gives rise to non dual experience and insight, such that everything is 'aware where it is' without a separate cognizer. This is the same as what the Buddha instructed in the Satipatthana Sutta (the Sutta which is used as a basis for Vipassana practise), 'observe the sensation IN the sensation'. He didn't say 'be the watcher of the sensation', suggesting he is not talking about dissociative witnessing. All sensations are self-aware where they are.

 

As Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh said,

 

The Satipatthana Sutta, a Buddhist scripture which teaches awareness, uses expressions such as "observing the body in the body," "observing the feelings in the feelings," "observing the mind in the mind," "observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind." Why are the words, body, feelings, mind, and objects of mind repeated? Some masters of the Abhidhamma say that the purpose of this repetition is to underline the importance of these words. I see it otherwise. I think that these words are repeated in order to remind us not to separate the meditator and the object of meditation. We must live with the object, identify with it, merge with it, like a grain of salt entering the sea in order to measure the saltiness of the sea.

 

As I said earlier I'm not trying to imply that therefore, observing Anatta need to be superior to self inquiry, or you're doing it wrong, nothing of that. I was just hoping to clarify some misconceptions that might arise. In fact one cannot have the I AM awakening or a quick glimpse of pure presence through Vipassana or observing the three characteristics, but this path will also eventually lead to realisation of no-self and non-dual awareness. This is the gradual path.

 

As someone on another forum (not Thusness) said rightly regarding the difference between practises that focus on the I AM and Vipassana: "Any kind of investigation of phenomena precludes non-dual practice (at least in the moment of investigation). You're either doing one or the other. Investigation (vipassana) takes as object the changing phenomena of mind and body and finds the 3 characteristics, including no-self. Vipassana depends upon time. Without time, one could not speak of change. Non-dual practice focuses on that which is prior to the arising of time, i.e. awareness itself. Awareness always looks the same; without time there is no change. It's an important distinction to make"

 

 

On the other hand the direct path (emphasized in Zen, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Advaita etc.) requires awakening to the 'I', and then the whole path is just the unfolding of this pure presence. One then does a koan, or practise vipassana, to bring the background awareness (the 'Self') into all foreground sensations to give rise to non-dual insights. But either way, gradual (vipassana) or direct (first through self inquiry, awareness watching awareness, etc. leading to the 'I AM' insight, etc.), if gone all the way results in the same realisations.

Edited April 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

people like to lump all traditions into one, it makes them sleep better at night, i was merely questioning that assumption.

 

One could even say that Buddhism is struggling to maintain a separate identity. How ironic, when Buddha has preached that all self-delineation is a deviation from Dharma (the way things are, the truth of things, the true way, etc.).

Edited April 29, 2009 by goldisheavy

[forestofsouls]

Xabir,

 

Regarding practice: I don't mean to sound harsh, but since you asked, based on your posts, I've noticed:

 

1. Lots of citations to authorities without relating it to individual practice. When you talk outside the authorities, the writing tends to be generic and generalized. It reminds me of the tone of non-practicing scholars. Theoreticians like to talk theory, practitioners like to talk practice.

 

2. A general, "this is how it is attitude" that draws clear distinctions and definitions, to the point of black and white: x is like this, y is like so.

 

3. A seemingly burning desire to teach and draw broad generalizations. In the beginning, and usually after an insight, there is a desire to talk, talk, talk.

 

4. A missing "X" factor from some one who has been there. When people have seen, they generally have a sense of authority about what they speak of.

 

This reminds me of an early stage of practice in which one has gathered a lot of spiritual concepts, but has not had the practice to truly understand what they mean. How do I know this? I've been there. Sometimes, I fall back there. And I see it constantly, in my daily life, when I'm training the younger and less experienced. All of this points in my mind to some one who is young and intelligent, but not necessarily experienced.

 

Thus I say, less theory and more practice.

 

Also, you're wrong on Vipassana. I've practiced in the traditions of SN Goenka, Ajahn Chah, and Shinzen Young. All of these have led me to the sense of I AM, just not necessarily during the technique. If I see a blue sky, I see a blue sky, no matter what your authorities might say.

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

Regarding practice: I don't mean to sound harsh, but since you asked, based on your posts, I've noticed:

 

1. Lots of citations to authorities without relating it to individual practice. When you talk outside the authorities, the writing tends to be generic and generalized. It reminds me of the tone of non-practicing scholars. Theoreticians like to talk theory, practitioners like to talk practice.

 

2. A general, "this is how it is attitude" that draws clear distinctions and definitions, to the point of black and white: x is like this, y is like so.

 

3. A seemingly burning desire to teach and draw broad generalizations. In the beginning, and usually after an insight, there is a desire to talk, talk, talk.

 

4. A missing "X" factor from some one who has been there. When people have seen, they generally have a sense of authority about what they speak of.

 

This reminds me of an early stage of practice in which one has gathered a lot of spiritual concepts, but has not had the practice to truly understand what they mean. How do I know this? I've been there. Sometimes, I fall back there. And I see it constantly, in my daily life, when I'm training the younger and less experienced. All of this points in my mind to some one who is young and intelligent, but not necessarily experienced.

 

Thus I say, less theory and more practice.

 

Also, you're wrong on Vipassana. I've practiced in the traditions of SN Goenka, Ajahn Chah, and Shinzen Young. All of these have led me to the sense of I AM, just not necessarily during the technique. If I see a blue sky, I see a blue sky, no matter what your authorities might say.

Good points and I have to admit you're mostly right. And yeah I'm 19. I'm not saying I'm any more experienced than you... I said 'I'm practicing' but not 'I'm enlightened'. I am still trying to stabilize the glimpses or recognition of I AM. I think what you are practising is a sort of witnessing by resting on awareness itself. Certainly, the Thai Forest Tradition (where Ajahn Chah is in) has more emphasis on this method than say, the Mahasi Sayadaw or other insight traditions.

 

I also have had some very intense non-dual experiences where experiencer and experienced totally merges, but they are passing states with entry and exit. Not so much of insight or realisation. Mostly I still recognise awareness as the pure sense of being, witness, background space.

 

p.s. what are you teaching/training?

Edited April 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[awake]

Non-Duality:

 

Is not and is. Observed through awareness without thought. It is only not and so at the same time, because it is from which that all things manifest, but they are all it as well.

 

It is a perception. We do not know if it is true. We can only trust that it is. Comes from stillness of mind.

[alfa]

When observing anatta you just observe all sensations arising on their own in a natural causal fashion -- e.g. hearing sound happening on its own naturally without being a separate 'me' or 'mine' nor a 'hearer' separate from sound, bodily sensation happening in the same way, thoughts happening in the same way. When this is directly experienced this gives rise to non dual experience and insight, such that everything is 'aware where it is' without a separate cognizer. This is the same as what the Buddha instructed in the Satipatthana Sutta (the Sutta which is used as a basis for Vipassana practise), 'observe the sensation IN the sensation'. He didn't say 'be the watcher of the sensation', suggesting he is not talking about dissociative witnessing. All sensations are self-aware where they are.

 

This is fascinating, but how can there be a listening or seeing without the listener/seer separate from listening/seeing? Does that mean instead of listening, we must first eliminate the "I" so that there will be listening, and not an "I" that listens? Is this what you're getting at? Besides, non-dual experience cannot be an experience-can it?-because there's neither experiencer nor experience. Does that mean it's an unconscious state?

[xabir2005]

This is fascinating, but how can there be a listening or seeing without the listener/seer separate from listening/seeing? Does that mean instead of listening, we must first eliminate the "I" so that there will be listening, and not an "I" that listens? Is this what you're getting at? Besides, non-dual experience cannot be an experience-can it?-because there's neither experiencer nor experience. Does that mean it's an unconscious state?

Dropping the "I" can give rise to the experience. The first time, well actually not really the first time... but my first intense non dual experience was a result of my spontaneous, curious, contemplation of "What is it like to be dead?"

 

I pretended with my whole being to be dead. And then I really 'died'... there is no longer a "me" but the whole universe is there! Just the whole universe. Pure existence. Seeing floor, just floor-ness. Everything is 'existing', or rather 'presenc-ing' without a separate me or observer. There is totally no distance between seer and seen. There is pure consciousness, the whole universe is consciousness, but not a 'me' who is conscious. Total nondual absorption.

 

And then after a minute or so... the "me" comes back, like an entity looking out from my head. Then the experience came again the next day or two, and then after that intermittently at times in longer gaps.

 

I have had some strong non dual glimpses since then, but they come and go.

 

This is still not the realisation of Anatta/No-Self.

 

As my friend Thusness said:

Insight that 'anatta' is a seal and not a stage must arise to further progress into the 'effortless' mode. That is, anatta is the ground of all experiences and has always been so, no I. In seeing, always only seen, in hearing always only sound and in thinking, always only thoughts. No effort required and never was there an 'I'.

Edited April 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[forestofsouls]

No, I am not practicing witnessing. Where is the witness to rest?

 

What I am working with right now is self-inquiry. I think this is often misunderstood, because people tend to talk about an awareness apart from everything else or awareness just resting on awareness. However, in the Path of Sri Ramana Part One, Sri Sadhu Om writes about Ramana and his teachings of self-inquiry while doing other things. Indeed, many Chan masters had their moment of awakening while doing things other than meditating. How does this inform practice?

 

In the Shurangama Sutra, it talks of the host and the guests. The host stays. The guests come and go. If so, then this host must be present all through your life, since you were a child, in times of delusion and mental calmness. A non-dual experience may highlight it, but it does not depend on non-dual experience. What is this?

 

Making it more interesting, in the SS the Buddha says seeing is neither in the objects nor apart from the objects, not in form or emptiness nor apart from form or emptiness. What is this?

 

Please note, these are questions for practice, not for thinking about.

 

This is where vipassana helps. When something arises that I've seen before, I can easily say "not this." Otherwise, in the past I have been confused by the appearance of thoughts, feelings, etc.

 

I am not a teacher. I am a student, like you.

 

I am still trying to stabilize the glimpses or recognition of I AM. I think what you are practising is a sort of witnessing by resting on awareness itself. Certainly, the Thai Forest Tradition (where Ajahn Chah is in) has more emphasis on this method than say, the Mahasi Sayadaw or other insight traditions.

 

I also have had some very intense non-dual experiences where experiencer and experienced totally merges, but they are passing states with entry and exit. Not so much of insight or realisation. Mostly I still recognise awareness as the pure sense of being, witness, background space.

 

p.s. what are you teaching/training?

Edited April 30, 2009 by forestofsouls

[xabir2005]

No, I am not practicing witnessing. Where is the witness to rest?

 

What I am working with right now is self-inquiry. I think this is often misunderstood, because people tend to talk about an awareness apart from everything else or awareness just resting on awareness. However, in the Path of Sri Ramana Part One, Sri Sadhu Om writes about Ramana and his teachings of self-inquiry while doing other things. Indeed, many Chan masters had their moment of awakening while doing things other than meditating. How does this inform practice?

 

In the Shurangama Sutra, it talks of the host and the guests. The host stays. The guests come and go. If so, then this host must be present all through your life, since you were a child, in times of delusion and mental calmness. A non-dual experience may highlight it, but it does not depend on non-dual experience. What is this?

 

Making it more interesting, in the SS the Buddha says seeing is neither in the objects nor apart from the objects, not in form or emptiness nor apart from form or emptiness. What is this?

 

Please note, these are questions for practice, not for thinking about.

 

This is where vipassana helps. When something arises that I've seen before, I can easily say "not this." Otherwise, in the past I have been confused by the appearance of thoughts, feelings, etc.

 

I am not a teacher. I am a student, like you.

Yes, awareness is certainly not limited to sitting sessions or focusing on awareness to the exclusion of all things. It's always accessible, whether washing dishes, doing your work, going about your daily life, are all activities happening in awareness. And this awareness, the I AMness, feels exactly the same regardless what we are experiencing: whether experiencing calmness, or thoughts, or mundane activities, experiences simply come and go and THAT to which whatever is happening, 'feels' the same, being timeless and unmoving. It is the unchanging nature of mind. Whatever we experience, simply ask "to whom", self inquiry is not limited by a fixed setting and time. Funny I was writing the same stuff a week ago, just sharing in another forum... However that said, the I AM realisation is still not the same as realising Anatta and Non-Duality. Even though it's seen everything is experienced 'in' awareness (an all-container), there is no realisation of everything 'AS' awareness without the slightest division, there is always the tendency to sink back into the background witnessing space, the source. By saying 'separation', I'm refering to this, I'm not saying that the I AM can only be accessed in the absence of all phenomena during samadhi or absorption or something.

 

However what I'm trying to point out especially to alfa is that experiencing non-dual as a state or passing experience is not realising that non-dual as what is 'always so'. To one that has realised non-dual as the ever present nature of consciousness, one can NOT enter or exit non-dual consciousness. Therefore it is 'pathless'. Always already, there is no observer divided from observed. Consciousness is seen always AS sounds, sights, sensations, NOT behind sounds, sights, sensations. Non-duality is not an experience... though prior to insights and realisation, one still appears to experience entry and exit. Consciousness does not depend on non-dual experiences, rather, consciousness IS non-dual. When this is realised, it is called 'enlightenment'. If one speaks about seeming entering and exiting nondual experiences, it is evident that the nature of consciousness has not been realised... for me as I have said, I only had experiences, but not the 'realisation'. Also compare Stage 2, 3 and 4: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html

 

p.s. I thought you said something about training students..

Edited April 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

Xabir,

 

I love your explanations. Good stuff. If you continue like that, I can retire in peace.

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

I love your explanations. Good stuff. If you continue like that, I can retire in peace.

LOL... thanks. But I think I won't stay for long, retiring earlier than you...

[goldisheavy]

LOL... thanks. But I think I won't stay for long, retiring earlier than you...

 

It's ok. Just don't take yourself so seriously. It's all a big joke anyway.

[forestofsouls]

Xabir,

 

It's not necessarily a good thing to have all the answers, or to give them. Ossification can be a sign of involution.

 

Good luck.

[Unconditioned]

Can anyone recommend any writings/teachings on this fascinating subject.

Not particularly bothered about which spiritual tradition they come from.

Thanks in advance

 

SM

 

Why Lazarus Laughed, Wei Wu Wei

 

Xabir,

 

It's not necessarily a good thing to have all the answers, or to give them. Ossification can be a sign of involution.

 

Good luck.

 

And using seemingly educated words for the sake of the ego can be a sign of being a bit of a prick. Don't take it personally, just an observation.

 

As gold said, relax a bit! No need to get all prickly here (pun intended)!

 

I agree with your comment though, if you 'have' an answer then you've stopped seeing things as they are - you only see your conclusions. When we can stop and say "i don't know" now that is the path to real discovery isn't it?

[alfa]

However what I'm trying to point out especially to alfa is that experiencing non-dual as a state or passing experience is not realising that non-dual as what is 'always so'. To one that has realised non-dual as the ever present nature of consciousness, one can NOT enter or exit non-dual consciousness. Therefore it is 'pathless'. Always already, there is no observer divided from observed. Consciousness is seen always AS sounds, sights, sensations, NOT behind sounds, sights, sensations. Non-duality is not an experience... though prior to insights and realisation, one still appears to experience entry and exit. Consciousness does not depend on non-dual experiences, rather, consciousness IS non-dual. When this is realised, it is called 'enlightenment'. If one speaks about seeming entering and exiting nondual experiences, it is evident that the nature of consciousness has not been realised... for me as I have said, I only had experiences, but not the 'realisation'. Also compare Stage 2, 3 and 4: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html

 

Thanks for a wonderful post. But I am finding it virtually impossible to put this into practice, because whenever we think of observation, it's always observer vs observed. It's not possible - even theoretically - to think of everything as consciousness, especially smells, sounds etc. The duality seems to be ever present, MORE real and concrete than non-duality. Perhaps, you can expand on that, namely how consciousness itself is the world that we perceive (if indeed that's what you were trying to say), and NOT behind these things as a perceiver.

[xabir2005]

Thanks for a wonderful post. But I am finding it virtually impossible to put this into practice, because whenever we think of observation, it's always observer vs observed. It's not possible - even theoretically - to think of everything as consciousness, especially smells, sounds etc. The duality seems to be ever present, MORE real and concrete than non-duality. Perhaps, you can expand on that, namely how consciousness itself is the world that we perceive (if indeed that's what you were trying to say), and NOT behind these things as a perceiver.

It's not a question of how, why, etc... but rather it is the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness. It is just like that. And if you investigate, practise, sooner or later you will see what is meant. You will see that consciousness is not a perceiver, and consciousness is not limited and constricted in this body-mind looking outward at many things. You are not an entity behind your eyes looking out. Rather, you are the seeing, and that seeing is the tree, the mountains, the rivers. There is just the whole phenomenological world, self-aware where it is, without an observer.

 

This will become clear as you practise. The more you drop the self, the more transparent the self is, the more vivid, clear and luminous phenomena becomes. Until a point where there's no longer a central reference point, only sights, sounds, etc.

 

You'll see that hearing, smelling etc has nothing to do with a self. There's just smells registered, sounds registered, no entity 'self' is involved at all. In fact awareness is happening regardless whether you are paying attention. When you pay attention to breathe, something still hears sounds, the sound is still naturally occuring regardless whether attention is being payed to it. There's simply what is happening effortlessly and choicelessly and naturally. (as Lao Tzu says: Man follows Earth. Earth follows heaven. Heaven follows the Tao. Tao follows what is natural.) It is simply what is self-arising. The Tao is self-so. Everything is a luminous, natural spontaneous self-arising. No controller or perceiver involved. That's why Taoism places so much emphasis on naturalness and non-action.

 

When an airplane passes, the noise is naturally heard, or is naturally self-arising along with causes and conditions, and even if you hated it you cannot avoid hearing. There is in truth neither a 'you' that is hearing, nor a 'you' that can avoid what is heard, simply because there is no such self-entity. Awareness is choicelessly happening and has nothing to do with a perceiver or a controller, and is not even about attention or concentration. And as I wrote, ...That is Buddha-Nature. It is the sum of all our parts, that which sees, hears, feels and tastes all at once as One Reality. Before you think that this awareness is a 'thing' -- a Mirror or a Witness, it's not separate -- it's just sound hearing, scenery seeing, it's not a something tangible (a Mirror or a Witness) yet is vividly manifesting.

 

It will be seen very clearly: in hearing, only vivid sounds, no hearer. In seeing, just vivid scene, mountain, rivers, no seer. In thinker, just vivid thought, no thinker nor watcher of thought. (Same goes for taste, smell, touch) And lastly, this is a dharma seal, the ever-present nature of reality, this is not a stage to be achieved.

 

However it is also true that in the beginning this will certainly not be apparent. The karmic propensities/tendencies/deep conditioning that gives rise to the sense of self is very strong. As my friend Thusness says, if we are unable to arise this insight (No-Self, Non-Dual) and with the tendencies still strong, then we have no choice but resort to the gradual path of practice. Resorting to watching the arising and ceasing of the 5 aggregates as if there is a separate watcher but with the right view that there is no self apart from the aggregates. By practicing this way, insight into Anatta can still arise eventually.

 

But if the path consists of practice without the right view, almost without fail it will result in Advaita sort of experience.

Edited May 1, 2009 by xabir2005

[forestofsouls]

I've seen transmutation go three ways.

 

One group I've noticed comes to a spiritual teaching/practice, and approaches it the way they would any other hobby, interest, academic study, etc. They turn the Great Work into a thing of life. They may use spiritual gatherings as a time to socialize, gather concepts, sharpen their intellects, etc.

 

Another group approaches a spiritual teaching/practice, and allow it to transform their life. They turn their lives into the Great Work. They may use their daily lives as a basis for spiritual work.

 

A third group falls somewhere in the middle, often starting in the first group and working toward the second.

 

There often comes a turning point where the question arises: which is more important? The Great Work or life?

 

I'm glad the prick got your attention.

 

 

And using seemingly educated words for the sake of the ego can be a sign of being a bit of a prick. Don't take it personally, just an observation.

 

As gold said, relax a bit! No need to get all prickly here (pun intended)!

[Wayfarer64]

Once you get over yourself-

 

you will find that you are already part of the greater oneness... - the non-duality of being in yr own Tao -the way you should be as it were...

 

 

another way to say this is...

Transcending the self (ego) is the start, then a blissfull awareness developes and you are at one -...