Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
June 28 · Sandnes, Norway
"Nonduality does not mean that you dissolve into the world or that the world becomes you. It is not a question of oneness, but of zero-ness. No synchronization of the sense perceptions is necessary. Everything is reduced into zero, and the whole thing becomes one-pointedness—or zero-pointedness. That is moksha, or “freedom.” You do not have any hassles and no synchronization is necessary. Things just unfold by themselves."
~ Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
Awakening to Reality: Zero-ness
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.no/2014/06/zero-ness.html
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.no
UnlikeUnlike · · Share
You, Piotr Ludwinski, Joel Agee, Viorica Doina Neacsu and 7 others like this.
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland "No synchronization of the sense perceptions is necessary."
This is extraordinarily profound advice!
June 28 at 12:41pm · Edited · Unlike · 2
Viorica Doina Neacsu Beautiful post. Thank you Stian
"Thusness also wrote:
The tendency to unify is the cause of reification. Consciousness always subsume into Oneness because the idea is so beautiful to the mind and fits so well to the inherent intellect. The very act of unification into oneness prevents the seeing of liberation at spot. Instant liberation at spot is realized by recognizing the very nature of appearances/phenomena and self is non-arising and empty, it is not resting in/as Awareness or space. The former is liberation via wisdom, the later is just Awareness teaching."
June 28 at 4:38pm · Unlike · 2
Joel Rosenblum Not to contradict, but Buddha did say "I am the awake" and in fact that is the meaning of the word Buddha.
June 28 at 10:40pm · Like
Joel Rosenblum However I'm sure he did not mean it to be taken as if there is a he who is the awake...
June 28 at 10:41pm · Like
Soh Not sure how are you relating that to the OP? In any case,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"
This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)
Teacher of the Devas
www.accesstoinsight.org
In the canonical formula for contemplation of the Buddha, nine epithets of the A... See More
June 28 at 10:44pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh The Buddha also defines what he mean by 'awakened':
At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.'....
...
"The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.'... etc etc
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.058.than.html
Buddha Sutta: Awakened
www.accesstoinsight.org
At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened... See More
June 28 at 10:48pm · Like · Remove Preview
Mason Spransy Isn't Maha a kind of oneness experience/realization?
June 28 at 11:29pm · Like
Soh Thusness told me that the 'Maha' he talks about is not about oneness but rather 'the Indra-net where none of the node is central yet the entire completeness isn't loss'.
Don't know about Bernie Glassman but from what I've read his explanation seems to similar to what Thusness had in mind.
June 28 at 11:39pm · Like
Soh Bernie Glassman's description of Maha is functionality as one but not one substance:
"Maha Prajnaparamita Hrdaya Sutra: The whole message is right here. If we could really see this word maha, see this One Body, see this one garden that is us, the world would look different. Instead of seeing trees, soil, manure, and flowers as different, separate things, we'd see them as One Body with different qualities, features, and characteristics. We'd see that when we cultivate the soil, we cultivate all the rest. Taking care of the tree affects the flowers; taking care of a flower affects the soil. In the same way, we usually see the body as a limited, bound thing, yet we know that it has many features -- hands, toes, numerous hairs and pores (all different), skin, bones, blood, guts, an assortment of organs, many feet of intestines. But they're all just one body with many, many features and characteristics. Hit one part and the whole feels it; the entire body is affected. Eat some food and what part is not affected? Breathe, what part is not affected? Using the human body as a model of the One Body is a little misleading because the One Body has no outside or inside. We have to see this, we have to see maha. How do we see maha? We wake up!"
June 28 at 11:49pm · Like · 4
Soh I didnt know bernies description is so similar to what I described in my dharmabody article
June 29 at 9:33am · Like
David Vardy Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
"This is extraordinarily profound advice" ............It's not advise. It's telling it like it is.
June 29 at 10:54am · Like · 1
Joel Rosenblum Interesting that just after questioning the non-oneness aspect today, "I" began experiencing exactly that disjoint awareness which is difficult to describe. Each finger seems to be typing on its own right now. None of them know what the plan is. Head wonders who or what is coordinating fingers. Thoughts each on their own. The thought emerges that this must be one awareness aware of all these disjoint perceptions, but that thought itself is another disjoint self-aware thing... No point in saying any of this...
June 29 at 1:46pm · Unlike · 3
David Vardy When it's seen that each sense is functioning on its own plane, the knot, the assumed coordinator, relaxes and the impulse to coordinate eventually collapses along with the desire to know what's behind all of this. What appears to be happening appears to be disjointed, freshly arising and collapsing in the moment in the absence of anyone to have a problem with that.
June 30 at 12:39am · Like · 1
David Vardy The mind is fulfilled by what's happening in the absence of 'what's behind all of this?' It salubriously responds to what's required of it in the absence of seeking answers to unanswerable questions.
June 30 at 1:12am · Like
June 28 · Sandnes, Norway
"Nonduality does not mean that you dissolve into the world or that the world becomes you. It is not a question of oneness, but of zero-ness. No synchronization of the sense perceptions is necessary. Everything is reduced into zero, and the whole thing becomes one-pointedness—or zero-pointedness. That is moksha, or “freedom.” You do not have any hassles and no synchronization is necessary. Things just unfold by themselves."
~ Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
Awakening to Reality: Zero-ness
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.no/2014/06/zero-ness.html
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.no
UnlikeUnlike · · Share
You, Piotr Ludwinski, Joel Agee, Viorica Doina Neacsu and 7 others like this.
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland "No synchronization of the sense perceptions is necessary."
This is extraordinarily profound advice!
June 28 at 12:41pm · Edited · Unlike · 2
Viorica Doina Neacsu Beautiful post. Thank you Stian
"Thusness also wrote:
The tendency to unify is the cause of reification. Consciousness always subsume into Oneness because the idea is so beautiful to the mind and fits so well to the inherent intellect. The very act of unification into oneness prevents the seeing of liberation at spot. Instant liberation at spot is realized by recognizing the very nature of appearances/phenomena and self is non-arising and empty, it is not resting in/as Awareness or space. The former is liberation via wisdom, the later is just Awareness teaching."
June 28 at 4:38pm · Unlike · 2
Joel Rosenblum Not to contradict, but Buddha did say "I am the awake" and in fact that is the meaning of the word Buddha.
June 28 at 10:40pm · Like
Joel Rosenblum However I'm sure he did not mean it to be taken as if there is a he who is the awake...
June 28 at 10:41pm · Like
Soh Not sure how are you relating that to the OP? In any case,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"
This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)
Teacher of the Devas
www.accesstoinsight.org
In the canonical formula for contemplation of the Buddha, nine epithets of the A... See More
June 28 at 10:44pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Soh The Buddha also defines what he mean by 'awakened':
At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.'....
...
"The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.'... etc etc
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.058.than.html
Buddha Sutta: Awakened
www.accesstoinsight.org
At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened... See More
June 28 at 10:48pm · Like · Remove Preview
Mason Spransy Isn't Maha a kind of oneness experience/realization?
June 28 at 11:29pm · Like
Soh Thusness told me that the 'Maha' he talks about is not about oneness but rather 'the Indra-net where none of the node is central yet the entire completeness isn't loss'.
Don't know about Bernie Glassman but from what I've read his explanation seems to similar to what Thusness had in mind.
June 28 at 11:39pm · Like
Soh Bernie Glassman's description of Maha is functionality as one but not one substance:
"Maha Prajnaparamita Hrdaya Sutra: The whole message is right here. If we could really see this word maha, see this One Body, see this one garden that is us, the world would look different. Instead of seeing trees, soil, manure, and flowers as different, separate things, we'd see them as One Body with different qualities, features, and characteristics. We'd see that when we cultivate the soil, we cultivate all the rest. Taking care of the tree affects the flowers; taking care of a flower affects the soil. In the same way, we usually see the body as a limited, bound thing, yet we know that it has many features -- hands, toes, numerous hairs and pores (all different), skin, bones, blood, guts, an assortment of organs, many feet of intestines. But they're all just one body with many, many features and characteristics. Hit one part and the whole feels it; the entire body is affected. Eat some food and what part is not affected? Breathe, what part is not affected? Using the human body as a model of the One Body is a little misleading because the One Body has no outside or inside. We have to see this, we have to see maha. How do we see maha? We wake up!"
June 28 at 11:49pm · Like · 4
Soh I didnt know bernies description is so similar to what I described in my dharmabody article
June 29 at 9:33am · Like
David Vardy Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
"This is extraordinarily profound advice" ............It's not advise. It's telling it like it is.
June 29 at 10:54am · Like · 1
Joel Rosenblum Interesting that just after questioning the non-oneness aspect today, "I" began experiencing exactly that disjoint awareness which is difficult to describe. Each finger seems to be typing on its own right now. None of them know what the plan is. Head wonders who or what is coordinating fingers. Thoughts each on their own. The thought emerges that this must be one awareness aware of all these disjoint perceptions, but that thought itself is another disjoint self-aware thing... No point in saying any of this...
June 29 at 1:46pm · Unlike · 3
David Vardy When it's seen that each sense is functioning on its own plane, the knot, the assumed coordinator, relaxes and the impulse to coordinate eventually collapses along with the desire to know what's behind all of this. What appears to be happening appears to be disjointed, freshly arising and collapsing in the moment in the absence of anyone to have a problem with that.
June 30 at 12:39am · Like · 1
David Vardy The mind is fulfilled by what's happening in the absence of 'what's behind all of this?' It salubriously responds to what's required of it in the absence of seeking answers to unanswerable questions.
June 30 at 1:12am · Like
No comments:
Post a Comment