"In Tantra one comes to understand, through the practices of the vajra body, that all appearance is the play of Buddhas in union. Sense and sense field are Bodhisattvas in union. Eye meets form and there is only the love play of intimate lovers. Sound to ear, hand to touch. Everywhere as far as the eye can see, perception is pure pleasure. The aggregates of the body, form, feeling, perception, consciousness and formation, are known as male Buddhas, and the elements of the body as female Buddhas; and these aggregates and elements are engaged in the most delightful frolic of pleasure and joy. Everything is union. Everything is bliss and wisdom divulging itself, emptiness and clarity giving birth to joy in form."

~ Traktung Rinpoche, "Original Innocence"
André A. Pais Soh, I just wrote up-thread:

<

Shunyata, meaning emptiness (of inherent nature), seems to say that things lack independent identity.

A rock, for instance, is not a permanent entity, but if it is merely anatta, it can exist as a rock independent of mind. If it is shunyata, then it is not independent of the mind, arising merely in dependence on designation.

That's kinda the way I feel about anatta and shunyata. It's like anatta strips subjectivity out of things - because they are not-self; and shunyata strips away objectivity - because all entities and activities are constructed conceptually.

Rob Burbea says, in what is probably a very specific context, that anatta means awareness is not-self; and shunyata means awareness lacks inherent existence.>>

~

The above makes sense to me if I look at those terms as I believe Buddhists do. Anatta doesn't seem to make deep philosophical assertions about phenomena. It just says it's not me, nor mine, nor my self. If it said "not a self", that would be an entirely different story.

Emptiness, as I see it, explores in greater detail the nature of phenomena. While anatta seems to explore the relation between phenomena and our selves, shunyata seems to explore phenomena themselves.

In this sense, it's a deeper exploration. While things can be not "my" self but still retain some substance or identity of *their own*, with the reasonings of shunyata it is seen that there is nothing objective or *of their own* in phenomena. They are not only unrelated to my "svabhava" (if I had one); they are unrelated to *any type of svabhava*.

Put simply, phenomena are not only "my self" (anatta), but "any kind of self" (shunyata). So anatta strips subjectivity out of phenomena (since they are not "my self"); shunyata strips of objectivity out of phenomena (since a phenomenon is not itself, but a conceptual construction).

However, when I think about your 4 stage model (I Am, Non-Dual, Anatta & Shunyata), which is more phenomenological than ontological, I'd risk to say, it seems to be the other way around. Anatta is the collapse of subjectivity, since the background witness falls and all that is left is the flux of appearances; shunyata, in your model, seems then to be concerned with investigating appearances again, in case one is back to reifying them. In this sense, through the emptiness reasonings, one ends up seeing that phenomena lack a nature of their own and their appearance is of a conceptualized nature, collapsing objectivity.

The funny thing is that, either way, both subjectivity and objectivity are deconstructed, leaving one in a non-dual position that is free from such extreme conceptions.

Does this make any sense to you, Soh? John? Tks!
Manage
· Reply · 1d
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I know you didn't ask me, but that ain't gonna stop me is it 😛

I draw similar lines that you do, and I formulate it like this: The self that emptiness refutes is the "what-it-is", the essence of the thing, sometimes called inherent existence, while th
See More
Manage
· Reply · 1d · Edited
John Tan
John Tan André, what u said about the model (I Mness, non-dual, anatta, emptiness) is correct. Anatta to me is a direct non-conceptual but immature insight of emptiness.

How the journey evolved that way was due to how the first taste of “presence” was misunde
rstood initially due to habitual reification.

Anatta sees through the background Self/self and realised what we termed “presence” has always been the ongoing foreground appearances. Since there is no background, there is nothing to “dualify” therefore experience is naturally, effortlessly and spontaneously luminous and non-dual.

The insight gradually matures due to refinement of one’s view to the eventual understanding that presence is empty from top to bottom and is free from all elaborations and extremes.

The approach however is different. It is not based on ultimate analysis but a focused and concentrated form of seeing. The analytical path only came later when I realised what described in the chariot analogy is in fact pointing to the experiential insight of anatta. In other words, before that, i wasn’t aware that there is a whole system of “view” about this particular experiential insight I called anatta. That is where and when the interest arose. That also helps me understand many of the post anatta issues are due to a desync of experience, insight and view - an insight and experience of essenseless-ness but a paradigm rest on inherent and dualistic framework.

Just to clarify a bit about the difference in approach between analytical and direct seeing. When u look, u r not analysing or thinking, u just look. Is there an apple on the table? U look. U do not think or analyse, u simply see that the apple is not there at all.

So what is the issue? The issue is the mind can't simply see, it is too habituated, too engaged in conceptualizing, thinking and analysing. It is tremendously busy.

When u r able to clearly see, u realize what u called "I" was never there; seeing is just the seen, no seer; hearing is just sound, no heaerer. This "not found" is an insight from direct non-conceptual seeing. So 2 components, stable seeing and direct insight of "not found", I understand that as shamatha and vipassana.
John Tan
John Tan No Self has its issues and can somehow mislead one into nihilism. I also do not subscribe to one truth of dzogchen and don’t exactly know what it meant.

In direct non conceptual mode, experience is seamless and no clear line of demarcation can be d
rawn between subject, action and object. Because it is non-conceptual and no such division can be detected, it is difficult for the mind to see clearly. When seen clearly, it is (imo) best expressed conventionally as dependent arising and emptiness.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland When the anatta that I'm talking about is seen, known, tasted directly that taste is 'suchness' because it’s the taste of "actually being so (aka. 'such') and not being otherwise" because the hearing MUST be happening and it MUST NOT be not happening. So it is 'such-&-not-otherwise' or 'as-it-is-ness'. That taste is seamless because dependent arising is seamless. I don't know what subject, action and object has to do with that.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Maybe another way to put it is that for me the line of demarcation drawn between subject, action and object does not vanish because of non-conceptuality, but because of seeing anatta or suchness in dependent arising.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
John Tan
John Tan Yes, therefore when expressed conventionally it is dependent arising and emptiness, two truth and cannot b otherwise.
The non-conceptual and the conceptual (conventional) when seen in light of dependent arising is of equal taste.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
"To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening."
"To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."
- Dogen
__
I absolutely adore this! Anyone knows any more gems from Dogen..?


John Tan Another quote from Dogen to balance and see the other side of emptiness.

“Birth is just like riding in a boat. You raise the sails and you steer. Although you maneuver the sail and the pole, the boat gives you a ride, and without the boat you couldn’t ride. But you ride in the boat, and your riding makes the boat what it is. Investigate a moment such as this. At just such a moment, there is nothing but the world of the boat. The sky, the water, and the shore are all the boat’s world, which is not the same as a world that is not the boat’s. Thus you make birth what it is; you make birth your birth. When you ride in a boat, your body, mind, and environs together are the undivided activity of the boat. The entire earth and the entire sky are both the undivided activity of the boat. Thus birth is nothing but you; you are nothing but birth.”

- Dogen

Manage

· Reply · 5h · Edited
Gilbert Schultz

Gilbert Schultz You get what he is getting at. Yeah.
Manage

· Reply · 5h
André A. Pais

André A. Pais Gilbert Schultz what is he getting at?
Manage

· Reply · 5h
Gilbert Schultz

Gilbert Schultz The immediacy is all there is.
Manage

· Reply · 5h
John Tan

John Tan In walking, there is no one walking. The hands swing and legs move; the nose breathes, the heart beats and the path walks itself. The air, the hands, the legs and the path all went beyond their designations into the action of walking. No one and the mere action of walking, what is the relationship?

Manage

· Reply · 1h · Edited

The teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi has been instrumental in the earlier part of my spiritual journey. Till today, I have continued to recommend it to those who wishes to pursue the path of self-inquiry. (An equally strong proponent of the self-inquiry method in the Zen/Ch'an Buddhist tradition would be Master Hsu Yun)

Thusness wrote: "When I was young, after the experience of I AM presence and read the book by Ramana Maharshi, I was so inspired and felt like giving up everything and follow the footsteps of Ramana to go reside in Mt Arunachala.  😝"





Before inquiring into a new way of listening, let me just share the joy of walking through the fields and woods on this extraordinary land. Just stepping out of the reception area, closing the door behind me, walking away from the overhang that shields one from the sun and rain, there isn’t any enclosure left—not even a body! All I am is the birds singing and fluttering, bare branches swaying in the breeze, the ground partly frozen yet melting, the pond covered with a thin layer of ice, and the blue hills, sky and wandering clouds within close reach. There is also a throbbing heart and the people walking on the path. Even those who are not here—aren’t we all together this one moment—beholding everything out of stillness?
It is the stillness of not being identified with me—the endless stories of the past and the various images that have represented me to myself and others. Identification with me is a living prison. In it we constantly want to be accepted, feel important, be listened to, be encouraged, supported and comforted in this separate life of ours. But now, here, in the fresh air under the open sky there is the freedom of not needing anything, not needing to be anything—just being this open listening space where people walk, crows caw and ice cracks underfoot.
Why do I feel that listening is so immensely important in living alone or together? It is because listening quietly, passionately, now, without expectation or effort, is the gateway to living in wholeness, without the separation of you and me.
This is our main question: Can we listen in a deep way in a moment of silence and stillness? Or is the mind preoccupied with the 10,000 worries of this world, of our life, of our family? Can we realize right now that a mind that is occupied with itself cannot listen freely? This is not said in judgment—it is a fact. It’s impossible for me to hear someone else while I’m worrying about myself. Birdcalls and the songs of the breeze do not exist when the mind is full of itself. This is within the experience of all of us. So, can the mind put its problems aside for one moment and listen freshly? This moment! Are we listening together? The caw of the crows, the quiet hum of a plane, a dog’s barking, or whatever sounds are alive where you are listening right now.
It is relatively easy to listen happily in nature—the leaves, grasses, flowers, trees, lakes and hills do not think and worry like we do, and therefore do not provoke thinking. Maybe for deer and birds there is some rudimentary thinking going on but that need not engage us in thought (unless we are avid birdwatchers or we worry about the plight of too many deer and too many hunters next season). Thought can make a problem out of everything, but most of us find the beauty of unselfconscious listening much easier to come upon in nature than among people.
Why is it so inordinately difficult to listen to each other? When I am present with the abundant energy of listening, I do not find it difficult to hear what you are saying. Instead of being busy with self-concern, the space is open to hearing, seeing, and understanding the meaning of your words. If I don’t understand, then there is the freedom to ask you for clarification.
Without this open space of presence—energy, the inner tapes of human conditioning press hard to be heard—they do not want to make way for listening to others. How can I possibly hear you when I am dying to say something myself? How can I take the time and care to understand you when I think that I am right and you are wrong? When I’m sure that I know better? When I sorely need attention and resent anyone else getting it?
Can I hear you when I have fixed images about how you have been in the past, how you have criticized or flattered me? Can I listen freely when I would like you to be different from the way you are? Do I have the patience to listen to you when I think I already know what you are going to say? Am I open to listening to you when I am judging you? Judgments and prejudices lie deeply hidden in the recesses of the mind and require curiosity and inner transparency in order to be discovered. Only what is discovered can end.
Do I really hear what you are saying when I take you to be holy, to be worshipped, adored and surrendered to? Will I expect every word you say to be infallible wisdom? Or the opposite: Can I hear what you are saying when I am convinced that you are stupid? Am I listening to you in the same way that I listen to someone else?
We can add more and more to this list, but the important thing is to start fundamentally questioning our listening. The point is not to ask, “How can I achieve pure listening?” but rather, “Where is my listening coming from this moment, in light of all these questions?” Is it hampered by different ideas and attitudes or does it arise from a moment of being truly present?
Many of us sincerely desire to become better listeners and may think that it will only happen once we are free of the me sometime in the future. This is an erroneous assumption. Even though the me circuit is deeply ingrained within brain and body, a genuine desire and interest to understand you allows energy to gather in listening attentively to what you are saying. This attentive listening may empty out the preoccupation with myself. Through listening to your words and truly wishing to understand what you mean to convey, I enter you—your question, your condition, the whole you.
When I’m not really interested in what you are saying, can I pause and listen within? Can I take a glance at what is going on inside? Is it resistance? Boredom? The passing by of words that are not really heard? When there is clear seeing, that in itself is a shift.
Listening purifies itself. It’s not that there is necessarily a new interest in what you are saying. I may prefer to dialogue deeply while you want to relate your story or get my attention. When listening comes out of wholeness, an appropriate response happens. That is the wisdom of listening.
Sometimes, when I’m talking in a meeting and a flock of crows flies by—caw, caw, caw, caw, caw—I raise my hand a bit and ask: “Do you hear that?” The person may shake her head—the listening space was filled up with other things. Are we here right now?
When you hear that question, what happens? Is it simply caw, caw, caw, or are you thinking, “Am I doing it right?” or, “What does she want me to say?” Hear those thoughts like you hear the wind in the trees. It’s the same listening. It’s different things—the sound of wind and trees and birds is different from the sound of thoughts—but it’s the same listening. One whole listening!
For marvelous unknown reasons, once in a while we are completely here. For a moment we hear, see and feel all one. Then the mind comes in to explain it, know it, compare it and store it. This is not an intentional process—it’s habit. No one is doing it. The naming, liking and disliking, wanting to keep something and fearing the loss of it—these are all ingrained mind processes rolling off on their own. If we get a glimpse of that, get a feel for what is purely habitual, then we will be much more tolerant and patient with the so-called others and with ourselves.
When I talk about listening, I don’t mean just listening with the ear. Listening here includes the totality of perception—all senses open and alive, and still much more than that. The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are receptive, open, not controlled. A Zen saying describes it as “hearing with one’s eyes and seeing with one’s ears.” It refers to this wholeness of perception. The wholeness of being!
Another Zen saying demands: “Hear the bell before it rings!” Ah, it doesn’t make any sense rationally, does it? But there is a moment when that bell is ringing before you know it! You may never know it! Your entire being is ringing! There’s no division in that—everything is ringing.
So can we learn more and more about ourselves, not by studying in order to increase our store of information, but through asking in wonderment what keeps us from hearing the bell before it rings?