An Exercise -- Freedom and Dependent Co-Dependent Origination

As far as I understand it, a PCE is an accurate glimpse of the released consciousness. From what I can recall about my PCE, none of the links were in operation, as I now understand them. I used my understanding of the links and my memory of the PCE to write out how the chain would and wouldn't happen in a hypothetical scenario. If I hadn't had the PCE I wouldn't feel as comfortable talking about it, as I would have no actual experience of the condition of existing without 'being'.

I can speak with more experience on how D-O occurs pre-path and post-path: it occurs in much the same way, except pre-path it wasn't seen clearly at all and would basically spin out on its own constantly, and post-path it is seen much more clearly and with more equanimity. The added equanimity and clarity of seeing means 'I' don't spin out of mindfulness nearly as often as before. More mindfulness means the chain can be cut short again and again by constant diligence. Depending on the level of concentration and mindfulness, various links in the chain can be observed (formations, vedana, clinging, craving, becoming, birth, death) as they are actually occurring.. and that observation causes the chain to stop right there, given enough pure intent. Eventually the chain will be broken for good and 'I' will disappear, either temporarily (PCE) or entirely (AF).

'tis my experience and interpretation, and I'm always open to being wrong.

I still have a fuzzy view of where the chain of causality within dependent co-origination breaks when one gets of the "actually free" or clear of the fetters state. Nick, you sharpened the view with your first description seemed to point directly at the "feeling" link on the chain but then you sort of backed off that description and things go fuzzy again.

So I'll ask Nick, Owen of EndInSight to try, if willing, once more time to identify their experience according to the scenario I posted at the top of this thread, both before and after your most recent state changes.

Also -- I was reading the Shobogenzo on the plane one the way home last night and in it Dogen is very explicit in his view that no human being, ever, is outside the chain of causality. Do you guys agree?

Thanks!

"I was reading the Shobogenzo on the plane one the way home last night and in it Dogen is very explicit in his view that no human being, ever, is outside the chain of causality. Do you guys agree?"

I agree, but since Im not AF yet, I can only explain why I agree through reason, logic, pre-AF experience and a Mahayana view.

So to avoid more speculation, I'll only ask this: why would apparent phenomena (including apparent feelingless AFers) not be outside the chain of causality if they still appear to rise, endure and cease?

Hi Chris,

All this talk of dependent origination has been cause for the effect of triggering an investigation of my day to day activities with more focus on the details. I will hold off for a few days to get a better idea of what is going on before posting about it. Concerning causality. All I see is cause and effect, effect cause, cause and effect, effect cause and so on and on.

Nick

"
I started this exercise on another thread but it should really have its own, so, please participate if you want, but let's not debate the terminology. Rather, please provide phenomenological descriptions in answer to my question. You can use language that you are comfortable with in your response, but please at least map it to the language below. Much appreciated:

****************************

Let me propose an exercise that anyone can report back on. Assume you are walking along the street one day, just minding your business in a "normal" and calm state. You are suddenly confronted by a friend who proceeds to very angrily accuse you of a very serious but mistaken moral transgression. Let's assume this person thinks you stole their wallet, even though the claim in untrue. What happens "inside"?

*** Can you walk us all through the chain of causation (dependent co-origination) and the process of perception that you used to experience versus that which you now experience, and under this same scenario? ***

This exercise, I think, would be very helpful to many people here. And, for everyone's benefit, here is the dependent co-origination chain, or at least one version of it:

On ignorance depend willful actions.
On willful actions depends relinking consciousness.
On relinking consciousness depend body and mind.
On body and mind depends the functioning of the six senses.
On the functioning of the six senses depends sense experience.
On sense experience depends feeling.
On feeling depends craving.
On craving depends clinging.
On clinging depends becoming.
On becoming depends rebirth.
On rebirth depend old age, death and the continuation of suffering.

Thanks!

"

Your question presupposes that there is in actuality a chain of causation. There can't be a any chain of causation because causation is dependent on the memory of past events, and any memory can only occur NOW.

What caused you to post this? What caused 'you', August Leo, to post this opinion? What caused Nick to post this reply? What caused Nick to start typing?

Of course you are now accessing your own memory banks to answer the questions you possibly can, August. But the flow of cause and effect can be observed always, even without memory of operating, or even with memory operating. And perhaps, yes, the concept of 'causality' is but a 'word', something you seemed to dislike in past posts. It may help others in their practice to consider the flow of cause and effect and see it in action from mind moment to mind moment, and memory being just another mind moment and another and another and so on.

One more: August, what causes you to post or not post in reply? This can be observed NOW.

Nick

@NIck -- thanks. I look forward to your continued reports.

@AuguistLeo -- I can't find anything beyond cause and effect so I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense. If there is nothing but *now* then there is no cause and effect, Dogen is wrong, and we're all trapped in one moment in time.

Really?

See, I don't doubt that it appears to the mind as if there is only a *now* moment from a certain perspective, but that;'s kind of what Dogen is saying (read my comment number 26). It's the difference between believing in the absolute as the ONLY truth, or the truth that both the absolute and the relative are true and at the same time. It appears to me that both are true, and yes, at the same time.

IMHO, relative must rise simultaneously with the absolute. Otherwise emptiness would not be emptiness. It would be an existing thing occupying everything and obstructing everything. Nothing would rise, ever.

At this moment, I believe what AugustLeo is saying is true. This will likely change in a near future moment. Can I say that causation exists in this moment? Maybe, maybe not. In this moment, "causation" seems to be a model or concept and not intrinsic to the experience of this moment.

Ah, the perfectl annoyingness of the absolute.

You can't be a Buddhist and believe there is no causality. That was the main point Dogen was making

I see it like this: there is a realm of the relative in which we live much of our lives and where cause and effect determine outcomes and explain the process of perception (dependent co-origination). There is a realm of the absolute where there is no time, no space and no causality. As human beings was can access both, and actually come to see both depending on which one we are inclined to see. This is the razor's edge of perception. Both realms are true in themselves, and both exist simultaneously. Seeing this requires us to suspend our relative world notions such as "A is A" and live with a level of uncertainty that is uncomfortable.

First encounters with the absolute can lead to a kind of spiritual reductionism that says, "This is the way things truly are!" so we think there really is no time, no space and no causality, anywhere. Yet here, right in front of our eyes, we see causality in operation. The mind is not inclined to "believe" both, so we sometimes choose just one. When we do that we are short-changing reality and our very own nature.

"
I see it like this: there is a realm of the relative in which we live much of our lives and where cause and effect determine outcomes and explain the process of perception (dependent co-origination). There is a realm of the absolute where there is no time, no space and no causality. As human beings was can access both, and actually come to see both depending on which one we are inclined to see. This is the razor's edge of perception. Both realms are true in themselves, and both exist simultaneously. Seeing this requires us to suspend our relative world notions such as "A is A" and live with a level of uncertainty that is uncomfortable.

First encounters with the absolute can lead to a kind of spiritual reductionism that says, "This is the way things truly are!" so we think there really is no time, no space and no causality, anywhere. Yet here, right in front of our eyes, we see causality in operation. The mind is not inclined to "believe" both, so we sometimes choose just one. When we do that we are short-changing reality and our very own nature.

"

Is what you just described, what the buddha called ' The middle way ' ?

"There is a realm of the absolute where there is no time, no space and no causality."

How can anything exist (even the absolute) without time, space, or causality?

If there was no space, there would not exist three dimensions for objects to reside in. Everything would be one pasty mush which it would be equally accurate to say is one tiny point or an infinitude. There would be no object here or there, as there would be no here or there for them to reside in. Likewise, with no time, motion would be impossible, as there would be no now and then for an object to be in one place in space now, and another place in space then. Everything would be everywhere at once, without two objects being able to exist. It seems that the existence of time requires the existence of space, and the existence of space requires the existence of time.

With no causality, nothing would happen, literally. Not nothing in terms of no 'me' moving, but nothing in terms of nothing moving whatsoever. As things are always moving, how can there be 'a realm' in which there is no causality?

(Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'a realm of the absolute' and 'a realm of the relative'?)

Yes, you misunderstand. It's something that must be experienced to be grokked.

Maybe it would help to think of it this way: absolute realm equals pure essence of mind, the clear light, non-dual awareness. Relative realm is your every day experience in the world in which you live and work. Mind has access to both, but the absolute is something that to see requires you to drop all the rest of "this."

It is difficult to describe because it's not a place where words make any sense at all as words are relative concepts. Space and time and causality are relative concepts.

Does that help at all?

"Does that help at all?"

I think I see what you're saying, but before I go on: Do you mean it's a state of mind you can reach (e.g. one or more of: rigpa, PCE, some other 3rd gear state, or others?) which can be described as there being no space, no time, and no causality, in it?

I don't consider it to be a state. The best word I can think of to describe it is that it is an experience. It is the absence of other things, the clearest, cleanest view of the universe. I don't like using the word rigpa because that word has been misused a lot here. If you want to find out more I suggest reading anything that uses words like non-dual awareness, Awareness, your original face, and so on. Dogen was a master at describing this, so get a copy of "Moon in a Dewdrop" and read through that.

"I don't consider it to be a state. The best word I can think of to describe it is that it is an experience. It is the absence of other things, the clearest, cleanest view of the universe..."

I think I see what you mean. I think a PCE is one of these experiences, no?

The goal of my questions was to attempt to describe it better. If you literally mean there is no space, then nothing can possibly exist - there would literally not be room for anything. Since things do clearly exist in these states (you can still see things), I wouldn't say there is no space, but that there is no 'space'.

In these experiences, there is either no 'me' or a vastly reduced 'me'. Without a 'me' there is no affective sense of space or time ('space' or 'time'). Time doesn't pass - things move in time. Space doesn't move - things move in space. I often use the mantra "Nothing is happening" when walking around to tap into this part of the mind. But it's clear things are.. it's just that nothing is happening _to 'me'_ or _for 'me'_. When the 'me' is so gone we might say there is no space or no time, but I think it's more accurate to say - everywhen is now and everywhere is here. It is always now and we are always here. Time doesn't pass, yet the clock hand still ticks. There are trees in the distance, yet they are not 'over there' - they are as intimately experienced as a shrub right in front of you, just smaller and a little fuzzier.

There is no causality in terms of D-O, since D-O is suspended. But, things still cause other things to move. So there is no 'me' causality, but just causality of the universe (like Nick was saying when he says he sees only cause + effect now... shadow being aside.)

Do you think that's a helpful or accurate distinction to make?

About the relative and the absolute - in such an experience, it's clear that this, which is being experienced right now by this human body (the relative) is all that there is to be experienced at this moment (the absolute), period - because the universe, for a human, can only be consciously experienced via the consciousness and senses and flesh and blood that make up that human. You are never missing out on anything... the only time you actually miss out on anything is when you think you are and are thinking about the past or the future or clinging or craving - in short, suffering.

Thus the relative _is_ the absolute - they are not separate - and when one realizes this as an ongoing constant default experience, that is release.

Thinking of it this way seems to resolve the dilemma in your post #36: "First encounters with the absolute can lead to a kind of spiritual reductionism that says, "This is the way things truly are!" so we think there really is no time, no space and no causality, anywhere. Yet here, right in front of our eyes, we see causality in operation. The mind is not inclined to "believe" both, so we sometimes choose just one. When we do that we are short-changing reality and our very own nature."

Not that there's no space, but we are always here. Not that there's no time, but it is always now. There is causality, every moment (now) triggers the next moment (still now) triggers the next moment (still now) ad infinitum... you just have this apparent duality because experience is so different in that state vs. out of it, that they seem like different things. But really, they are the same thing, it's just that the self obscures the fact that we are always here and it is always now by fantasizing about the past and the future... but that fantasizing (those neurons firing) still happens now.

Thoughts?

In classical Zen, we speak of the "essence" and "function" of the Mind. The "essence" is the totality of what remains (suchness) in the absence of a separate self (emptiness). The "function" is the functioning of the senses, the fact that in the absence of a separate self, everything continues to manifest according to causes and conditions (causality). In this sense, one can never escape causality, since thoughts and the senses keep manifesting/reflecting the world according to causes and conditions.

From my present experience, I am still unable to distinguish EE/PCE type events from the Zen "seeing nature" events.

Reading part of the AF webiste, Richard seems to say that PCE are commonly experienced by mystics (and obviously Zen monks). The only difference between his and other PCEs would be that he sees it as a sudden temporary intrusion into the "actual world", while mystics would tend to filter the pure experience through their religious beliefs, conclusing that "I am everything", "I am one with God", "I am an enlightened being", which from his point of view is a mistake, simply because the essence of this event is the vanishing of the "I", not its inflation into some divine status. This is also the point of view of Zen, BTW.

""You are never missing out on anything... the only time you actually miss out on anything is when you think you are and are thinking about the past or the future or clinging or craving - in short, suffering. ""

INDEED!

"Thus the relative _is_ the absolute - they are not separate - and when one realizes this as an ongoing constant default experience, that is release. "

That's very well said, Alex.

Thank you.

"The goal of my questions was to attempt to describe it better. If you literally mean there is no space, then nothing can possibly exist - there would literally not be room for anything. Since things do clearly exist in these states (you can still see things), I wouldn't say there is no space, but that there is no 'space'."

The absolute is beyond concepts, so it does not make sense to explain in the above terms. What phenomena are present Now? Thats all there is.

As Chris said though, putting this perspective as supreme is a fallacy (intrinsically) - that would be another preference based around a concept.

"The absolute is beyond concepts, so it does not make sense to explain in the above terms. What phenomena are present Now? Thats all there is."

Could you explain the difference between your words and mine? We seem to be agreeing. It's not that there is no time - it's that there is only Now. (Without time, there could be no Now. Without time passing, there is only Now.)

It is beyond concepts in that conceiving about it will never get you there. But, I think it can be more accurately described or less accurately described... the only reason to describe it at all would be if it helps somebody orient their practice. If "no time" gives the same hint as "no time passing - always now", then I suppose there isn't much difference.

Based on my reading of your words, we are not agreeing. There is no intellectual understanding of the absolute. As soon as there is some logical chain, for example "Without time, there could be no Now", then to me this indicates something else in the conceptual realm.