An Exercise -- Freedom and Dependent Co-Dependent Origination

"... I think it can be more accurately described or less accurately described..."

Sorry, but I disagree.

Words do not work. Concepts do not work. Either you are comfortable with this (you have experienced it) or you are not, and if you are not then you will probably remain in the throes of trying to figure it out using your intellect. Using your intellect to "get" this (describe it accurately) is exactly the wrong method to be using.

Let me attempt to lay it out in bullet point order:

1) Conceptualizing about the experience does not lead to the experience. This I agree with. (This is also true for Fruitions and NS and jhanas and anything else.)
2) Words are only useful insofar as they can be used to point somebody there. This is also true for Fruitions and NS and jhanas. You read, you understand how to practice, you practice, you see it for yourself. I think we both agree, here, no? You say they "do not work", and I agree - that is point 1). Point 2) is that talking about it might get people to look for it.
3) Though you say words do not work and there is no intellectual understanding, you are using word nevertheless.
4) Some words might be better pointers than others. This is now talking strictly about concepts, not about the experience itself. Roughly speaking, with any practice, it seems you first from some idea on how to practice, then you do it. Like with me, I read all of MCTB and formed some map concepts. Then I practiced and saw it for myself. Lots of people 'pop' soon after reading MCTB, though they have been practicing for years. It seems MCTB is a better pointer than someone telling you to "just sit" without giving you any feedback whatsoever.
5) My posts are simply attempting to straighten out the words (the stuff coming before the experience, and the words being used to describe it afterwards).

Keeping all that in mind... I don't understand the reluctance to attempt to clarify the terminology. You guys seem happy enough to talk about nyanas and jhanas and fruitions and NS in excruciating detail, even though the reply in post #51 can be used, word for word, as a reason for not discussing any of those. What's the difference between those and this experience except that it is 'harder' (seems to require more development until access)?

Let's cut the concepts out and try something experiential. Get into the experience while staring at a clock with a second hand. Then answer these questions:

1) Is the second hand still moving?
2) If yes:
a) If there is no space, in what is the physical hand moving?
b) If there is no time, then what distinguishes the moment it was on the '5' vs. the moment it was on the '10'?
c) If there is no causality, then why does the second hand move?

"
"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.

"

I think you were quoting me there, btw (Claudiu, not Alex =P).

As I said, you can remain in the throes of trying to use the intellect where intellect is just not the right tool to use -- assuming you do want the actual experience of this thing that we've been trying to talk about.

"I think you were quoting me there, btw (Claudiu, not Alex =P)."

Yes, you're right! So you do get it!

"
"I think you were quoting me there, btw (Claudiu, not Alex =P)."

Yes, you're right! So you do get it!

"

Well... maybe! It might be the same experience, but I'm using different words to describe it. I can see why you would say no time, no space, no causality. I even use phrases to myself like: "nothing is happening" or "the place where nothing is going on". But I wouldn't say there is no space, time, or causality... I want to see if you can see where I'm coming from. Could you (and Orasis) try the exercise in #53 and see what happens?

Also, what is the way you get into the experience? Kenneth's Direct Mode stuff? (lightning rod, pay the toll, grounding it in the body...)

I do what is basically zazen -- just sitting. If I just sit and let the body, recursive thoughts and the relative universe fall away then that experience is what's left.

For me, I find a place where I fundamentally believe that concepts are not real. Through experiencing this, I now have a intellectual understanding that there is something that cannot be understood intellectually.

This is why this particular concept comes across so annoyingly - the only way to do it is to fundamentally know it beyond a doubt.

A practice pointer may be "dont believe your own mind"

For me, it is evident when experience is noted - there is nothing else than this phenomena and that it cannot be understood.

I am sorry that these explanations are frustrating, but that is the fundamental nature of this topic - the intellect will suffer until it sees that it is not the final arbituer of reality.

There is a bit of "inception" that occurs here - all of your concepts and understanding are lies. If your conceptual mind understands this, it no longer requires everything to be understood.

Orasis: "For me, I find a place where I fundamentally believe that concepts are not real."

Could you rephrase that? To me, a belief is a concept, and beliefs and concepts are both delusory. If you fundamentally believe that concepts aren't real, that is still a concept.

"There is a bit of "inception" that occurs here - all of your concepts and understanding are lies. If your conceptual mind understands this, it no longer requires everything to be understood."

It is true that release is beyond concepts. It is inconceivable and unimaginable... and 'needing to know' is quite a persistent part of the self that is beneficial to drop. The only thing I wonder is whether all this talk of ineffability and no space and no time is unnecessarily mystifying something that is fundamentally simple. It seems like it generates a cloud of unknowability around it, which defers any attempts to explain it beyond what might be the instinctual conceptualization of the state by the conceptual mind. In other words, is there some clinging to the state, which is preventing something cleaner from emerging? Needing to know is suffering, but discernment is the antithesis of suffering (Buddha called it the discernment-release). Are you dulling the discerning part (not the conceptualizing part) of the mind when entering the state and believing in the state itself?

Can you move around in it without disrupting it? Perhaps when it becomes the default it will be easier to talk about more directly?

EDIT: Essentially I'm asking whether hanging out in this state, the way you are reaching it, leads to discernment leads to release, or is it just something very pleasant to hang out in? Cause, for example, jhana can be very pleasant as well, but that won't lead to release.

Trying to conceptualize the absolute causes a painful contraction that my mind resists. I can only say to let go, the absolute cannot be understood. Ouch.

"Trying to conceptualize the absolute causes a painful contraction that my mind resists. I can only say to let go, the absolute cannot be understood. Ouch."

I didn't ask you to conceptualize it.. I asked you to discern whether there is a clinging to or belief about the state and what cultivating it might lead to. It seems 'you' have some reaction to it (or thinking about it), indicating some belief or clinging/aversion there. You might want to investigate that painful contraction... what exactly is the cause and effect there? Letting go is what you must do, ultimately, but the difference between letting go totally (leading to no suffering) and letting go into a belief or pleasant state (leading to suffering persisting) might not be so easy to discern at first.[1]

To contrast, there seems to be no such painful contraction in describing a PCE, what it is, how to attain it, what one can get out of it, etc... even though it is beyond concepts (as the experience of it is the only thing that matters), and it seems to also be an experience of the absolute. I'm not saying they are the same, or that one is better than the other, just pointing out a difference that might be interesting to investigate.

[1] Imagine someone says: "I fear that I'm not doing well at my job, but when I think about it my mind resists... so I decided to let it go and not think about it," meanwhile doing nothing to change the situation.

I'd be far more interested in hearing Nicolai report back on my proposed experiment than anything else at this point.

"
I'd be far more interested in hearing Nicolai report back on my proposed experiment than anything else at this point.

"

Yea this should have been a different thread. If there's an easy way to excise the last bunch of posts into a new thread that would be good. Or, Orasis, if you do reply, maybe create a new thread for the reply. Or if either of you would do the clock experiment and answer the questions, that would be interesting to me as well, but again, in another thread.

Having looked quite closely at what is happening these past number of days it is clear that the 'shadow being' experience is a result of a lack of 'paying attention'/ apperception/bare awareness of vedana (feeling tone).

It would appear the sequence of dependent origination is still in action albeit in a much much subtler way than before. Before the last shift, consciousness/sankharic mental movements, out of ignorance would leap forth to compound the aggregates to form a fully felt affective feeling along with a felt sense of 'me-ness or location or presence or existing. Vedana of one of the three feeling tones would make the full affective feeling/emotion pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. This whole process would trigger multiple loops within the sequence of DO, if not paid attention to, would lead to more actions of body, speech and mind.

Now, there isn't any full affective feeling/emotion arising. It ceases just right after vedana. It's like the craving part has reduced so much that it isn't allowing the full affective experience to fully form. Yet there is the subltest sense of 'dust on the lens' which we have termed 'shadow being'. It is undecipherable as a felt sense of 'being' like before. But it is still 'something' arising and leaping off of vedana. There is preference for pleasant vedana over unpleasant vedana still. Yet nothing 'gross' is forming off of the vedana like before. By gross I mean full affective emotional experiences. They just don't happen. It's like there is narrower tunnel for the sequence of DO to occur in. Almost no possible manifestations of the aggregates clumping together except to give off a strange sense of 'dust on the lens'. Sorry for the lack of good descriptions as it is still confusing to talk about what 'shadow being' is. I don't think it can be imagined.

Thus our speculation that we are dealing with the last 5 fetters in an unexpected subtle as hell way. A weird arse broken up version of what I imagined them to be. This then leads to a massive reduction in a reactive mind. I serious don't react like before. But it is obvious that certain situations in life trigger the sequence which gives rise to vedana (which is recognized to trigger fully formed affective feelings before the last shift). There will be a split second movement after vedana that is hard to decipher, but this is 'shadow being', and it might allow a thought or two to arise, coloured by the vedana. Also an indecipherable wispy mental movement in the mind's eye might occur where a fully formed image would previous to this last shift. But all of this fades within an instant, maybe leaving just the vedana for a short period. My practice as of late has been watching the weird 'shadow' movement after vedana arises. I have also been playing around with seeing just the sensations without paying attention to the feeling tone overlaying them. This seems to make the already high def perception even higher. I do believe there still is a slight attention bounce. Not like before, subtler and this means apperception is not 24/7 like previously thought directly post-last shift.

I have a practice which i have been putting into action all day.
Continued...

It is essentially from the Khemaka sutta.

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

This practice will always lead to apperception within a few seconds. Apperception or bare awareness at the very point of contact of the sense objects with their corresponding sense door cuts the sequence of dependent origination completely. It leaves no shadow being arising, nothing. With the eyes open it leaves the eyes seeing in seeing, and everything, I mean everything in the universe is perfect. This is where it's headed it seems. So I will continue to cut the now subtler sequence of DO at it's root, which seems to be vedana via khemaka's instructions.

Nick

This is what I transcribed from an Ayya Khema dhamma talk. It seems to ring true for my current predicament. The shadow being and lack of 24/7 apperception (although it doesn't take much to return again and again to it) seems to indicate that this thing is not done yet. But it is a huge, and I mean huge reduction in suffering. The shadow being is a form of subtle restlessness that is not like your normal restlessness. It is really hard to describe. Very hard to tell what it exactly is as it bares no resemblance to past experiences.

"The anagami still has ignorance (still a very faintest hint of a 'me') Very faint but it is there: There is a conceiving of a self. Ignorance plus conceit=restless (but not as bad as rest of world). Very faint 'me' experience causing a niggling feeling of not being totally removed from everything. They can feel it (subtle) because they come to the recognition to what is happening within, it is all seen. Restless is a far more subtle an experience than normal restlessness. Something still to be done.
Not finished yet. Gross hindrances are gone, 5 left. So, now one must check the fetters that remain: Same efforts'¦one has to review these fetters. Check out if there is any wish for rebirth in the higher realms. This can manifest as the non-returner having a wish for having everything nice, everything pleasant, not being confronted with anything that has dukkha in it. It becomes not just an attitude but the 'inner drive'. It can be strong that 'inner drive' and it has to be recognized. And the remaining 'self'/restlessness has to be recognized. Buddha said it is not desirable to be reborn in the brahma realms. Keep going!"

www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/334/talk/7851/

Thank you, Nick. Bare awareness of the sense objects with their corresponding sense door in order to cut the sequence of dependent origination has become my only practice these days, ideally throughout the day. And, yes, it works wonders. Last night the feeling of being dissolved for about 30 min after formal practice. Nothing new as such. But the ability to trigger the disappearance of the feeling 'I am' at will is already fascinating.

When the Buddha said "'such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance", I suppose that he meant observing how clinging to the aggregate of form leads to the brith (origin) of "the 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession", while non-clinging leads to the disappearance of "the 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession"? Is it how you understand it?

In the affirmative, the idea would be to practice apperception or bare awareness at the very point of contact of the sense objects with their corresponding sense door to cut the sequence of dependent origination, until we become able to witness, in real time, the arising and passing away of the feeling 'I am' (through what Daniel would call micro-PCEs)? I suppose that seeing this with greater clarity, again and again, will eventually create a positive feed-back loop likely to stop the flow of becoming. Is that correct? (It makes full sense but I want to make sure I get it right).

@Nick
I can relate to your observations of shadow selfing in various social situations and it describes very well the development I have experienced during the past few weeks, although I may not be able see it in real time as accurately as you can. Over time the shadow selfing has become more and more subtle and it is now only experienced as a thin layer of fog obstructing the optimum view. If the moments of high definition clarity did not exist to make comparison, it would be easy to miss the whole phenomenon.

Much of the thought activity that is still arising appears to be connected with the shadow selfing so the amount of stillness/noise present seems to correlate with the 'dust on the lens' effect.

I have started to realize that the momentum selfing has created over the years is so substantial that it cannot be stopped instantly and may take a long time to get rid of the residue, but when compared to the real thing, this stuff can hardly be called even a nuisance

@Alex
Sounds familiar. Before the latest shift I noted attachment every time I saw it happen and this resulted in temporary states of no-self of various durations. With practice these states came more often and lasted longer until it became my default mode.

"1. Much of the thought activity that is still arising appears to be connected with the shadow selfing so the amount of stillness/noise present seems to correlate with the 'dust on the lens' effect.

2. I have started to realize that the momentum selfing has created over the years is so substantial that it cannot be stopped instantly and may take a long time to get rid of the residue, "

Hi antero,

1. Do you have any felt sense of the following to any degree, even the subtlest of kinds: self / self-obsessing chatter / being / location in the world / subject to objects / duality / inner world / me-ness / instinctual passions / any affectively felt mind state / moods / being of any kind / being the absolute / being one with everything / being one with anything / being connected to everything / being space / being infinite consciousness / being no-thing-ness / being the void / being anything / imagination / the flow of time / existing?

Especially the location, presence one and sense of existing as anything?

2. It would seem we are talking about something similar but what you wrote here makes me think that perhaps we are not. The 'shadow being' experience is so subtle that the words i have used to describe it have so far not represented that subtlety. I am not satisfied with how I have described it knowing full well that people will project onto even the term 'shadow being'. I don't think the experience can be imagined. It is so subtle and confusing to explain exactly what it is. I also do not have the belief that this cannot be stopped as the practice I described above ceases it within seconds and I see this flipping a switch to turn the shadow stuff off for good in the near future. Unquestioned beliefs (locked in thought loops) can and often do condition our experiences and lead to 'longer times' at particular stages: eg MCTB 4th for some.

"1. When the Buddha said "'such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance", I suppose that he meant observing how clinging to the aggregate of form leads to the brith (origin) of "the 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession", while non-clinging leads to the disappearance of "the 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession"? Is it how you understand it?

2. In the affirmative, the idea would be to practice apperception or bare awareness at the very point of contact of the sense objects with their corresponding sense door to cut the sequence of dependent origination, until we become able to witness, in real time, the arising and passing away of the feeling 'I am' (through what Daniel would call micro-PCEs)? I suppose that seeing this with greater clarity, again and again, will eventually create a positive feed-back loop likely to stop the flow of becoming. Is that correct? (It makes full sense but I want to make sure I get it right).


"

Hi Alex,

1. Yes, that is how I understand it.

If one adjusts the view on how subtle and weird the 'I am' obsession can be then what I am seeing in my practice of "'such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance", it makes perfect sense.

2. Yes, this is my current experience. It was my experience with the full blown 'being' beforehand, watching it drop and arise, drop and arise. Now it is the case for the 'shadow being'.

"Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known." Nibbedhika Sutta

Nick

That's more like what I was hoping for! Thanks to you all.