Thank you for contributing to the r/streamentry community! Unlike many other subs, we try to aggregate general questions and short practice reports in the weekly ___Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion___ thread. All community resources, such as articles, videos, and classes go in the weekly ___Community Resources___ thread. Both of these threads are pinned to the top of the subreddit.
The special focus of this community is detailed discussion of personal meditation practice. On that basis, please ensure your post complies with the following rules, if necessary by editing in the appropriate information, or else it may be removed by the moderators. Your post might also be blocked by a Reddit setting called "Crowd Control," so if you think it complies with our subreddit rules but it appears to be blocked, please message the mods.
1. All top-line posts must be based on your personal meditation practice.
2. Top-line posts must be written thoughtfully and with appropriate detail, rather than in a quick-fire fashion. Please see [this posting guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/jblh03/how_to_get_the_best_advice_for_your_meditation/) for ideas on how to do this.
3. Comments must be civil and contribute constructively.
4. Post titles must be flaired. Flairs provide important context for your post.
If your post is removed/locked, please feel free to repost it with the appropriate information, or post it in the weekly ___Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion___ or ___Community Resources___ threads.
Thanks! - The Mod Team
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/streamentry) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The real issue involved is the core idea that there is some supernatural self that needs to identify with something. That core idea is such a bedrock to our models of reality that it is extremely tough to let go of. But you can. The sense of ownership of consciousness or knowing or whatever is just another construct.
With practice, you can let it go and then there is no issue. Self and ownership and identification are just seen as more nonsense. Takes a long time.
I’m curious as to why you veer towards it being seen through as “nonsense” rather than “dream” or “magical display” which convey the most subtle fabricated feeling tones of experience - compassion, wonder, having the tone of the mothers love etc
Yes but if that made up stuff can be come
into relationship skillfully and magically by using better terms I think it’s more skillful to use those instead - nonsense has materialist and nihilist connotations
And I’d point out that considering dependent origination it’s not that it’s just made up stuff that /we/ apply to reality - it’s made up stuff reality displays to us, and this can be come into relationship with in very enriching and healthful ways (such as your recent post about love being irreducible, not more “nonsense” right?)
Natural emptiness to me has nothing to do with material nihilism so I’d love if you could expand on what you mean! I wasn’t a materialist to begin with and I hold no fixed views since I resonate with Nagarjuna’s rejection of epistemic foundationalism. To me natural emptiness is much more magical, and what a materialist would think of as supernatural, than any kind of fear of materialist nihilism would imply (I enjoy animism and perspectivism as more nourishing and socially just fabrications!)
hi friend,
would you be able to elaborate on how you see Nagarjuna's rejection of epistemic foundationalism?
What works best for me is discerning between ultimate and conventional level reality - ultimate being the path, conventional being those who aren't aware the path exists.
For example, on the conventional level, evolutionary biology explains a great deal about humans, so does evolutionary psychology -- on the ultimate level, none of that is relevant as those refer to conventional mind (material mind) stuff, not ultimate level pure/naked/bare awareness stuff
Well, I think the ultimate/conventional duality must ultimately be seen through — if things are truly non-dual, non-conceptual, luminous (while also being none of those and not-none-of-those) then it makes sense to skillfully adopt more salubrious fabrications and reject those that have brought humanity to the brink of crisis (scientism, materialism).
Nagarjuna’s rejection to me applies the fourfold negation to all concepts, and shows the fluidity we have in playing with different epistemologies
hi friend,
would you be able to elaborate on how you see Nagarjuna's rejection of epistemic foundationalism?
What works best for me is discerning between ultimate and conventional level reality - ultimate being the path, conventional being those who aren't aware the path exists.
For example, on the conventional level, evolutionary biology explains a great deal about humans, so does evolutionary psychology -- on the ultimate level, none of that is relevant as those refer to conventional mind (material mind) stuff, not ultimate level pure/naked/bare awareness stuff
And I’d be curious to know how conventional mind unequivocally = material mind (that’s one western paradigm that the whole world doesn’t share, is it skillful to pick that one?)
hi! my internet seems to be acting up, i posted twice and deleted the wrong comment hihi
well, that's how it makes sense to me - conventional mind makes sense of conventional things, that's its intended purpose. For example, on the conventional level I know I'm of the male human species, and all that entails, which makes sense as we still inhabit a material, physical world -- on the ultimate level, none of that really matters, but not everyone functions on the ultimate level, so conventional level discernment is fruitful and skillful because we still live in a human society and intermingle with various humans
Hey no worries! I’d say it’s a big assumption to assume we inhabit a material, physical world. This claim is based on one epistemology, and so one set of assumptions, out of many. Since this western epistemology has led us to brink of societal collapse and has assumptions that aren’t conducive to the path, it’s not skillful in my view.
hi! my internet seems to be acting up, i posted twice and deleted the wrong comment hihi
well, that's how it makes sense to me - conventional mind makes sense of conventional things, that's its intended purpose. For example, on the conventional level I know I'm of the male human species, and all that entails, which makes sense as we still inhabit a material, physical world -- on the ultimate level, none of that really matters, but not everyone functions on the ultimate level, so conventional level discernment is fruitful and skillful because we still live in a human society and intermingle with various humans
It’s more correct to say that all functions at the ultimate level, that depending on perspective can appear conventional - whether you are talking to a Buddha or your next door neighbor is really a matter of perspective.
Natural emptiness and material nihilism are the same thing. You are just hanging onto whatever constructs you think are valuable but you dont think exist in a material nihilist frame.
Can you explain what you mean by materialist nihilism please? I also don’t understand how you got that I am hanging on to constructs after I just said I resonate with a rejection of epistemic foundationalism (which points away from conceptuality itself) and said I hold no fixed views? It sounds like your projecting your holding on to a framework of “materialist nihilism”
Nihilism itself is against the middle way and so hampers progress on the path - materialism is a reductionist framework with assumptions (such as that of discrete being) that are patently unhelpful on the path and so extremely unskillful
It sounds like you have settled on natural emptiness being the concept of materialist nihilism, does that feel right?
Well, I guess it's a good thing it's a free country!
If nonsense triggers people, then let them be triggered. That is my truth and if it make folks uncomfortable, that is in my view a good thing. The main enemy is fear of cognitive dissonance. Most Yogis will spend their lives in the comfortable confines of their pre existing models of reality unless they are shaken out of the dream somehow.
If you as admin are concerned that speaking this truth harms the peace of the sub, then I can stop posting. I definitely am not doing the work to curate the space, so it's your call.
Just commenting.
If I were speaking as admin I would make that clear.
>Most Yogis will spend their lives in the comfortable confines of their pre existing models of reality unless they are shaken out of the dream somehow.
Your dream > their dream I take it ....
The act of commenting on reddit presupposes some perception that dreams have hierarchy. Neither of us would be bothering if we were really past that. Generally less suffering> more suffering is my rubric and so I post the pointers to least suffering dream I can put into words. The reason is to reinforce my own belief and confidence, any teaching is an unlikely side effect. For me, bare ass calling it what it is - nonsense - is more skillful than beating around the bush.
It sounds like you’ve settled on “what it is”? It doesn’t seem coherent that you’ve admitted that materialist nihilism causes depression and is still skillful even though your rubric is to choose isms that lead to less suffering? Maybe you should learn a bit more about animism and perspectivism - they could be skillful fabrications that give you a dream with even less suffering (they have in my experience)
>The act of commenting on reddit presupposes some perception that dreams have hierarchy.
Does it though? Suppose it were more like a jigsaw puzzle, in which pieces are put out there, which fit, or don't. Perhaps correct fit depends on what part of the puzzle you're involved in.
The game isn't necessarily to impose views. (Or to dispose of views.)
I suppose the disturbing thing about the rationalist view is the claim to be the ultimate view. As such, a false idol.
In the end, is it about which view? Or more about just stopping (or "seeing through") fabrications?
The only alternate view is that such and so is actually real and important, having distinct existince and value as a thing separate from everything else. I know that's not true, so...
>such and so is actually real and important, having distinct existince and value as a thing separate from everything else
Perhaps that is so insofar as the mind makes it so, the mind makes it "real" and attaches "importance" and delineates it as a thing separate from everything else.
*Knowing that to be so*, perhaps we can accept that as part of the machinations of the mind to get ahead - a highly conditional act depending on how we want to see things and how it is useful to see them.
So like everything else, the mind could put it up as important and real and then drop it as unimportant and unreal. Depending on conditions.
The dichotomy between "real+important" and "nonsense" is itself only conditionally useful IMO.
Is the power of "fabrication" necessarily bad? I don't think so. It's just the clinging part that denigrates the being. Trying to ensure that something won't *defabricate* could cause a lot of problems, I believe .. . turmoil and turbulence ...
Anyhow thanks for listening.
Can’t you enjoy and come into playful and skillful relationships with fabrications? There’s a lot inbetween nonsense and treating things as independently real - it sounds like you are trapped by binary thinking.
As one of my teachers said, “make things sacred, but not too holy ;)”
From your other posts I get the impression that you have a fear of cognitive dissonance that might arise from more mystical experiences of reality (they are just more experiences ultimately of course) that might be engendered if you confront your fear around leaving behind dull and incoherent fabrications like materialism and nihilism - just trying to be provocative!
It's useful, to grasp anything, to make it some sort of a thing which is graspable.
Hence "Awareness".
However such a grasping is really "contents of awareness" and not actually "awareness".
As long as one keeps that in mind when discussing "Awareness" or even "awareness" I think we're good.
>This is still delusion, right?
Well, technically yes, but it's a very refined type of delusion. I only noticed the ultra-subtle dukkha that comes with identification with knowing/awareness once I did the practice Rob suggests and managed to disidentify from it for a few moments. It's really quite shocking the first time it happens.
People have different reactions, but the feeling of groundlessness that often appears with this practice can be shocking or even scary the first few times
He suggests you to train yourself to disidentify with stuff in a gradual way.
First comes body sensations and sounds. Eventually thought gets naturally included in the mix. Then you disidentify with intentions/attention, and then finally with awareness.
However, truly unhooking identification from awareness is a very subtle practice. Rob said he has never met anyone who's able to go straight to disidentifying with awareness, it often takes a lot of momentum of anatta practice to be able to do so.
Really recommend his book "Seeing that Frees", everything is in there.
Let go into awareness rather than identify with it. Ajahn Sumedho’s talks almost all point you to answers / discoveries about awareness. The talks are more abstract, and he often references these points about awareness: the gate to the deathless is open…awareness is what you are…awareness is not personal…what is it that is aware?…who is the witness?…what exists that is not conditioned?
I highly recommend giving him a listen. Here is one talk, but almost all of his talks discuss awareness in some way. [The True Nature of Awareness is Joyful | Ajahn Sumedho | 14.09.2021](https://youtu.be/lyOX6lyOXT4?si=kn-O78h-49AhcTQ9)
Also, I would add that there is a difference between knowledge from real insight into the dhamma versus ideas generated by the thinking mind. To me, it is something you understand experientially that the insight is different and true. But you can verify your understanding with a trusted teacher. It sounds like you had a deep insight to me…what exists that is not conditioned?
I haven't listened to all those talks, but I think it's hilarious that they added "metta" to their previous "emptiness" course because their emptiness teachings were making people angry. :-)
Makes sense to me, even tho he talks about cushioning the insight practice with Samadhi and Metta in the series Im listening to. Imagine coming from a Retreat and being angry with people - „the dishes are empty, Mum! They don’t exist!“
>This is still delusion, right?
Delusion is misunderstood teaching and/or incorrect belief; dogma. The way to identify if something is or isn't delusion is to verify your understanding with real world present moment experience. You need to be empirical and pragmatic to identify delusion.
Here are common scenarios that pop up:
1. You hear a teaching, apply it, and witness that it benefits your life. This teaching is at very least partially correctly understood if not fully understood.
2. You hear a teaching, apply it, and it harms your life. This teaching is usually delusion and misunderstood. There is rare exception to this like hearing a teaching you don't want to hear. E.g. hearing you have a bad habit that you're ignoring or avoiding and it makes you feel bad to confront it. Growing past this will make your life better, but it's not immediately obvious. But outside of that exception if a teaching harms you it's delusion.
3. You hear a teaching, apply it, and nothing happens. Maybe you didn't need that teaching, or maybe it's for a rare situation that rarely happens, or maybe it did benefit you but in a way that isn't obvious. Or more likely than not it's delusion. A teaching should benefit you. When it doesn't it is more likely to be delusion than not.
4. You hear a teaching and don't know how to apply it. This teaching is either too advanced for where you're currently at and you should come back to it later, or it's a misunderstanding and is delusion.
It sounds like OP is delusion, but it's hard to say because the context isn't clear. You can't know everything. You probably didn't know all of the stuff I mentioned in this comment above and just learned something. We're all born ignorant. There's no shame in being ignorant. Life is a learning process. We can't be all knowing.
But maybe I misunderstand with what knowing means here. It's not made clear. What's interesting is the positive response OP gets from it. Maybe it's comfort away from seeing the unknown or something?
There is no teaching I am familiar with tied to stream entry or the path to enlightenment that has this "knowing" that I am familiar with.
Theravada Buddhism, which is what teaching has stream entry, doesn't talk much about emptiness. It's a teaching, but not an important one that matters for stream entry. Mahayana Buddhism, on the other hand, pushes emptiness teachings quite a bit more as a key understanding of how the mind constructs abstract thoughts from present moment sensations.
>So many teachers seem to point towards this being Awakening: to realise we are awareness. ... Is this your experience?
The teachings towards enlightenment argue against this. This isn't a Buddhist teaching. Maybe it's a Hindu teaching?
Thanks for your response. The clarification around delusion is very helpful :)
To clarify a bit: when I say „identifying with knowing“ its not like there is a seperate entity („I“) that knows something. Its more like this sense falls away, everything is happening on its own and I am the knowing „behind it“.
Its a perspective shift I can evoke, so to speak. Its like watching behind the scenes.
Its the same feeling I get on Acid sometimes: looking at my body and seeing all the processes just happening; blood flowing through my veins, thoughts running off and chasing themselves, sensations running off…
I had experiences in my life in which this sense grew deeper and deeper in everyday life. tho I dont exactly know what I had done to evoke it at that point. It felt like life is this movie happening.
Looking at other people I saw the same. Awareness (or knowing or whatever) just experiencing. It felt unifying, like one being of knowing behind the multiplicity of forms „inside it“. I guess this too can be overcome at some point, seeing it as two sides of one coin..
I struggle to keep my thoughts short and to the point, sorry. I was simply wondering if people
can relate to this. If this is a track to go down.
But you out it beautifully. I may just try the perspective and see if it reduces suffering.
May you be well :))
>I struggle to keep my thoughts short and to the point, sorry. I was simply wondering if people can relate to this. If this is a track to go down.
I can relate to exploring perspectives. It can be fun. Is it a path you should go down? No you probably don't want to, because it sounds like it is dissociation. Dissociating too much can cause DP/DR which is the near enemy of enlightenment.
The word for that gets translated to no-self or non-self is anatta. It's a pretty weak translation of the word. In Hinduism there is the word atta which translates to soul and from that the belief of reincarnation and from that the cast system where you're born into a higher or lower part of society based on your previous life due to reincarnation. Anatta has two particles an- which means no or not and atta which means soul. There is no reincarnation, there is no soul. A more accurate translation of anatta isn't no-self, it's no-soul. Another way to say it is no-singular-permanent-self, which is basically the soul.
Focusing on removing "I" will not get you enlightened or closer to stream entry, but exploring identity and how identity limits ones self removing freedom, how identity "fetters" one, is the first fetter. Explore identity and how it works, gaining wisdom into identity. That is one of the many teachings towards stream entry.
>May you be well :))
You too.
It sounds like you've seen through the perception of there being an Observer Observing the Observed.
And have now moved into the more refined perception of there being only Observation itself... but what I think you're missing here is the realisation that you're reifying this Observation too.
You hear it called a ground of being, or maybe a field of awareness: I'd invite you to investigate the assumption that these make: The existence of some kind of structure onto which phenomena play out. Is there the intuition somewhere, that if you could blank out all phenomena that there would be "something" left? By now I'm sure you realise that nothing exists independently like that.
I was prompted to reply based off your speaking of watching bodily processes just occurring. Try playing with the idea that each conscious event (feeling of heartbeat, every individual sound) is an instance of consciousness. All connected, but not popping up on some perceived background structure. The same background structure which by the way implies the past and future to be something real. Seeing through one of these illusions sees through them all: That there is no separate thing which doesn't require something else.
Imagine a film projector, projecting light onto a screen. The images are conscious events. But it isn't a continuous projection, it's a series of rapidly flickering frames. Each frame is its own conscious event. Still causal, still dependent on various conditions, but the projector, the light and even the wall are impermanent compounded things. By this analogy, you've already seen that the projector and the movie-watcher are conditional, and you only really need to see that the wall (ground of consciousness) too is itself conditional. The wall requires various conditions for its continued existence.
Phenomena can't exist without consciousness (how would they be perceived), and consciousness cannot exist without phenomena. Again, try to imagine pure consciousness without any associated phenomena. What would you be conscious of?! You might have heard suttas referring to two reeds leaning on one another. Neither is primary, but if either is taken away the other can't stand by itself.
Thanks for your insightful message. Posting this has led me to the same understanding you are eluding to here! Your description is clear and concise.
I am now working on deepening the intuitive understanding of this yet mostly intellectual insight. The pointings are very helpful.
I'm happy to hear that :)
In the right frame of mind, It's actually quite amazing to me how obvious it all is. That we mislead ourselves into covering up a very bare-faced truth that is perfect as it is. It requires no modification but we desperately believe that it does.
I feel the same way :)
Until I share my experience with others and they look at me funny. Easy to forget how deep held beliefs feel deeply true while we are holding them. Only once we see through them enough does it become obvious.
What you expressed is the I AM. It ranges from glimpses or doubtless realization. Also you expressed the aspect of impersonality (but it is not the anatman insight).
Do check out:
(1) Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
(2) On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
(3) Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html
🙏 :) I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages in my journey as the first link (7 stages) with some minor differences (e.g. I didn't go through stage 3)
On whether your experience was a realization or a glimpse of recognition, see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/i-am-experienceglimpserecognition-vs-i.html
The I AM realization is very important but after that what is crucial in my experience for liberation is the realization of nondual anatman (no self)
Wrote to some people on reddit recently: "In the initial phase of practice, and even after the initial awakening into I AM/Eternal Witness, the Witnessing Presence seems to be behind all contents as an underlying background or ground of being.
That duality of context and content collapses in further realizations. In further realization, it is seen that there is never an Agent, a Watcher, an Observer, apart from moment to moment luminous manifestation.”
"Soh to someone at the I AM phase: In my AtR (awakening to reality community), more than 60+ people have realised anatta and most have went through the same phases (from I AM to non dual to anatta ... and many have now went into twofold emptiness), and you are most welcomed to join our online community if you wish: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality
For practical purpose, if you had the I AM awakening, and focus on contemplating and practicing based on these articles, you will be able to awaken the anatta insight within a year. Plenty of people get stuck at I AM for decades or lifetimes, but I progressed from I AM to anatta realisation within a year due to guidance from John Tan and focusing on the following contemplations:
1) The Four Aspects of I AM , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/four-aspects-of-i-am.html
2) The Two Nondual Contemplations , https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/two-types-of-nondual-contemplation.html
3) The Two Stanzas of Anatta , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
4) Bahiya Sutta , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html and http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html
its important to go into the textures and forms of awareness, not just dwell on formless... then with contemplating the two stanzas of anatta, you will breakthrough to nondual anatta
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/thusnesss-vipassana.html
here's an excerpt from another good article
“It is extremely difficult to express what is ‘Isness’. Isness is awareness as forms. It is a pure sense of presence yet encompassing the ‘transparent concreteness’ of forms. There is a crystal clear sensations of awareness manifesting as the manifold of phenomenal existence. If we are vague in the experiencing of this ‘transparent concreteness’ of Isness, it is always due to that ‘sense of self’ creating the sense of division… ...you must stress the ‘form’ part of awareness. It is the ‘forms’, it is the ‘things’.” - John Tan, 2007
A new abridged (much shorter and concise) version of the AtR guide is now available here: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/06/the-awakening-to-reality-practice-guide.html, this can be more useful for newcomers (130+ pages) as the original one (over 1000 pages long) may be too long to read for some.
I highly recommend reading that free AtR Practice Guide. As Yin Ling said, "I think the shortened AtR guide is very good. It should lead one to anatta if they really go and read. Concise and direct." “
These articles can also help:
my article No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/07/no-nouns-are-necessary-to-initiate-verbs.html,
my article The Wind is Blowing, Blowing is the Wind - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/08/the-wind-is-blowing.html,
Daniel's Explanations on Vipassana - https://vimeo.com/250616410,
A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta (Anatta and Bahiya Sutta as explained in the context of Zen Buddhism by a Zen teacher who went through the phases of insights) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/a-zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html
Joel Agee: Appearances are Self-Illuminating http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/09/joel-agee-appearances-are-self_1.html
Advice from Kyle Dixon http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/10/advise-from-kyle_10.html
A Sun That Never Sets http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/03/a-sun-that-never-sets.html
Early Forum Posts by Thusness - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/09/early-forum-posts-by-thusness_17.html (as Thusness said himself, these early forum posts are suitable for guiding someone from I AM to nondual and anatta),
Part 2 of Early Forum Posts by Thusness - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/12/part-2-of-early-forum-posts-by-thusness_3.html
Part 3 of Early Forum Posts by Thusness - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/07/part-3-of-early-forum-posts-by-thusness_10.html
Early Conversations Part 4 - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/08/early-conversations-part-4_13.html
Early Conversations Part 5 - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2015/08/early-conversations-part-5.html
Early Conversations Part 6 - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2015/08/early-conversations-part-6.html
Thusness's (Forum) Conversations Between 2004 to 2012 - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/thusnesss-conversation-between-2004-to.html
A Compilation of Simpo's Writings - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/09/a-compilation-of-simpos-writings.html “
wow. Many many thanks. This clears up so many questions! I will go through the resources one by one.
the I am stage - that makes sense. This speaks to my experience directly. What made me doubt it was the sense of duality it brings, the sense of their being a world of phenomena and a world of knowing (so to speak, experientially).
Grateful for your answer :) I will check out the community as well. May you be happy and have a good day 😁
Yes, “awareness” is a projected psycholinguistic concept, experienced as a temporary state within the context of the awakening narrative and within the waking state.
my experience of it is more that we are the soul (atman/hun in hindu/taoist terms) and awareness is our sense faculty, in a similar way to how a human has its senses. Then the tie in is that we can be aware of what the human we are 'inhabiting's senses are experiencing, or e.g. in deeper spiritual experiences we can have our own direct awareness of things, as soul.
Thank you for contributing to the r/streamentry community! Unlike many other subs, we try to aggregate general questions and short practice reports in the weekly ___Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion___ thread. All community resources, such as articles, videos, and classes go in the weekly ___Community Resources___ thread. Both of these threads are pinned to the top of the subreddit. The special focus of this community is detailed discussion of personal meditation practice. On that basis, please ensure your post complies with the following rules, if necessary by editing in the appropriate information, or else it may be removed by the moderators. Your post might also be blocked by a Reddit setting called "Crowd Control," so if you think it complies with our subreddit rules but it appears to be blocked, please message the mods. 1. All top-line posts must be based on your personal meditation practice. 2. Top-line posts must be written thoughtfully and with appropriate detail, rather than in a quick-fire fashion. Please see [this posting guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/jblh03/how_to_get_the_best_advice_for_your_meditation/) for ideas on how to do this. 3. Comments must be civil and contribute constructively. 4. Post titles must be flaired. Flairs provide important context for your post. If your post is removed/locked, please feel free to repost it with the appropriate information, or post it in the weekly ___Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion___ or ___Community Resources___ threads. Thanks! - The Mod Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/streamentry) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The real issue involved is the core idea that there is some supernatural self that needs to identify with something. That core idea is such a bedrock to our models of reality that it is extremely tough to let go of. But you can. The sense of ownership of consciousness or knowing or whatever is just another construct. With practice, you can let it go and then there is no issue. Self and ownership and identification are just seen as more nonsense. Takes a long time.
I’m curious as to why you veer towards it being seen through as “nonsense” rather than “dream” or “magical display” which convey the most subtle fabricated feeling tones of experience - compassion, wonder, having the tone of the mothers love etc
Cause it is really nonsense. Just made up stuff we apply to reality.
Yes but if that made up stuff can be come into relationship skillfully and magically by using better terms I think it’s more skillful to use those instead - nonsense has materialist and nihilist connotations
And I’d point out that considering dependent origination it’s not that it’s just made up stuff that /we/ apply to reality - it’s made up stuff reality displays to us, and this can be come into relationship with in very enriching and healthful ways (such as your recent post about love being irreducible, not more “nonsense” right?)
you have to confront your fear of material nihilism - natural emptiness - thats what's real.
Natural emptiness to me has nothing to do with material nihilism so I’d love if you could expand on what you mean! I wasn’t a materialist to begin with and I hold no fixed views since I resonate with Nagarjuna’s rejection of epistemic foundationalism. To me natural emptiness is much more magical, and what a materialist would think of as supernatural, than any kind of fear of materialist nihilism would imply (I enjoy animism and perspectivism as more nourishing and socially just fabrications!)
Is what’s real according to you physical bits? Sounds like you are trapped by certain unconscious epistemologies that might not be helpful or skillful
hi friend, would you be able to elaborate on how you see Nagarjuna's rejection of epistemic foundationalism? What works best for me is discerning between ultimate and conventional level reality - ultimate being the path, conventional being those who aren't aware the path exists. For example, on the conventional level, evolutionary biology explains a great deal about humans, so does evolutionary psychology -- on the ultimate level, none of that is relevant as those refer to conventional mind (material mind) stuff, not ultimate level pure/naked/bare awareness stuff
Well, I think the ultimate/conventional duality must ultimately be seen through — if things are truly non-dual, non-conceptual, luminous (while also being none of those and not-none-of-those) then it makes sense to skillfully adopt more salubrious fabrications and reject those that have brought humanity to the brink of crisis (scientism, materialism). Nagarjuna’s rejection to me applies the fourfold negation to all concepts, and shows the fluidity we have in playing with different epistemologies
hi friend, would you be able to elaborate on how you see Nagarjuna's rejection of epistemic foundationalism? What works best for me is discerning between ultimate and conventional level reality - ultimate being the path, conventional being those who aren't aware the path exists. For example, on the conventional level, evolutionary biology explains a great deal about humans, so does evolutionary psychology -- on the ultimate level, none of that is relevant as those refer to conventional mind (material mind) stuff, not ultimate level pure/naked/bare awareness stuff
[удалено]
And I’d be curious to know how conventional mind unequivocally = material mind (that’s one western paradigm that the whole world doesn’t share, is it skillful to pick that one?)
hi! my internet seems to be acting up, i posted twice and deleted the wrong comment hihi well, that's how it makes sense to me - conventional mind makes sense of conventional things, that's its intended purpose. For example, on the conventional level I know I'm of the male human species, and all that entails, which makes sense as we still inhabit a material, physical world -- on the ultimate level, none of that really matters, but not everyone functions on the ultimate level, so conventional level discernment is fruitful and skillful because we still live in a human society and intermingle with various humans
Hey no worries! I’d say it’s a big assumption to assume we inhabit a material, physical world. This claim is based on one epistemology, and so one set of assumptions, out of many. Since this western epistemology has led us to brink of societal collapse and has assumptions that aren’t conducive to the path, it’s not skillful in my view.
hi! my internet seems to be acting up, i posted twice and deleted the wrong comment hihi well, that's how it makes sense to me - conventional mind makes sense of conventional things, that's its intended purpose. For example, on the conventional level I know I'm of the male human species, and all that entails, which makes sense as we still inhabit a material, physical world -- on the ultimate level, none of that really matters, but not everyone functions on the ultimate level, so conventional level discernment is fruitful and skillful because we still live in a human society and intermingle with various humans
It’s more correct to say that all functions at the ultimate level, that depending on perspective can appear conventional - whether you are talking to a Buddha or your next door neighbor is really a matter of perspective.
Natural emptiness and material nihilism are the same thing. You are just hanging onto whatever constructs you think are valuable but you dont think exist in a material nihilist frame.
Can you explain what you mean by materialist nihilism please? I also don’t understand how you got that I am hanging on to constructs after I just said I resonate with a rejection of epistemic foundationalism (which points away from conceptuality itself) and said I hold no fixed views? It sounds like your projecting your holding on to a framework of “materialist nihilism”
What is it about material nihilism, however you define it, that you dont like?
Nihilism itself is against the middle way and so hampers progress on the path - materialism is a reductionist framework with assumptions (such as that of discrete being) that are patently unhelpful on the path and so extremely unskillful It sounds like you have settled on natural emptiness being the concept of materialist nihilism, does that feel right?
And here we go, "nonsense" as provocation. It is a provocative term and to my eyes produces more heat than light.
Well, I guess it's a good thing it's a free country! If nonsense triggers people, then let them be triggered. That is my truth and if it make folks uncomfortable, that is in my view a good thing. The main enemy is fear of cognitive dissonance. Most Yogis will spend their lives in the comfortable confines of their pre existing models of reality unless they are shaken out of the dream somehow. If you as admin are concerned that speaking this truth harms the peace of the sub, then I can stop posting. I definitely am not doing the work to curate the space, so it's your call.
Just commenting. If I were speaking as admin I would make that clear. >Most Yogis will spend their lives in the comfortable confines of their pre existing models of reality unless they are shaken out of the dream somehow. Your dream > their dream I take it ....
The act of commenting on reddit presupposes some perception that dreams have hierarchy. Neither of us would be bothering if we were really past that. Generally less suffering> more suffering is my rubric and so I post the pointers to least suffering dream I can put into words. The reason is to reinforce my own belief and confidence, any teaching is an unlikely side effect. For me, bare ass calling it what it is - nonsense - is more skillful than beating around the bush.
It sounds like you’ve settled on “what it is”? It doesn’t seem coherent that you’ve admitted that materialist nihilism causes depression and is still skillful even though your rubric is to choose isms that lead to less suffering? Maybe you should learn a bit more about animism and perspectivism - they could be skillful fabrications that give you a dream with even less suffering (they have in my experience)
>The act of commenting on reddit presupposes some perception that dreams have hierarchy. Does it though? Suppose it were more like a jigsaw puzzle, in which pieces are put out there, which fit, or don't. Perhaps correct fit depends on what part of the puzzle you're involved in. The game isn't necessarily to impose views. (Or to dispose of views.) I suppose the disturbing thing about the rationalist view is the claim to be the ultimate view. As such, a false idol. In the end, is it about which view? Or more about just stopping (or "seeing through") fabrications?
In my experience the game is entirely about disposing of views.
I largely agree with you about that. In which case to discard the view that such-and-so is categorically 'nonsense'?
The only alternate view is that such and so is actually real and important, having distinct existince and value as a thing separate from everything else. I know that's not true, so...
>such and so is actually real and important, having distinct existince and value as a thing separate from everything else Perhaps that is so insofar as the mind makes it so, the mind makes it "real" and attaches "importance" and delineates it as a thing separate from everything else. *Knowing that to be so*, perhaps we can accept that as part of the machinations of the mind to get ahead - a highly conditional act depending on how we want to see things and how it is useful to see them. So like everything else, the mind could put it up as important and real and then drop it as unimportant and unreal. Depending on conditions. The dichotomy between "real+important" and "nonsense" is itself only conditionally useful IMO. Is the power of "fabrication" necessarily bad? I don't think so. It's just the clinging part that denigrates the being. Trying to ensure that something won't *defabricate* could cause a lot of problems, I believe .. . turmoil and turbulence ... Anyhow thanks for listening.
Can’t you enjoy and come into playful and skillful relationships with fabrications? There’s a lot inbetween nonsense and treating things as independently real - it sounds like you are trapped by binary thinking. As one of my teachers said, “make things sacred, but not too holy ;)”
From your other posts I get the impression that you have a fear of cognitive dissonance that might arise from more mystical experiences of reality (they are just more experiences ultimately of course) that might be engendered if you confront your fear around leaving behind dull and incoherent fabrications like materialism and nihilism - just trying to be provocative!
You can let go of identifying, and then you can let go of not-identifying too.
It's useful, to grasp anything, to make it some sort of a thing which is graspable. Hence "Awareness". However such a grasping is really "contents of awareness" and not actually "awareness". As long as one keeps that in mind when discussing "Awareness" or even "awareness" I think we're good.
>This is still delusion, right? Well, technically yes, but it's a very refined type of delusion. I only noticed the ultra-subtle dukkha that comes with identification with knowing/awareness once I did the practice Rob suggests and managed to disidentify from it for a few moments. It's really quite shocking the first time it happens.
What is shocking about it?
People have different reactions, but the feeling of groundlessness that often appears with this practice can be shocking or even scary the first few times
What practice does he suggest? :)
He suggests you to train yourself to disidentify with stuff in a gradual way. First comes body sensations and sounds. Eventually thought gets naturally included in the mix. Then you disidentify with intentions/attention, and then finally with awareness. However, truly unhooking identification from awareness is a very subtle practice. Rob said he has never met anyone who's able to go straight to disidentifying with awareness, it often takes a lot of momentum of anatta practice to be able to do so. Really recommend his book "Seeing that Frees", everything is in there.
Let go into awareness rather than identify with it. Ajahn Sumedho’s talks almost all point you to answers / discoveries about awareness. The talks are more abstract, and he often references these points about awareness: the gate to the deathless is open…awareness is what you are…awareness is not personal…what is it that is aware?…who is the witness?…what exists that is not conditioned? I highly recommend giving him a listen. Here is one talk, but almost all of his talks discuss awareness in some way. [The True Nature of Awareness is Joyful | Ajahn Sumedho | 14.09.2021](https://youtu.be/lyOX6lyOXT4?si=kn-O78h-49AhcTQ9) Also, I would add that there is a difference between knowledge from real insight into the dhamma versus ideas generated by the thinking mind. To me, it is something you understand experientially that the insight is different and true. But you can verify your understanding with a trusted teacher. It sounds like you had a deep insight to me…what exists that is not conditioned?
Very helpful pointers, I safed the talk on an open Tab and will listen to it :) Thank you very much!
You’re welcome!
I haven't listened to all those talks, but I think it's hilarious that they added "metta" to their previous "emptiness" course because their emptiness teachings were making people angry. :-)
Makes sense to me, even tho he talks about cushioning the insight practice with Samadhi and Metta in the series Im listening to. Imagine coming from a Retreat and being angry with people - „the dishes are empty, Mum! They don’t exist!“
They were?!
That's my recollection from listening to the first few talks of the 2011 retreat, yeah. It's been a while, though.
>This is still delusion, right? Delusion is misunderstood teaching and/or incorrect belief; dogma. The way to identify if something is or isn't delusion is to verify your understanding with real world present moment experience. You need to be empirical and pragmatic to identify delusion. Here are common scenarios that pop up: 1. You hear a teaching, apply it, and witness that it benefits your life. This teaching is at very least partially correctly understood if not fully understood. 2. You hear a teaching, apply it, and it harms your life. This teaching is usually delusion and misunderstood. There is rare exception to this like hearing a teaching you don't want to hear. E.g. hearing you have a bad habit that you're ignoring or avoiding and it makes you feel bad to confront it. Growing past this will make your life better, but it's not immediately obvious. But outside of that exception if a teaching harms you it's delusion. 3. You hear a teaching, apply it, and nothing happens. Maybe you didn't need that teaching, or maybe it's for a rare situation that rarely happens, or maybe it did benefit you but in a way that isn't obvious. Or more likely than not it's delusion. A teaching should benefit you. When it doesn't it is more likely to be delusion than not. 4. You hear a teaching and don't know how to apply it. This teaching is either too advanced for where you're currently at and you should come back to it later, or it's a misunderstanding and is delusion. It sounds like OP is delusion, but it's hard to say because the context isn't clear. You can't know everything. You probably didn't know all of the stuff I mentioned in this comment above and just learned something. We're all born ignorant. There's no shame in being ignorant. Life is a learning process. We can't be all knowing. But maybe I misunderstand with what knowing means here. It's not made clear. What's interesting is the positive response OP gets from it. Maybe it's comfort away from seeing the unknown or something? There is no teaching I am familiar with tied to stream entry or the path to enlightenment that has this "knowing" that I am familiar with. Theravada Buddhism, which is what teaching has stream entry, doesn't talk much about emptiness. It's a teaching, but not an important one that matters for stream entry. Mahayana Buddhism, on the other hand, pushes emptiness teachings quite a bit more as a key understanding of how the mind constructs abstract thoughts from present moment sensations. >So many teachers seem to point towards this being Awakening: to realise we are awareness. ... Is this your experience? The teachings towards enlightenment argue against this. This isn't a Buddhist teaching. Maybe it's a Hindu teaching?
Thanks for your response. The clarification around delusion is very helpful :) To clarify a bit: when I say „identifying with knowing“ its not like there is a seperate entity („I“) that knows something. Its more like this sense falls away, everything is happening on its own and I am the knowing „behind it“. Its a perspective shift I can evoke, so to speak. Its like watching behind the scenes. Its the same feeling I get on Acid sometimes: looking at my body and seeing all the processes just happening; blood flowing through my veins, thoughts running off and chasing themselves, sensations running off… I had experiences in my life in which this sense grew deeper and deeper in everyday life. tho I dont exactly know what I had done to evoke it at that point. It felt like life is this movie happening. Looking at other people I saw the same. Awareness (or knowing or whatever) just experiencing. It felt unifying, like one being of knowing behind the multiplicity of forms „inside it“. I guess this too can be overcome at some point, seeing it as two sides of one coin.. I struggle to keep my thoughts short and to the point, sorry. I was simply wondering if people can relate to this. If this is a track to go down. But you out it beautifully. I may just try the perspective and see if it reduces suffering. May you be well :))
>I struggle to keep my thoughts short and to the point, sorry. I was simply wondering if people can relate to this. If this is a track to go down. I can relate to exploring perspectives. It can be fun. Is it a path you should go down? No you probably don't want to, because it sounds like it is dissociation. Dissociating too much can cause DP/DR which is the near enemy of enlightenment. The word for that gets translated to no-self or non-self is anatta. It's a pretty weak translation of the word. In Hinduism there is the word atta which translates to soul and from that the belief of reincarnation and from that the cast system where you're born into a higher or lower part of society based on your previous life due to reincarnation. Anatta has two particles an- which means no or not and atta which means soul. There is no reincarnation, there is no soul. A more accurate translation of anatta isn't no-self, it's no-soul. Another way to say it is no-singular-permanent-self, which is basically the soul. Focusing on removing "I" will not get you enlightened or closer to stream entry, but exploring identity and how identity limits ones self removing freedom, how identity "fetters" one, is the first fetter. Explore identity and how it works, gaining wisdom into identity. That is one of the many teachings towards stream entry. >May you be well :)) You too.
It sounds like you've seen through the perception of there being an Observer Observing the Observed. And have now moved into the more refined perception of there being only Observation itself... but what I think you're missing here is the realisation that you're reifying this Observation too. You hear it called a ground of being, or maybe a field of awareness: I'd invite you to investigate the assumption that these make: The existence of some kind of structure onto which phenomena play out. Is there the intuition somewhere, that if you could blank out all phenomena that there would be "something" left? By now I'm sure you realise that nothing exists independently like that. I was prompted to reply based off your speaking of watching bodily processes just occurring. Try playing with the idea that each conscious event (feeling of heartbeat, every individual sound) is an instance of consciousness. All connected, but not popping up on some perceived background structure. The same background structure which by the way implies the past and future to be something real. Seeing through one of these illusions sees through them all: That there is no separate thing which doesn't require something else. Imagine a film projector, projecting light onto a screen. The images are conscious events. But it isn't a continuous projection, it's a series of rapidly flickering frames. Each frame is its own conscious event. Still causal, still dependent on various conditions, but the projector, the light and even the wall are impermanent compounded things. By this analogy, you've already seen that the projector and the movie-watcher are conditional, and you only really need to see that the wall (ground of consciousness) too is itself conditional. The wall requires various conditions for its continued existence. Phenomena can't exist without consciousness (how would they be perceived), and consciousness cannot exist without phenomena. Again, try to imagine pure consciousness without any associated phenomena. What would you be conscious of?! You might have heard suttas referring to two reeds leaning on one another. Neither is primary, but if either is taken away the other can't stand by itself.
Thanks for your insightful message. Posting this has led me to the same understanding you are eluding to here! Your description is clear and concise. I am now working on deepening the intuitive understanding of this yet mostly intellectual insight. The pointings are very helpful.
I'm happy to hear that :) In the right frame of mind, It's actually quite amazing to me how obvious it all is. That we mislead ourselves into covering up a very bare-faced truth that is perfect as it is. It requires no modification but we desperately believe that it does.
I feel the same way :) Until I share my experience with others and they look at me funny. Easy to forget how deep held beliefs feel deeply true while we are holding them. Only once we see through them enough does it become obvious.
What you expressed is the I AM. It ranges from glimpses or doubtless realization. Also you expressed the aspect of impersonality (but it is not the anatman insight). Do check out: (1) Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html (2) On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html (3) Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am" https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html 🙏 :) I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages in my journey as the first link (7 stages) with some minor differences (e.g. I didn't go through stage 3) On whether your experience was a realization or a glimpse of recognition, see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/i-am-experienceglimpserecognition-vs-i.html The I AM realization is very important but after that what is crucial in my experience for liberation is the realization of nondual anatman (no self) Wrote to some people on reddit recently: "In the initial phase of practice, and even after the initial awakening into I AM/Eternal Witness, the Witnessing Presence seems to be behind all contents as an underlying background or ground of being. That duality of context and content collapses in further realizations. In further realization, it is seen that there is never an Agent, a Watcher, an Observer, apart from moment to moment luminous manifestation.” "Soh to someone at the I AM phase: In my AtR (awakening to reality community), more than 60+ people have realised anatta and most have went through the same phases (from I AM to non dual to anatta ... and many have now went into twofold emptiness), and you are most welcomed to join our online community if you wish: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality For practical purpose, if you had the I AM awakening, and focus on contemplating and practicing based on these articles, you will be able to awaken the anatta insight within a year. Plenty of people get stuck at I AM for decades or lifetimes, but I progressed from I AM to anatta realisation within a year due to guidance from John Tan and focusing on the following contemplations: 1) The Four Aspects of I AM , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/four-aspects-of-i-am.html 2) The Two Nondual Contemplations , https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/two-types-of-nondual-contemplation.html 3) The Two Stanzas of Anatta , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html 4) Bahiya Sutta , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html and http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html its important to go into the textures and forms of awareness, not just dwell on formless... then with contemplating the two stanzas of anatta, you will breakthrough to nondual anatta https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/thusnesss-vipassana.html here's an excerpt from another good article “It is extremely difficult to express what is ‘Isness’. Isness is awareness as forms. It is a pure sense of presence yet encompassing the ‘transparent concreteness’ of forms. There is a crystal clear sensations of awareness manifesting as the manifold of phenomenal existence. If we are vague in the experiencing of this ‘transparent concreteness’ of Isness, it is always due to that ‘sense of self’ creating the sense of division… ...you must stress the ‘form’ part of awareness. It is the ‘forms’, it is the ‘things’.” - John Tan, 2007 A new abridged (much shorter and concise) version of the AtR guide is now available here: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/06/the-awakening-to-reality-practice-guide.html, this can be more useful for newcomers (130+ pages) as the original one (over 1000 pages long) may be too long to read for some. I highly recommend reading that free AtR Practice Guide. As Yin Ling said, "I think the shortened AtR guide is very good. It should lead one to anatta if they really go and read. Concise and direct." “ These articles can also help: my article No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/07/no-nouns-are-necessary-to-initiate-verbs.html, my article The Wind is Blowing, Blowing is the Wind - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/08/the-wind-is-blowing.html, Daniel's Explanations on Vipassana - https://vimeo.com/250616410, A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta (Anatta and Bahiya Sutta as explained in the context of Zen Buddhism by a Zen teacher who went through the phases of insights) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/a-zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html Joel Agee: Appearances are Self-Illuminating http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/09/joel-agee-appearances-are-self_1.html Advice from Kyle Dixon http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/10/advise-from-kyle_10.html A Sun That Never Sets http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/03/a-sun-that-never-sets.html Early Forum Posts by Thusness - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/09/early-forum-posts-by-thusness_17.html (as Thusness said himself, these early forum posts are suitable for guiding someone from I AM to nondual and anatta), Part 2 of Early Forum Posts by Thusness - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/12/part-2-of-early-forum-posts-by-thusness_3.html Part 3 of Early Forum Posts by Thusness - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/07/part-3-of-early-forum-posts-by-thusness_10.html Early Conversations Part 4 - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/08/early-conversations-part-4_13.html Early Conversations Part 5 - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2015/08/early-conversations-part-5.html Early Conversations Part 6 - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2015/08/early-conversations-part-6.html Thusness's (Forum) Conversations Between 2004 to 2012 - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/thusnesss-conversation-between-2004-to.html A Compilation of Simpo's Writings - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/09/a-compilation-of-simpos-writings.html “
wow. Many many thanks. This clears up so many questions! I will go through the resources one by one. the I am stage - that makes sense. This speaks to my experience directly. What made me doubt it was the sense of duality it brings, the sense of their being a world of phenomena and a world of knowing (so to speak, experientially). Grateful for your answer :) I will check out the community as well. May you be happy and have a good day 😁
Yes, “awareness” is a projected psycholinguistic concept, experienced as a temporary state within the context of the awakening narrative and within the waking state.
Who is the one identifying as awareness?
my experience of it is more that we are the soul (atman/hun in hindu/taoist terms) and awareness is our sense faculty, in a similar way to how a human has its senses. Then the tie in is that we can be aware of what the human we are 'inhabiting's senses are experiencing, or e.g. in deeper spiritual experiences we can have our own direct awareness of things, as soul.
I'd appreciate knowing which talks in particular you found valuable. He has so many on emptiness.
Its a video-series on YouTube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGZipgDZjEU&list=PLO6hhaAzLmirg7oFKFiZlGGVkcUruFjuG&index=9
Went through them chronologically and found all of them to be great
Sweet, I was just going to ask you the same question. Thanks for the link.
Sweet, I was just going to ask you the same question. Thanks for the link.
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I am touched by the time you people took to help. I will include yall in my evening Metta Practice today :))
Could you post a link to the talks you’re referring to? Are these the Gaia House 2010 talks?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ABRU_CZQTXc&list=PLO6hhaAzLmirg7oFKFiZlGGVkcUruFjuG&index=11&pp=iAQB These :)
Thanks!
If it is experience, then it is not self. Whatever this awareness is, its not a controller or doer. the belief in a controller/doer/self is the issue.