Experience

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
Simon E.
Posts: 6109
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Experience

Post by Simon E. » Fri May 03, 2019 8:37 am

boda wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 12:57 am
Queequeg wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:51 pm
boda wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 9:09 pm
. As I hit the bricks I’m quite sure that I wasn’t the least bit self-conscious.
Maybe something like getting hit with a shoe.
Zen mind tricks don't work on me.
Oh really?... 8-)
I know nothing. This is not false modesty.

muni
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Experience

Post by muni » Fri May 03, 2019 8:52 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:54 pm
Rick wrote:Sound about right?
Yes, except that 'beyond discursive analysis' is part of the specification.
:meditate:
H H Dalai Lama and other pointed therefore to the four reliances as great importance, regarding going beyond.

https://www.padmasambhava.org/2017/11/t ... reliances/
May I be a guard for those without one,
A guide for all who journey on the road,
May I become a boat, a raft or bridge,
For all who wish to cross the water.

muni
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Experience

Post by muni » Mon May 06, 2019 9:05 am

(Attachment/aversion/indifference are in the eye of the beholder and not the beheld) Direct experience is emphasized so much because it's our own distinct mind streams that we are seeking to untangle from the above web of confused thinking and reactions that perpetuate samsara.


If we don't experience appearances of the senses and mind with the wisdom that directly cognozed their nature then we are just experiencing appearances of the senses and mind with our own distorted cognition- just as someone with jaundice sees a conch shell as yellow.
Then in fact misperceiving " daily life", reaction is on own karmic projections, classifying them as being other than "our self" by aversion-attachment-indifference. When this is seen; "other" is not experienced.

It seems that grasping thoughts is making the 'cut' in what cannot be cut, thoughts are solidifying what is not solid.
I find that emotions-feelings are preceding or triggering thought grasping, by which awareness turns hidden and karmic reactions follow.

Can you say something about this triggering, Vasana? Or anyone?


I can be wrong but the more mind is seeing the good in all, the 'more releasing openness arises' while the more mind is finding faults with others, the more there is narrowness/closeness and the self-experience tense is becoming stronger. Dilgo Khyentse said something like: even the other is completely wrong, you leave it. Avoid samsaric habit-fights which are increasing the experience of self and so increasing unknowingly suffering and karmic effects.
While I always thought to have to point to wrong, wisdoms' compassion never act like that, "wisdom sees no other to correct", sees only dream and uses skills to help to awaken.
Therefore what you wrote when no direct experience, it is then as a running behind own karmic illusions, wishing to get at the finish?

( I do not mean neglect possible help in case of any self-other harm or any need.)

Like investigating in phenomena (other) looks like a cat chasing its tail is been said. How great or not phenomena may be experienced, their essence remains the same. Mind may know them but not itself.

Grateful for all inspirations. :meditate:
May I be a guard for those without one,
A guide for all who journey on the road,
May I become a boat, a raft or bridge,
For all who wish to cross the water.

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 19827
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Experience

Post by Grigoris » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:51 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 4:58 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 10:01 am
Jerafreyr wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 12:03 am
Nirvana is experienced when the subject is free from all objects. Bodhisattvas and other arya beings merge into this in meditation (abiding nirvana) for the purpose of developing undifferential non abiding nirvana (Buddhahood).
Source?
Ha. You got me. I will kindly differ this to someone who who knows better. A source I could not find but I will explain according to my own logic. I say a subject because there is an apparent path to beings aspiring to enlightenment, and the word object refers to concepts. Thus a subject free from object is said to be nirvana. When nirvana and samsara are said to lose their difference it is said to be undifferentiated, and if this state is realized during and after meditation it is said to be non abiding because abiding generally refers to a temporary state.
Please explain how you can have a subject free from an object.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:54 am

Re: Experience

Post by Jerafreyr » Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:41 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:51 pm
Please explain how you can have a subject free from an object.
When mind correctly apprehends phenomena this leads to the cessation of the subject as well.

Bodhicaryavatara chapter 9 line 34 states:
When neither an entity nor a non-entity remains before the mind, then since there is no other possibility, having no objects, it becomes calm.

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 19827
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Experience

Post by Grigoris » Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:29 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:41 pm
When mind correctly apprehends phenomena this leads to the cessation of the subject as well.
Are you are saying that a correct subject/object experience leads to the end of subject and object?
Bodhicaryavatara chapter 9 line 34 states:
When neither an entity nor a non-entity remains before the mind, then since there is no other possibility, having no objects, it becomes calm.
Mind always has an object of sensation: itself.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:54 am

Re: Experience

Post by Jerafreyr » Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:38 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:29 pm
Jerafreyr wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:41 pm
When mind correctly apprehends phenomena this leads to the cessation of the subject as well.
Are you are saying that a correct subject/object experience leads to the end of subject and object?
I'm saying freedom from conceptual elaboration is liberation.

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 19827
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Experience

Post by Grigoris » Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:00 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:38 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:29 pm
Jerafreyr wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:41 pm
When mind correctly apprehends phenomena this leads to the cessation of the subject as well.
Are you are saying that a correct subject/object experience leads to the end of subject and object?
I'm saying freedom from conceptual elaboration is liberation.
Rocks and corpses do not engage in conceptual elaboration, are they free?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 4838
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Experience

Post by Wayfarer » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:35 pm

I think the key term is 'objectification'. For example, consider the brief Kotthita Sutta, which is a short dialogue between Sariputta and Kotthita, about whether, when the six sense gates 'fade away' (presumably in jhana), whether there is 'anything else'. 'Don't say that, my friend', says Sariputta, and when pressed as to why not, the answer is:
[Sariputta:] “The statement, ‘With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification. The statement, ‘… is it the case that there is not anything else … is it the case that there both is & is not anything else … is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.
I interpret this to mean that the attempt to grasp or objectify the condition of one in whom the six sense gates have faded is a form of 'objectification', i.e. making an object out of this state (i.e. 'what is that? does that exist?') But really there is no such "thing", or no object of that kind. But this doesn't mean that such a state is not real - it simply means it can't be pictured, conceptualised, or made an object of thought. Hence Sariputta's admonition 'do not objectify non-objectification'.

There are other suttas on the theme of 'objectification' which can be found on accesstoinsight.

I think these tend to support Jerafreyr's interpretation.
Grigoris wrote:Mind always has an object of sensation: itself.
But does it? Can the mind experience itself? Hand grasp itself? Eye see itself? I don't think so - the eye can see another, the hand grasp another, the mind think of objects. That relationship of 'otherness' is basic to the operation of the six senses. That is the sense in which experience is dualistic, because it revolves around 'self experiencing other'. It is just the abeyance of that 'construction' (vikalpa) that is realised through jhana/dhyana.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 19827
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Experience

Post by Grigoris » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:11 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:35 pm
But does it? Can the mind experience itself? Hand grasp itself? Eye see itself? I don't think so - the eye can see another, the hand grasp another, the mind think of objects. That relationship of 'otherness' is basic to the operation of the six senses. That is the sense in which experience is dualistic, because it revolves around 'self experiencing other'. It is just the abeyance of that 'construction' (vikalpa) that is realised through jhana/dhyana.
The sense objects of the mind are the mental impressions of sensory objects, produced by the contact of sense objects with organs of sensation AND purely mental objects produced by the mind itself.

Sensory objects of the mind are produced by the mind itself. The mind basically has sensory perception of itself.

If you remove all sensory experience arising from the other senses, the mind will continue to have sensory experiences.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 19827
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Experience

Post by Grigoris » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:13 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:35 pm
I interpret this to mean that the attempt to grasp or objectify the condition of one in whom the six sense gates have faded is a form of 'objectification', i.e. making an object out of this state (i.e. 'what is that? does that exist?') But really there is no such "thing", or no object of that kind. But this doesn't mean that such a state is not real - it simply means it can't be pictured, conceptualised, or made an object of thought. Hence Sariputta's admonition 'do not objectify non-objectification'.
In which case you believe that dependent origination can be broken at the point of contact (phassa)?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 4838
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Experience

Post by Wayfarer » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:58 pm

Grigoris wrote:The mind basically has sensory perception of itself.
Is that true, though? The mind (manas) can certainly recall sensory perceptions - recall a sight, a sound, a smell. So the mind can recall sensory perceptions, but sensory perceptions are by definition received by the sense-gates, that's why they are called 'sensory perceptions'. And sensory perceptions are by their nature in the domain of subject and object. But what I'm saying is that 'mind can't be an object of itself'. And that's a vital principle. We had a similar discussion not long ago - Astus provided a reference in this post:
Let me give you an illustration. People have eyes, by which they can see all sorts of forms, like long and short, square and round, and so on; then why do they not see themselves? Just perceiving forms, you cannot see your eyes even if you want to. Your mind is also like this; its light shines perceptively throughout the ten directions, encompassing all things, so why does it not know itself?

Do you want to understand? Just discern the things perceived; you cannot see the mind itself.

An ancient said, “The knife does not cut itself, the finger does not touch itself, the mind does not know itself, the eye does not see itself.” This is true reality."
Foyan (Instant Zen, p 38)

It is that 'not knowing' which is the key. Because it is the unknown knower, never a 'that', not an object of perception.
Grigoris wrote:In which case you believe that dependent origination can be broken at the point of contact (phassa)?
I'm sorry but I don't really understand that question, but I don't think it is what I am saying. Tricky point, I know.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 19827
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Experience

Post by Grigoris » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:49 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:58 pm
Is that true, though? The mind (manas) can certainly recall sensory perceptions - recall a sight, a sound, a smell. So the mind can recall sensory perceptions, but sensory perceptions are by definition received by the sense-gates, that's why they are called 'sensory perceptions'. And sensory perceptions are by their nature in the domain of subject and object. But what I'm saying is that 'mind can't be an object of itself'. And that's a vital principle. We had a similar discussion not long ago - Astus provided a reference in this post:
Recall is 100% mental.

I posted an article in the lounge not so long ago about blind people and dreams.

Seems that the section of the brain activated during visual dreaming in people with sight, is also activated in people that have been born blind.

So what do people born blind "see" in their dreams?

I am guessing that it is karmic residues from past lives. That would make the sensation 100% mental, since in this life (and possibly previous lives) that person has had no physical visual sensory perceptions.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 19827
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Experience

Post by Grigoris » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:56 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:58 pm
I'm sorry but I don't really understand that question, but I don't think it is what I am saying. Tricky point, I know.
You are saying that the mind does not generate it's own sense objects, that in the absence of the perception of "external" sensory objects the mind has no objects and thus ceases to function. That would mean that dependent origination can be halted at the point of contact, that liberation can happen via the eradication of phassa (contact of a sense object with the sensory organ).

I think you are overlooking the fact that in Abdhi... mind is also a sensory organ.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests