… if those who enter upon the path of Liberation smash the billions of kleshas [defilements] like a jar, they will then see the entire Dhatu [Buddha Essence] as though it were a mango upon the palm of their hand. For example, though the sun and moon do not shine upon the earth when they are veiled by clouds, they do shine upon the earth when they are released from the clouds. Similarly, when the Tathagatagarbha is hidden by the billions of kleshas, it is not visible; but when it is freed from the kleshas, the sun and moon of the Buddha-dhatu are also visible, just like the sun and moon.

Winning!

EDIT: Smash the defilements, and theory won't matter.

Yes, theories doesn't matter but awakeness and freedom. However the question is 'how to smash the defilements', as obviously, you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning.

Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through.

If one can discern the attention wave, one can observe the stream of defilements directly (which is why I emphasize this).

If one can see them, then one can smash them.

If one can't see them, one can smash them anyway, in the same way: one develops the eightfold path.

The simplicity of the issue, divested of any deep theory of How Things Are, is astounding.

No ideas or comments about attention wave, since so far I have not had a clear understanding about it.

However what is very apparent to me is that any clinging and sense of a self/Self is what stands in the way of pure-consciousness-experience and the freedom from 'affects'. This to me is much more important and essential.

But anyway, my previous post also pointed out something about 'view'... if without 'right view' (1st of the eightfold path), if one holds to 'wrong views' (views that cling to an identity), it is impossible to walk the correct path which leads to the end of suffering.

And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.

"Clinging" is one component of the attention wave.

What would it be other than a discernible experience arising shortly after vedana?

And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.

Wrong view, then, is "not knowing right view".

Simple!

So craving = attention wave, attention wave = craving?

let me try to help explain it... have you ever started at an object quite intently, while meditating or not, and it started to distort in weird ways? like the perspective would get kind of weird, or it would start shimmering or waving about?

So craving = attention wave, attention wave = craving?

Simple, but also not so simple, since if you want to discuss wrong views, you should discuss in terms of the 62 possible wrong views (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html).

Suppose there were a man of yours: your slave, your workman, rising in the morning before you, going to bed in the evening only after you, doing whatever you order, always acting to please you, speaking politely to you, always watching for the look on your face. The thought would occur to him: 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? — the destination, the results, of meritorious deeds. For this King Ajatasattu is a human being, and I, too, am a human being, yet King Ajatasattu enjoys himself supplied and replete with the five strings of sensuality — like a deva, as it were — while I am his slave, his workman... always watching for the look on his face. I, too, should do meritorious deeds. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

"So after some time he shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth he lives restrained in body, speech, and mind, content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude.

Four times, five, I ran amok from my dwelling,
having gained no peace of awareness,
my thoughts out of control.
So I went to a trustworthy nun.
She taught me the Dhamma:
aggregates, sense spheres, & elements.
Hearing the Dhamma,
I did as she said.
For seven days I sat in one spot,
absorbed in rapture & bliss.
On the eighth, I stretched out my legs,
having burst the mass of darkness.

"Plowing the field with plows,
sowing the ground with seed,
supporting their wives & children,
young men gather up wealth.

So why is it that I,
consummate in virtue,
a doer of the teacher's bidding,
don't gain Unbinding?
I'm not lazy or proud."

Washing my feet, I noticed
the
water.

And in watching it flow from high
to
low,
my heart was composed
like a fine thoroughbred steed.

Then taking a lamp, I entered the hut,
checked the bedding,
sat down on the bed.
And taking a pin, I pulled out the wick:
Like the flame's unbinding
was the liberation
of awareness.

Ah, another attention wave topic starting....

My answer is nope, or at least not that I recall.

It seems that after many posts with End in Sight I still don't get this... so maybe I'll just drop this topic and see if I get it on my own in future.

"Craving" is origin of, and the first discernible event, in the attention wave.



Are those views dukkha or sukha?

If they are dukkha, all one needs to recognize is "thinking this way is suffering", and right view is developed.

No theory or analysis required.

Here is a typical explanation of how the path begins:



i.e. it begins with developing right view in the sense of developing the eightfold path, and the parts of the eightfold path that it develops first is right speech, right livelihood, right action, and (perhaps) right effort and right resolve. No theory, no analysis. Not even any meditation!

If adjusting view floats one's boat, that's fine (that seems to be the domain of some of the Mahayana traditions), I am sure that can be practical too, but my point is that it isn't required by far.

About Richard and self-view...what is the origin of identification according to the Pali suttas? Craving. The entire path is about subduing craving.

It does not even necessarily require that one have any explicit insight at all to subdue craving; one could sit in jhana all day and find, after coming out, that no craving was left. The suttas talk about that constantly.

This is why actualism is so cool. For a person who can pursue it this way, the whole actualist path could be: chill out, feel good, eventually have PCEs, eventually find that (after chilling out, feeling good, and having PCEs) that no craving is left. (As 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me', with the absence of craving comes the absence of 'being'.)

i think you have experienced it, but you just haven't labeled that category of things as anything...

well let me try again: you talk about clarity, lumostiy, etc. have you, in the past when practicing, experienced things less clearly/less luminously, and then more clearly/more luminously, then less clearly, etc? a variance in the level of clarity?

Luminosity is never clear before anatta. Why? Because the sense of self/Self prevents luminosity from revealing. Since all manifestations are self-luminous, and sense of self/Self prevents the 'non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception' of the self-luminosity of manifestation, luminosity. When anatta is realized, all manifestations are naturally implicitly self-luminous.

Stream entry confers the 'ending of self-view', Arahant confers the 'end of conceit [of 'I Am']'. If for example, you merely recognise 'this thought is painful' but don't see that 'the view of self is false', then this current thought may subside, and yet the view of self remains intact,

According to Buddha, right view is the right understanding of four noble truths (supramundane level), the right understanding of things like karma and rebirth (mundane level).

Adjusting view is important for beginner (some kind of theoretical understanding of the path) even in Theravada, or just from a purely pragmatic point of view*

I know the point of subduing craving, but the path is the eightfold path, and the eightfold path leads to knowledge and vision of things as they are [realization, insight into dharma], without which end of craving is not possible.*

I do not see it as being possible as explained above: how could there be end of self-view, self-conceit if no insights were involved, if self-view still retains in the psyche?

Also, jhana in the suttas need not be mere shamatha jhana, but it could be a mix of jhana and insight.

Furthermore, the Buddha have explicitly made clear that all who attains Arhantship does so with insight and tranquility in tandem:

Daniel: What you are ultimately going for is not the PCE: that is like concentration, where as investigation is insight and is part of what may be necessary for attaining AF. - (Notes from Conversations with Trent and Tarin on AF Practice) http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1484905

ok. so when luminosity isn't clear yet, does the perception of the senses vary in clarity? for example - does your perception of eyesight have varying degrees of crispness? like you can tune into the eyesight and your eyesight will literally become crisper/more vivid/more pleasant, and if you aren't paying attention it goes back to being duller/not as bright (though you only notice it has become dull when you pay attention again and it is suddenly crisper). has that happened in your experience? the perception of vision literally being duller or crisper.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. (...)

And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas unfit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

Yes.

No.

According to the Pali suttas, all identifications are caused by craving.

When you abandon the painful view, you abandon craving.

There is no view of self that does not manifest via craving and is thus not visible in the attention wave.

Yes, and it can be as simple as this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.036.than.html

Because, according to the Pali suttas, all identification (including all self-view) is caused by craving.

If you practice full-on jhana, you can observe how it occurs: not by adjusting views, but by not thinking, which reduces the attention wave, which allows one to not think more, which reduces the attention wave more...a short-cut to subduing craving, completely independent of one's views and beliefs.

As you are well aware, the kind of insight you are talking about is the sort that is discussed in Mahayana traditions, not the Pali suttas.

All identifications are caused by ignorance, ignorance is supported by taints, and taints supported by ignorance.

And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

Imagine someone clinging to a Self, trying to eliminate craving. What will he do? Surely, he will dissociate himself from the craving, but by doing so simply strengthens his hold onto 'self'. Without insight that his view is false, no matter how he tries to let go, he is in fact increasing his holding in disguise.

great! so, that is one manifestation of the attention wave - that dullness in the senses. a relatively coarse/gross manifestation, but that's the idea. it is simply whatever distorts what is going on sense-wise in a similar fashion. does that help point you in the right direction for knowing what the attention wave is?

if so: did you notice in the past how it isn't necessarily a panoramic dullness (like the entire visual field getting crisper), but sometimes localized? like in my vision, if i really pay attention, i'll notice that certain parts - like a little under the center, or the bottom-left corner - are not as clear as the rest. it is not obvious at all, cause if i am not looking for it, i simply don't notice it (as it is the not-noticing). but when i pay attention to it its like holes in my visual field slowly get filled up.

another potential manifestation of attention wave is to look at the sense of touch. if you're sitting on a chair, you should basically feel your entire rear end and upper legs at once. but if i try to do that i'll notice that it kind of goes in 'pockets' - like there will be a 'most prominent sensation', which keeps shifting around. that also is a manifestation of the attention wave. in a PCE there is no such thing - just everything all-at-once.

do you see what we mean now by attention wave?

Hmm... I get attention wave as a form of dulling or tuning out of the senses. However you seem to be attributing this dulling or tuning out or lack of luminosity to shifts of attention. To me attention is not the cause of dulling of luminosity.

more about the attention wave:

the attention wave and affect are the same thing.

the attention wave dulls and distorts actual sensitivity (and the subtle way in which it does this confuses people who experience it in its barest form into thinking that it is the faculties of sensitivity themselves, which it is most certainly not; for an example of this, see ian's thread about feeling-tones, to which i will reply later).

the urge to obsess about the attention wave is part of the wave itself. hence, doing so may be unavoidable to some extent; if so, it will fade as one realises that the entire thing (the wave) is increasingly irrelevant to how one is actually experiencing this moment of being alive.

Once self/Self goes into abeyance, everything is naturally self-luminous, no matter how attention focuses on what particularities (and attention being merely a quality or aspect of the self-luminous experience and not something separate from experience, and all experience being whole, complete, centerless, borderless, self-luminous). So attention in and of itself is not a problem: only when attention is tainted with sense of self/Self, that is the problem.

a) Notice the attention wave itself and how looking at anything distorts the thing itself. Notice how attention itself filters out substantial portions of the field of what manifests. Doing this long and well enough at a high level taking it to the level of seeming like a spacial distortion eventually can cause PCE mode to arise. This is the least pleasant but the most revealing and has resulted in the longest duration of PCE-like mode when I can pull it off.

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and trying to get a handle on 'attention wave'

I don't get it.

Is there a practice I can do to help understand the difference between awareness and an attention wave?
The descriptions this far, while interesting, have not resulted in me grokking the crux of this discussion.

does this mean the INTENT and ACT of putting my attention in a physical location (tanden, balls of feet, fingertip), and moving it around, is the wave?

What does this mean for practice? Is it a bad thing?

Try walking around and tuning into the senses in a wondrous/wonder-filled fashion. Just take in the beauty/clarity of it all. This is easiest for me when walking around outside.

Do you notice your visual field getting clearer/crisper if you do this? Colors getting more vivid/richer/deeper?

Do you notice your visual field getting clearer/crisper if you do this? Colors getting more vivid/richer/deeper?

Wow, fast response. I actually went back and edited it a bit while you were typing.

Another thing to try is: take a tall glass and stare at it. try to get a 'grip' on the space 'inside' the glass, specially at the top. look at the oval shape the circle makes when looking at it from the side. and just stare at it a bit. does it start to distort in a weird way?

Hm.... I get a bit of visual fatigue, eyes crossing, general fading of vision, some saccades, and a distortion of the oval a bit like those Necker cube optical illusions where two configurations pop up and you can 'flip' between one and the other somehow.

However, i do not see how this is at all related to the other ideas associated with 'the wave.', [...]

no. i feel a bit of access-concentration, i think, a pristine calmness, but no difference in the ACTUAL world

my handle on this is still pretty vague, but i find these exercises/investigations pretty interesting.

when i would do it sometimes my whole visual field would just start warping and twisting in a weird way. which was very obviously the attention wave. but at that point i already had stream entry + such and it might just need more implicit concentration for that to happen.

does this mean the INTENT and ACT of putting my attention in a physical location (tanden, balls of feet, fingertip), and moving it around, is the wave?

i.e. wrong views originate in inappropriate attention, and appropriate attention is understanding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to that cessation, and doing that leads to the abandonment of views of identity, i.e. identity-view is abandoned by understanding suffering and not necessarily by adjusting views directly.

(Whether identity-view can be abandoned by adjusting views directly via your style of insight...sure, why not? But, that is a separate issue.)

...

"But, lady, how does self-identity not come about?"

"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

"Now, a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self ... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He discerns, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form' ... inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'

Or like Bahiya Sutta said,

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Without such discernment, it cannot be said that one has relinquished self-view nor self-conceit.

p.s. A lot of people think contemplating not-self means dissociation or on first impression it may seem like a different set of instructions from Bahiya Sutta but actually it is exactly the same as Bahiya Sutta. Many people think of not-self as meaning "does not assume form to be the self" (which means there could still be a person or witness dissociating himself from form), yet anatta is not only that, since it negates also “the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form” (no possibility of a witness or awareness which contains or observes form - form is just form without any referent of self - whether it is a self seen to be inside my body, or my body inside me as if I am a container-like awareness!), in other words, exactly as per Bahiya Sutta, “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen... only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Many people practice vipassana as a kind of dissociation, not understanding that anatta-contemplation as Buddha intended it actually leads to insight-discernment of anatta, not-self, which is not a form of dissociation or merely a rejection of 'form = self' but a rejection of the view of self pertaining to forms, feelings .... consciousness in all manners (including as happening to self, in self, or self in it, etc), including any self of a permanent, independent, separate nature, or of agency (perceiver, controller), such that there is "In reference to the seen, only the seen, no you in terms of that". It furthermore ends with, "this, just this, is the end of stress."

I believe I agree with what you've written, but I think we may still disagree regarding the implementation of what you've written.

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

p.s. A lot of people think contemplating not-self means dissociation or on first impression it may seem like a different set of instructions from Bahiya Sutta but actually it is exactly the same as Bahiya Sutta.

As I have stated, perceptions of 'self' are all linked back to the attention wave, so anything that subdues the attention wave subdues self-view.

I don't know if you consider that sufficient. I do (for reasons previously stated). I will also point out that the suttas often describe understanding the anatta characteristic in this way:


i.e. from understanding the nature of suffering (right view), one thereby abandons self-view.

I agree very strongly.

Without attention wave, there is nothing besides the sense-perception in the percept.

When you experience variations in the luminosity and clarity of perception, would say that that, in the less clear moments, there is nothing but the sense-perception in the percept?

The view is not merely the sense of self/Self in its manifested sense, so it is not merely something you can subdue like the gross thoughts we subdue in meditation for calm abiding, but rather it is an imprinted belief and notion about the inherency of self, a position, a view, a belief, a stance, with regards to self, such as 'assume form/../consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing form/../consciousness, or form/../consciousness as in the self, or the self as in form/../consciousness'. Such positions with regards to self does not get done away with merely by the temporary abeyance of self, or even if PCE somehow became perpetual.

The view is not merely the sense of self/Self in its manifested sense, so it is not merely something you can subdue like the gross thoughts we subdue in meditation for calm abiding, but rather it is an imprinted belief and notion about the inherency of self, a position, a view, a belief, a stance, with regards to self,

PCE in and of itself does not lead to abandonment of view. Lots of people have considerably short or lengthy PCEs in their life, and their views and position about self remain unchanged, their lives go on untransformed. No investigation, no insight, no transformation.

When you want to cut ignorance, you go for its roots, not cut off its leaves and branches. In this analogy, sense of self/Self is its manifest form (leaves and branches), while the latent view is its roots.

Any variance, any 'less clear moments' is a sign that the sense of self/Self has creeped in, and as Richard always say, it is simply this sense of 'being' that stands in the way of the full brilliance of pce/sensate world.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity.(...)

The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.(...)

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

Without agreeing or disagreeing...how do you see yourself as qualified to make statements about the attention wave and what would persist in its absence, when you have stated that you don't discern it clearly?

Anyway, I should also point out that the attention wave is not usually subdued in an all-or-nothing fashion. The key thing for me is this: it is fueled by tension (craving), one can discern that tension, one can release that tension, and doing this over and over leads to the subduing of the attention wave as a whole. (You keep throwing the PCE into this, but you did not confirm whether that's what I had in mind.)

If you think there is such a thing as a view that is unmanifest and not present in experience in any way, I really don't know what to tell you.

If you think that it is manifest in some way, then what is the basis for your disagreement with my claim that it manifests in the attention wave?

Out of curiosity, how do you know that your maximal experience of clarity is maximal with respect to what's possible?

For me, the answer is easy: if there is an attention wave manifesting in any way whatsoever, clarity is not maximal.

The way you talk about insight, and the forms of it you talk about, are things that I cannot locate in the Pali suttas without imposing an interpretation on them that appears to be highly influenced by Mahayana traditions. The Pali suttas are very clear about how things like ignorance is defined, what the causes for views are, etc., but you do not seem to be interested in those clear explanations, favoring some other explanation that would appear to be more at-home in a Mahayana tradition.

In any case, whatever my reasons for thinking this are, it is my perspective on what is going on here, correct or incorrect, and stating it may help to clarify things for anyone reading this (or not).

"But, lady, how does self-identity not come about?"

"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

"Now, a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self ... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He discerns, as it actually is, inconstant form as 'inconstant form' ... inconstant feeling as 'inconstant feeling' ... inconstant perception as 'inconstant perception' ... inconstant fabrications as 'inconstant fabrications' ... inconstant consciousness as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, stressful form as 'stressful form' ... stressful feeling as 'stressful feeling' ... stressful perception as 'stressful perception' ... stressful fabrications as 'stressful fabrications' ... stressful consciousness as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He discerns, as it actually is, not-self form as 'not-self form' ... not-self feeling as 'not-self feeling' ... not-self perception as 'not-self perception' ... not-self fabrications as 'not-self fabrications' ... not-self consciousness as 'not-self consciousness.'

Or like Bahiya Sutta said,

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Thank you for your summary statement. I believe that any interested viewer who reads through our discussion will be able to understand what each of our positions are.

I like waffles.

I'm not even sure what you two are debating anymore. Maybe I just can't hold each of your positions in my head at once. It sounds like you are saying pretty similar things. Could you write a summary paragraph detailing your take on this, and exactly why you think AEN's take is different? Be extremely explicit, yet be as concise as possible as well.

I would ask the same from AEN - what is your take, and how exactly do you think it differs from EIS's take?

I think it would be most clear if the second person to reply does not address the first person's reply - that these are independent concluding posts. And it would also be clearer if there aren't large quotes in the middle of them. If you need to introduce a quote then do it with a footnote[1]. Hopefully will clear things up. If you don't want to continue the debate, then don't, but I'm just not sure what it's about really.

[1] Like this:

Could you write a summary paragraph detailing your take on this, and exactly why you think AEN's take is different? Be extremely explicit, yet be as concise as possible as well.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Sakyans at Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Park. Then Mahanama the Sakyan went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "For a long time now, lord, I have understood the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One thus: 'Greed is a defilement of the mind; aversion is a defilement of the mind; delusion is a defilement of the mind.' Yet even though I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One that greed is a defilement of the mind, aversion is a defilement of the mind, delusion is a defilement of the mind, there are still times when the mental quality of greed invades my mind and remains, when the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades my mind and remains. The thought occurs to me: What mental quality is unabandoned within me so that there are times when the mental quality of greed invades my mind and remains, when the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades my mind and remains?"

"Mahanama, that very mental quality is what is unabandoned within you so that there are times when the mental quality of greed... the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades your mind and remains.(...)

"Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.

I would rather not continue this.

Up to you if you want to make one final post or not.

...
In other words, you may be affectless as a result of sustaining a particular state, but that doesn't mean the view is clear.

It seems to me that EIS takes the path of eliminating sense of self/Self (which he calls attention wave) as being the cure for afflictions. This to me, is focusing on the experience, sustaining the experience (through letting go of the manifested sense of self, while not addressing the view of self which sustains the sense of self). This also explains why EIS says AF path simply focus on PCEs without any need of a particular insight at all.

Imagine a holder of Self-view, trying to eliminate craving. What will he do? Surely, he will dissociate himself from the craving, but by doing so simply strengthens his hold onto 'self'. Without insight that his view is false, no matter how he tries to let go, he is in fact increasing his holding in disguise.

(...)you cannot 'smash the defilements' if ignorance, view of self, sense of self are still functioning. Sorry had to mention this because I sometimes see people thinking that they should attack 'feelings' head-on, 'suffering is bad, feeling is bad, so I need to get rid of it', but saying all that is not going to make a difference, or trying to suppress that isn't going to work as well. Also, if one holds tightly to a view of self, then the practice becomes a form of dissociation ('I' dissociates from 'feelings'), which is not the path to liberation/end of defilements.

A lot of people think contemplating not-self means dissociation(...)
...
Many people practice vipassana as a kind of dissociation, not understanding that anatta-contemplation as Buddha intended it actually leads to insight-discernment of anatta, not-self, which is not a form of dissociation or merely a rejection of 'form = self' but a rejection of the view of self pertaining to forms, feelings .... consciousness in all manners (including as happening to self, in self, or self in it, etc), including any self of a permanent, independent, separate nature, or of agency (perceiver, controller), such that there is "In reference to the seen, only the seen, no you in terms of that". It furthermore ends with, "this, just this, is the end of stress."

Thusness: "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise.Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature.... "

All identifications are caused by ignorance, ignorance is supported by taints, and taints supported by ignorance.

However, you cannot remove taints without removing ignorance via "knowledge and vision of things as they are" in other words, insights, realization. It cannot be removed by sheer suppression, by sheer will, etc.

As I said whatever works, but it has to lead to the realization which results in the permanent abandonment of self-view (in the same way that realizing the apparent snake to be rope leads to a permanent abandonment of a false view with regards to the rope which causes suffering and afflictions). Meaning that investigation into the nature of phenomenon has to occur in order for realization to take place, otherwise whatever experiences we have are just experiences.

PCE in and of itself does not lead to abandonment of view. Lots of people have considerably short or lengthy PCEs in their life, and their views and position about self remain unchanged, their lives go on untransformed. No investigation, no insight, no transformation.

End in Sight:
Not just suffering, but also the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering, which includes right view .... right mindfulness. If one were to hold on to the view of self (wrong view), one cannot be said to see the end, nor way to end suffering.

Such positions with regards to self does not get done away with merely by the temporary abeyance of self, or even if PCE somehow became perpetual. This position, ignorance, can only be done away with by the clear realization and right view of anatta, which is the negation and overcoming of all the 62 views altogether in a single instant when it is clearly seen that there is "in seeing just the seen, no you in terms of that", no self in reference to that in any ways. This is a permanent realization of the way things are and not just an experience. This is what is meant by clear discernment.

PCE in and of itself does not lead to abandonment of view. Lots of people have considerably short or lengthy PCEs in their life, and their views and position about self remain unchanged, their lives go on untransformed. No investigation, no insight, no transformation.

End in Sight:

Any variance, any 'less clear moments' is a sign that the sense of self/Self has creeped in(...)

How to liberate?

To discern phenomena as it is.

Without which: you will be under the illusion that you need to 'get rid of santa claus' or 'get rid of self'. Notice that Buddha never taught you to 'get rid of self' as if it were a real thing.

Even if you 'get rid of sense of self', it is by no means an indication that you have arisen discernment, or overcome false views.

He only taught you to discern phenomena as it is, which as a result of this penetrating wisdom into things as they are will naturally lead to dispassion, abandonment of clinging - to views, to craving, to any fetters and afflictions and suffering.

When the Buddha taught four noble truths, it was immediately followed by the sutta on anattalakkhana (on not-self), showcasing the importance of contemplating anatta (along with anicca and dukkha) for liberation. Without discerning phenomena as it is, no matter how many glimpses or how stable our PCE is, it is not really liberation as the Buddha taught. Without discernment of phenomena as they are, four noble truths cannot be realized.

The Buddhist path is not just about cultivating a particular state of experience (e.g. PCE, or jhanas, etc), it is about arising insight and tranquility which in tandem leads to liberation. Of course he doesn't separate jhana from insight in a way some teachers would today, but my point is, to purely cultivate states is not the point - discernment of phenomena (in terms of three characteristics) is ultimately what leads to liberation.

Thusness:

Division of subject and object is merely an assumption.
Thus someone giving up and something to be given up is an illusion.
When self becomes more and more transparent,
Likewise phenomena become more and more luminous.
In thorough transparency all happening are pristinely and vividly clear.
Obviousness throughout, aliveness everywhere!