For the past months, I haven't been very active on the DhO. There wasn't anything I felt confident to say, and I didn't want to participate in practice discussions for the same reason. Integrating the perceptual reconfiguration of last summer into my interaction with family, friends, co-workers, and online acquaintances took up almost all of my free time, and it's an ongoing thing.

Still, a few things have become more evident over time, which I'll share here, feedback welcome! Keep in mind that these are my opinions regarding what is really going on, and not the real on-going thing.

Mental tape-loops and Emotions.

Certain situations will trigger certain mental tape-loops - those rambling, persistent trains of thought, complete with imaginary discussions where I mentally act out or simulate both sides. The imagined opponent may have a counterpart in reality. While these tape-loops are clearly perceived to be completely empty - the arguments of the imagined opponent are not the corresponding real person's argument, and my side is not owned or invested in by myself - they commonly lead to almost physical reactions, emotions, moods and so on.

Previously, I'd enter, to some degree, into these imaginary events, participate and take positions and so on. This happens rarely any more, and when it does, it's not sustainable, that is, sustaining the illusion of participants in an imaginary argument quickly becomes overwhelmingly pointless. What was surprising initially was that even without identification kicking in, these tape-loops are annoying. It's a bit like having next-door neighbors who loudly argue all the time. This secondary annoyance seems to be what gives rise to more fully-fledged emotions and mood-swings. This feed-back loop from seconday discomfort to primary emotions is currently my main interest. It is something that's puzzling to me, for all that it's clearly seen.

Memory and Conceptializing Experience

That first moment months ago, of the on-going recognition of how experience isn't owned or suitable for identification or for safe-keeping of identity, is preserved in my memory. What I've noticed is a tendency to revisit that memory as if it was something other than a memory. You see, all evidence for the perceptual reconfiguration is present in perception, always available - but that memory has at various times become almost something of a badge of achievement or a trophy, which is strange, since the moment is gone forever, and the memory is not the moment, and the ongoing experience validates it whenever I care to look.

Another aspect of this revisiting tendency is conceptualization of experience, which always builds on memories and can never occur real-time. Thus, expressing truth (for lack of a better word) is close to impossible, and re-telling memories instead is second-rate to the extent of not being the truth at all. I've joked to some friends that there seems to be something built into reality which instantly renders any conceptualization of truth as gibberish (suspecting that I've picked up this particular joke somewhere - but I can't seem to find the source).

Not-Self, Purpose, Roles, and Functions

The sense of playing a role, of role-playing, is all-pervasive. I get my cues, I respond accordingly. If I don't follow the script, people get upset, annoyed, or offended, implying that to them the roles have some fundamental aspect, or purpose, rather than being the conventions around the functions being fulfilled. Written down this way, it reads like a very robotic mode of operation instead of the living, breathing, perceiving experience it is to me. On the contrary: holding the pale conceptual flicker of purpose to be as bright as or even eclipsing the very processes and functions constantly playing out to the fullest, seems like a very upside-down way of living.

Traditions, and Teaching, and Deciding What's Best for People

This was the biggest surprise of them all! Basically it's no longer fun to ignore the huge, gaping, abyssal ... disconnect between what the traditions teach, and what I've found to be the case. And this goes on at every level of every tradition I've looked at, ancient and modern. I'm not saying the traditions are wrong or corrupt or anything. They just don't seem to be about what I experience, or rather, not about my experience to a larger degree than, for example, eating cake and drinking coffee. Those traditions that teach methods - such as Theravada - are full of poetic or even mythical allusions when it comes to the results. Daniel has at it in MCTB Models of the Stages of Enlightenment, and he's right, but I can honestly say that I didn't understand what he was saying, that looking back there was the same utter disconnect when I used to read it.

In a way, I can sympathise with the crowd who claim that there's nothing to gain that wasn't there all along - but that's not only useless as a method, it also displays the same complete disconnect, so that's really qualifying the "sympathize" bit.

The thing is, by teaching methods or other ways to get it done, the one doing the teaching is not acting in the interest of the one being taught (always assuming the one taught will buckle down and actually apply the technique or whatever it is). They're not acting against them either, it's just that there is this huge disconnect between what the student thinks they're in for and what they're actually in for.

The situation is not unlike where the student really wants something other than the teacher can give them, but the teacher decides to give it to them anyway, since they asked. It is deeply weird, and while I'm grateful to each and every person who helped me along and taught me, and I'm also giving out advice here and there when asked in private at the moment, it is also the case that there is something subversive to it. The traditions all seem to address it from an ethical angle ("it's okay to subvert the student, because the teacher acts from an ethically superior position"), but that's simply warped, and in addition it creates all kinds of expectations that will not be fulfilled.

*

All of the above I'm currently trying to meet with all the sincerity and honesty I'm able to muster. It is very, very enticing to scurry away into some transcendent perspective where these are just seen as parts of the whole. I can't begin to express how off the mark that turns out to be each and every time I do it, and how thoroughly unappealing it is to watch in other people, as well.

Finally, while what I wrote above will look to be critical of the DhO and similar endeavours, I'll again say that this is a bunch of opinions I'm holding at this time, regarding what I've been experiencing for the past six months, which I could not have been making but for DhO and similar resources.

Cheers,
Florian

Hey Florian,

What do you make of the report of the on-going experience of some participants, who say that they only experience utter peace 24/7 (no mental defilements exist anymore, so nothing to defile the mind) ?

It seems that they say your current experience is one which they have had before reaching the next step.

Basically I'm asking - if you see the whole mental loop of suffering as useless, why not see through it completely and do away with it as it seems useless?

Hi Yadid

I find it difficult to answer your questions without knowing more about why you are asking. But I'll try:

If you mean to ask whether I consider myself "done", then the answer is that there is always something to do, such as being completely honest about my experience, playing the roles I play, and so on. The seeking is gone, though. That which was seeking is gone.

If you mean to ask whether I'll seek to attain the utter peace 24/7 you mention, then the answer is that the seeking is gone, the seeker is gone. But it may happen nevertheless, if that's where this is going.

The mental loops are interesting because of their close ties to emotions and mood swings. As to seeing through them completely: they are quite transparent as they are. Doing away with them: it's not evident how that would be achieved. I'm currently of the opinion that it's more a question of the pre-conditions, as they seem to be quite autonomous and causal, and not fuelled by identification (hence the "noisy neighbors" comparison).

I hope I got the drift of your questions right.

Cheers,
Florian

My question is (not sure if this is what Yadid was getting at) - why do you find Daniel's commentary on the "Models of the Stages of Enlightenment" accurate[1] when there is evidence to the contrary[2]? What makes you think that you have 'achieved' (or whatever) what traditions are pointing to and there is a disconnect between what they point to and what actually happens, vs. that you haven't 'achieved' what traditions are pointing to and thus there's just more for you to do[3]?

[1] e.g. the "Limited Emotional Range" model
[2] e.g. people claiming Actual Freedom, i.e. utter 24/7 peace with no possibility for emotions ('good' or 'bad') to arise
[3] c.f. Nick + End in Sight's changing views on what a fetter-path is


I'm curious what your take on Actualism and Actual Freedom is, in light of your new developments.

Would you practice in a certain way if it was possible to do quickly rather than let it happen or not happen at some (possibly never) future time?



How about uprooting the cause for their 'transparent' arising? Are you interested in doing something about that? Does their 'transparent' arising have any experience of 'me-ness'/presence/self/location (in the world)/being to them? Would you consider it a possible option to uproot the cause of 'me-ness' as well?

In my own experience of 'seeing through them', it went only so far. Such phenomena just became a little 'sticky-free'. Some people can live with that. I couldn't. I think the 'intention' to do something about their 'permanent' cessation is key. If it isn't there as an 'intention' and one is 'ok' with things 'seen through' only, you wont be lonely as that seems to be the option for many. But if curious as to what more one can do, there are things one can do.



Do you wish to know how to do that?

Perhaps they are fueled by clearly not seeing or not wanting to see how to cease their causes for compounding? Perhaps one has developed a relationship of 'ok-ness' with such compounding, a sort of equanimous relationship, so that their (possible) inherent unsatisfactoriness gets covered over and not considered as a cause to do something about their complete cesstion? I personally found such phenomena, even 'sticky-free and transparent', to be extremely unsatisfactory thus I did/do something about it. I ultimately did not develop a relationship of 'ok-ness' with such phenomena.

I let this sutta talking of the two types of bhikkhus and equanimity inform my intent and practice. I do not know if it could be relevant for others, but it certainly was for me when thinking of what more I could do post MCTB 4th and what potential obstacles there might be.

What if upon further probing one saw a thin veil of 'belief' (locked in thought loop conditioning practice; what one does and doesn't do) that such mentioned phenomena were 'autonomous' thus conditioning their appearance of being quite 'autonomous', would you do something about it then? This was my own experience. Not sure if it is shared.

Nick

*Since edited 2 x times for extra info

Hi Florian,

What helped me once I was aware that certain situations will trigger mental tape-loops was to be attentive to the root of these triggers (getting to the root is the key).

certain situations caused a passional stirring (instinctive response)
fueling feeling feed thoughts rose, the body physically reacted to these new thoughts which then conditioned more thoughts and the imagined reality of the mental loop played out

cheers
Jeff

What I find accurate in Daniel's exposition, and what I completely missed every time I read it before, is that all these models are basically about what the seeker is trying to get. The total disconnect is that the seeker never gets it. So someone who has the seeking going will naturally assume that there is an ordering in these models according to some notion of accuracy regarding what they'll end up with, when what happens is that the entire seeking/seeker/sought-for flapdoodle resolves, taking the "this is what I'll get" notion regarding the models with it.

So the chapter debunking all the models (in a nice way, and with lots of qualifications regarding the bits that are, in a sense that I completely missed earlier, accurate) is right in debunking them all. The seeking/er/ought nonsense doesn't resolve as a result of emotional limitation, or in emotional limitation, or anything like that. There is a total disconnect between personal notions of emotional mood and what the result of insight practice or any kind of honestly and persistently examining one's situation is.

Evidence to the contrary: again, there is a total disconnect between the seek* thingy incorporating the evidence for its own purposes, and what the AF people are actually saying. When Tarin said he went into oblivion, because oblivion was all he ever was anyway, I understand him to be quite literal in his choice of words. He never got what he wanted. I never got what I sought, for that matter, and I can see what the AF people are saying, and I assure you, from where I am it's not a matter of seeking or wanting something, but a matter of distaste for the by-products of defending an undefensible position. Emotions may disappear as a result, as they claim - but that is not the prize to go for, as that would be pointless.



I didn't follow their discussion. Can you point me to a thread?



See my answer above.

Cheers,
Florian

Quite possibly. Please not that I would also eat chocolate or kiss another woman, conceivably. Or stab someone, or wash my car. Strongly depends on the situation. Hypothetical speculation lost all appeal to me.



It's not really a matter of ok-ness or dissatisfaction, is it? It's something else, more like giving a good performance, or cleaning up where there's a mess, or doing something about the rusty nail sticking out of the handrail, since I'm here already.

(edited to add) Is the root cause to be found in the preconditions?



It's shared. That's what I was trying to express in my original post, when I was going on about being honest and sincere about my experience.

About the Sutta you linked: I'm happy to remember that Ven Ananda was delighted at that moment all those millennia ago in the town of Kammasadhamma. However, he's long dead and can't participate in this discussion any more.

Cheers,
Florian

Nikolai also mentioned the root.

Is this something other than the preconditions?

Cheers,
Florian

I see. I ask as I have had 2 significant shifts since MCTB 4th path (the centrepoint dropping shift) which have dealt with a lot of the unsatisfactoriness I experienced even with the feeling of seeking gone (being off the ride) and things being sticky-free. It has not been hypothetical for me.



It was for me (dissatisfaction). And it was like cleaning up where there was a perceived mess (dissatisfaction). I practiced mainly this, to experience further permanent shifts post MCTB 4th.



Ok.




Ok. To add more detail to my point, I spent about 8 months at the no seeker stage (MCTB 4th) and thought that that was it. There was no urge to do anything but watch stuff arise and pass. Occasionally there would be suffering in the form of shitty vibes and sadness or anger, a sticky-free depression which wouldn't last long. I developed an equanimity toward such things, based off of the sticky-free-ness. Eventually, I got into the AF stuff, investigated the mentally felt sense of 'being'/existing and and had full blown PCEs, the sense of 'being' in any manifestation began to be perceived as unsatisfactory compared to its absence (PCE). I also saw that even when equanimous, there was a sense of 'being', just manifesting as an affective equanimity. I read that sutta and it struck a cord. I guess it is just for me then that it rings a bell. No probs.

Nick

Hi.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'pre-conditions'?

Nick

Interesting. As I said, I haven't followed posts here and elsewhere closely. In case you've already written something about those, I'd be grateful for links.

Thanks for dropping out of Socratic Dialogue, btw.



Yeah, I've been playing around with open-eyed jhana, using a meditation word. It's one of the possible ways to go, at the moment - but no clear indication regarding this or any other direction is evident at the moment. I'm guessing this is a feature of the integration I'm describing here.



Frankly, when you're writing from your own experience it rings a lot more bells in my ears than any old text ever has. This from someone who has read all the Pali Suttas (not an exaggeration), all of the Bible, and various other volumes of scripture from several traditions. Thanks for speaking with your own voice, even if I was being a bit forceful in my reply.

Cheers,
Florian

Whatever it is (places, smells, conversation topics...) that triggers memories which evolve into mental tape-loops etc; and the memories themselves as they are kept around, that tension holding them together, that low-level grudge or sense of an account unsettled.

Cheers,
Florian

I'd prefer to talk about details of my own experience only if people are interested. Just checking. I have written a lot and there is no one thread or post that sums it all up. I started a blog as soon as I started getting interested in AF here in April last year until novemberish. Towards the end of the blog I talk of putting into action the actualising jhana approach. Within a month of starting it, with a firm base of actualist type practice (Felicity, HAIETMOBA, social identity dismantling, questioning beliefs), I had the first permanent shift. The sense of 'being' dropped away leaving a residual 'shadow' like experience of it. I explain the ongoing journey from July last year (and a subsequent second shift reducing the 'shadow' being experience considerably over a month ago) here in the practice journal section under my own name.

Nick

As far as I see it these days in my own experience:

Object hits sense door (places, smells, conversation topics), the mind will evaluate the sense impression as good, bad, meh! which leads to triggering vedana (sensations with specific feeling tone) in a specific part of the body (maybe one point in the chakra trail), which will be evaluated and a mental reaction will result of wanting the repeat occurences of vedana (if the sense impression was perceived as pleasant), turning away from vedana (if the sense impression was perceived as unpleasant, or a desire to rest in a floaty cloudy dullness (if the sense impression was perceived as neutral).

Each of these possible reactions will be experiecned as a mental tension overlaying the mentioned vedana. It might even seem like the vedana in question is manifesting as tension. I perceive the tension as the tendency to crave. The craving link in Dependent Origination. The fact that attention keeps getting pulled again and again to the vedana is the clinging part, in my experience. No matter what sense door is operating in the moment, there will be an attention bounce back to the vedana in question. This will result in the arising of a mentally felt sense of 'me-ness' (these days it is just a sublte tension and not very obvious as it once was), of which i consider the becoming part of the sequence of DO. I believe any affective feeling that aries arises only because of this sequence. I also adhere to the notion that 'I' am my (affective) feelings and my (affective) feelings are 'me' (becoming)

Any experience of 'thought loops' will have this 'me-ness' manifesting with them. If I practice the actualizing jhanas for example, this sequence is cut at vedana where the mental overlay that leaps off of vedana to create a tension and 'me-ness' and consequent mental proliferation is interfered with and neutralised, and the vedana ceases being a support for the mental overlay mentioned. The mental overlay of 'being'/'me-ness/existing/location/self will drop away leaving the literal experience of 'seeing in the seen' etc. Two path-like moments occured doing the mentioned actualsing practice. This is where some of us have speculated at fetters being cut. I do not experiecne these 'thought loops' that were quite unsatisfactory anymore since the last shift over a month ago (they were reduced to a shadowy version post July shift). There is a significant lack of 'push and pull' these days.

Nick

Edited 3 x times for extra info and clarity.

Edit: Is anyone else experiencing this thread with posts out of wack?

Before this thread turns into a "to be or not to be" crusade I just wanted to emphasize this quote. I have a few questions: Do you think that this disconnect is unavoidable to a certain degree? How much can someone actually know beforehand, when that knowing is not from ones own direct experience? And how much of direct experience is resold versus estimations?

Also I don't know why you accredit this disconnect to 'the AF people' as I find them to be unusually honest. In fact I think it's this honesty that's causing a great deal of aversion towards it, when paradoxically the same issues are apparent in what's considered 'buddhist-approved' paths and insights, as you noticed yourself.

A crusade? I swear, somewhere there must be a forum where it's possible to discuss this stuff without resorting to the addictive crutches of religious/spiritual/woowoo language. If only I could find it, everything would be well

Joking aside - do I think the disconnect is unavoidable to a certain degree? Well yes, but I don't see the traditions and other modes of reflexive worship so much as even attempt to consider thinking about discussing the possibility of slightly narrowing the gap up to that unavoidable degree of disconnect. They are doing quite well out of the current arrangement.

It's not about knowing beforehand - of course a teacher knows more than a student beforehand.

Remember the Jesus quote about asking and receiving, and a father not handing his child a rock when they ask for food? He lied, or got misrepresented, because you won't even get a rock out of it. You are probably familiar with the old schtick that awakening is like finally getting a huge joke? That's not a joke. That's the literal truth, but it's treated like a joke because it can't be true, right? It's just a way to eff the ineffable? Well, no. And the joke's on you. And that's the literal truth, too. So if you are into anything at all associated with enlightenment - any one of the goodies - just write off enlightenment, and go for the goodie instead. But very few people are saying that, and those that are, such as Daniel in that chapter I mentioned, or AF people's accounts, can be comfortably misunderstood to be saying something completely in-line with the common fantasies about enlightenment or AF or whatever looks desirable being something that can be incorporated with what you already have going.

How much is resold? If I understand your question correctly, everything. Direct experience can't be transferred. On the other hand it can't be taken away either, it's always in your face, you don't need to buy anything, and anyone trying to sell it to you is selling something they don't have.

I'm resorting to this mode of writing to make my response clear, not to lament my situation.



I don't blame the AF people. I was answering Beoman, who was specifically confronting me with evidence to the contrary in the form of the AF crowd. I was pointing out that their reports, too, get garbled in the seeker/seeking/sought tornado's tendency to keep itself spinning. Even with their unusually honest speech, they get thoroughly misunderstood.

Like I said, this was the biggest surprise of them all.

Cheers,
Florian

I think I see what you mean. So, even with AF, it's not that "I stop experiencing emotions," but rather, "this 'I' that was 'emotions' vanished entirely cause it was never there"? Not something that 'I' get, but an event that happens that kind of makes the whole point moot?



Why do you think that all of those models are about resolving the seek* thingy? It seems to me that resolving the seeker as you have (and as Daniel did, and as Nick did), is a step in the right direction, but not the end - that you can go further in terms of reducing suffering, in an intended/focused way (and not by sitting around and seeing what happens as a result of natural momentum). Thus, when Daniel says it is impossible to limit one's emotional range, or to totally eliminate greed, hatred, and conceit (in the 4-path critique), I'm not even addressing the inaccuracy that the models can be interpreted as 'you' gaining something (gaining the broken fetter of ill-will or what-not), but rather - what makes one think that one has attained what that map states and that the map is wrong (I am an Arahat, yet I and Arahats around me still experience greed and ill will to some form - this model is bunk and unrealistic) vs. that one simply hasn't attained what the map stated (I think I am an Arahat, yet I still experience ill will in some form - perhaps this is not Arahatship yet; this dude claims Arahatship yet he is acting what seems to be out of emotions - perhaps he is not an Arahat)?



Actualism is pretty clear in its descriptions - emotions vanish absolutely entirely. Or more accurately, the 'I' that was emotions vanishes entirely, thus no material to form emotions out of. Still experience emotions? Not AF yet.

Theravadan Buddhism seems pretty clear too - there will be absolutely no greed or ill-will remaining upon being an Anagami. Is there greed or ill-will in your experience in however subtle a form? Not an Anagami yet. This last paragraph was entirely speculation as I'm not too well acquainted with classical or contemporary Theravadan Buddhism, but this seems a potentially straightforward definition.

Now, do they tell you you will have no greed or ill-will remaining, but teach you a practice that leads to something else ('seeker' gone, still greed + ill-will in a subtle/non-sticky form)? That is certainly dishonest, and it is good to make it clear what a practice leads to and what it doesn't. But that doesn't mean there isn't a practice that leads to what that map describes in a more literal fashion.

(EDIT: ) I guess my point is that I don't think the seek* thingy is the problem. I think the problem is deeper. Perhaps these other models address a different issue than this seek* thingy, and that is why when the seek* thingy vanishes it doesn't necessarily line up with the models. But if someone tells you this will resolve the things the models do, but it only resolves the seek* thingy instead, that is dishonest/a disconnect, yes.


I don't think I follow.


I guess the prize would be happiness/lack of suffering/utter peace.


It's more just posts here + there. Perhaps Nick can clarify. But what they seem to have done is floated the idea that what they attained was Anagami (no greed or ill-will), then realized they still experience greed/ill-will to a subtle degree, then retracted the idea that that attainment was Anagami. Contrast with continuing to claim Anagami is what they got and that this subtle greed/ill-will wasn't greed/ill-will but something else, or that it was but the model was unrealistic.

Kind of, yes - except I think I put more emphasis on all the "I"s that are emotions who think they will be getting a bit of plastic surgery by going for - whatever.

Someone just now kindly explained to me that it's likely my dedication to explaining and describing this stuff which is bugged by this disconnect I described in the original post.



I don't think they are, which is why it's so hard to get to people past their seek* thingy in order to clearly present this point.



I don't care about the maps nearly as much as I care about the people running off with them, trying to dig up the pot of gold from the roots of the rainbow.

Look, my original post was about my opinions regarding certain features of the experience I find myself having now, six months after the center dropped out of the scheme of things. I wasn't really doing eschatology.

But thanks for bearing with me and for the comments. Even if I don't feel like discussing, at the moment, every point you and everybody else was making, I appreciate you all taking the time to consider my report and offer their views.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian,

Here is something I noticed when dealing with hearing voices. Sometimes I hear my thoughts out loud as auditory phenomena. In severe cases sometimes it manifests as loud as a person's voice, but it is usually quieter than this.

I have learned that sustaining this will generally lead to great suffering.

When driving down the road it was noticed there is always the possibility to turn the wheel and drive into oncoming traffic. Though, for some reason, it was noticed this is never done. When inclining this direction further the arms lock up and it becomes impossible to even try if I wanted to (as the suffering induced by this simple action would be too great). Noticing this fact, I then applied it to the mind and the voices. There is a memory of the voices and this leads to hearing them out loud. Just typing this post activated the "voices" memory and there can be intentions to hear them out loud, and then I begin to hear thoughts out loud again. I just re-read the last sentence of my post and heard all the words out loud. However, there is awareness that if this is continued it will be equivalent to the suffering induced by moving the arms while driving and going into on-coming traffic......and then the mind will "lock" up just as the body locks up while driving and will refuse to go in that direction. Training in this way has led to a vast reduction in hearing thoughts out loud. Though I still hear some thoughts out loud, it is usually in the circumstances that don't cause any suffering.

I understand that there is a want to understand the "feedback" loops between emotions, moods, and the thoughts and all that, but sometimes it's just better not to have this stuff start at all.

I think I see what you're getting at. One might think they will become emotionally perfect - like AF is some kind of bulletproof vest they put around themselves so that they are just a more awesome 'being'. Whereas it's actually more like stripping everything away, the parts 'you' like and the parts 'you' dislike.


It's kind of a tough issue to resolve. You can't imagine non-existence or MCTB-paths or fruitions... the best you can probably say is "it's complicated but it was worth it in the end."



Which point? Sorry, not trying to be daft, but I think I got a bit confused with this conversation. Let me try to clarify...



There might be 2 different things being talked about, and we might be talking about not the same one...

#1) I thought, initially, that you reached a certain point in your practice which seems satisfactory/nothing left to do, and that this didn't line up with certain models (like the Theravadan 4-path one), and you were agreeing with Daniel that those models are incorrect (cause your experience doesn't line up with them). I thought the disconnect was between something being promised (e.g. end of all negative emotions) being different from what is experienced (e.g. huge reduction in stickiness but negative emotions still arise).

In that case, I'm asking you to hold off judgement on other models and to perhaps pursue Actualism, as that practice seems to resolve a lot of the issues you mentioned specifically (mental tape-loops and emotions), and (was implicitly, now explicitly asking you) to revisit those models after further practice as re-evaluation might be necessary. (EDIT after re-reading the critique on theravada: Not to say anything about whether the monks are using those models correctly.)

#2) Are you making a different point entirely? Focusing on a commonly-known model, say Teacher A is encouraging Yogi B to start practicing (pre-A&P) with the goal of MCTB 4th Path. You're saying that whatever Teacher A says will be dishonest in some way, because Yogi B can't actually know what's going to happen to him until it does? Thus the disconnect is that whatever Teacher A says (e.g. you will suffer less; unpleasant things will not bother you in the same way; some fundamental tension will disappear) will be misinterpreted by the student (e.g. sweet! I am going to not suffer at all, be a super-'being' impervious to unpleasantness) cause he can't know what will actually happen (e.g. gradually dropping off large amounts of attachment until there's nuch left, specially parts dear to 'me' and parts of 'me' 'I' hate).

In that case, I agree with that sentiment and offer no immediate solution...

Were you indeed talking about #2 while I was talking about #1? (EDIT: Or maybe we're just in such different states of mind at the moment that it's a #3? Could you clarify what you meant taking into account what I said?)



Thanks for sharing, and bearing with me as well. Sometimes getting one's point across can be more difficult than one would think, heh...

I have a question: did you experience a sense of seeking before the seeker disappeared? Do you think it was important to find a seeker first before you could stop the seeking?

I ask because I very rarely experience a sense of seeking. I often experience craving, but seeking seems like a very specific offshoot of craving. The idea of no longer seeking anything seems to me to be totally not attractive at all, as I already don't feel like I'm seeking anything. However, maybe it's one of those things that you don't notice until it's gone, kinda like a weight lifting off the shoulders, and maybe I won't know that I was seeking until it stops?

Any comments you might have about this would be interesting to read.

Ho Beoman,

yes, I was talking about the fact that the models are not about resolving the seeker/seeking/sought and identification with it. Yet, that is what happens - the seeker never gets what they set out to get, if they set out in pursuit of one of the models. Some models hint at it, some traditions acknowledge it by keeping silent.

I never used the word "dishonest" in this discussion.

Thus, more like #2, only again with an emphasis on the unsuspecting student's total disconnect between what they think they are doing and what they are actually doing. I think there were some jokes in the first "Hurricane Ranch Dharma Discussion" about this fact.

Cheers,
Florian

I couldn't avoid doing what I was doing, I was to some extent driven. That's what I mean by "seeking".



But why are you hanging around places like the DhO?



I have no doubt that it is a highly individual matter. I'd suggest however that that which makes you ask questions like this is what I mean by the seeking/seeker/sought.

Cheers,
Florian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcNByAsJBmU&feature=player_detailpage#t=70s

Here's a tangential question: how do you know the center dropped out of the scheme of things?

(To be clear, I am not questioning your attainment; I am asking about the means by which you make such an assessment. If you are interested in answering, please be as explicit as possible.)

Whenever I check, there's no center is there. This knowledge is always accessible.

What tangent to you want to take with this?

Cheers,
Florian

1) How do you check?

2) What, concretely, is different about checking now compared to in the past? How do you know that the result is different?

To illustrate, if you ask me to guess the time without looking, my mind would generate a thought "it's probably X:YZ right now". If you asked me to guess some time later, my mind would generate a thought "it's probably A:BC right now". The details of the process are mostly inaccessible to me, but the end result is the generation of the thought that carries the guess. I know there is a difference between the first and second cases because the thoughts are different (one guesses "X:YZ" and the other guesses "A:BC").

I suspect there is a significant difference between guessing the time and assessing whether there is a center.



I'm not sure; I hoped to pursue the topic and see where it went.

Hi Florian,

You have noticed that certain situations trigger a unconscious habitual emotional reaction. This is the human condition (self) that when frustrated is ready to trample the rights and needs of others. Although initially an unconscious act the fact that you are now aware of these situations means they are becoming part of consciousness. At it source are emotional programs built up by repeated acts throughout your life. By repeated acts of attentiveness you can dismantle these emotional programs.

Why settle for just being aware that certain situations trigger mental tape loop even if they appear as being transparent.
When you notice an emotional reaction sleuth your way back to the emotional program that has been frustrated and you begin to notice the reactions, judgments, behaviors, over-identification with cultural conditioning, our deep felt loyalties and special ties that result.

cheers
Jeff

A mental gesture not unlike counting the number of arms I have. Or rather, the number of tails.



The difference lies in the abiding (so far) realization that the center isn't hidden, it's just not there.

Another way to paraphrase it is that it's a change in the configuration of perception: perception no longer arranged with reference to an implied center or perceiver. The spatial connotations of this imagery should be largely discarded, since the ability to find orientation in space is unaffected.

Someone also described it as "the mental equivalent of falling backward", but while quite recognizable, the implication of something moving against a background is misleading.

Cheers,
Florian

So not something other than the preconditions. Thanks, Jeff!

Cheers,
Florian

If you never checked (now or before), what would the difference be between now and before?

EDIT:



If you never checked, would perception have been arranged with reference to an implied center? Would that have been clear despite not checking?

Reflecting on my own experience, it seems that the act of checking is fundamental in some way to the experience of before-and-after differences.

What do you mean by "preconditions"? Earlier you said:


Jeff's advice is on how to do just that.


In my own (ongoing) experience, the mental tape loops and emotions I experience are entirely fueled by identification. Sometimes it is obvious what the identification is, sometimes not, but there is always a root cause. Ultimately it's some kind of stimulus which 'I' arrogate and react blindly to as 'me'. Certainly it depends on what happened in my life previously - trenches dug earlier in life - but this doesn't mean there isn't something 'I' think or 'I' believe or 'I' take myself to be that causes that reaction. The root cause isn't 'fundamental' or 'special' in a way that makes dealing with these forms of suffering difficult, or undesirable - it's just a matter of looking sincerely and getting it done. And 'getting it done' really amounts to wholeheartedly agreeing with 'myself' to no longer fuel these loops of suffering - to just let them fade away, as fires are wont to do when nobody re-fuels them.

The fact that they arise on-their-own might be a red herring - they do, but that doesn't mean there isn't some identification there, some part of 'you' that fuels them. Perhaps you should re-evaluate what you understand 'identification' to be - if you understand 'identification' to be a reference back to a center-point, then by definition they aren't caused by 'identification' (as there is no more center point for you), but perhaps there is another form of identification going on, one that has been overlooked since your practice has been focusing on resolving another issue or because it is more subtle/pervasive than what you have looked at already.

Note: I don't think I have eliminated the center point, so it might be best for you to take advice from those who have (and have gone on to eliminate these mental tape loops/emotions as well) like Tarin and Jeff.

EDIT: Re-reading your post I see you do have interest in this:



I would say that not only should you look at how the secondary discomfort turns into a primary emotion, but also at how the reaction to a mental tape loop causes the secondary discomfort, and also how the mental tape loops form in the first place.

I'd be dead or comatose.



It's how we notice time passing.

If my answers seem dry, it's because I understand you to be asking, "If I didn't notice things, how would I know?". If you are asking a different question, please re-phrase it.

Cheers,
Florian

Sorry to interrupt this discussion, but some questions came up while reading this.

What exactly is the difference between a "center point" and the witness (u have to concentrate on according to e.g. sri nisargadatta).
If you loose the center point will you loose the witness too?
During my meditation following sensations come up, which seem to be seen as my "self": pressure in the middle of the head, arising images of my (distorted) face, sensations/ emotions in the chest/ throat/ neck area, sometimes the feeling of looking into a mirror (sometimes plus the feeling of sitting inside a very big space).
Is this the so called center point or the witness or maybe some combination of the two?
Thanks for any suggestions!

Is that to say you check (and have checked) during every moment of conscious experience?

For what appears to be an analogous situation...I can check to see if there is a unicorn in my pockets by rummaging around in them, and if I'm really worried about this issue, I can check constantly. One day, I might be convinced (after continuing to check day after day) that there simply isn't a unicorn there. Having been convinced, I could keep checking, or not. On the other hand, I could simply not check, and simply not think about the issue, and perhaps could have done that before investing any time in neurotically checking. So, what would the difference in experience be in the case of one who checks constantly and becomes convinced there is no unicorn, vs. the case of one who never checks and never thinks about the issue? The main difference here would seem to be "the person who checks and becomes convinced differs because they have the experience of checking and they have the experience of conviction, nothing more."

Is that analogous? Am I misunderstanding you?

An ideologue does and does not know why or *, and one observing actuality by any nearest-to-actual means finds uniqueness and confirms repeatedly non-absolutes. The one considering actuality, and avoiding ideology, may also consider autonomy.

Perhaps, EiS, as long as you actually perceive a unicorn in your pockets (and this is taking a turn for Lysistrata here...), then it is good to actually consider the perception.



*"Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es."

No, I was saying that in the very moment of considering the unhistorical situation where I never thought that certain experiences were "me" or "mine" or a place to tuck away my "self", I was aware of memories that I had in reality held such a notion, and that I was not holding it now.

So, a bit tongue-in-cheek, I was saying that for these memories to be lost and the current experience to not occur ("if you never checked, now or before..."), I'd have to be dead or completely unconscious.

I.e. Fantasizing about what never happened is happening here and now.



Perception is not the act of making a little model in your mind. Instead, the unicorn, and your mind, and the little model unicorn in your mind, all together are the perception of the unicorn. Poetically, you perceive the unicorn by becoming, to an extent, the unicorn. Edit: credit for this nice way of putting it is due to Duncan Barford.

Poetically, by perceiving the absence of unicorns, you become, to an extent, the absence of unicorns.

Poetically, perceiving the absence of the center is becoming the absence of a center. You get to hear and read this in such utterances as "no self is true self" and so on.

One final note: don't buy into the word "to be". It's just an auxiliary verb, necessary to satisfy syntax. It has no deeper meaning than that of a placeholder.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Superkatze, welcome to the Dharma Overground!

The witness is when you watch yourself doing stuff. I'm not familiar with Sri Nisargadatta's teachings, but it's certainly good practice to watch yourself doing things, as often and for as long as you can.

Center: anything that seems special, such as the sense of looking out of your eyes at the world, or the place where you hear stuff, or the place where you think your thoughts: the owner of the images seen or thoughts thought or smells smelled etc. When I say "place" the word implies a spatial aspect which may or may not present strongly to you.

The witness can seem like the center, if it becomes something special, to be identified with, owned, etc.

Cheers,
Florian

I want to add a few points and questions here.

What I'm getting at is, in my experience, the disconnect is not so much intellectual or logical as it is experiential. Meaning that in order to play the game, you must also have a given amount of understanding the game; it is implied in the playing. So for me it was not so much a surprise that all the poking would unravel something, and what that was, the disconnect was revealed in what that unraveling entailed.

Just to be clear, this is not a counter-argument aimed at anything you said, but a separate point, I completely agree that 'the gap' should be as slim as possible (obviously). On slimness: There seems to be some new voices on the scene with a harsher take on things, is that a better approach?

Lastly, lets make it interesting (and hypothetical): What would you answer if a good friend asked you: "Florian, I heard you got enlightened, what is it like and should I do it?".

Are you obligated to have moments of perception involving unicorns or absence-of-unicorns (self or not-self)? Is it an inalienable feature of human perception in your opinion, or merely a feature of your own current perception?

It's a feature of the unicorns.

This has been going in circles for some posts now, so let's try a change: how do you express this stuff?

Cheers
Florian

Yes, that's well put.



I'm indifferent to the harshness, though as with any surface feature, people will identify with it.

I like the "straight talk" approach, wherever it surfaces. The DhO was built on it. A certain degree of fascination with specifics or surface features is unavoidable.



"At the moment, it's like the come-down from drinking too much alcohol, very sober and a bit disorienting and it all seems very bright and my stomach is kind of raw, and the air has that metallic tinge, and I don't feel like meeting lots of people. You should do it only if you find you can't stop yourself, and then you'll be glad you did it."

Ask me again tomorrow.

Cheers,
Florian

Didn't you say that you check and confirm that there is no center point, rather than simply (as I understand this analogy) not having a certain perception? Isn't checking some kind of perceptive activity, like: "Aha, I looked around and see there's no self here!"?



Perhaps, but I genuinely don't understand what you're saying, and am trying to gain some clarity about it.



In a way that would turn this discussion into a debate about the goal of practice, which I do not care to do.

Like I wrote: perception is not the act of creating a model in my mind. Perception of a unicorn is not the image in my mind, or some other part of my mind. It's a feature of the unicorn to be perceived as a unicorn.

This is what I refer to as a re-configuration of perception. It's no longer me making a model world in my mind where it belongs to me. Perception is not owned by me, is what I wrote (or something like that) back in last summer.

This reconfiguration is not a thing to be perceived. The lack of a center is not a thing to be perceived. When I care to check for all the old assumed hide-outs for a center, they are clearly not a center, not because the center might be even better hidden than I thought and I have to convince myself of the contrary, but because in light of the configuration of perception, there is no center.

The absence of the center is not a hole in an otherwise intact picture. There just is no room for a center. This is what I mean by absence - not as opposed to presence, in the sense that it is a property something has, but as in "there's nothing there to even attach the properties of absence or presence to". Hence my quip regarding auxiliary verbs. "It is not there" doesn't mean that it's someplace else - the "is" doesn't imply existence, it's just a placeholder to satisfy syntax.



I'm afraid my ramblings make for a poor practice object. Better to do whatever practice it is you are doing, and see for yourself. Maybe the centerlessness I'm describing just doesn't seem a big deal to you. Maybe you'll recognize the place I find myself now in hindsight, like "oh, that's what he was going on about. What a strange circuitous way to express it." Maybe I'm just fooling myself and parroting from the many books and on-line articles I've read. Come see for yourself. Gnothi seauton



The only thing to say about the goal of the practice is "What do you really want? Why are you debating it instead of doing it?"

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian,

Florian:
[indent]This reconfiguration is not a thing to be perceived. The lack of a center is not a thing to be perceived. When I care to check for all the old assumed hide-outs for a center, they are clearly not a center, not because the center might be even better hidden than I thought and I have to convince myself of the contrary, but because in light of the configuration of perception, there is no center.

The absence of the center is not a hole in an otherwise intact picture. There just is no room for a center. This is what I mean by absence - not as opposed to presence, in the sense that it is a property something has, but as in "there's nothing there to even attach the properties of absence or presence to".[/indent]

One way to consider what you're describing as centering is to consider 'taking something personally" or "making something personally". There is no longer (or there is less often) a magnetic-like pull or repulsion of an seeking entity asserting affective push-away/pull-close urges (unlike the non-affective push-away of an extreme heat, for example). There is a lot of engagement, and, by not having a affectively motivated seeking center compelling the next gratified affectation, there is an inability to objectify others (via mutable affectivities, in one minute following this belief, and in the next minute another emotive belief).

Anicca and anatta can also explain this, Knowing mutability (anicca), there is no need for the concept of anatta. Anatta, however, responds to a) the Atta historic context, and b) agency-desire to control mutability (one's own and the mutability of one's environment/community), e.g., a baby's cry cannot actually bring the breast, but a baby's cry can effect the agency that can bring the breast. In terms of b) a person can sit, for example, on the beach and see waves and think, "yes, anicca: look at those mutable waves, all is inconstant", however, this beach-sitting person is sitting and perceiving control of their sitting (perceived and actual control of gross mutability). But to get in the waves (or just to hold the breath) demands the removal of the belief in any ultimately controlled mutability. To play, the center is in the engagement, not the person, not the waves. When absence of center becomes apparent to a person, that person may be closely engaged to all they do and without affectations: the center is in mutable, fresh, unknown engaging.

This is my sense of what happens to centering. Does it relate to your configuration?

Hello -

[indent]End in Sight:
Here's a tangential question: how do you know the center dropped out of the scheme of things?

(To be clear, I am not questioning your attainment; I am asking about the means by which you make such an assessment. If you are interested in answering, please be as explicit as possible.)[/indent]

On some level, the person of their alias End in Sight seems to want to know (to have sight of) a very useful process: how to check for "the center [having] dropped out of the scheme of things": "I am asking about the means by which you [Florian] make such an assessment. If you are interested in answering, please be as explicit as possible.".

This is a request for the explicit recipe for Florian's report of absence of center.


A generic recipe follows:

First: de-centering from the affective center is done by accepting one's own willful use of the mental faculty for affective products and to see this usage and the products without denial (self-loathing):
[indent]End in Sight:"To be clear, I am not questioning your attainment..."[/indent]

[indent]- To be clear, Florian has "stuff [he] noticed and [relevant] opinions"; Florian does not mention/claim "attainment".[/indent]
[indent]- To be clear, for the person self-called End in Sight to deny that his question to Florian has any intention to deny Florian's experience is a needless pre-emptive statement, unless someone does exist who is actually stating that End in Sight's question really intends to deny Florian's experience. Either the mental faculty is being used to express willful paranoia (that someone will accuse End in Sight of questioning Florian in order to deny Florian report of experience ) or guilt (that End in Sight does pose the question in order to deny Florian's experience, but needs to remain anonymous to himself about this due to being ashamed of envy, for example). Here, that supposition that End is Sight is denying Florian's experience and/or that paranoia that someone will accuse him of the intention to deny (Florian's perception of Florian's experience), is offered by End in Sight's own mind. When pre-emptive strikes are made without any provocation, the smoking gun is in one's own cabinet (the affective workings of the mental faculty).

It is important to see one's willful mental formations and that to deny one's own mental formations is self-loathing; self-loathing occludes insight, creates an end in sight, and establishes a corresponding barrier to any ability to dissolve the affective centre which is causing the magnetically selfish pull (and the self-loathing, affective stresses, etc).[/indent]

Second, it is done by not calling one's referential thoughts "tangential". Referential is the radius existing between the circumference of willed words traveling through willful mental formations to the affective centre generating a mutable sphere intent on fixity of self, even if the circumference (narrative, vocabulary, framework, adopted ideologies) changes. Tangential is not this; tangential is a new direction, divergently erratic. Here, EiS words are clearly self-referential.

So ignorance, loathing and/or alienation of an affective center does not cause cessation of affective centering and its stresses. Knowledge, calm abiding to study in the affective formations and willingness to be responsible for one's own formations permits one's own recipe for dissolving the affectively self-centered pull.

Thus, the recipe is: toss out self-loathing (replace with gentleness and friendly study) and toss out self-alienating affects (take personal responsibility for all affective formations). Note the physical sensations that arise with the (willed) affective thoughts. After this is done, self-loathing diffuses, alienation has no meaning, and affective centering is absent.

The value of closely looking at what is willfully, mutably created in the mutable mind and what is mutable actuality is invigorating, even freeing. Certainly de-centering in the affective sense. Best wishes.

____
PS: End in Sight, introducing unicorns in the pocket for your constant checking was a wonderful image regarding centering and the sometime confusing place of affective and innate: a man checking his erection constantly, creating a fantasy of uni-corn in the pocket. This is a very useful creation you willed here: fetus males have erections in the uterus. So, being confused by one's willed versus out-of-control agency by constantly checking for the fantastical uni-corn in the trousers is apt. It asks, what are you? are you in control? Are you out of control? Where is that rigid uni-corn? Ah! Did it arrive with/out your agency? What awaits (chaos, peace, both, everything...) if I stop searching for/accusing/worrying about the rigid uni-corn (which forms without my control and about which I create fantasy)? Am I afraid of being both an agent and product of non-agency? What of just sensing your uni-corn (your uni-corn sensing your agency/your mental faculty agency sensing its phallic agency), a hand in the pocket from time to time to engage, to explore agencies?
RE:
[indent]End in Sight
For what appears to be an analogous situation...I can check to see if there is a unicorn in my pockets by rummaging around in them, and if I'm really worried about this issue, I can check constantly. One day, I might be convinced (after continuing to check day after day) that there simply isn't a unicorn there. Having been convinced, I could keep checking, or not. On the other hand, I could simply not check, and simply not think about the issue, and perhaps could have done that before investing any time in neurotically checking. So, what would the difference in experience be in the case of one who checks constantly and becomes convinced there is no unicorn, vs. the case of one who never checks and never thinks about the issue? The main difference here would seem to be "the person who checks and becomes convinced differs because they have the experience of checking and they have the experience of conviction, nothing more."
[/indent]

Or you can just consider my prior (perhaps more perceptively banal) consideration for your pocket unicorns.

Edit: spelling, punctuation, clarification

Well, he does...simply not in the OP.





I was going for something more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn

As far as psychoanalysis goes, may I suggest that the value of pursuing it is limited in cases where you are not fairly well acquainted with the mind of the person being so-analyzed?

OK.

What I'm still confused about is, what is the act of checking? What precisely are you doing in order to check? The implementation of all kinds of mental undertakings (i.e. different forms of meditation) can be explained fairly well, so I would like to know what the implementation of "checking" is.

Hello -

That you creatively insist that Florian Wep's words "about my [his] opinions regarding certain features of the experience I find myself having now, six months after the center dropped out of the scheme of things", are his claim of an "attainment" (and do consider the words he has chosen for the subject header and re-consider your insistence on "attainment" which "attainment" requires your creative ideation here to have expand in existence; Florian continues actually not to make attainment statements and notes his genuine opinions), then your sniffing at commentary on your chosen words is (at best) disingenuous.

A disingenuous attitude on your part would be useful, because it identifies your ability to locate the genuine (actual), whereas hypocrisy on your part would be sinister and render your actions not only incompetent, but hopelessly so and being re-seeded wherever you advise (and place those you advise en route to ending up with the same Lack of Sight unless you can effect an effective practice before advising again on certain points like attention, centering, anatta).

There is no clear reason for your presence in this thread, but that you want instruction for how to exit from affective centering (and cannot identify yourself in this desire, thus you estrange yourself from your own sight while managing to ask for explicit instructions) --- and this could be a very useful reason for you to be here if you would note-then-release your creative fabrication of adjudicating Florian Wep's report and begin to understand his experiences from him --- and that, being affectively centered, you cannot help but to assert (insist that everyone's attention acknowledge) your largely affective uni-corn in your pocket (and your anxious checking for it), thereby keeping your unicorn metrics of another's experience, and readers of this thread centered upon you/your pocket uni-corn.

[indent]End in Sight: This has been going in circles for some posts now,[/indent]For you, about you. There remains the ample offering of Florian's original post to be considered directly with him, however, yes, you may retreat to your swirling eddies of phallic metrics and adjudications (perhaps start a thread explaining your means and therein continue to claim people's claims and adjudicate them based on your unique pocket metrics) and permit relevant dialogue to flow on here in the DhO theme of practice and actual experience.

You may suggest (you do have a history of making claims for other people without support (i.e., your claims of Bhante V's claims) therefore another airy suggestion follows your precedents), yet know that your lengthy conceptualizations (attention bounce affectivity and elaborations thereon) and your continued retreat (such as from your confused dialogue with An Eternal Now) from the course you set in motion by your own words (i.e., that linked thread with Eternal Now where you repeatedly attempt to end the conversation when you hit your end in insight/ability to conceptualize plausibly) continues to indicate that you navigate by an affective sextant in the ocean of your ideation (which in this thread insists that another man check his pants for a unicorn because that is what you have done).

Katy, for whatever the reason, communications between us seem not to go well, so I propose we mutually agree not to discuss matters such as these. I do not see any value that has come of it so far and do not see that either of us should spend further time on these things.

As for the topics you mentioned (this current one regarding Florian, my previous discussion with AEN, my attempt to gather data for a phenomenon that Bhante V has talked about), anyone is free to take up the a discussion with me on the content of what I have written if they see some problem with it.

Florian: I would like to re-state (if it is not currently clear) that I am interested in understanding what you are describing regarding "checking", and for whatever reason, have not been understanding you so well. If you care to continue, that would be excellent; if you think (in parallel to what I've said above) that clear communication is not likely to happen for whatever reason, and so would prefer not to continue, that's fine too.

Perhaps you missed this earlier thread?

Hey, Florian, I have to say that your very first comment is, in so, so many ways, reminiscent of my own experience from several years ago. I would hug you were I within a reasonable distance of you. Since I'm not I can only say thank you for expressing these things in a new and creative manner, as every time someone does just that it becomes more clear to all human beings what this process is all about, and that we don't get what we think we're trying to find ;-)

Metta!

"These things", to be clear, are your now repeated unwillingness to take responsibility for your own words (e.g., fantastical introductions to form an adjudicatory base, unsubstantiated claims for others and sudden dismissive retreats upon your inability to explain your words), and you have noted that backing your own words is not worth your time (linked above, Bhante V thread).

For myself, it is sometimes worth my time to call the bluff on anyone's fabrications, particularly when they teach others. I would expect the same if I assert something about which I do not know experientially (book knowledge in a practice forum is, at best, a suggestion and at worst blind parroting).

There is no point in ignoring poor technique when good technique/insight is available. Even if no technique is available, then poor technique/ignorance is not excusably taught in such a vacuum. It is clear you offer useful, practical insights (in other threads) based on your own experience; I hope you are able to stand by/support your words and ideation, or excuse them, going forward. It is in such a clear self-study that Begins InSight.

Hi Beoman - yep, I saw that post from last summer, and I noted that Florian, six months later, uses a significantly different lexicon to describe his experience. I am looking forward to a dialogue about Florian's experience in this thread and have been thinking about his points before asking him more about them (although I do have a post about my experience of de-centering to see if there is any semblance). Thank you for the link and checking to see if I saw it.

If you are interested in checking my citations for Bhante V, you have the references (including the one that josh kindly provided), and you have Ctrl + F if you are disinclined to read through them.

As for AEN, I withdrew when I thought we had both made our respective points and nothing further was to be accomplished. As I will do now with respect to this conversation.

As already noted in that thread (after your statements regarding Bhante V) you may direct people into a data-swamped fact-checking of your words, ideation, and claims for other teachers --- establishing a rather lordly and assumptive new "standard" for the DhO that people should sift through data to check the claims you chose to make for others (e.g., Bhante V), and you may chose to suddenly, dismissively retreat when it becomes to challenging for you to support your own words/ideation, however, it remains that one who knows what they are saying can rather easily back it up and such a standard is often respected in the DhO.

I see you have made a personal thread today regarding concentration that considers your personal knowledge; this is useful to insight. Thank you for that and best wishes.

Best wishes to you as well.

And, please feel free to take up other (non-theoretical? (EDIT: Not sure how to characterize the relevant subset)) topics with me in the future if you have an interest in them.

Thank you. I have been re-reading your concentration thread and considering your experience [through your words] and the responses. If I have a relevant question or thought [or experience], I may offer it there.

edit: in brackets

Get a room, you two! Jeje! ;-)

Hi Florian -
My earlier words:
I watched an engagement today to check my statement here; my experience differs a bit from what I wrote after the colon:
1) when I cause an affective self-centering, then that is generally sensed as tension in the forehead (which interestingly is also what was quite noticeable to me before equanimity (during what is commonly called Dark Night)), then 2) I may make a symbolic gesture of displacing the self-center to a conceptual (fabricated) center with what I can five-sense fairly close at hand (local features, sounds, lights, etc, i.e., a less affective, perhaps more wide-angle view like Awareness, Observance results; clearly, the center is still affectively me, yet in understanding mutability (aka: anicca-anatta)), which center begins to erode through returning to actual senses, and this may help to cause (but is not required) for...3) immersion/deliquescence/no-center after which dissolving there is no center perception anywhere, rather just engaging/being engaged (a very very simple (and preferred) result marked by a lack of affective tension (which I would call a mental tension that is felt when there is affective dissatisfaction-wanting) by rendering tensions much more apparent). Apt tension can be evoked (e.g., a muscle contraction), but not affective tensions or other fixed points (i.e., time).

Edit: for clarity

Edit 2: nevermind, removed

I was going to point this out this out before but I didn't think there was still a conflict. A bit before EiS's thread about collecting data, I had posted the quote in which Bhante V mentioned that the paths were gained via NS and seeing DO on this other EiS thread. I'm guessing EiS remembered that claim but didn't remember where bhante v said it. and on the "data" thread I also posted the quote where bhante explains. anyway, felt like it was partly my fault heh

It's not a practice like noting. Like I wrote, this stuff is not practice instructions. Better to stick to whatever practice you are doing to see through the illusion of a center. If you like, you can ask yourself why you want to know what this "checking" is, and don't stop asking follow-up questions until you're done. That will be more useful than trying to see stuff through my eyes.

What I mean by checking is a re-visiting of the things I mistook for a center all these years - old habits die hard. But like I wrote in the OP, that is really unnecessary, because it'sevident from how experience is arranged.



Cheers,
Florian

Hi Chris,

good to see you pop in! And thanks for the metta.

Cheers,
Florian

Partly, yes. Control is an aspect of it, sense of agency and so on. Center as I used it in my posts in this thread refers to the sense of perceiver, the illusion that one perception can perceive another perception, as Daniel so aptly puts it.

There still is affect, like I wrote.

Cheers,
Florian

dear nick,
please see line two unicorns 4 and 1.

'She', the 'unicorn' is the unicorn's feelings and the unicorn's feelings are 'her'.

HIMUETMOBA?

How is my unicorn experiencing this moment of being alive?