I read some pf his book on romanticism and it really caught my attention how he always points out that the True Dhamma™ is NOT AT ALL about non-duality. If Thanissaro is enlightened, he must have some other kind of enlightenment than Daniel Ingram and company, then, right? I  personally really can't see how anatta does not equal advaita. 

The worst thing is that Thanissaro kinda has grounds for this view (hehehe bad word) in the suttas, at least in his translation.

please take a look at his fore word to the Water-Snake Simile sutta:

you can skip to the paragraph starting with "Two mistaken inferences..."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

and then in the sutta, there is this quote:

:

"Yes, lord."

"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,] 'my self'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

Thanissaro uses this to show how the True Dhamma™ is completely different than non-duality mysticism like tantra, sufism, chrostian esoterism etc. But a) I can't see the big diffetence between "I'm not" and "I'm everything". b) a lot of you guys seem quite eclectic and see the goal of all spiritual traditions as the same. I really want this to be true haha

And also, I heard from a guy who is a tantrika, magician, alchemist, everything and he looked at the quote and went "yeah he's got a point". And then he refused to explain what he meant because "you shouldn't build yourself constructions about a deconstruction".

I'm confused. How does Not-Self and Self=God (not) go together? I think they do but Thanissaro and the sutta he quotes seems to say the opposite. What do you think? I know you guys aren't into hermeneutics a lot but can you see any other way to interpret the sutta than the way Thanissaro does it?

If non-duality is real and the suttas speak against it, maybe they're just full of shit haha 

howdy Pal,
i subscribe to the KISS school. (Keep It Simple Stupid)  ... the stupid one being myself of course.

I like the phrase / word non-dual because it doesn't really take a stand.  it eschews the splitting of the world
along subject / object lines.  it holds to the no-self tenets but doesn't go the half step farther of saying what it is.  it is a non view View. Pfew.

when goeff takes a stand and says its wrong or not complete or misleading thats a view too or? i like the 'middle wayness' of non-dual.

if the 3Cs apply to every thing, why would "the cosmic Self" be excepted?  even if we want to believe in such a thing what would that be?  consiousness is compounded and dependent. karmic tendencies are also conditioned and dependent right?  are the part of 'the cosmic Self'.

to ask about whether geoff's enlightenment is different goes against my personal grain.  i BELIEVE that we are all playing by one set of fundamental rules irrespective of our worldling 'take' on it.

re: Pål(12/15/15 2:13 AM)

"… he [Thanissaro Bhikkhu] always points out that the True Dhamma™ is NOT AT ALL about non-duality."

What if he's saying it's at all not about non-duality, just as it's not at all about duality?

"The conceptual framework upon which … dichtomies .. are based has ceased to function for the sage [unbound, released one], even when he is alive." (Alexander Wynne's paraphrase of Sutta-Nipata, 1075-1076)

"… Thanissaro uses this to show how the True Dhamma™ is completely different than non-duality mysticism like…"
"… a) I can't see the big difference between "I'm not" and "I'm everything". b) a lot of you guys seem quite eclectic and see the goal of all spiritual traditions as the same."

Than-Geoff deals with this in detail in the section on the Perennial Philosophy, as you may recall.

"… How does Not-Self and Self=God (not) go together? I think they do but Thanissaro and the sutta he quotes seems to say the opposite…."

Understanding views, how they can be used skilfully, and when they become useless, along the way to understanding suffering and attaining release from it.

Alexander Piatagorsky (The Philosophy of Buddhist Thought, 1984)* observed that ALL the Western attempts to grasp Buddhist thought (up to 1982), going back a couple of centuries, and in all the languages, could only cope by shoe-horning it into some kind of Western conceptual framework; that is to say, completely missing the point – the radical suspension of all conceptual frameworks as essential part of the goal (as in Than-Geoff's sense of the Buddha's teaching).

Big surprise that little has changed since 1984?

*http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Buddhist%20Philosophy%20of%20Thought_Piatigorsky.pdf

I think you may be missing the point of the article.  He starts it with the first words, "This is a discourse about clinging to views (ditthi)"  With the argument that YOU SHOULD NOT CLING TO VIEWS and that right view is not clinging to views.  So if you read that and then your next question is 'Yeah but which view should I cling to, ie which view is right?' then IMO you have missed the main tenant of the article, ie not to cling to views. 

If you look up the wiki for ditthi, it says:

"View or position (Palidiṭṭhi, Sanskritdṛṣṭi) is a central idea in Buddhism.[1]
In Buddhist thought, in contrast with the commonsense understanding, a
view is not a simple, abstract collection of propositions, but a charged
interpretation of experience which intensely shapes and affects
thought, sensation, and action.[2] Having the proper mental attitude toward views is therefore considered an integral part of the Buddhist path.[3]

Views are produced by and in turn produce mental conditioning. They are symptoms of conditioning, rather than neutral alternatives individuals can dispassionately choose.[4] The Buddha, according to the discourses, having attained the state of unconditioned mind, is said to have "passed beyond the bondage, tie, greed, obsession, acceptance, attachment, and lust of view."[5]

Those who wish to experience nirvana must free themselves from everything binding them to the world, including philosophical and religious doctrines.[9]Right view
as the first part of the Noble Eightfold Path leads ultimately not to
the holding of correct views, but to a detached form of cognition.[10][11]"

So anyway to say that Thanissaro is AGAINST Non-duality is IMO quite inaccurate, IMO he is against clinging strongly to any views, in any particular direction, to do that would be neither for or against nonduality.  In other articles I have read by him, he takes a strong position that the teaching of Gautama have an emphasis of something like 'if you think of things this and that way, then it leads you to enlightenment but that those ways of thinking are merely tools to lead to a particular outcome' so Thanissaro basically argues, and I think with many good examples from Gautama's teaching, that Gautama's instructions on how to think are tools that when used, are more likely to lead to enlightenment. 

An example in modern times would be that they say if you are very nervous when giving a public speech, you can think of the audience as all being in their underwear and this will help you be less nervous.  The point is the idea that people might be in their underwear is just a tool to lead to a certain wanted outcome, but no one suggests you should cling to the idea that they truly have no outer clothes or think about people all the time like that (or even to dig deeper and hypothesize that every one in public is also in their underwear at a deeper level).  All that would be taking the thought tool too far and beyond being no longer useful, would probably be detrimental.  You just use the idea in specific circumstances to help  you get to a wanted state of mind, but once you are able to get comfortable public speaking, ie the wanted state of mind, then you will no longer need that thought tool crutch and you should let it go. 

But here is the tricky part, I think Thanissaro makes the same argument for ideas of not self, he explains often that specific ideas of  not self (along with other teachings) were used by Gautama to yield a certain state of mind, that stage of mind would be enlightenment.  But Gautama also warned not to cling to ideas of not self too strongly in a more overarching universal way, but just to use them as tools to get to the other side.  Thanissaro says about Gautama,  "Even in his most thoroughgoing teachings about not self, the Buddha never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the idea that there is no self."  Thanissaro also often tries to point out the diff between no self and not self.  To say a bunch of things are not self is not the same as saying there is no self at all anywhere ever and that 'right view,' as is clearly said in many of Gautama's words is NEITHER clinging to the idea of self, NOR clinging to the idea of not self.  The way to enlightenment is to cling to neither idea.  The way to enlightenment is to cling to neither view. 

So again, if you  make an argument for or against self as the ultimate reality, then you may be missing the point of the article.  He uses Gautama's simile of the raft as an example.  The right view ways of thinking, such as not self, are like a raft that you assemble and use to cross the river and get to the far shore (ie enlightenment), but once you get to the far shore, you do not cling to the raft but you let it go, you do not cling to any particular view and you do not cling to disbelieving any particular view either.  The ways of thinking that Gautama taught were just tools to get to the far shore, once you cross the river and get to the far shore, it's silly to try to carry that old raft around, once the tools have done their job, they are no longer needed.  Use the tools as tools but don't cling to them beyond that. 

So does Gautama advocate no self or  does he advocate self or does he advocate nonduality or not nonduality?  The argument is no, in his words , "Both formerly and now monks, I advocate only stress and the cessation of stress"  The rest are just tools!  THought methods he advocates are only tools to be used to reach the far shore, after that they  have no use and would be a burden and so should not be clinged to. 

From my own perspective, what I see is that most people really want to have a view on most things and then cling to it.  People like to have 'the answer,' even if the answer seems largely unknowable and would IMO be a wild hairy guess, people like to pick one and then defend it anyway. Maybe people feel very uncomfortable with not having a strong view?   Even when Thanissaro tries to make a whole article about how one should not cling to views, almost everybody seems to immediately turn that into an argument of which view is correct.  Seems like the desire to cling to views is so amazingly strong that people have immense difficulty even conceiving of not doing it.  Even after a whole article aimed at telling people not to cling to a view, the first thing people seem to do is immediately clasp more tightly to their view and make an argument for one of the views being right or wrong.  ;-P 

Well anyway, people may not agree with Thanissaro's interpretation but he has done a heck of a lot of research and backed his statements very very well with examples of Gautama's teachings.  I have yet to read any good refutations of Thanissaro's arguments with even half the backing  and evidence that he gives.  I suspect the main issue is that people really like their views and clinging to them so Thanissaro's words have a hard time sinking in past that clinging.  People tend to respond best when they are told something they want to hear and Thanissaro is telling people something they probably don't want to hear.  
-Eva

Western attempts to grasp Buddhist thought, missing the point, seems fair. But isn't the idea of "radical suspension of all conceptual frameworks" about Eastern thought missing the point or maybe just more Western missing of the point ?

The Dhamma is a conceptual framework and an experience of a "suspension of all conceptual frameworks" is influenced by that framework.

This idea of a "pure experience" just seems like more "missing of the point". Maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood

When I see non-duality on DhO I typically think of a change in experience. Then people can lay various concepts over that e.g. god, the absolute (the list is quite long it seems). An analogy is an OBE, this might convince someone they have a soul but the concept of soul is not part of the experience it is a concept added into an experience to make a coherent story. I don't see the contradiction with the notion of a non-dual experience and the passage cited.

So are you saying that the point that the Buddha tries to make in the sutta quote is "don't interpret your experience, however advanced it may be"?

That might be tha case. Maybe I'm just reading this in but what really disturbs me in both his "Buddhist Romanticism" and his comments on the sutta is the grumpy tone of "only the True Dhamma™ is a valid path to the Real Enlightenment™ and all other mystical traditions don't get it and are just trying to become "One with God" which is completely irrellevant".

I'm not satisfied with the way he deals with the  topic in the part about Perennial Philosofy..
Please see my post to Eva. 

Sounds legit. 

Yes it goes against my grain too, which is why I find his writings provocative. My grain, in this case, might be affected by the fact that I really want the hermetic tradition to lead to the same enlightenment as the buddhist. 

Chris:



+1... This is the sutta view, methinks.....


Pal:



....Which is to avoid interpreting what your experience says about who you are, or what the universe is.  Always interpret your experience based on what works for happiness and what does not.

Perhaps one could drop the assumption that there is an I to begin with, and look at it from that angle.  Then there would be no I am not, nor would there be an I am everything.  

So, from that view there would be no difference between I'm not and I'm everything, because , perhaps, there never was an I to be or not to be anyways.  

Psi

Strange, I did not get any of that tone personally.  But I suspect any time someone is going to say 'this is IMO the right interpretation' then anyone that has any strong clingings to a different interpretation is going get some toes stepped on, maybe feel some irritation, etc.
-Eva

I think that passage is saying that one particular interpretation is foolish. Dependent origination seems insightful in regards to experience - it is always relative. The only exception I've heard of is some interpretations of nibbana where experience ceases.

The only caveat I would have is that it may not be possible pre enlightenment to operate with zero conceptual frameworks and interpretations as those are what the mind likes to do.  But if you hold those ideas lightly with the attitude of something like that they are just tools to get you across the river and you are not thinking you know for sure they are correct or incorrect, only that they (hopefully) are working for you right now, then that is the right way to successfully get across the river. From my perspective, to hold them only lightly makes you safe from clinging onto something that might be hindering you.  IMO, the universe is not simple or cut and dry, to strongly hold beliefs that are simple and cut and dry may in fact block you from a larger understanding.  But if you do not cling to beliefs too strongly, then your mind is free to expand to new levels of understanding.  Then you might think these new levels of conceptualization are more right and may feel inclined to cling to them, but beyond are even more expanded levels of understanding and so it's still in your best interest not to cling.  IMO, clinging blocks progress and makes you not open to change and expansion.  There's that old saying, "The more you know, the more you realize you don't know."  ;-P
-Eva

Yea, what Eva said (all three times) (IMO of course).

Thanissaro is IMO suggesting the Buddha never advocated the belief in no self, that he only advocated the use of the idea of not self in certain circumstances because this method of thinking he felt it lead to less suffering when used correctly.  So use of not self as a tool to alter thinking and lead to less clinging/suffering would conform IMO to Thanissaro's view of what Gautama suggested.  But to suggest or believe strongly that there is truly no self at all (or the reverse) would be contrary to Thanissaro's view of what Gautama suggested.

I find Thanissaro's interpretation very interesting.  IMO it paints Gautama as the ultimate and original pragmatic Buddhist.  He says don't hold dogmatically to ANY views, instead you are just going to use various views as tools that seem to help lead to lack of suffering.  He is not saying we know for sure these views are entirely correct in the universe exactly, he only is saying they seem to work to get you across the river, after that, you cut them loose, let the raft go, which will be much easier if you aren't clinging with a death grip to it, as you are there and you don't need those crutches any more.  If you cling to the raft (which IMO is heavy) then you may not be able to get out of the river even if you are close to shoreor you will be dragging the raft around with you on your back which will slow you down considerably.  The views are tools that you should choose and make use of with control of thought, but if you just grab them by the tail and let the views control you and swing you around then this would not be right view according to Thanissaro's interpreation of Gautama (IMO).
-Eva  

@OP:

Came across this, it seemed relevant.

DN 9.31:


Then the wanderers, as soon as the Lord had left, reproached,
sneered and jeered at Potthapada from all sides,
saying: 'Whatever the ascetic Gotama says, Potthapada agrees
with him: "So it is, Lord, so it is, Well-Farer!" We don't
understand a word of the ascetic Gotama's whole discourse:
"Is the world eternal or not? - Is it finite or infinite? - Is the
soul the same as the body or different? - Does the Tathagata
exist after death or not, or both, or neither?"'
Poffhapada replied: 'I don't understand either about whether
the world is eternal or not. . .or whether the Tathagata exists
after death or not, or both, or neither. But the ascetic Gotama
teaches a true and real way of practice which is consonant
with Dhamma and grounded in Dhamma. And why should
not a man like me express approval of such a true and real
practice, so well taught by the ascetic Gotama?'

I guess my main problem is that I've gotten in touch with a Golden Dawn-ish group (the rosicrucian tradition, not the nazi party) and something screams for me to walk that path and jump on that train to enlightenment before it's too late. That tradition is all about the HGA and union with some higher self as well as the idea that at the core all religions have the same goal. I just need some Buddha figure to pop up and give approval and say "yes that will lead to the same enlightenment as what I taught 2500 years ago, your next ten years of practice will not be a waste if time". While Daniel actually recommended that kind of practice (Golden Dawn magick) in an earlier thread he seems to be all about nonduality/true self=anatta and here comes one of my main buddhist inspirations Thanissaro Bhikkhu and all over his book (buddhist romanticism) he says that ideas of monism (non-duality) is irrellevant to the dhamma. It's not just a view to let go of after having used it, like the raft, it's even straying from the path. 

Yes, I see, I have used the word view inappropriately. It is ambiguous, and a bad choice of wording, on my part.  There should never really be a belief in No Self, just Investigation, Conclusions, and the Experiencing.  Pretty much all beliefs are views and as such are fabrications.  There is a view, as in objectivity, yet no viewer.  Then there is the definition of view, as an opinion or a way of looking at something.  

But, I do seem to be going a step further than Thanissaro on No Self.  I am stating that Anatta is more than just a technique, method, or a belief. Though there are methods and techniques that point to Anatta, but one should not confuse the finger for the moon.  In other words, one should not confuse the techninques or methods of pointing to Anatta as being Anatta.  That is indeed a good example of clinging to views.  This would be hanging on to a raft, a heavy raft.

What I am pointing to may be better explained by this excerpt below.
The above except is the closest to saying whay I am trying to convey with language.  I will also add that in the footnote 2, Thanissaro writes, 
And I would currently disagree when he says that the Buddha realized that attention never occurs in a bare, pure, or unconditioned form, or that it is always colored by views or perceptions.  Again, I seem to be going a step further, and I would state that there is a state that is bare, pure, and unconditioned.  There is a state before one gives labels to events. This can be done.  And I would state that the Buddha did indeed realize the unconditioned.

So, there is that...

No big deal to me, I have nothing to prove to anyone.  



Psi


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/foodforawakening.html

Do it.  Go with the Golden Dawn.  Because whether it is true or not that all religions match up with the same enlightenment, the important thing is the process of exploration itself.  You will learn things about yourself and about these different developmental possibilities as you go.

I recently asked Ron Crouch if my desire for further insight progress beyond where he had trained me was craving, or a legitimate goal.  He said that I should seek further insight progress either way, because if it is craving, then I will learn more about myself and my craving in the process, and if it is a legitimate goal, it means a deeper part of my mind is trying to tell me something, and I will learn about that.  

So either way, you can't lose.  The most skillful thing might be to fabricate a sense of certainty, surrendering to the ideas of the Golden Dawn, which will ultimately expedite your journey.

Except he is not saying that non duality is irrelevant, he is saying clinging tightly to any one view is not a good idea. You see this all the time with other things, to have some interest is one thing but when you cling to an idea such that something contrary to that idea causes angst, then such clinging is causing angst.  The idea may or may not have some percentage of validity but who can know anyway, but the main issue is that clinging to anything tightly causes angst.  The prob is not the idea itself, it is the clinging.  So a car is not a bad thing by itself as a tool, but clinging to it with strong desire is a detriment to the path and causes angst.  So also is clinging to other things like ideas. Fine to use them as tools but if you are emotionally invested in their validity, then what you want to work on is letting go of some of that emotional attachment. 

What is the difference between Conclusions and clinging to a belief?
Then wouldn't believing there is no viewer also be a fabrication and so should not be clinged to?
Wouldn't this not be 'going a step further' but actually be going completely contrary to what Thanissaro said, ie NOT to cling to belief in no self? Seems like you are trying to somehow force Thanissaro's stuff into compatibility with your own world view that there is no self, but the two are not compatible.  
But here you seem to be taking it as accepted that anatta is a real thing that is pointed at and also is.  But Thanissaro said that what is the tool is the belief itself, not that there is any pointing at anything, you just use the tool of believing in this way on occasion to short circuit other bad mental habits you might have.  But believing strongly that the tool is anything other than just a tool is clinging to a belief. 
I don't know how you would know unless you experienced it but even then, hard to say if there are any filters that you are just not aware of that are still coloring you.  THe closest I have gotten is in some OBEs where my way of thinking was so detached that I could look right at everyday things and not recognize them for what they were or label them.  I remember in one OBE, was standing in my kitchen and looking at stuff on my table and I saw them as very interesting various shapes and colors, perhaps it is similar to how an extreme autistic might be transfixed by the pure sensory display, and yet the knowledge of concept of what things were was not easily present. 

Finally out of curiosity, I locked my mind onto a bright red bulbous looking thing and concentrated really hard to remember and with great effort I remembered the concept that it was a Kong dog toy.  But it was much easier to just enjoy the show instead of trying to dig up all those concepts.  I do often wonder if that is how it is for autistics.  That was a very interesting experience of the world but at the same time, I would be hesitant to say that for sure I was operating with complete and pure bare awareness.  So although I like the idea of practicing bare awareness as potentially being useful, I can't be sure that the purest form can be achieved with human consciousness.  As for what Gautama said himself, I don't even know the phrases of his used to try to interpret it. 
If one has not experienced the unconditioned, how possible is it to understand it in a reliable way?  Is it agreed on that to experience without labels is the definition of the unconditioned?  I have experienced consciousness without labels but I don't think I could function in the Earth world like that, at least not the way I experienced it.  Not sure if I could even process the spoken word when in such a state.  I think I might just be more like an autistic if my day to day consciousness was like that. I could probably make it in some kind of hybrid state but IMO, that would probably be a more conditioned state (unless i don't understand the concept of unconditioned which is quite likely to be the case..)
-Eva

He is, at page 181. Or what else is he saying there? 

Thanks for the approval

Well, an important thing for me is attaining suttaic stream entry so that I don't get reborn in hell if rebirth is real. This tradition seems to offer the possibility of transcending the ten fetters (which doesn't nessecarily equal erasing them of course). Some people in the group in question practice goenka vipassana too it seems. As stated in earlier threads I've started doing some of their practices already. We'll see where it leads to. Will have to fix some logistics before I can commit to it fully.

re: Mark (12/15/15 9:30 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie)
"Western attempts to grasp Buddhist thought, missing the point, seems fair. But isn't the idea of "radical suspension of all conceptual frameworks" about Eastern thought missing the point or maybe just more Western missing of the point ?"

I agree with you, I think, and as you hinted in another recent thread: Western or Eastern thought – whatever one's native bias – it worth radicalizing, recognizing how it shapes one's approach and views. I guess my understanding of Buddha's teachings (his view about views, so to speak) is that they stand outside of any cultural context. Remember that Buddhism was erradicated in India (by invaders, about 1000 years ago), but to this day isn't much present there (except in a modern movement among lower castes, followed by only around 1% of the population). And that passage inThan-Geoff's book (perhaps in the section on Perennial Philosophy) where that pioneer Indian/Hindhu activist, the guy who invented the modern idea of Hindhuism, is said to have said, in effect, good riddance that they're free of Buddhism.

re: Mark (12/15/15 9:42 AM as a reply to Pål.)
"When I see non-duality on DhO I typically think of a change in experience. Then people can lay various concepts over that e.g. god, the absolute (the list is quite long it seems). ..."

Apropos, in a thread I just created,there's a rather strange simile for the Buddhist sphere of"viewpoints", so to speak, that I venture resembles the pragmatic milieu here in DhO.
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5807183

re: Pål (12/15/15 10:12 AM as a reply to Eva M Nie)
"…what
really disturbs me in both his "Buddhist Romanticism" and
his comments on the sutta is the grumpy tone of "only the True
Dhamma™ is a valid path to the Real Enlightenment™ and all other
mystical traditions don't get it and are just trying to become "One
with God" which is completely irrellevant"."

I can see how that impression comes across. It's perhaps part of of the polemic he's taking against what he sees as counterfeit dharma pretending (consciously or not) to be Theravadan Dhamma.

In the broader context, I wouldn't see Than-Geoff as arguing this as the single, supreme religion. Rather, given the nature of the goal – nibbanic awakening, to coin a phrase – he takes the Buddha's teaching as a proven, perhaps the only route to that specific goal.

Note that's a s/w specialized idea of "enlightenment". As you've investigated, there are many diverging views of, kinds of "enlightenment", which do seem to offer many people a way to greater "happiness", however they understand that. In fact, lots of people probably wouldn't consider a renunciate lifestyle, taking refuge in a viewless sort of mentality, a kind of purity of purpose and intense heedfulness around it, ending suffering, etc. – they might not consider that "happiness" at all.

The Buddha himself said, supposedly, that he has found this way (path) to attain that (nibbana), and it works; but also that it may not be for everyone; people can take it or leave it, in effect.

re: Mark (12/15/15 1:09 PM as a reply to Pål)
"…Dependent origination seems insightful in regards to experience - it is always relative. The only exception I've heard of is some interpretations of nibbana where experience ceases."

Such interpretations I've run across in recent studies – in the writings of Paul Griffiths and others in the 1980s and 1990s – that it's an absolute black-out (the same group who came up with the notion of the "suttajhana-s"). Kenneth Folk also presented that argument about a year ago here in DhO, citing some Burmese sources too.

My suspicion is that that pertains to moments of what Daniel Ingram has compared to system or software "resets" in path experiences, which I think of as transition points (but haven't had the first hand experience to say for sure.)

I asked Than-Geoff about this at his last day-long at IMC (September). He replied that whatever paradoxical qualities there are, the presence of nibbana has awareness. IMO, he speaks from experience. We'll see, with luck.

re: Psi (12/15/15 3:42 PM as a reply to Eva M Nie)
"And I would currently disagree when he says that the Buddha realized that attention never occurs in a bare, pure, or unconditioned form, or that it is always colored by views or perceptions.  Again, I seem to be going a step further, and I would state that there is a state that is bare, pure, and unconditioned.  There is a state before one gives labels to events. This can be done.  And I would state that the Buddha did indeed realize the unconditioned."

I'm fairly certain that Than-Geoff directs that analysis of "bare" or "choiceless awareness" at the situation where the idea is used to teach beginners just learning meditation, with no where near the training to experience the unconditioned in the way you're referring to.

For those with a high tolerance for dense and subtle writing, I've posted a passage from Alexander Piatigorsky's book (mentioned above ).

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5807183

It relates to some of the ideas that have cropped up here, dichotomies in general, and, oddly, he presents a fascinating and elaborate simile that somehow reminded my of DhO in general.

That could be, Thanissaro seems to be very wise.  And I could be reading something out of context.  My apologies.

Psi

I would think that a Conclusion would come from Investigating pheomeon,  Understanding what was Investigated, and Remebering what was actually Experienced.  

I would think that a Belief, could come from any idea about anything, it may or may not be based upon actual personal Investigation of phenomenon, and may include purely Intellectual Excercises.  A Belief could be true, or it could be a Delusion.

Clinging is Clinging.

Perhaps, if there was a belief in there being no viewer, there could be the clinging to the belief of no viewer.  That could be a definite trouble zone, or sticky spot.  One to be aware of, most definitely.   But, if there is indeed no viewer, as in no looker, no one looking out from behind the eyes, then there would be no clinger either.  There would only be seeing, while seeing.  

Well, if I it sounds as if am stuffing stuff into a world view I am sorry.  But I am stating that Anatta is not a belief, beliefs can be hard to prove.  Anatta is fairly easy to prove.

Take for instance, a fingernail. A fingernail has the characteristic of Anatta.Yes, I am saying Anatta is not a tool or technique, it is also not a belief.  One can not cling to Anatta, there is no clinger.  Though, it would be true to say one could cling to the ideas about Anatta, and one could cling to the ideas about a Self.

Yes, you are right, that is why I am still practicing.  There are still filters present, and if there were filters present that I did not know about, then yes, that would cause some trouble behind the bushes...   So, I do prefer to keep Investigating.Tricky indeed.  Hard to describe an experience, and it could be that a current experience may have deeper levels, and that one may or may not backslide, who knows?Well, I experience consciousness without labels.  But currelntly I oscillate back and forth between conventional consciousness and consciousness without labels.  But, both are perfectly functional.  Thinking is a tool, as I see it.  Use thinking like a tool when needed, then, when done, place the tool back in the Yogi toolbox until needed again.  I have tried to describe this mode before as Slient Running, Unthinking, Bare Attention etc...  Thich Nhat Hanh said it rather clearly in a book of his, he just calls it Non Thought.

But, the mind is not always stilled, there are still daily agitations, unforseen circumstances, normal daily grind interactions, and all that.  My biggest hindrance right now is maintaining a peaceful mind when forced into a lack of sleep, or when under the influence of physical exhaustion and fatigue.  It is during these times that the old instinctual tendencies like to rear up.  I am trying to train and seep he peaceful mind  into those areas better, as I am able.  Everything is grist for the mill.

And Eva, I am truly sorry if I do not explain things so well, or if I do have a quirky world view.  If I have made any statements that are later shown to be false I am truly sorry, that is not my intention.  My Investigation into Anatta has only come up with Anatta, each and every time.  Some phenomenon do not lend well to Investigation, i.e Intention Thought Processes, and the Center of Awareness Sensation that allows us to move around three dimensionally.  But, yes, even those sensations really are just sensations.

So, Eva, if I do have a view , it is probably wrong, it seems all views, as being filtered views are inherently wrong.  And if this is so, then I would place a some questions before you.  Like a brain teaser.  You are pretty smart, so I expect you to prove to me the existence of a governing self behind all these questions and phenomeon...  

Which sensation is a belief in a self based upon?  If a self is based upon more than one sensation, who is receiving them, and where exactly is the sensation picked up by the I?  If there are sensations, does there have to be a self involved in the process?  For instance of you are receiving sensations and noticing them on your left foot, what about the stuff going on in the right foot at the same time?  What about behind your ear?  Who was doing the breathing when you read the very first line of this post, were you aware of that breath?  Who was responsible for your breathing when you were asleep?  If your breathing  during sleep was due to involuntary systems, then is there a you , or self there at that time?  When you are thinking about this, do the answers in thought form come to you fully formed, for the most part, or do you have to assemble the thoughts letter by letter to produce the language thought?  If the thoughts come up faster than you can personally fabricate them, then who is actually doing the thinking, or is thinking due to an involuntary system?

Psi

Well, there could be False Conclusions, one does have to be wary of that....   Hmmmm.... 

That's kinda my point, and if you experience something, how much of that belief is actually extrapolated?  For instance, a few months back, I clearly saw the moon was red, is the moon red really?  (or was it just an eclipse..)  I also see the end of the world, I can the edge is out there in the ocean by the coast, that's what my eyes tell me, and in the past people believed their eyes, now I believe the scientists who claim the world is round, but I've never actually seen the world as round, only pictures of it looking round.  Who knows, damn thing may be flat and the govt was lieing to me the whole time!  ;-P  Ok and last night, I dreamt I was in this classroom yacking with some others, I experienced it very very clearly, was it real, is it a fact?  Consider that many practitioners are told they should see something, then spend a lot of time looking for it, and then they experience it.  But you can learn to experience anything with enough training.  Torture a victim for a while and you can get normal people to hallicinate anything.  During meditation, I see strange lights, does that mean strange lights are real?  Just becuase you experience something, does that make it real or true?  Or is the entire freakin realm of all experience actually just a delusion anyway?  The more I think about it, the more it seems impossible to be sure of anything.  Which seems fine really.  After all, if you are never sure of anything, you are much more safe from being wrong at least.  ;-P
-Eva

I would think that a Conclusion would come from Investigating pheomeon,  Understanding what was Investigated, and Remebering what was actually Experienced.  

I would think that a Belief, could come from any idea about anything, it may or may not be based upon actual personal Investigation of phenomenon, and may include purely Intellectual Excercises.  A Belief could be true, or it could be a Delusion.

Clinging is Clinging.

Perhaps, if there was a belief in there being no viewer, there could be the clinging to the belief of no viewer.  That could be a definite trouble zone, or sticky spot.  One to be aware of, most definitely.   But, if there is indeed no viewer, as in no looker, no one looking out from behind the eyes, then there would be no clinger either.  There would only be seeing, while seeing.  

Well, if I it sounds as if am stuffing stuff into a world view I am sorry.  But I am stating that Anatta is not a belief, beliefs can be hard to prove.  Anatta is fairly easy to prove.

Take for instance, a fingernail. A fingernail has the characteristic of Anatta.


--A fingernail is an example of 'not self,' but does not prove 'no self.'



And Eva, I am truly sorry if I do not explain things so well, or if I do have a quirky world view.  If I have made any statements that are later shown to be false I am truly sorry, that is not my intention.  

-- Of course not!  I know you  are just describing your opinions as you know them, same as me.  Sorry I guess I couldn't resist poking at what seemed to be a weak spot in your theory.  But I am meaning to be super serious about it or anything.

My Investigation into Anatta has only come up with Anatta, each and every time.  

--But if I were to investigate gluten, I'd probably always find gluten, and if I were to investigate hatred, I'd probably only ever find that.  Cuz you tend to find what you look for and you tend to find what you already believe in. I do agree I can't see past a certain point in the development of conscious thoughts, to me that only means I don't know what is beyond that point, but it does not to me mean that for sure nothing exists beyond that point or that something specifically exists, to me it only means I don't know.  To not be able to see and to not be able to find, to me does not mean 'does not exist.'   



So, Eva, if I do have a view , it is probably wrong, it seems all views, as being filtered views are inherently wrong.  

--Seems like you still don't understand what I am saying and I suspect Thanissaro is saying Gautama is saying.  (or your method of word choice is perhaps not being fully understood by me).  The thing is, I don't know if your view of no self is right or wrong as far as it being or not being the true nature of reality and self.  I am not saying that view is or is not right.  I do not know if the view itself is correct.  What I am saying is that Gautama repeatedly cautioned against clinging to any one view, be it that self does not exist, that self does exist, etc.  So if I were to argue against 'no self,' then I would be equally going against what Thanissaro is saying Gautama said, because to be against your view is still clinging to a view.  Gautama seemed to think that clinging to ANY view before enlightenment was a detriment to enlightenment. 

My personal suspicion is that the nature of reality is not simple and that we are bound to get it wrong at any pre enlightenment stages so better to just stay away from it and work instead on a more direct path to enlightenment and then maybe look at it again then if you feel like it (IF!).  Sometimes my mind wanders at night when I sleep to all kinds of things, I think I've said before I used to experiment a lot with OBEs and whatnot and I can still fairly often have them or become lucid in dreams. 

The one consistent thing I've found is that most of the stuff I encounter is so alien to my Earth consciousness that I am lucky if I can achieve a few percent understanding of them.  Some kind of 'I' seems to understand a lot of stuff when I am out there, but the second I get back to regular Earth consciousness, the Earth consciousness 'I' can only grok a tiny tiny bit of it.  That's a big reason why I suspect that any decent understanding via Earth consciousness of how 'it all' works may well be highly unlikely at best.  Cuz out there, best I can tell, it's a giant pile of super weirdness!  And I can only guess about how the 'I' that seems to be 'I' when out there knows so much more than the 'I' that is here, but certainly I can see how some might assume some kind of 'higher self' type deal as some of the the data I've seen does fit, but still, I think the data is too weak for me to be sure of any specific assumption other than stuff is just not at all like anything we can easily conceive of.  Maybe the 'I' that I am out there is not much to do with this 'I' here and it's only that I can kind of piggy back ride in that consciousness and it seems like it's me when I am doing that?  Or I am sure many would just assume I have some kind of really good imagination, which can't of course be ruled out but if so I have to be in complete awe as to the skill of imagination (and where the heck does imagination even come from anyway such that it can surpass the ability of the conscious mind so much?). 

But look at quantum theory and then see how much of that you can understand and then go from there and let me know when you get it all figured out!  ;-PP  Personally I don't think I have much understanding of what 'I' is when here in Earth consciousness nor how it relates to other kinds of 'I' experienced when my mind travels at night.  I also don't think I have much understanding of existence or it's nature.  The one time I got closest felt like it was going to completely wash away my Earth consciousness and at that time long ago, it scared the hell out of me so much that I never ever tried it again.  Just a tiny glimpse yieded the fear of complete obliteration.  So not understanding the nature of  'I' and not understanding the nature of existence,  it would seem rather unlikely I could have any sure feelings on if the 'I' truly exists or not.  It's all just too freaky Friday for me!  ;-P
-Eva 

And if this is so, then I would place a some questions before you.  Like a brain teaser.  You are pretty smart, so I expect you to prove to me the existence of a governing self behind all these questions and phenomeon... 

Which sensation is a belief in a self based upon?  If a self is based upon more than one sensation, who is receiving them, and where exactly is the sensation picked up by the I?  If there are sensations, does there have to be a self involved in the process?  For instance of you are receiving sensations and noticing them on your left foot, what about the stuff going on in the right foot at the same time?  What about behind your ear?  Who was doing the breathing when you read the very first line of this post, were you aware of that breath?  Who was responsible for your breathing when you were asleep?  If your breathing  during sleep was due to involuntary systems, then is there a you , or self there at that time?  When you are thinking about this, do the answers in thought form come to you fully formed, for the most part, or do you have to assemble the thoughts letter by letter to produce the language thought?  If the thoughts come up faster than you can personally fabricate them, then who is actually doing the thinking, or is thinking due to an involuntary system?

Psi

Frankly I don't even see where the problem is.

Nonduality is the statement that the universe and myself are not separate, that it ultimately makes no sense to try to find a line of demarcation where "self" ends and "all"/"other"/"the universe" begins.

Nonself is the statement that nothing that exists in reality is ultimately an entity (stable; eternal; sort of separate from experience, but somehow controlling it or utilizing it), that ultimately there is nothing real linking all the elementary events we tend to group and call "a person."

In my opinion, nonduality and nonself are related, but not identical, just as, for example, greed and unhappiness are related, but not identical: If I weren't unhappy, I wouldn't be greedy. If I weren't greedy, I wouldn't be unhappy. That doesn't mean greed and unhappiness are one and the same concept.

I feel what Thanissaro is saying here is just that it would be a misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching to say, "There is no self. We tiny little people don't really exist. There is only the Universe. It gives us life and purpose according to its grand plan. If we submit to it, we will become happy and live forever, not as individuals, but as the One."

I certainly cannot prove the existence of a governing self any more than I can disprove the existence of a governing self.  I have never seen any proof by anyone else either way either.  Maybe that is why Gautama said cling to neither view. ;-P
I could ask you the same about the sense of no self.  ;-P
Id take a guess and say there'd probably need to be some kind of awareness involved.
Yes, very interesting I noticed after reading some Buddhist stuff, seems that Earth conscious mind can only perceive one influence at a time in a one by one order, it jumps around really fast, and then there is just a sense that all those things are continuing even when you are not attending ot them.  But it could also be that none of those assumed things are continuing when you are not attending to them.  It could be that they only exist when you notice them.  Or not?  Anyway, weird! 

But I have had at least one mystical experience where consciousness/awareness was not like that, thought was quiet and I was aware of lots of things at once, not one by one.  Then when I came back to Earth consciousness, during the transition between, it was like my Earth style mind was just struggling so hard to jump around fast and get pieces of it one by one and make sense of it enough that I could remember some aspects of it.  So I don't think all awareness is confined to one by one perception.  I think a lot of nightly travels, very likely for everyone, are like that, just that it's very hard for the Earth mind to process that info and remember it.  Anyway, so I have memories of other kinds of awareness, assuming that was not all delusion too.  ;-P  It's a common theme in OBE circles that everyone probably has what we would consider super amazing experiences every night, the only hard part is remembering them.  And if your world view runs contrary to any of it, IMO that makes for even more obstacles to remembering. 

One of thing being hear did was point out some specific aspects of Earth conscious mind that I did not notice before, which allows me to notice differences in that and other experiences I've had.  That made me a tiny bit better at realizing more specific differences, whereas before I could mostly only say something super vague like 'it was very different.'    
And who was driving your car when your conscious mind was thinking about plans for xmas dinner or some such and suddenly you find yourself pulling into your driveway?  Who operates your feet when you are daydreaming as you walk in the forest?  I have often wondered about those things and I don't know the answer.  But just because I cannot see any cause or origin does not mean I know there is no origin though, it only means I cannot see any origin, nothing more and nothing less.  As I said before, i do not fully understand the nature of existence, nor do I fully undersdtand the nature of sense of self, therefore I don't feel inclined to say I know about the sense of self as it related to existence either. 
-Eva

Right, so then the Investigation becomes how to access or maintain an awareness that has no view.  Hmmm... As an experiment anyway, not a Dogmatic command or nuthin...  haha !Yes, I have been contemplating and examing this aspect, it is like the tree in the forest thingy.  Are there sensations happening when there is no one to feel them?  And what about thoughts?  Are there thoughts going on in the background of awareness, thinking along, doing their own thing???  Yeah, weird !

This sounds like Universal Mind, or Infinity of Consciousness, which would also be 6th Jhana...  And that consciousness would indeed be separate from the Earth conscious mind, there are no normal senses involved.  I have had some similar experiences such as you describe.  It could be that there is more than we are normally aware of, or it could be just another type of sensation.  The only explanation that I could come up with about 20 years ago was that it was the actual brain or mind, if you prefer, that was the direct sense organ.  In other words, the experience you are alluding to are merely what happens when the brain , or mind, is in direct contact with the Universe as if it were a Sense organ itself, albeit without the normal sense organs filtering and getting in the way, including the normal Self aspect, that too is dropped and not active.  If you go back into your memory of the event you may remember that that is so..??
I am thinking that what is happening is that an impersonal function is hammering away at the above phenomeon.  Just as the Breath gets along fine without any input from the Self concept, so too, does alot of thinking and Mundane actions take place just fine without any input from the Self concept.

But, really who knows?  It is something to Investigate, for sure.

 I like to think I am open minded enough to know that there are many possibilities, and Wise enough to know that I may still play the Fool. haha  

Peace

Psi

Wait, "the precence of nibbana has awareness". Wouldn't this kind of justify interpretations of the unconditioned as a kind of "limitless entity"? Maybe even the ugly G-word?

Sorry, that wasn't expressed very well. Not that nibbana is something that's aware, but that the experience of one in/after path/fruition moments is some sort of awareness -- not total blackout / unconsciousness.

Not sure if having zero view is realistic pre enlightenment.  Perhaps just not clinging hard to a view might be sufficient (just my guess).  For instance, maybe you have some theories, but if any evidence came up contrary to the theories, you would look at that info with curiosity and openness and if your theories were proven wrong, you might just shrug your shoulders and barely bat an eye.  In such a case you would have views but you would not be super clingy to them and even though you had them, you would also be conscious of their weakness and lack of surety.  They are not causing you much in the way of suffering in such a case, it would seem to me.  ;-P 
Yeah I was also thinking of the tree in the forest, but was thinking it was a koan and might have a specific meaning and answer (but just now I looked it up and apparently there is doubt about it being an offical koan and I could not find an answer either).  Anyway, I digress..  You know one thing that also confuses me is when I am lost in thought and something else besides my conscious mind is driving the car, why does it sometimes go the wrong way out of habit?  Like a few times it drove us into the post office parking lot, assumedly because I go there almost daily to drop packages from work.  But thing thing is, what can know how to drive a car, stop at lights, use the brakes and gas, dodge other cars and even get in the middle turn lane, etc, but not know that the post office is now closed and we are going home now?!?  This is an example of why I say I don't understand consciousness.. 
I don't think it was 6th jhana judging by descriptions of 6th jhana by others.  Not sure if have had any of the jhanas past 3rd and I don't spend a lot of time on the jhana thing.  There may have been one time that I had a 5th or 6th but the experience was not an exact match to descriptions.  The experience I am thinking of most when I am trying to remember this stuff is that Aum place, but I don't think Buddhists deal with that one though, from what I've seen so far, it seems to be more of an advaita thing.  I've never seen any mention of the Aum place in Buddhist circles or having to do with any of the jhanas. 
I had wondered if maybe Earth consciousness and maybe the physical brain too was like a limiter or choke point that concentrates consciousness in certain ways and limits consciousness in other ways.  That could be why some people who get brain damage actually suddenly get a new skill they never had before.  Get out from under the shackles of the brain and consciousness can widen out but maybe is less focused than before.  The focused consciousness perhaps has difficulty processing into memory experiences that are too diff from its norm though.  One thing I seem to notice is I really seem to have to work hard to remember that stuff like I am trying to flog my conscious mind hard to quickly concentrate hard enough to 'get' it, otherwise I will forget. 
Hm, not quite sure what you are asking.  But here is something that may or not be an answer.  What happens is I am aware (become aware?) I exist someplace, yes you are correct, there is no normal thought, not sense of body or any such.  The experience is very wholistic, I and my environment seem in tune in a way that Earth consciouness does not normally experience.  I have gotten the sense that I can tune to a big variety of such experiences, but it's not the Earth consciousness that does that, it's some knowledge that Earth consciousness does not have but that still gives me a sense of 'me' when I am doing it.  So then occasionally Earth consciousness also tunes in and with a big effort, can log that experience into the one by one in order type of thought and memory it operates in.  If it can do that, then I will remember.  Anyway, it feels something like that but yet I dont feel like that is quite right either, it's just closest I've got right now.  Maybe Earth consciousness is always there but only occasionally does the successful transfer to onebyone type memory happen.  For obvious reasons, I don't know what happens for those when memory is not achieved but I get the sense that memory is only achieved a small percentage of the time.  Most of what I do remember is a lot of super weird and not too useful for life on Earth type stuff though.  Only occasionally will any of it have any obvious applicability to my regular life. 
I am confused here, not sure what you mean.  (other than lots happens outside of input of Self concept.  )
-Eva

Hmm, okay, after further Investigation, here is what I have to say.  The Self seems to be a Concept that arises.  Like an idea that comes up, probably based upon beliefs and previous thought formation patterns.  So, you asked that the same could be asked about the sense of No Self, well okay, so I Investigated that.

During the Experience that I am trying to describe, there is neither the concept of the Self arising, nor is there the concept of No Self arising.  There is no concepts arising, during this Experience one could then also say that there are No Views arising also.

So, in that sense there is neither Self nor Not Self, Views or Not Views.

So, during the Experience I am trying to describe, there would be neither a Self or a No Self arising, and neither would there be Views arising.  But, afterwards, it could be reviewed and talked about, but , as to my current experience, one could not talk about it while actually during the experience.  So, it seems that there is a Conventional Mode, the one we talk and communicate in, etc, and another Mode.  The Mode the can not be named....  No, Not Voldemort Mode...

But, I really should Contemplate and Investigate this further before I  say any more about this?!  

Humbly, 

Psi

Very interesting to look at the above phenomenon you are describing, it has some interesting Insights.  The first is the Anatta characteristic, the body and mind keep driving to the Post Office, out of habit.

It is this very nature of Anatta that can be used to our advantage.  Seeing that the mind and body does indeed work on its own without the conscious attention of the Me, or Self Consciousness involved, even in seemingly complex tasks, such as driving a car, routing the destination, etc.  Hitting the shuttlecock across the net...

So too, in this way, the Mind can be trained to follow a Path Internally and Externally, For Instance the Four Supreme Efforts, The Brahma Viharas, Noble Eightfold Path,  etc.  Or whatever you train the Mind to do, this Anatta characteristic works both ways, i.e. The Mind could be inclined and even trained either intentionally or unintentionally to follow any Path, i.e stealing, lying,  boozing, drugs, violence , anger, self loathing, worrying, wanting...

It is the understanding of this Anatta characteristic that can be used to our advantage, the training of the Mind to be continually led to Wholesome habits of thought and action, so that , at times, even when the Mind wanders off, it will Automatically come back to the Wholesome Habits.  At the least it will be more amiable to accept the Wholesome Habits more readliy if the mind happens to stray.

I am pretty sure this is the same thing that you have been doing anyway, from what I have read in your posts, i.e. keeping this mental process, discarding that mental process, in an ever continuing fashion.

It is my understanding that this eventually becomes somewhat automatic, as a process. Like automatically driving to the Post Office. It can turn into kind of Impersonal automatic mental purification process.  Now, to be sure, there are things that can be done to either slow up the process, such as reinforcing Unwholesome Habits, or speed up the process, such as reinforcing Wholesome Habits.

It is also coming to my understanding that once this process reaches a certain threshold, this is what is meant by Entering the Stream.  i.e. the Mind kind of flows naturally along the Path towards the destination.  That is just my inkling anyway.

Psi

Certainly things continue to happen even when the conscious mind is not paying attention, I am just not seeing how this particularly is evidence of no self.  For instance, if I am riding a horse and not paying attention, the horse may decide to walk back towards his stall on his own or head somewhere else he likes, if I forget to steer him.  (maybe without direction the subconscious tends to follow previously programmed influences which is why it brainlessly takes me to the post office, maybe the traffic rules are also programmed similar to a Google operated driverless car, it just goes to the most likely destination if no one tells it otherwise).  So if this happens, ie the horse with a distracted rider continues to operate, I'd say it's evidence that 'self' (aka rider) is not the whole story of how and why things happen, but I do not see it necessarily as evidence that self does not exist.  In the example, the rider would be just as real (or not real) as the horse.
Do you play badminton? I played for many years. 
Programing is possible, yes I agree, but not sure how that indicated no self.
Yes, in a large part, that's what I do, seeing what works, what leads to improvements, observing the processing that I am able to see at various times, etc.  Seems like at diff stages, diff things work better, certainly keeps me on my toes.  Just when I think I have it figured out, then the whole thing switches up on me again!  ;-P
Not sure on that stuff, things happened but I don't know what they would be called, if anything in particular.  But one thing good about reading here is sometimes I get good ideas about things to try.  ;-P

This feels relevant:
http://youtu.be/cRIrlLQ3O98
Alan Watts seems to be talking about the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism as if it was plainly obvious that they are at the core pretty much the same thing. I guess he and Thanissaro could be enlightened in different ways then..