Awakening expressed in 2 min

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by auto » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:24 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIaY0l5qV0c

Thought is an illusory thing..
Who is it that is aware of that i'm thinking?..then thrown into an amazing feeling of freedom of problems...

These are sudden realizations so to read it may or may not make sense. We can see he talks even the moments before the fruit happen.

What is that, jhana or magga phala? did he experienced fruit of stream entry or jhana?

User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by cjmacie » Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:21 pm

auto wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:24 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIaY0l5qV0c

Thought is an illusory thing..
Who is it that is aware of that i'm thinking?..then thrown into an amazing feeling of freedom of problems...

These are sudden realizations so to read it may or may not make sense. We can see he talks even the moments before the fruit happen.

What is that, jhana or magga phala? did he experienced fruit of stream entry or jhana?
Has nothing to do with Buddhist attainments.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by aflatun » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:06 pm

Assuming this isn't just Hollywood histrionics, mania or drugs:

I think this is an entirely natural and good thing he has experienced, and like cj said, it's not a Buddhist attainment. The problem is, with wrong view it will be reified into "the Witness" and obstruct specifically Buddhist progress. This is not to say devoting oneself to "the Witness" in tandem with immaculate ethics and restraint is a bad thing (hopefully he'll at least do that). It's infinitely superior to the travesty of life that most of us pursue.
Mathias: Consciousness is not the feeling nor observing the feeling nor containing the feeling. The problem here is not to identify consciousness with the ‘self’ in the sense of: “I am not the feeling (or anything at all), but I am the presence of the feeling (and anything else).” This seems to happen in Advaita-Vedānta: The self is neither a thing nor all things, but existence (of things) itself. In a short essay about enlightenment, the author wrote that before his enlightenment he was “Steve living his life,”but since his enlightenment he is “the experience of Steve living his life.” The enlightenment did not destroy ‘Steve’, but ‘Steve’ is no longer regarded as the experiencer. Here I see a parallel to what you wrote (that ‘Mathias’ won’t vanish after awakening etc.). Very interesting. But the author said that he is the experience (or consciousness). And this is not the Buddha’s teaching. ‘I am’ not the presence of phenomena.

Ven. N. Nanamoli: Yes, there are some similarities in what I’ve said, and what that person said, but there are also subtle, yet utterly fundamental differences between our respective explanations, and I am glad that you were able to see that. What usually happens with people is that once they discover their own power of reflexion (i.e. mindfulness), and the way how to step back from immediacy with which they were so much identified before, they become completely taken by it, and then they end up believing that they are actually ‘enlightened’. What they don’t realize, and they could only with the Buddha’s help, is that even the purest reflexion of all, is still not beyond ignorance, and if they want to really get enlightened they will have to address them both alike—immediacy and reflexion. (You will remember from Clearing the Path: “With Self, they perceive Self; with not- Self, they perceive Self; with Self, they perceive not-Self.” Only a sekha is able to perceive not-Self, with not-Self.)
Meanings pg 77
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by auto » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:27 pm

cjmacie wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:21 pm
Has nothing to do with Buddhist attainments.
it has a point in a body. Perhaps it took his entire life to pierce that point, before always rejecting it and every time doing it falling lower into bottom of the pit of suffering and after getting enough suffering and pain he reached that point again and this time pierced it: Energies what welcomed him on the other side were become like him enough and mind leaped the other side.

So perhaps he didn't changed much, not turned into some Saint suitable of your ideal view what saints are, but he still saw the path waht the Saints see, its still bad on relative level but he will purify etc..get the point..

SarathW
Posts: 9778
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by SarathW » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:27 pm

What is that, jhana or magga phala? did he experienced fruit of stream entry or jhana?
Assuming that he is not joking or lying or using drugs, I would say that he has experienced a moment of First Samatha Jhana or neighborhood concentration.
That is a moment of without sensual pleasures.
Otherwise, this could be a pleasure of wrong concentration.
By the way, this is not magga phala or stream entry.
The eagerness to attain that level again seems to me that his experience is genuine.
I like the video by the way.
It is funny but the audience got it.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

SarathW
Posts: 9778
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by SarathW » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:38 pm

Watched this full video he is talking about Buddha.
I am very pleased that he has become a messenger of Buddha.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by auto » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:31 pm

aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:06 pm
Assuming this isn't just Hollywood histrionics, mania or drugs:

I think this is an entirely natural and good thing he has experienced, and like cj said, it's not a Buddhist attainment. The problem is, with wrong view it will be reified into "the Witness" and obstruct specifically Buddhist progress. This is not to say devoting oneself to "the Witness" in tandem with immaculate ethics and restraint is a bad thing (hopefully he'll at least do that). It's infinitely superior to the travesty of life that most of us pursue.
Mathias: Consciousness is not the feeling nor observing the feeling nor containing the feeling. The problem here is not to identify consciousness with the ‘self’ in the sense of: “I am not the feeling (or anything at all), but I am the presence of the feeling (and anything else).” This seems to happen in Advaita-Vedānta: The self is neither a thing nor all things, but existence (of things) itself. In a short essay about enlightenment, the author wrote that before his enlightenment he was “Steve living his life,”but since his enlightenment he is “the experience of Steve living his life.” The enlightenment did not destroy ‘Steve’, but ‘Steve’ is no longer regarded as the experiencer. Here I see a parallel to what you wrote (that ‘Mathias’ won’t vanish after awakening etc.). Very interesting. But the author said that he is the experience (or consciousness). And this is not the Buddha’s teaching. ‘I am’ not the presence of phenomena.

Ven. N. Nanamoli: Yes, there are some similarities in what I’ve said, and what that person said, but there are also subtle, yet utterly fundamental differences between our respective explanations, and I am glad that you were able to see that. What usually happens with people is that once they discover their own power of reflexion (i.e. mindfulness), and the way how to step back from immediacy with which they were so much identified before, they become completely taken by it, and then they end up believing that they are actually ‘enlightened’. What they don’t realize, and they could only with the Buddha’s help, is that even the purest reflexion of all, is still not beyond ignorance, and if they want to really get enlightened they will have to address them both alike—immediacy and reflexion. (You will remember from Clearing the Path: “With Self, they perceive Self; with not- Self, they perceive Self; with Self, they perceive not-Self.” Only a sekha is able to perceive not-Self, with not-Self.)
Meanings pg 77
Jim got released from his own thoughts by the self referential question. Thinking mind ceased. He experienced that state and it started to repeat, circle.
So it will prolly circle x number of times throughout his life and then he sees the "fruit" in his mind and can grab it. This fruit is the thoughts from what he got released, over a longer time these thoughts will return as a grab-able noticeable thing.

The thoughts what he got released from is entire world. So it can be like you are a seer or witness basically looking down to the sense consciousness media.

auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by auto » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:52 pm

SarathW wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:27 pm
What is that, jhana or magga phala? did he experienced fruit of stream entry or jhana?
Assuming that he is not joking or lying or using drugs, I would say that he has experienced a moment of First Samatha Jhana or neighborhood concentration.
That is a moment of without sensual pleasures.
Otherwise, this could be a pleasure of wrong concentration.
By the way, this is not magga phala or stream entry.
The eagerness to attain that level again seems to me that his experience is genuine.
I like the video by the way.
It is funny but the audience got it.
he looked mental contents of his mind and deemed them not real. Its not possible to do without cultivation priorly, like when you read from a book that thoughts are illusory.. it requiers conditions for that you could be able to think that thoughts are illusory.. after what it catalyst another moment.

jhana object can be the fruit of stream entrant.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:27 am

auto wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:31 pm
aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:06 pm
Assuming this isn't just Hollywood histrionics, mania or drugs:

I think this is an entirely natural and good thing he has experienced, and like cj said, it's not a Buddhist attainment. The problem is, with wrong view it will be reified into "the Witness" and obstruct specifically Buddhist progress. This is not to say devoting oneself to "the Witness" in tandem with immaculate ethics and restraint is a bad thing (hopefully he'll at least do that). It's infinitely superior to the travesty of life that most of us pursue.
Mathias: Consciousness is not the feeling nor observing the feeling nor containing the feeling. The problem here is not to identify consciousness with the ‘self’ in the sense of: “I am not the feeling (or anything at all), but I am the presence of the feeling (and anything else).” This seems to happen in Advaita-Vedānta: The self is neither a thing nor all things, but existence (of things) itself. In a short essay about enlightenment, the author wrote that before his enlightenment he was “Steve living his life,”but since his enlightenment he is “the experience of Steve living his life.” The enlightenment did not destroy ‘Steve’, but ‘Steve’ is no longer regarded as the experiencer. Here I see a parallel to what you wrote (that ‘Mathias’ won’t vanish after awakening etc.). Very interesting. But the author said that he is the experience (or consciousness). And this is not the Buddha’s teaching. ‘I am’ not the presence of phenomena.

Ven. N. Nanamoli: Yes, there are some similarities in what I’ve said, and what that person said, but there are also subtle, yet utterly fundamental differences between our respective explanations, and I am glad that you were able to see that. What usually happens with people is that once they discover their own power of reflexion (i.e. mindfulness), and the way how to step back from immediacy with which they were so much identified before, they become completely taken by it, and then they end up believing that they are actually ‘enlightened’. What they don’t realize, and they could only with the Buddha’s help, is that even the purest reflexion of all, is still not beyond ignorance, and if they want to really get enlightened they will have to address them both alike—immediacy and reflexion. (You will remember from Clearing the Path: “With Self, they perceive Self; with not- Self, they perceive Self; with Self, they perceive not-Self.” Only a sekha is able to perceive not-Self, with not-Self.)
Meanings pg 77
Jim got released from his own thoughts by the self referential question. Thinking mind ceased. He experienced that state and it started to repeat, circle.
So it will prolly circle x number of times throughout his life and then he sees the "fruit" in his mind and can grab it. This fruit is the thoughts from what he got released, over a longer time these thoughts will return as a grab-able noticeable thing.

The thoughts what he got released from is entire world. So it can be like you are a seer or witness basically looking down to the sense consciousness media.
I know dozens of people that a similar thing happened to them. You can't conclude anything from this because it is NOT a true transformative insight on the fundamental level of existence. I am not trying to dismiss Carey's experience, but to show it as an 'experience' that has taken place within the structure of self and time.

I also don't except the idea of 'Buddhist progress' as some kind of valid 'marker'. One is either awake 24/7 or not. There is no going in and out of it and no person attaining anything. In the words of UG, 'UG was gone, never to re-appear again' in any capacity. There is no person that remains. This is only a conceptualization still grappling with its own content.

auto
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Awakening expressed in 2 min

Post by auto » Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:15 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:27 am
I know dozens of people that a similar thing happened to them. You can't conclude anything from this because it is NOT a true transformative insight on the fundamental level of existence. I am not trying to dismiss Carey's experience, but to show it as an 'experience' that has taken place within the structure of self and time.

I also don't except the idea of 'Buddhist progress' as some kind of valid 'marker'. One is either awake 24/7 or not. There is no going in and out of it and no person attaining anything. In the words of UG, 'UG was gone, never to re-appear again' in any capacity. There is no person that remains. This is only a conceptualization still grappling with its own content.
Sutra is teaching (emptiness, uncompounded etc are the core principle). Minimally it is said with four lines, and you can write thousand pages it still can be reduced into 4 lines. It includes path. There wouldn't be no point teach anything if there wouldn't be any result or action or explanation of nature how things are.
Dharma does not arise alone.
Relying on conditions it is born.
The Way is not practiced in vain.
Meeting conditions there is a response.
Old habits flow like torrents in
âlaya’s subtle consciousness.
Since the real yet unreal can create confusion
I have refrained from revealing it to you.’
No-self doesn't point to(isn't) anatta. Anatta is a doctrine. Like evolutionary theory is a doctrine. No-self is a support like common ancestor is for evolutionary theory. If you say there is no-self then you say you came from "support explanation" not from a real thing like monkey(or whatever you evolved from)
‘
Jim is an actor he can impersonate all kind of situations, so his no-self understanding is different from "UG was gone, never to re-appear again".
--
Of course the four lines are not actual lines, since you can put these four lines into one line if you have long enough paper, the four lines have again some not literal meaning.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests