Nice post by Kyle in Emptiness group.
Kyle Dixon Nenad, If you insist that your point of view is
somehow the correct treatment of these issues, then yes it may
certainly appear as if "this group seems to be too much focused on
that type of confusion". However, this group also does not insist
that the so-called individual is merely a thought, but rather
explores the fact that the illusion of an individual reference
point depends on multiple factors.
So while HoM is very happy with simply denying thought, and then
identifying with 'this that is', touting that there cannot be
multiple factors because "there is only one"... emptiness
traditions do not do this. For traditions associated with emptiness
inquiry, the illusion of an individual is also created by
imputation, but other factors such as habitual patterns of grasping
which create the appearance of identification go into the illusion
as well.
HoM may state that a belief cannot be held, nor let go of, on
the grounds that the individual who would perform such actions is
an abstraction which is suggested by thought. However, in the
opinion of emptiness traditions; while the alleged identity may be
partly a byproduct of imputation, that imputation also becomes
interwoven into the fabric of behavior that the illusory entity
appears to involve itself with. So in addition to that imputation,
there is other conditioning. And the actions predicated upon that
conditioning occur habitually.
I bring this up because the very act of 'holding' or grasping is
another factor which reifies a subject relating to objects. For the
very act of 'holding' presupposes something to be held and a
subject to hold it, and that activity in and of itself implies
these two. The action or activity literally creates the illusion of
a subject-object dichotomy, and if that illusion is not seen for
what it is, then the entire process runs away with itself, becoming
an intricate and delusional structure of habitual tendencies which
are conventionally referred to as a 'self'. Again, there is no self
contained therein, within, or apart from that activity, but the
delusion surrounding that activity cannot see that in the absence
of insight which reveals it to be so.
For example, if we were to say there is only unpleasant emotions
and no entity which is feeling those emotions; emptiness would
argue that those emotions are still arising due to either accepting
or rejecting. The very act of accepting and/or rejecting
presupposes something to be accepted or rejected, and the very act
itself (along with the presupposition the action is based upon) is
precisely what the entity is. The entity cannot be found apart from
that action, and ultimately the so-called entity cannot be found
within that action either, but under the sway of delusion this is
not apparent. That is what the notion of karma truly is: 'action',
but it is delusional action which is predicated upon the
misunderstanding that the apparent dependencies and relationships
between subjects and objects, or objects and objects etc., is
valid. So emptiness seeks to penetrate these subtle assumptions,
presuppositions, conditioning behaviors and so on by revealing the
unreality of the factors they are based upon. It is a very thorough
and comprehensive process, which is also very liberating. If done
skillfully it utterly exhausts these subtle tendencies and
neuroses, and with the pacification of those tendencies, the
illusion of the entity which can exist or not exist is also
pacified.
HoM of course scoffs at this because in your view you merely
negate the thought of an 'I', or the thought of a 'me', thoughts of
'they', 'he', 'she', etc., on the presupposition that what you
really are is the faculty of knowing which is inseparable from what
is known. So your 'ultimate' (knowing-known) is readily available
and quite easy to intuit by dispensing with what you refer to as
'thought-stories' and simply recognizing the inseparability of the
knower and known. And that is all well and good, but a completely
different view.
So when you make a statement such as 'this group is focused too
much on that type of confusion', it is because in your opinion, and
in the opinion of HoM, who carry a certain view, such things are
not required. And this is due to the nature of the view you seek to
engender, which is utterly different from the view of
emptiness.
Now, does emptiness ultimately contend that all of the
aforementioned delusional actions, dependencies, illusory entities
and so on are valid and true? Not at all. But they appear to be for
those who are caught up in the throes of that ignorance. In
response to that HoM would merely say, "well there is no one to be
caught up in anything!" And that is partly true, but not in the
sense that HoM means, where thought is merely being objectified by
thought. That type of view does not cut through the illusion of
entityhood. That is why you see people in HoM who merely state that
negative emotions and expressions of that nature simply appear 'to
no one', which honestly is just a subtle form of depersonalization
it is little more than a form of suppression and repression, where
you identify with the knowing and attempt to intuit that
"everything is me", "I'm all of this, even the so-called negative
stuff which really isn't negative because it's all me and I am it,
yet at the same time there is no me".... that type of view is all
well and good but it is not an acceptable resolution to the deeply
engrained habitual patterns which give rise to the illusion of an
individual. The individual still persists in that type of view, it
is only transferred onto a new form of itself, in most cases far
more fortified than the previous individual.
6 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 7
Kyle Dixon In addition to 'action' which is predicated upon the
misunderstanding that the apparent dependencies and relationships
between subjects and objects, or objects and objects etc., are
valid; another aspect of the issue is that those dependencies and
relationships themselves, directly arise from that action. Though
only apparently. The grasping [action predicated upon delusion]
presupposes the grasped [object], however the very act of grasping
directly manifests the grasped through implication, the very
arising of the grasped [object] implies, and therefore appears to
give rise to the grasper [subject] and so on. Each implied factor
becomes the cause for (and effect of) each corresponding factor,
and the illusory web of factors build exponentially as a
result.
At no time within this apparent process do any of these
attributes (subjects, objects and so on) actually inherently arise,
but they appear to. And becoming taken in by that process,
conditioned by it and investing in it, is precisely the occurrences
which solidify our experiences as independent and autonomous beings
which exist in an environment separate from us, living lives
extended in time which will eventually end, and so on.
As familiarization with these afflictive processes build up and
solidify, they become more deeply engrained and at a certain point,
the myriad pieces of our experiences (which are implied by these
processes) are then mistaken to be inherent aspects of an inherent
experience. We become conditioned, and we only ever know and relate
to the imaginary figments of these processes, so attachment to them
arises, aversion to other aspects arise, and as a result of that,
the implied aspects of experience are solidified even further.
Eventually we are here, as we are, fully entrenched in this
intricate and deceitful web.
6 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 7