Jackson Peterson's latest writings

An Eternal Now SG

Nisargadatta says: "the personality gives way to to the witness, then the witness goes and pure awareness remains." I then would continue the deconstruction to then say: "pure awareness" goes revealing that which is truly "unestablished" as being beyond conceptual description. This is the single step beyond Advaita that differentiates Buddhism from Advaita.

The problem is one like Santa Claus. All the young children across the world agree there is a Santa Claus, but differ regarding his costume and how he arrives.

They don't consider that perhaps there is no Santa Claus at all, and that it was just a "belief". But then they argue: well then how do you account for all our presents that "he" brought us?

We infer a Santa Claus based on experience and evidence. Santa Claus was a convenient explanation and fostered belief only.

Likewise looking deeper we may learn something about "awareness". Because our dualistic mind rips reality into two separate pieces, a perceiving subject and object, we sense an awareness that perceives and objects perceived. In this dualistic illusion we can mistake "awareness" as being one half of the whole. We then create a story about the half alone. This is like ripping the waves off the ocean and discussing the waves as though a possible independent reality as just "pure waves" independent of "ocean and water" were possible.

We do the same with awareness. In the moment of immediate experience as a thought or sensory perception. There is a vivid happening like the gong of a bell. Our mind rips the experience into two pieces, the sound texture and the awareness of it. But in fact the experiential event is a flashing forth of aware-sound-texture, as a unit-like self-known-event. Because of this mental bifurcation, the mind imputes experienced texture and awareness as two independent realities. We then believe in an independent "awareness" or super-pure-awareness. But unfortunately this is a belief that we can successfully verify in dualistic vision from moment to moment, just like looking at pictures of Santa Claus that prove his existence. We remain trapped in our own self-validating loop of dualistic illusion.

Then some guy comes along and says: Hey! There is no Santa Claus and no "awareness" either! Ho, ho ho..,

An Eternal Now SG

Beyond Awareness...

Its interesting how these discussions evolve between the "awareness" approach and the other regarding the "emptiness" approach. Some I think get the idea that awareness "disappears" in the "emptiness of awareness" insight. It doesn't disappear by any means, so its not that "awareness" is seen to be an illusion. What is the illusion is that "awareness" exists on its own side as a "perceiver", as though experiences are arising "to awareness".

I found when this is really seen clearly, experiences appearing like the gong sound of a bell, contain the "awareness" element as the sound itself, without a "listener". In Dzogchen all phenomena are described as "essence, nature and energy". Essence is the empty aspect, nature is the clarity and awareness luminosity aspect, and energy is the formative aspect. Energy (thugje) implies a quality of "compassionate reflexiveness" that runs through the whole continuum as Bodhicitta.

So cognitive awareness is a quality of all experience, inherently so or the experiences would never be known, its just not a separate viewer of experience. In Dzogchen one can speak freely of the cognitive "clarity" aspect as though it was a stand-alone phenomena. In fact it is this aspect that is pointed out in what is called a "direct introduction". The intelligence is the "clarity" as "wisdom" (yeshe). Therefore the empty aspect is never absent of awareness-clarity, nor are the appearances. So we could invent a new word: "empty-awareness-luminous-appearances" and I would add that there is an overall "intent" embedded in that totality as a "resonating compassionate concern" as Bodhicitta. As such there is no reason to postulate a background awareness or Brahman. Its all self-contained as non-dual "empty-awareness-luminous-appearances".

We could further refer to "empty-awareness-luminous-appearances" as simply "Buddha Nature". That would mean that all phenomenal and cognitive aspects could be called "Buddha Nature". The term Buddha Nature also implies this quality of a Buddha, compassion. How is this compassion expressed? It is the compassionate action of "awakening" due to pointing out the "right view" that allows the release of all suffering.

To clarify: The Buddha Nature is empty, yet is cognitively bright, and has a quality of self-presenting itself as appearances called "experience". It also has the Buddha qualities of compassion, wisdom and power. The Buddha Nature is never absent at any time as it is all there is on any level. Hence we can more easily understand Dogen's and others comments that "mountains, rivers, streams and the grasses" are all the Buddha Nature. There is only Buddha Nature.

The empty aspect of the Buddha Nature means its is intrinsically free of inherently existing afflictions and substance, yet the luminous clarity and compassionate "alive responsiveness" aspect ensures it's functions for the benefit of all. "Buddhahood for all" is embedded in the display as Bodhicitta and therefore we can always find the true Guru or Buddha within. Its the very essence of what we are.

Jui SG

Nicely expressed. Thanks for sharing!

An Eternal Now SG

I'm glad he's come to this level of clarity after decades being stuck on a substantialist view...

------------

Jax:

Some thoughts on "emptiness and appearances":

Some may think that "emptiness" and appearances are two different phenomena or aspects of one reality. But if we think like that we are seeing reality as compounded not non-dual.

Some may think that appearances arise from emptiness, but in fact there is no "causal connection". Appearances are emptiness, not in a "cause and effect" relationship, but in the fact that what we call an appearance is merely a web of relationships that can't be ascertained to be any one apparent part more than another. The absence of the independently existing nature of the appearance is its emptiness. Its empty of itself. So you don't find the emptiness of appearances in some other place or time than as the appearance itself. Its also not that the emptiness is "within" or the "true nature" of the appearance either. The appearance is itself emptiness as it can't be found to exist as the mind believes it to exist. There is indeed an energy event occurring, but there is no way to really pin it down. That's as futile as trying separate a river from the river bed, gravity, and movement. Rarely do we consider those aspects as defining a river. But there is no possibility of there being a river without those aspects being present. So it is also with all appearances, they only "exist" as within their total context, which in itself has no center or border. This can give a sense of the "feeling" of emptiness.

If appearances were caused, that would mean something was actually "caused" and therefore having been caused, now "exists". If we examine any apparent "existent", we won't be able to find a fixed unit of a "something". There are only interdependent relationships. The caused "thing" disappears amongst its various aspects and conditions that in themselves can't be pinned down as being any one thing either. Since there are clearly no "caused" things, then that means "cause and effect" is an illusion. There is just a flow of inter-dependent relationships, none of which ever attain the legitimate status of being either a "cause" or an "effect".

When applying this insight to the notion of there being a "self", we also will fail in finding any one "thing" that we can point to as this "entity" known as a self. It too will become lost in a web of inter-dependent relationships without any one part waving its hand in the air saying "Hey this part is the real me!". Well, almost not any part, except for the "I" or "me". So when we look for this "me", what do we find? Can we separate an independent "me" apart from its context any more successfully than we could with separating a river from its river bed, gravity and motion? In this case the "me" is inseparable from thoughts, self-images, memories, emotions, feelings, identity-stories, the body, consciousness, awareness and sensory experience. Pondering this we may get the sense of the empty nature of the "me".

Who would you be without your story of "me"? Don't answer that question with another "story"! Don't answer that question with a concept, word, sentence or thought. What you may be experiencing in this moment if you followed the instruction, is the "emptiness of "me" or self".

The appearance as a "me" or self is now seen to be "empty of itself". Having recognized the two-fold nature of emptiness of "things" and emptiness of "self"... we simply continue without the futile effort of reifying appearances beyond their own emptiness and hence find unbounded openness as the true nature of experience.

"Cause and effect" exist, but only conceptually.

------------

What's occurring when any appearance is known, is that a "thought" is appearing, a sense of consciousness is appearing, a feeling is appearing, a perception is appearing, a choice is appearing,a sense of an identity is appearing, an action is appearing. But in all that activity there is no one "doing" it or thinking it or choosing the action nor is there a consciousness or an awareness that is perceiving the arising energies. A flashing forth is just what is happening, like individual frames in a movie, each frame a complete presentation in itself. But no one is watching the movie, nothing is aware of the movie. The movie is self-known, frame by frame bursting forth in vivid clarity as vivid clarity... how wonderful, how amazing!

Every appearance is the self-display of "Buddha Nature" flashing forth as the "ten thousand things"...

Aik TC SG

Likewise looking deeper we may learn something about "awareness". Because our dualistic mind rips reality into two separate pieces, a perceiving subject and object, we sense an awareness that perceives and objects perceived. In this dualistic illusion we can mistake "awareness" as being one half of the whole. We then create a story about the half alone. This is like ripping the waves off the ocean and discussing the waves as though a possible independent reality as just "pure waves" independent of "ocean and water" were possible.

We do the same with awareness. In the moment of immediate experience as a thought or sensory perception. There is a vivid happening like the gong of a bell. Our mind rips the experience into two pieces, the sound texture and the awareness of it. But in fact the experiential event is a flashing forth of aware-sound-texture, as a unit-like self-known-event. Because of this mental bifurcation, the mind imputes experienced texture and awareness as two independent realities. We then believe in an independent "awareness" or super-pure-awareness. But unfortunately this is a belief that we can successfully verify in dualistic vision from moment to moment, just like looking at pictures of Santa Claus that prove his existence. We remain trapped in our own self-validating loop of dualistic illusion.

In the Vijnanavadins perspective, awareness arises with every thoughts and sense perceptions. It is a function of the Mind, the seventh consciousness. This awareness subside into the subconscious stream of becoming, the life force when thoughts and discriminating intellectual consciousness, the sixth consciousness is silent. Past karmic seeds flow in this stream and have been stored here from beginningless time. This is the eight consciousness, the Alaya-vijnana. The Mind (manas) is the link between the present (six consciousness) and the Alaya-vijnana which flow through it.

It is the sixth consciousness that discriminates and conceives of (manas) the Mind as our ego, as the existing ‘Self.’ Even though the Mind in itself contributes to the arising of an Ego, in itself it is pure. Mental bifurcation is a function of the sixth consciousness (mano-vijnana).

That is where in Chapter IX of the Lankavatara Sutra it is spoken of as – “After experiencing the "turning-about" in the deepest seat of consciousness, they will experience other Samadhis even to the highest, the Vajravimbopama, which belongs to the Tathagatas and their transformations. They will be able to enter into the realm of consciousness that lies beyond the consciousness of the mind-system, even the consciousness of Tathagatahood.”

In this case, manas which is also our spiritual consciousness has turn its attention away from the discriminating intellect, a self limiting empirical consciousness to a new attitude in the removal of these discriminations, attachments and prejudices, the elimination of karmic formations which create the illusion of samsara, the world of birth and death.

Pegembara SG

From Nirvana Now by Ajahn Sumedho

When we speak or think about the quality of awareness,

there is also a subtle danger of trying to cast it into the form of

some kind of immaterial thing or process. The word “aware-

ness” is an abstract noun, and we get so used to relating to

ordinary objects through conceptualizing them that we allow

the habit to overflow and we can end up conceiving aware -

ness in the same way. The heart can be aware, but trying to

make awareness an object, in the same way that we would a

tree or a thought, is a frustrating process. Ajahn Chah warned

against this, often saying:

You’re riding on a horse and asking,

“Where’s the horse?”

~ Ajahn Chah, in Venerable Father, by Paul Breiter

Pegembara SG

Ajahn Sumedho also had a favorite analogy for this:

Just like the question “Can you see your own eyes?” Nobody

can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can’t see my

eyes. I’m sitting right here, I’ve got two eyes and I can’t see them.

But you can see my eyes. But there’s no need for me to see my

eyes because I can see! It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? If I started saying

“Why can’t I see my own eyes?” you’d think “Ajahn Sume-

dho’s really weird, isn’t he!” Looking in a mirror you can see a

reflection, but that’s not your eyes, it’s a reflection of your eyes.

There’s no way that I’ve been able to look and see my own eyes,

but then it’s not necessary to see your own eyes. It’s not neces-

sary to know who it is that knows—because there’s knowing.

~ Ajahn Sumedho, “What is the Citta?”

Forest Sangha Newsletter, October 1988

This very error is the reason why it’s perhaps wiser to use

a term such as “knowing” instead of “transcendent wisdom”

or “awareness.” As a gerund it is a verb-noun, thus lending

it a more accurate quality of immanence, activity, and non-

thingness. The process of awakening not only breaks down

subject-object relationships, it also breaks down the very for-

mulation of “things.”

Some years ago Buckminster Fuller published a book enti-

tled I Seem to Be a Verb, and more recently, and more expan-

sively, Rabbi David Cooper published God is a Verb. Both of

these were attempts to counteract the floodtide of formula -

tions of reality as “things” that the untrained, conditioned

mind is prone to generating.