Following my Vipassana Meditation experience in October, 2,000, I had an extensive dialogue with wilbro on the subject. I also received comments from Sue Dragon (a portion is posted herewith) and Yanavira. My condition-connection-awakening post at page 42 summarizes my own view on the overall process of spiritual life. The difference of views with wilbro is seen in various areas but "update/review of dialogue" post may summarize the "current" understanding on my part. Wilbro seems to keep critiquing at various situations, and I have to say that the whole process drained my energy quite a bit.

The benefit I found out from this process is that I feel I can understand his view (He may disagree). I have tried out his approach in practice. But, I am not fully convinced with full benefits and the pros and cons yet. (see update/review of dialogue for more detail). It is a subtle subject encompassing how our mind-body system works and how we may realize the life with full of potentials. There are many words contained in here and may be hard to digest. Still, the bottom line is the practice. If there is any reader who has energy to go through this without getting lost or frustrated, or anyone willing to comment anything on this file, please do not hesitate to post, or e-mail me or wilbro.

My final words here is that I hope that true value of Vipassana is not lost because of my lack of understanding. Please also refer my other file on my experience of Vipassana. As usual, my comments are in (((…))).

--- Kio, 12/21/00 (48 pages long)

* I realized that "Seven factors of awakening" on page 43 may bring out the "essence" of Vipassana that I found today from one of the sutra. This short excerpt is much more convincing to me than all discussions I went through with wilbro as I reflect back now.

Analysis and Comments on Vipassana *

<<From Wilbro>> PLM #449

A critique of Vipassana: My contention will be that part of the "way" suggested is the whole of the "way," and that it, Vipassana, then misses the "way" by not only adding an unnecessary part, but also making that unnecessary part the whole.

From article titled "Sensation --The Key to Satipattana" by S. N. Goenka, from website: http://www.vri.dhamma.org/

"Another aspect of the practice of Vipassana meditation is the exploration of mental reality. As body cannot be experienced without the sensations that arise within it, similarly mind cannot be experienced apart from what arises within it, apart from its contents-in Pali, dhamma. Hence observation of mind (cittanupassana) and observation of mental contents (dhammanupassana) are inseparable.

When the mind contains craving the meditator realizes this fact. When it is free from craving the meditator realizes this as well. Similarly he realizes when the mind contains aversion or ignorance, and when it is free from these defilements. He realizes when the mind is agitated and scattered, or tranquil and concentrated. This is how he practices cittanupassana."

The description in the paragraph above describes the observation from I would call the still center perfectly. The question now is one of how one comes to the practice of cittanupassana, of how one comes to occupy that still center.

"The meditator simply observes objectively whatever happens within the mind, whatever mental phenomenon, whatever dhamma; this is the practice of dhammanupassana. Without becoming upset, he accepts whatever the mind contains at this moment: craving or aversion, sloth and torpor or agitation, guiltiness or skeptical doubts. And the law of nature is such that by observing them objectively, one automatically eradicates these hindrances. The meditator also accepts when such dhammas arise as awareness, penetrative investigation, effort, joy, tranquility, concentration, and equanimity. And the law of nature is such that as one observes objectively, these wholesome mental qualities are multiplied.

Positive or negative, one simply accepts all mental phenomena. All dhammas arise within the mind, and the mind can be experienced only through the dhammas that it contains. Hence dhammanupassana and cittanupassana are inseparable."

This comports with my description of passive awareness, the gateway to the still center There is simply an observation of what is transpiring in the mental arena, including any reaction to that observation. (con't in part 2)
(((It appears that awareness (realization of what is going on) and equanimity (acceptance as it is as to the mental contents) are the main point when Goenka says that they (dhammanupassana and cittanupassana) are inseparable.))) (((Wilbro, it is not just mental, but everything else, including physical sensation, therefore……)))

"Further, the meditator realizes that the mind and mental contents are inextricably linked to the body. The mind is constantly in contact with the physical structure; whatever dhammas arise within it have the base not of mind alone but also of body. This physical aspect of mental events is easily apparent when strong emotions or agitation arise, but it exists as part of every mental phenomenon. Even the slightest passing thought manifests not in the mind alone but in the combined field of mind and matter; that is, it is accompanied by a sensation within the body."

So, from the still center, there is an observation of the interplay of the mental events and their connected sensations. I would call that an observation of the way thought and feeling feed on each other.

"For this reason awareness of physical sensations is essential for the observation of mind and mental contents. Without this awareness, the exploration of mental reality will be incomplete and superficial."

Absolutely, but I would put the period at the end of that sentence and say that that is all that is needed. I say that the problem to be solved is to be revealed by that interplay of mind and body, as it were. I call that interplay the connection between thought and feeling, where feeling is defined as the sensations connected to the "mind." Thoughts created feelings and feelings create thoughts as that circle feeds on itself.

(((Feeling/sensation connected to the mind… but if we look from the feeling end, we may realize more intricate play between mind and body as opposed to looking from mind with the emphasis on mind and its connection to body.))))

So, my complaint with Vipassana is that what I see as the central point is then made part of the practice, where the concentration is on sensations, regardless of whether mind-connected or not.

"Thus sensation becomes the base for the exploration of the entire world of mind and matter. Exploring in this way, the meditator comes to understand truth in all its aspects, the whole truth of oneself. This is sampajanna, the fullness of understanding; this is satipatthana, the establishing of awareness. This is how to develop wisdom that will be unshakable, because it arises from a realization of the entire truth."

I do not dispute such a state. I think it is akin to my no-self state, full of bliss. But I also think that reaching that state does not address the problem and its solution.

((((If you are referring to my "bliss" state, you may be right. I did not get the full "enlightenment" but more on "bliss" state. The problem was non-existent at the moment as if I am in the state of bliss/trance almost a week perhaps but perhaps not fully eradicated. As a result, it is possible that I have to continue doing meditation whereas Krishnamurti's case, he needs only one minute in one hour - according to "You are the world." P.17 Is this a matter of degree or is it a matter of fundamental issue that is not clear in the process????))))

===

<<From Me>> Art of Living, #453-456

Wibro, the word, "feeling" sounds little nebulous to me. It appears that feeling is the description of physical symptom by words. Someone said, one shed tears because one is sad, or is it sad because one shed tears. Either/or, or both/and? It appears both/and to me. If we do not put words to the sensation, there is only direct experience. No good or bad. So, the question maybe, can we respond to the stimuli without words or thoughts intervening? Now, that sounds nature's way, does it not? And if it is so, where is self?

Is this an experiential wisdom as opposed to intellectual wisdom that we can only see the point if we get the point? If we go through a practice, to observe any stimuli without reacting to it but mere awareness of the experience without words attached to it, is it a good practice/technique to make us aware of the point? From my experience it appears that Vipassana does precisely that. Of course we do not need Vipassana course to practice it, if we know how to practice this simple point - as Krishnamurti may agree.

There is a Koan about wind and mind. If a flag is waving in the air, it is mind that is waving (wandering) if it does? This is a case of bodily sensation called seeing. We may react to this seeing as in the case of scratchy feeling we feel on our skull for example. If we observe, why not observe in totality - as direct experience. How about not reacting to the wife's complaints? Can we do the same? Easy to say, but to be able to do that, one may needs to gain skills/experiential wisdom - especially the case of wife's complaints! And unless one does not have such a skill and experience to go with it, it is useless to talk, more or less, would it not? If we have not eaten chocolate, no matter how we describe it, it does not convey the experience.

>> So, my complaint with Vipassana is that what I see as the central point is then made part of the practice, where the concentration is on sensations, regardless of whether mind-connected or not.

If Dhamma is detected at mind as well as physical sensation level as direct experience as much as the law of the universe is prevailing everywhere, does it matter whether mind is connected or not - assuming that the mind can be disconnected at the cognition level? I feel "awareness" or observation is practiced at mind as well as at physical level. Or, it is to be practiced at everywhere. Again, after all, it is "direct experience" in totality.

Living in truth does not only mean living in mind but also living in physical senses - as all animals or insects do. We may be advanced in some way compared to animals. But, basic life function is the same - as I see it. Physically, the difference is just more of neurons for us in the brain than in animals. The other way to say this is that mind/nerve system is always connected (at unconscious level) to physical sensation whether we recognize it or not. If you feel pain, it is the mind that notices that. If there is temperature rise in our body, somehow, that has influence to our mind activity. Everything is connected. After all, do we need to distinguish mind health and physical health? Is it not a matter of living happily in a simple term?

This relates to the point of art of living. If we master the skill, we do not need to think. This is experiential wisdom. The nature will take care of itself, as it always does. Ants and spiders, for example, practice this very well. (They are all centered in what they do, remaining at the samadhi state.) The whole thing is connected, integrated, and nature plays its role in this art of living. So, the whole being of ants and spiders is responding to the given situation, the best it can. What more can we expect than this? They are brought to this universe, progressed to this state, and respond to the stimuli as they are meant to be.

They are centered, here and now. Things are as they are. The map is clear for them. There is no misery and no complaints, whereas humans divide things up like body and mind, finance and health, spirituality and science, good and bad, etc. But, the point is that it is "as it is" after all. The law of universe prevails. As ants live, we do the same, except in our case, we can identify so many options and possibilities, we can focus on certain activity, and we can remember the pleasure and pain so that we can learn the lesson and apply it in the future. Or, we may dwell on the past in misery or worry for the future even if that is out of our control.

So, the process is a bit more complex. Still, the essence remains the same for us as well as animals. After all, it is "stimuli- response" process for progression. It is just that our response may go through interesting/complex processes as it is obtained after thinking possibilities, evaluating options, and identifying the outcome in imagination so that we can come up with some judgment. Then, we respond by hopefully focusing efforts to be one with the task (in samadhi, by applying memories/talents needed), review the progress, and keep moving on. After all, how we process the stimuli and play our role in contributing the H-max(universe) - happiness for all - with the balanced, integrated mind-body as total being, that is the question, is it not?

Anyway, I see nothing wrong in observing or being aware of physical sensation with equanimity, i.e., without intervention of "unnatural" human process. This is especially so when our mind may start to function separately from physical sensation as witnessed by the symptoms of psychosomatic diseases for example. Some of us may just use mind, or we may also physically exercise. But in this case, is there a good balance/connection/integration between mind and body? Or, is there a division? Is there a quiet center watching the whole? As much as mind may be locked into some specific subject or stay in cul de sac, we cannot unbind us and see the holistic picture of mind and body connection at the experiential level. Such situation may represent blockage, or suboptimization. The result is a lack of balance, and harmony, leading to unhappy situation as we find in us as well as all others surrounding us. Instead, we want to smoothen this process.

So, there is a good reason why we want the "connection" between mind and body that we can directly experience. You agreed to the next point: "….For this reason awareness of physical sensations is essential for the observation of mind and mental contents." Perhaps, the whole point of Vipassana is to address/cultivate this point so that we can do this by focused training. Yet, as touched in my Vipassana report as posted on my home page, meditation is not practiced in just sitting, it is practiced in walking, lying and acting in life. This should be compared to the meditation in the narrow sense to sit and train our skills to see things as they really are, where the situation is controlled with much less disruption. In such setting, the subtlety and required skills may become clear for many people

So, if one is accomplished in doing this, the sitting may not be needed. But, many sutras point out that Buddha did lots of meditation even after his awakening. Why? I think this is to keep balance, to keep connection, to keep eradicating the error, or to keep coming up with the insight that is added to Buddha's everyday experiences, e.g., eradicate the suffering of other people by providing them with the answer, which is "pragmatic". Stimuli are still there to respond to. Awakening then become the process of keep solving the problem (as humans see) and practice the insight in this world. In this way, for each problem or concern encountered, his "whole existence" may have responded to answer the question. It is problem-solving process as life is continuation of that. (He must have thought of H-max. kind of idea as found in such phrase as: "May all beings be happy.) So, sila is proven track whereas samadhi and prajna are also processes for our "whole existence" to be one with Dharma - from moment to moment. This makes the eradication from misery, and live our life as it is meant to be.

>>"Thus sensation becomes the base for the exploration of the entire world of mind and matter. Exploring in this way, the meditator comes to understand truth in all its aspects, the whole truth of oneself. This is sampajanna, the fullness of understanding; this is satipatthana, the establishing of awareness. This is how to develop wisdom that will be unshakable, because it arises from a realization of the entire truth."

>>I do not dispute such a state. I think it is akin to my no-self state, full of bliss. But I also think that reaching that state does not address the problem and its solution.

I thought you agreed to the point: "….For this reason awareness of physical sensations is essential for the observation of mind and mental contents." Or, perhaps, I don’t understand "the problem" you are referring to in your sentence above. At that state, where is the problem? It is as it is. Is it not the whole point? Realizing that we cannot escape, realizing that there is no self, where is the problem, or misery? Or, who is there to address the problem? Tied to this, please see the next post on Daisetz, Buddha, and the bright star.

<<From Me>> Daisetz, Buddha, and the bright star. #457

This reminder may tie to the point on human progress as well. Here is Daisetz as we shared before (from Daisetz remembered (section on Buddha's enlightenment) at my home page):

".....But, how can he move forward from there? Intellect did not bring solution. Hard training did not help much. He had nothing to do. Yet, he wished to resolve the problem much more than before. If his mind was smaller, and weakened, it may have been crushed under the heavy pressure of this problem.

Being cornered to its extreme, his whole existence responded. He now felt that there was no more questions to ask, and there is no self to fight against the enemy. His self, his intellect, his whole existence was thrown into the question. In other words, he became the question itself. The distinction between questioner and the question, self and non-self, is vanished and one undivided "unknown" was left. In this "unknown,’ he was absorbed.

If we picture the scene in our mind, there was no Buddha left to ask questions, no self to realize the ego, and there was no question responding to the intellect that threatens his existence. There was no sky above his head nor no ground under his feet. If we could stand besides Buddha at that time and be able to look into his existence, what we may have found there would be a big question mark that covers the whole universe. If he had any mind, if we could say so, such was the state of his mind. He was there in such a state for a while. And.. when he looked up the sky, he saw the Venus in the early morning sky. The light of the star went straight into his eyes. This event brought his whole consciousness back to the previous/normal state. There was no question that was so strong, so persistent and caused him suffering left anymore. There was a whole world shining under a new light with new meaning.

I especially liked the expression, "his whole existence responded" in the above. I feel awakening is certainly connected to bodily sensation as well. In other words, Vipassana may cultivate the setting/state, which helps for the "whole existence" to respond. This is the reason why I feel Qi, or physical connection of neuron/nerve or removal of blockage/error may have something to do with the process.

"His self, his intellect, his whole existence was thrown into the question. In other words, he became the question itself." Here, I see Buddha getting to the state of "quiet center watching" - in your term. Or, watcher and watched is one. As Buddha is the one who found Vipassana, he must have studied the sensation and its link to mind's function when he meditated. Then, "his whole existence" means that he checked everything and the whole of his mind-body came to the point of "response."

Then he found that there was no more question because question and the universe became one (leaving no questioner asking the question) and therefore canceled out/resolved - so to speak. So, there was no self, no more question, no more division, no more words, and no more solution, but Dharma as it is. Before the question was the solution as it is. Means to practice Dharma are the ends as the way things are - at the state when he saw the bright star. So, he saw Dharma or we call "Buddha nature" manifesting everywhere as it is and there was no more question left in him.

<<wilbro:458>> referring to the end portion of my note: Art of Living

I said, "I do not dispute such a state. I think it is akin to my no-self state, full of bliss. But I also think that reaching that state does not address the problem and its solution."

You said, "I thought you agreed to the point: "….For this reason awareness of physical sensations is essential for the observation of mind and mental contents." Or, perhaps, I don’t understand "the problem" you are referring to in your sentence above. At that state, where is the problem? It is as it is. Is it not the whole point? Realizing that we cannot escape, realizing that there is no self, where is the problem, or misery? Or, who is there to address the problem? Tied to this, please see the next post on Daisetz, Buddha, and the bright star."

Yes, I agree; you and I do not see the problem to be solved as the same problem. I have been trying to show the difference between our two views of the "problem." Perhaps someone else can comment on that difference, if they see what I am saying, for we seem to be going in circles. We both speak to "realizing," but what does it mean, to realize?

<<wilbro: 459 in response to Daisetz…>>

Three quotes and a comment. Another try to define the difference between our two views of the problem to be solved.

"And what have I taught? "This is stress...This is the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress." This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them." (Pali Canon, The Four Noble Truths, § 188)

"And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the cause by which stress comes into play." (Ibid, § 189)

"Nobody (and no events) causes suffering to you. You cause suffering to yourself by generating tensions in the mind. If you know how not to do that, it becomes easy to remain peaceful and happy in every situation." Mr. S.N. Goenka (p.30, Art of Living, by William Hart)

Comment:

The marrow of this matter is that that which disturbs our peace of mind is something that occurs in that state of mind, and further, that that which occurs is self-generated. This is a generic problem. The cure of this generic problem is to come to see what that doing is and stop doing it. The first particular problem is then one of how to stop doing it. One possible solution is to bring that doing into the light of awareness and simply stop doing it. Another possible solution is to cut off the source of the doing so that it can not be done. This is, as I see it, our difference.

The first solution would seem to have the advantage in that it would confer understanding and allow discrimination. The second solution would seem to include a disadvantage in that the source of the doing might also be the source of another doing, one which is a practical necessity. An instance of the latter would be the use of drugs.

In the first solution, the doing that is not to be done will not be known until it is revealed. In this case, it is proper to say that the problem can not be known until it is known, and that the question of what the problem is can not be answered until the problem has been solved.

In the second solution, the problem may be defined before the solution because the solution does not require understanding the problem. All it requires is the technique to turn off the source of the doing. As such, I feel it is the mechanical solution. I am not saying that the second solution is no solution. All I am saying is that I see it as not requiring understanding, and since understanding is one of our attributes, we are short-changing ourselves in the solution.

<<wilbro: 460>>

Kio, thank you for allowing me to continue my dialogue with you in your website. I'll try not to clutter it up. I'll move paragraph by paragraph through your Art of Living, one at each posting, and continue to lay out the difference between us as I see it. For the rest of the world, whenever Kio and I sit face to face, we always find more agreement than disagreement. The disagreement is always subtle.

<Wilbro, the word, "feeling" sounds little nebulous to me. It appears that feeling is the description of physical symptom by words. Someone said, one shed tears because one is sad, or is it sad because one shed tears. Either/or, or both/and? It appears both/and to me. If we do not put words to the sensation, there is only direct experience. No good or bad. So, the question maybe, can we respond to the stimuli without words or thoughts intervening? Now, that sounds nature's way, does it not? And if it is so, where is self?>

First, let me define what I mean by feeling. I use it in the context of a relation between thought and feeling. For instance, the thought of someone taking advantage of us may bring on the feeling of anger, and that feeling of anger may bring up the thought of getting revenge. The emotional response spawns thoughts which spawns further emotional responses, or conversely, a thought spawns the emotional response and that emotional response spawns further thoughts. That connection creates whirlwind of response. As Goenka says, which I read as saying what I am trying to say:

"Further, the meditator realizes that the mind and mental contents are inextricably linked to the body. The mind is constantly in contact with the physical structure; whatever dhammas arise within it have the base not of mind alone but also of body. This
physical aspect of mental events is easily apparent when strong emotions or agitation arise, but it exists as part of every mental phenomenon. Even the slightest passing thought manifests not in the mind alone but in the combined field of mind and matter; that is, it is accompanied by a sensation within the body."

Mental aspects connect to matter aspects; thoughts to feelings. Your question, "can we respond to the stimuli without words or thoughts intervening?" can only be answered by putting ourselves in the position to see if we can. Is that Nature's way? If you define it so. As to any question regarding the self, I'll cover that in response to your second paragraph.

<<Wilbro: 461>>

Response to second paragraph:

>Is this an experiential wisdom as opposed to intellectual wisdom that we can only see the point if we get the point? If we go through a practice, to observe any stimuli without reacting to it but mere awareness of the experience without words attached to it, is it a good practice/technique to make us aware of the point? From my experience it appears that Vipassana does precisely that. Of course we do not need Vipassana course to practice it, if we know how to practice this simple point - as Krishnamurti may agree.<

I think this paragraph gets right to the core of our difference. If the problem were one of reaching the point where practice, of any sort, would lead to dispassionate observation, then you are right. However, if the problem were the one doing the practicing, no amount of practice will effect the solution. There is a saying that comports with this, namely, one can not wash off blood with blood. I know of no way to state this without bringing in the notion of self, for self-reflection must come into play. I define self as one's sense of self, where the grasp of oneself as oneself is one's self, therefore, I am saying that the solution is, in effect, tantamount to a change in one's sense of self. I further say that such a shift may only come about when the condition for it to occur is put in place. So, it is my contention that unless this self-reference problem is addressed, no addressing of the problem is complete, and that is because the problem itself, oneself, is not being addressed.

((((The condition to realize no-self is what Vipassana orients. This is to be done with awareness and equanimity, finding that everything is impermanence with experiential wisdom. When this is done, whether with Vipassana or not, self is gone. If your concern is whether Vipassana is conducive to bring this state, ultimately it is the work of each individual. So, I agree to what you mentioned regarding the need for self-reflection. Relating to this, I will post a note on Mr. Coleman's experience through Vipassana from his book. This may give a better picture for your concern on the condition and problem related to self.

Another point perhaps related to this is that when I sense resolution in my bodily sensation, a feeling of bliss, or rapture is the word I learned some people use, it is to be recognized as a step toward the perfect enlightenment - if there is such a thing. As mentioned before, it is the process I think is critical.))))

Now, it must be judiciously added that if the problem is not as I have envisioned it, that the solution I have found solves nothing, that I only imagine I have solved something, i.e., self-delusion is in fullest of bloom, why then I have said nothing of import, and, in fact, the subtle point upon which I pontificate is naught but solipsistic sophistry.

<<wilbro: 462>>

Response to third paragraph:

>There is a Koan about wind and mind. If a flag is waving in the air, it is mind that is waving (wandering) if it does? This is a case of bodily sensation called seeing. We may react to this seeing as in the case of scratchy feeling we feel on our skull for example. If we observe, why not observe in totality - as direct experience. Easy to say, but to be able to do that, one may needs to gain skills/experiential wisdom. And unless one does not have such a skill and experience to go with it, it is useless to talk, more or less, would it not? If we have not eaten chocolate, no matter how we describe it, it does not convey the experience.<

Well, I do not see the Koan as referring to seeing a waving flag but to the movement of the mind in answering the question posed. Here again, that subtle difference I see comes into play. The mind must move to answer the question and when that movement is seen, the craver craving the answer is seen and comes to an end in that unity of observer and observed.

What does to "observe in totality - as direct experience" mean? Would not the ending of the partial observer be the direct experience necessary to reveal that meaning? If that chocolate is an experience of a negation, the statement "If we have not eaten chocolate, no matter how we describe it, it does not convey the experience" would gain another meaning and now contain two separate meanings. The distinction between those two separate meanings is the subtle distinction that may only be known when it is known.

((I should have said, "if "someone" have not eaten chocolate… sorry.))

So, the subtle distinction is defined by this self-reference. The saying that something can not be known until it is known has two separate meanings and one meaning transcends the other, or brings the subtle level into play. Again, I will admit to the possibility that I am reading my experience entirely incorrectly.

<<wilbro: 463>>

Response to 4th paragraph:

>> So, my complaint with Vipassana is that what I see as the central point is then made part of the practice, where the concentration is on sensations, regardless of whether mind-connected or not.<<

>If dhamma is detected at mind as well as physical sensation level as direct experience as much as the law of the universe is prevailing everywhere, does it matter whether mind is connected or not - assuming that the mind can be disconnected at the cognition level? I feel "awareness" or observation is practiced at mind as well as at physical level. Or, it is to be practiced at everywhere. Again, after all, it is "direct experience" in totality.<

Yes, you have made your point perfectly. The totality of which you speak does not include the subtle distinction of which I speak. The observer who is looking at mind/body is not the observer who is looking at observing. There is a difference between looking at a thing and at a doing. Since the answer is to stop doing, it behooves one to observe the doing. In the subtle case the doing is the observer.

(((* My statement was not as clear as wilbro's in the sense that I did not clarify the process of observation. I assumed observer-observed setting was clear in this context.)))

"Nobody (and no events) causes suffering to you. You cause suffering to yourself by generating tensions in the mind. If you know how not to do that, it becomes easy to remain peaceful and happy in every situation." Mr. S.N. Goenka (p.30, Art of Living, by William Hart)

<<Wilbro: 464>>

Response to paragraphs 5-8 (Art of Living-2)

"Living in truth does not only mean living in mind but also living in physical senses - as all animals or insects do. We may be advanced in some way compared to animals. But, basic life function is the same - as I see it." (First few sentences of paragraph 5)

I would separate us from other life forms in terms of awareness. As far as we know, we are the only life form that can reflect upon being aware. Within that reflection is the awareness of being the one who is aware, in effect, creating the reflection that not only captures both the other and self, but allows us to make the abstract step back as the observer of both the world and self as a world/self complex. In other words, that double-reflection allows us to say, "I am in the world."

If the problem lies in the act of reflection, as I feel it does, reflection upon our connection to other life forms is interesting, but not cogent.

((*He is referring to reflecting 'self' as a corner stone to be found in a problem state. Perhaps, this is why he keeps going back to abstract self, self, self.…. viewpoint. Thinking ties to identity. Identity is artificial for the logic to play its role. This view has to be seen from the quiet center and to be understood as insight.)))

<<wilbro: 465>>

Response to 9th paragraph:

>Anyway, I see nothing wrong in observing or being aware of physical sensation with equanimity, i.e., without intervention of "unnatural" human process. This is especially so when our mind may start to function separately from physical sensation as witnessed by the symptoms of psychosomatic diseases for example. Some of us may just use mind, or we may also physically exercise. But in this case, is there a good balance/connection/integration between mind and body? Or, is there a division? Is there a quiet center watching the whole? As much as mind may be locked into some specific subject or stay in cul de sac, we cannot unbind us and see the holistic picture of mind and body connection at the experiential level. Such situation may represent blockage, or suboptimization. The result is a lack of balance, and harmony, leading to unhappy situation as we find in us as well as all others surrounding us. Instead, we want to smoothen this process.<

Yes, I would agree that there is a problem that may be described as a binding, or an unbalance, or blockage. That, in my view, points to a problem with one's relation to oneself. The question then is one of how to move from binding to unbinding, from unbalance to balance, from blockage to freedom. That how then depends upon where one sees the movement leading. This is where we part ways. This parting of ways is what I have trying to describe in these responses. Again, as I have said before, I am not saying your movement does not lead to a solution, but only that I do not see it as a full solution. Of course, you are arguing the same point against me, so there we are. Flip a coin?
(((* full solution----Because of lack of emphasis on self and observation of its function in my view??)))

<<Wilbro>>#466

Response to 10th paragraph:

>So, there is a good reason why we want the "connection" between mind and body that we can directly experience. You agreed to the next point: "….For this reason awareness of physical sensations is essential for the observation of mind and mental contents." Perhaps, the whole point of Vipassana is to address/cultivate this point so that we can do this by focused training. Yet, as touched in my Vipassana report as posted on my home page, meditation is not practiced in just sitting, it is practiced in walking, lying and acting in life. This should be compared to the meditation in the narrow sense to sit and train our skills to see things as really are, where the situation is controlled with much less disruption. In such setting, the subtlety and required skills may become clear for many people<

My response here is my response to your second paragraph. I was saying there that it is not the observing, but what is observed that is the controlling factor. Again, I am saying that the only sensations necessary to observe are the ones thought creates, and that that requires observing the relation between thought and the sensations connected to them. I would also suggest that the base thought, "I am," is one's sense of self, and that that sensation can only be revealed by its coming to an end.
((((* Wilbro points out again 'self' or 'I am'.. as the 'base thought' that needs to be ended for it to come to full solution - perhaps.)))))

<<Wilbro>> #467

Response to 11th paragraph (and end of rant):

>So, if one is accomplished in doing this, the sitting may not be needed. But, many sutras point out that Buddha did lots of meditation even after his awakening. Why? I think this is to keep balance, to keep connection, to keep eradicating the error, or to keep coming up with the insight that is added to Buddha's everyday experiences, e.g., eradicate the suffering of other people by providing them with the answer, which is "pragmatic".

Stimuli are still there to respond to. Awakening then become the process of keep solving the problem (as humans see) and practice the insight in this world. In this way, for each problem or concern encountered, his "whole existence" may have responded to answer the question. It is problem-solving process as life is continuation of that. (He must have thought of H-max. kind of idea as found in such phrase as: "May all beings be happy.) So, sila is proven track whereas samadhi and prajna are also processes for our "whole existence" to be one with Dharma - from moment to moment. This makes the eradication from misery, and live our life as it is meant to be.<

As it should be, I will not argue with what you have said in this paragraph. Our argument comes down to the subtle difference in view we have as to what the whole solution is. And lest any reader get the idea that I am trying to take your view apart, that is not so. The difference could easily be an upshot of the way we have experienced the problem, and nothing more.

(((He is referring to self, observation of the self from quiet center as the whole solution - not a partial solution - as it appears.)))

Ok, Kio, end of rant, as promised! Happy turkey day everyone who celebrates turkey day! To the rest, happy turkey day anyway!
==

<<From Me>> #468

As I read the post like #459, it appears that you think Vipassana corresponding to what you call a "mechanical solution." Is this idea developed because you think observing the breathing or bodily sensation is a mechanical act? If so, why are recognizing mind functions and its content with awareness and equanimity embedded as a part of Vipassana training? Or, even if it is seen as a mechanical act, do you think it remains so unless you try this dynamic process - whether you do this sitting, standing, walking, etc.? Rather, is it not possible to see the process as a step toward understanding our mind-body connection and function as may be made aware from this very focused approach? And, if that is what is to be cultivated and processed in real life, is Vipassana not the "passive observation" directed on total mind-bodily phenomena?

If Vipassana is viewed as a form of passive observation, all mind activity is sensed as bodily sensation as direct experience, where is the difference? I do not see the difference. Actually, the point indicated here is that just having "awareness" only on mind activity without connecting the bodily sensation may miss the point. This is because such "passive observation" has limitation in that it may not encompass the "whole" sense of mind-body phenomena. In other words, such view of the mind may not reach the depth of our past conditioning and intricate function of our unconscious mind.

((((* The above sentence may be seen as not incorporating the whole solution/self/observation of observer idea. This is observer-observed idea he seems to indicate. Except that vipassna observation will lead to the state of observer and observed becoming one. However, it does not emphasize self, or observer type of 'notion' in practice as much as he does. Another potential confusion between wilbro and me may be based on the point that I tend to see the state after the resolution without referring to what happened to the self. On this point, his reflection may bring more concrete ending to what has actually happened, thus, the ending may be clear and always related to the shift from self to non-self identity. The idea of impermanence in Vipassana is another way to come to the same conclusion but may be seen as weak in wilbro's eyes. After all, Buddha commented dukha, annata(non-self), anicca(impermanence) as three basic characteristics. ))))

While I only have a limited knowledge of Krishnamurti and especially Kierkegaard, I sense that they did not emphasize the point of bodily sensation. Krishnamurti, however, used the word like direct experience, but often the emphasis seems to more from the "intellectual" end, somewhat similar to your approach if I am not mistaken. If that is the case, I now feel that such approach may miss something very fundamental. Actually, while it is not clearly pointed out, his words, "awareness without choice*" may need to be interpreted as awareness without boundary, i.e., including bodily sensations - more as direct experience and without resistance. (P.17, You are the world)

Let me be specific. When we find solution of any problem, for example, we may "feel" happy. But to be precise, this means, we feel happy in our bodily sensation as a living fact, does it not? The same is true for "conviction" or "peace and harmony." Or, "sadness" as I mentioned before. Or, when we have craving or aversion coming up, we sense related bodily sensation if we are made "aware" through some focused training to become more receptive, and be able to take appropriate action, i.e. stay equanimous. This, I think, is because our body is much more straightforward in its response than our typical mind's behavior - if we can develop such sensitivity/receptivity. So, to borrow Krishnamurti's word, we need to be "vulnerable" to be aware of these symptoms. Yet, we need to be equanimous so that the nature will process the stimuli as it should without mind putting fingers into the pot so to speak.

The process may be seen as "anchoring" as some psychologist may use such word to describe the moment of "bringing out the desired behavior", i.e., bound to unbound situation. ("desired" here is "Natural" by the way.) Or, this may be seen as part of a biofeedback mechanism. With Vipassana, problems can be known through mind-body sensation. Then, resolution will be gained through awareness of the sensation with equanimity. This is a wholesome act of all of our being, both mind and body. The end result is a process leading to a "spiritual" life except that this may be called as a "natural" life.

(((* Perhaps, this description of problem is one of the point wilbro does not find my view as fitting to his view. He sees the problem related to self as mentioned before. If his resolution is always tied to self-non-self reflection, problem will be seen in such a manner and mind-body sensation as secondary or minor point - not directly relating to his view.)))

I used to say, "use your brain and listen to your heart." But it appears listening to our mind and bodily sensation may be more appropriate to describe the state of awareness. We sense what is going on, observe sensation, and directly experience this with equanimity! In that state is all the answers, -- or no more questions nor conflicts. So, why not live our life not merely in the mind but also directly through our body? To me, that is life, a wholesome one - the life beyond words, and tangled thoughts and images. So, your term, self reflection may be replaced by observing the bodily sensation and being aware of the fact that everything is impermanence.

(((* The above underlined part is my resolution state. This does not require books to write, words to describe, etc. However, this point may be easily forgotten if the words cannot describe what actually happened. Or, if the word is impermanence, the reflection as impermanence may be seen, again, as weak in 'his' view.)))

(** Later, I would like to share my view in reference to your guide, especially related to these issues. Focusing on Vipassana and work on clarifying the issues from your point may be fine. I am happy to go with that approach if we can be productive in our (your?) investigation on the "problem" as you see it. Yet, I feel shedding the light backward to check and balance the situation on your "guide" (see my home page for Wilbro's guide for self clarification) may benefit a lot in clarifying the issue from different angle. So, let me work on it with the hope that there is something that we can excavate in this process.

Further, I sense comparison with others like Krishnamurti, Daisetz, et. al may help to shed the light yet from another angle. (Also, see the next post on Coleman) If we have eyes and intelligence to see through, as opposed to merely identifying the problems and differences, we may gain insight to communicate the point succinctly to overcome the problems whatever that may be. In other words, it is not just identifying problems that we should engage our activity in, it is to come up with sensible and comprehensive solution or approaches for solution that may need to be addressed and communicated. This is a pragmatic management issue.)

<<From Me>>

Vipassana Experience of John Coleman

I have just finished reading a book called "The Quiet Mind," by John Coleman, previously a CIA agent, discussing his search for the quiet mind. P.171-173 of the book describes the process Mr. Coleman went through Vipassana perhaps in 1960s under the guidance of U Ba Khin (1899-1971). The following is an excerpt:

• …I had come with the firm intention to throw out all my preconceived ideas on the course…..
• In about three days the mind was clear, crystal clear.
• Gradually, I became aware of tingling sensations throughout those parts of body upon which intense concentration was focused. When concentration was directed to my right hand, for instance, I experienced the wild dance of electrons producing a warm glow throughout the hand…
• The keen awareness of this molecular motion was beginning to produce a glow of heat.
• My body was getting warmer during this period.
• In Buddhist term I knew what was happening: I was repaying my karmic debts for past misdeeds in a concentrated form.
• At this point the teacher made me to take a vow to remain perfectly still for one hour period without moving.
• The heat and pain became intense.
• …pain persisted…but no relief so long as I desired relief.
• There was an intense desire to be free from suffering and this very desire was perpetuating the suffering. This must have been the turning point, my moment of truth. Suddenly, at a point of supreme frustration, my mind stopped functioning for it realized it could not bring about a cessation of dukkha. The desire to be free from suffering ceased as the realization occurred that it could not be sought after and brought about. There was an infinitesimal attachment to the self and suddenly, like a bolt of lightening, something snapped and when the search stopped there was relief.
• There was an indescribable calm. There was cool equanimity that seemed to fill and encompass entirety. There was everything and nothing, a peace which passes all understanding. The mind and body were transcended.

* What I found interested in reading this book was that previous to attending the Vipassana course, Mr. Coleman went through extensive search to find the quiet mind. In the process, he met Suzuki, Krishnamurti, and U Ba Khin, he calls as three wise men. Then, he felt that the search was over before he decided to take the 10-day Vipassana course under the guidance of U Ba Khin, which brought this experience, mentioned above, he calls enlightenment.

* Reflecting on my search, I also went through Suzuki, and Krishnamurti before stumbled into Vipassana. Also, comparing to my Vipassana experience was quite illuminating.

* While Mr. Coleman became a teacher like Mr. Goenka and conducted hundreds of Vippasana courses around the world, he did not elaborate his "inner" life after "enlightenment" as much in detail. In spite of this, the whole book was very informative, and I will recommend this book for anyone with interest to live life as it is meant to be.

* BTW, I still maintain my view on enlightenment as process as mentioned in my file, "about enlightenment" found in my home page while state of enlightenment may be characterized in a subjective terms. Even if the effort to describe the indescribable may turn out to be nonsensical, I would like to try to characterize the state and process some time.

• The book is $16.95 published by Pariyatti Press (203 pages, paperback)

* BTW, this is a reminder by Yanavira's post #2686 UOZ that I can closely identify with now. (Also posted in "about enlightenment" file at my home page.)

"My experience is simply by keeping awareness and equanimity. My experience is simply by observing sensations with detachment. When I do my experience, they are in fact I do taste, look, touch, smell, talk, and think. With detachment, I observe its sensations arise and pass away. Thus, no sankhara (mental reaction/conditioning) and no kalapas are created, what should suffering exist?

Although in practically, they may not as smooth as expected, still you must learn how to swim. Still you musn't refuse to enter the water yourself.

Our own bodies bear witness to the truth. When you discover the truth within, it becomes real for you and you live according to it. That is what happen to me. We can each realize the truth by learning to observe the sensations within ourselves.

Eyes and form, ears and sound, nose and smell, tongue and taste, body and touch, intellect and Dhamma are impermanent."

<<From Me>> Review of Wilbro's Guide

This is a quick review of wilbro's guide "THE WAY OF INQUIRY - A Guide to Self-Clarification" in relation to Vipassana discussion. Text here is taken from the guide (see my or wilbro's home page). My comments are in ((((…)))):

"The whole of the solution is of a learn-by-do nature, like learning to ride a bicycle, and may be described as a psychological movement whose end is to put us in the position to both recognize the problem state and have the ability to step out of it. There are difficulties in coming to recognize the problem state, but its recognition becomes intuitive. ..

The first step is to move to the state of attention. ….When you turn your attention toward inattention, you will find that either you were absorbed in thought or lost in fantasy. … As you drift out of inattention, be aware of what seems like a between state, where you have returned to your senses, yet are unfocused…. You will find that between state develops into a place where you can come to rest in your senses. Another may think you are off in thought, where in fact you are simply aware of what your senses are presenting you. This is a quiet time you can take anywhere.

((((This is Hishiryo state, thinking of no-thinking. This is the state to be attained by anapana or vipassana. The difference may be that Hishiryo or description here may not convey the total notion of quietness, the centered sense that may come and developed with bodily sensation.))))

As you move into the study of your inattention, you will find signs that you are moving into a state of attention. One sign of inattention is the startle when you are suddenly awakened from being caught up in thought or fantasy. When the state of attention is, you will notice you are no longer startled by unexpected noises. It is as if noise passes through without touching anything. When you do startle, the noise feels like a wave, or impulse, as it passes through.

((((I feel that this state is gained by one's going through experiential learning experience. In case of vipassana, it is to realize that reference point as the center that one can remember in his body. This relates to your bicycle analogy that one needs to gain. Vipassana seems to offer a training ground. Your notion of noise as wave indicate that you are using bodily sensation here except that you do not emphasize this as much.))))

….We continue with an "after the fact' recognition of reaction and move to a "with the fact' recognition. ((((This is awareness of reaction to keep the stance of observing what is going on in our bodily sensation realizing that it is just that.)))) Being "with the fact" of our reactions, which means an awareness of them as they arise, we come upon an insight process that both reveals the problem and releases us from the problem. Insight is something that comes to us. (((((It is a nature's process. We just put us in that state for insight to occur.))))) This means that we will not know what we will see until we see it, and that means we have another reaction to set aside; namely, conclusions…..

The only rule here, whether it appears in the stomach or chest, is to stay with the sensation when it comes upon you. Watch the ways you try to escape it and the thoughts that rise about it. ((((So, you certainly talk about bodily sensations. No matter what, just stay equanimous.))))

Release experiences are not all the same. Some are simply the feeling of having lost a burden, of coming to rest, while others may be so intoxicating that it is very easy to assume you have found IT. In the latter, the senses may come alive in such a way that there is no sense of separation present; all seems to be one. The notion that you have arrived, found your true self, been enlightened, and so on, not only resets the problem way of being, but also turns off the Way of Inquiry. If you have found it, whatever it you think you have found, there is no longer any need to look. There is the need, however, to defend your finding, for losing what you have found might uncover the same old problem again. (((((This emphasizes the process orientation. The remark on "finding IT" sense ties to my note on snare of Mala in my vipassana report.)))))

….one way of keeping the release experience in perspective is to allow the experience to pass through as an experience. This is the practical way of viewing any experience; all that is kept of them is the lesson provided. ((((Thanks wilbro.))))

When we have moved to the point where we recognize the sense of self, or problem way of being, we have reached the goal of the movement, i.e., the means to solve the problem. We are in what might be called mental shape, and, just as with physical shape, if we don’t use it, we lose it. ((((Vipassana may be seen as insurance policy to keep up with good habit. If we are unaware of what is happening, you may say, this becomes mechanical. I agree that there is a danger of it. One question here may be, how do we know the state in terms of mental shape. Don't we need to listen to our bodily sensation to keep alert mind in shape?)))))

….Set the solution state and a problem state is revealed by the dissolution of the problem state; that which is now missing was the problem. It is the experience of the dissolution that makes the solution difficult until we come to an understanding of it. In the struggle with the seeing and not seeing of the problem way of being, where we bounce back and forth, a second seeing, as an understanding, is gained, namely, that the Way of Inquiry itself is the answer." ((((It appears that awareness and equanimity may be equivalent to what you call the way of inquiry, or observing reactions and to get to the solution state.))))

======

((((So what? While my premature comments may spoil the work of wilbro, if I still venture, I see similarity between the Guide and vipassana with little more detailed steps described and commented in the Guide. What may make it difficult for most people may be the abstract nature of the description and hanging on to some workable process. Examples help, but total picture may be hard to gain by just reading it. To get it, we need to practice it over and over relating to the point described in the Guide.

On the other hand vipassana offers a pragmatic, doable process, which put people to find the solution in the most experiential way. There is danger there as well. For example, trap of seeking for pleasurable experience in stead of substance. There are many open ended issued that may need some framework so that it is not practiced blindly or mechanically for the sake of doing it - as you pointed out. Still, some may say mechanical process is OK. As I recall now, an ignorant person was instructed by Buddha to clean up the area as his practice as he could not even remember his name. This person, as story goes, got enlightenment after some years of cleaning.

Coming to the end, I now realize that I must have left many holes and errors as I went through this process of review. Hope the damage is not too bog. I welcome any comment for us to move forward, if possible. Thanks, Wilbro. Enjoy the turkey!!!))))

<<From Wilbro>>475

Kio, ever upward and onward. Rather than repeat my responses to your responses of my responses, and say the same thing again, here is what I sense another way to express our difference in this matter. From message #470, a quote from Coleman:

"- There was an intense desire to be free from suffering and this very desire was perpetuating the suffering. This must have been the turning point, my moment of truth. Suddenly, at a point of supreme frustration, my mind stopped functioning for it realized it could not bring about a cessation of dukkha. The desire to be free from suffering ceased as the realization occurred that it could not be sought after and brought about. There was an infinitesimal attachment to the self and suddenly, like a bolt of lightening, something snapped and when the search stopped there was relief."

That, to me, sounds more like understanding, as opposed to detachment. It sounds much like a Koan addressed not to the mind, as in Zen, but to the body. This also reminds me of the process I know. The process of release is universal. In any case, the suffering is brought about by trying to do that which can not be done, leading to seeing of that attempt as useless, leading to a cessation of the attempt, leading to a release from the maker of the attempt. The last release requires a commitment from the whole person, else it will not work.. As Krishnamurti would put it, there is a seeing that maker of the effort is the effort and that brings both to an end. The Buddha termed that search "craving." As I would put it, unhappiness is the search for happiness. Note that the final thread to be broken was not a detachment from the body, but from the self that was the maker of the effort.

That gives you something different to respond to. Don't stuff on turkey stuffing. LOL

<<From Wilbro>>

Kio, since your particular comments are based upon Vipassana, and any comment I make will lead back to the difference we are discussing here, I will not comment upon them, but I will give a short reply to your general comments.

>What may make it difficult for most people may be the abstract nature of the description and hanging on to some workable process.<
>On the other hand vipassana offers a pragmatic, doable process, which put people to find the solution in the most experiential way.<

The difficulty here is that the problem the Guide approaches can not be known until it is solved. It must seem abstract until the solution reveals it, and this harks back to my comments in message #459 as to the decisive difference between us. What do you think I am saying the difference between us is?

<<From Me>>

You won wilbro. I cannot guess any more as to what you think except that I think you will come up with another level of guess I have to make even if I try to guess this time. So, instead of prolonging this guessing game without much benefit in sight at this moment, I make a bow to you and withdraw from the ring.

Enjoy your turkey!

Kio

<<From Wilbro>> 479

My comments in #475 are still in the ring. A reply to it would not require guessing, and would keep the dialogue going.

Are you suggesting that my goal in talking to you about my view of this matter is to win? LOL

<<From Me>>

>>That gives you something different to respond to. (#475)

There, you indicated that I should find something different to respond to. Sorry, I don’t find one. So, this is the only reply.

If you want to proceed, I suggest you to explain to me what you mean by the "difference" in a very specific manner. So far as I recall, you mentioned that word here and there. In fact, it originally started from your "complaint" to Vipassana. Sometimes, you said the difference was subtle, other times the difference was distinct or decisive. Also, if I am not mistaken, the contents of difference you speak of seem to have shifted as time and situation changed. Maybe that is not the case, but that was what appeared in my eyes. So, after some scratching my skull and meditating here and there, I could not find the "difference" worth pursuing. Thus, I gave up.

Since it appears that you know what you are talking about the "difference" and I don’t at this point, please: 1) summarize what happened over the course of our dialogue if you do not mind, and 2) clarify what you mean by difference if there is something that you see I must be missing. I would appreciate it very much.

BTW, About winning. That was a joke. Whatever happens, there is no such thing as winning anyway, is there? Also, Odile gave me a comment to my post #478 I liked very much. Do you have any comments on that post? Just curious.

<<Wilbro>>

Kio, you asked a few little questions and I will see if I can answer them. What is this difference I am going on about, what is the history of out dialogue re this difference, and what do I have to say about your 3 question post. I'll try to answer all three together. As caveat, the words that follow flow from my solution to the problem. This is not to say that my solution is "the" solution, but that it is only "my" solution.

There is a problem. How do we know there is a problem? Because we are looking for answers. Well, curiosity leads to questions and answers, so is curiosity a problem. No. Why not? Because the problem we are speaking of relates to the state of self, as it were. The two questions you asked, namely, "But, what is our true nature anyway? Or, how do we find IT or to get to the state where true nature prevails?" reveal the nature of that problem; it has to do with the relation of self to self.

There is the self that is, which is the self that is not our true nature self, and there is the self that should be, wherein we become our true nature self. The answer implied by your two questions is to become that true nature self, therefore the problem to be solved, as implied by your two questions, is that we are not our true nature self.

You suggest that living here and now, or living now is the true nature self state. Since the past no longer is and since the future is yet to be, the true nature self state is what is. But, if there is a problem within this here and now, which is the only place the problem can reside, what do you mean by living here and now. This is what I referred to earlier as the subtle difference. A difference may be both subtle and decisive. If that meaning is to be viable, i.e., the living solution, that meaning can only come by coming upon solution to that here and now problem. With that solution, the search itself is seen to be part of the problem.

Then, there are the words that point to the solution/problem complex. An apt metaphor for the solution is 'living in the here and now.' That metaphor may be viewed from either before or after the living solution comes into being. There are many other apt metaphors. What does living in the here and now mean? It means being present to oneself? But what does that mean? There are two answers. It either means that the words describe the sense of it, or it means living in the here and now, like the animals live, like being one's true nature, and so on through the list of metaphors.

A dialogue begins with the metaphors. As that dialogue moves on, there is a questioning process as to what underlies those metaphors, where that underlying ground is the putative living solution. Now, there may be more than one living solution, and I do not mean that in the sense of separation by individuality, but that there is no generic solution applicable to all. I can only speculate on that. My intent in joining our dialogue was to answer that question, which I think was your intent also. We were trying to pull all of them together. That foundered because I could not equate your solution to my solution, which is why I turned to trying to spell out that difference.

So, we can not pull all together if we can not pull our two views together. The dialogue founders. Perhaps there is no generic solution. Perhaps the solution is that which works for the individual and brings an end to the search for that peaceful self. But still, that implies a finding, and we end up in the paradox: to find is not to find. And that leads to my solution: to lose is to find.

I have rambled somewhat, but I think I have addressed those three questions. And yes, the win/lose thing was seen as joke; your nature is never destructive. My reply was meant as tongue in cheek reply.

<<From Me>>

To simplify, when we have turkey in this thanks-giving day, just enjoy!

I don’t know the problem, and I don’t understand the difference. That is where I started.

Kio

Don't stuff on turkey stuffing, wilbro!

<<From Me>>

Wilbro, I do not know what happened to the post of yours, which I post underneath. It appears that I erased accidentally. If so, I am sorry. But this is your post and my reply.

<<Your Post>>

For the present, at least, I likewise give up in this matter of our difference. I'll think about your request and when and if the spirit moves, I'll reply.

Re #478, several comments. I can imagine a serial killer doing his thing for the sake of doing; killing being fun. The notion of true nature has no meaning for me so I would not even try to find it. Besides, if I do find it, what have I found? As to conflict, would we not have to begin watching the way of conflict in ourselves before we would be in the position to see what the problem is, and must we not know what the problem is, really is, as it lives in us, before we can even think about describing it? The conflict I personally am aware of is the conflict that comes to an end when its root is seen. I know of no other 'inner' conflict.

<<My Response>>

Wilbro,

While you talk about going circle, I find the same pattern repeated here again as to your approach in what you call a dialogue. What I mean is that you are good at asking questions - I think. As sincerely as possible, I always tried to answer your questions - with respect while enjoying the process. I know it is good for me to go through this process to give stimulation to my dense brain and work on my English as well. As I recall, however, when it comes a time for me to ask back few key questions to you, you seem to avoid responding but leaving a comment like: " I'll think about your request and when and if the spirit moves, I'll reply."

As I recall, similar pattern happened few times previously. The last time it happened was when I asked back on the subject of delusion for you to be specific. You did not answer and left things unclarified. I usually give doubt to my ability to assess things because such posture seems to help me to clarify things within myself. But going through a similar situation, this time I came to a point to "think" that that is all you are trying to do without you in the position of explaining your side of the story. (It may have taken too much time for me to realize this, LOL)

Still, I appreciate that you provide me with such opportunity of learning and seeing myself. And I welcome that repeated in the future. As I practiced similar approach in my management consulting, I know the benefit of it. However, I urge you to "think" about the whole process over. If the final line is like: "The conflict I personally am aware of is the conflict that comes to an end when its root is seen. I know of no other 'inner' conflict." Your message may be "only" taken as an abstract message. If so, it could be something quite unfortunate since the idea of clarification may not be carried out to the fullest.

Kio

==

This is the start of my questioning wilbro:

<<From Zooink>>

Ok boss, you win. You said we could critique so I have a question about something you say, "If we do things for the sake of doing, however, we do not have such a conflict. This is being honest to ourselves, where ourselves here represent our true nature."

If I was a serial killer and I killed just for the sake of killing I would have no conflict because that is my true nature, right? Isn't there a fly in your ointment?

==

<<From Wilbro>>487

Say that the goal is understanding what is going on when one is suffering. If it so happens that the byproduct of that understanding is the cessation of the problem, then the understanding may be said to be the solution of the problem.

If the condition to be set for the understanding of the problem is the condition that not only brings the suffering to an end but also reveals the problem, through the seeing of what no longer is when the problem no longer is, then the understanding may be said to be both the goal and the means.

How does one understand anything? By observing it. If that to be observed is oneself, then that observation must also be observed for self-involvement. It is this second order observation that is the condition for the breakup of that self-involvement, and when the breakup occurs, the insight that is understanding comes into being.

In a word, if I may wax metaphorical, the solution is a self-observation that also observes that observation; the observer is the observed. When that reflection throws off the image that separates the observer from the observed, the self then reflects upon its true nature, if I may be so bold as to suggest such a thing. This state of understanding may only be reached by the animal capable of separating itself, and its world, into the observer and the observed. Thus the true nature of the human is not the true nature of other beings.
(((This view is different from Buddha nature, programs of universe, X, idea. Again, if the self is in the center to be manipulated, the difference exists. From non-self as the natural state type of argument, there is no difference. Or, humans has the third eye…. God's view of the world….Do you mean that?)))

PS: Howdy, man from indigo. Behave yourself here. Do you recognize the above as coming out of our last conversation?
==

<<From Me>>488

Wilbro and zooink, as much as we have somewhat a clean plate now, here is a point we might, just might, get something going. That is if we can be very clear in our focus.

As far back as I remember, I felt wilbro having a tendency toward abstract ideas. As a result, I felt that there are often more smokes generated so that the main track of thought may be eventually lost because of convoluted piles of metaphors, terms, definitions, subtle and distinct distinctions, etc. While he seems to ask question from the same angle, (and says the same point repeatedly) he is often reluctant to answer questions. I see this means and ends discussion has some relation to that. If I apply the idea to his behavioral patterns, he likes to do what he likes and not be bothered so much to what happened in the past - if I may say so. So, "here and now" may be his behavior and I can understand that. He might be living on a firm foundation of no foundation.

So, if that is the name of game (and life) it may be fine as it is. Keep tracking of the steps and logically explaining the specifics may be seen more as carrying a burden. As a result, it gives me a sense, which says, "Do as he feels like and pass time as wind blows from right or left." In other words, the behavior may be seen as irresponsible if he just process it that way - if interpreted in a conventional way. When the wind turns and I ask questions back to him to clarify things or ask for specific explanations, often, he seems to lose interest and leave comment like: " I'll think about your request and when and if the spirit moves, I'll reply."

There is nothing negative about raising the points mentioned above - if we all understand what we are talking about. In fact, such behavior may be seen as very positive as he has a foundation to live on and not be bothered by anything else. If relevant, he comments. If interested, he questions back to play the game. It may even appear that amusement without carrying any extra burden is his main purpose if not viewed as sadistic for those who happened to be played in this game in this fashion? I still do not know.

So, here is a question. Do you, wilbro, care to answer my question to what you and Zooink posted? Well, this will be a series of questions to get to what we may find it less abstract - at least in my eyes so that we may get some sense of what he is or perhaps his view of truth is all about. If you are willing, we can play this game for a while to see what may come out. The rule is for you to answer to my question, but not to ask back as much as possible. Would you care to go into this open-ended process? If you agree, I will ask a question at a time. The purpose is, as your guide indicates, clarification. What do you say?

Kio

==

<<From Wilbro>>489

Kio, of course I will answer your questions. The notion of not asking questions back is very intriguing. In fact, it sounds great fun. The fact that you see my view of reality as abstract should only spice up the interrogation, although it might hinder communication somewhat. So, if the goal here is to bring my abstract view down to earth, I am more than willing to give it a try.

==

Thanks Wilbro,

Yes, I feel we may have fun, too. So, let's give it a try.

I will start by using a serial killer zooink referred to in his post. I said in #478, ""If we do things for the sake of doing, however, we do not have such a conflict. This is being honest to ourselves, where ourselves here represent our true nature." Then, he said, "If I was a serial killer and I killed just for the sake of killing I would have no conflict because that is my true nature, right?"

In the context of that post, and as much as you can guess, what do you think I meant in my statement? (If such guessing is difficult, how do you characterize the state where there is no conflict?) Then, how do you respond to zooink's comment?

Thanks,

Kio

==

<<From wilbro>> 491

Very clever, Kio san, a question with two goals. Let's do the first goal first. >If we do things for the sake of doing, however, we do not have such a conflict. This is being honest to ourselves, where ourselves here represent our true nature.<

What do I think you meant? I think you meant that a lack of conflict, at any level, means that the doing is in harmony with the doing that is reality. As such, all that means is that any doing done from conflict is not a harmonious doing. In more cogent terms, the good is the good, or right action is right action. Being honest to ourselves means having no conflict and having no conflict means being honest to ourselves, which is the same a representing our true nature. All of this is definition. There is nothing empirically verifiable. It is like saying our true nature is Good, therefore when we are good, we represent our true nature.

And still on the first goal, how would I characterize the state where there is no conflict? It would be the state that could recognize conflict as it arose, in which the recognition itself would negate that conflict. As you can see, I would characterize as a doing and not confine it as a definition that requires the conflict/no-conflict pair. I could define it in terms of presence and say that the reflection that gives the self itself is undivided, but that would require much defining of terms.

As to the second goal, how would I respond to zooink? I would say that eating Wheaties for breakfast makes me a cereal killer.

==

zooink, 492

Kio, you read human nature well. Your description sounds like the 'old man' I know. I just have a hunch the difference willyboy is talking about is the difference in times. If I understand him rightly, there is this present that has a past and a future and there is this present whose past and future exist only exist when they are being thought.

The difference seems to be that the second present is aware that the first present is only because its past and future are not seen to be thought. This makes for a confusion of thought with reality. In the movement from the first present to the second present, the sense of self would need to shift and a new meaning of the old world would come into being. Everything is present tense (his mantra). The present moment is, as willyboy is wont to say, Presence. This is what I see willyboy saying. Like you said, if you have not tasted chocolate, no describing is going to give you that taste.

==

wilbro 493

Kio, now that I have slept on my reply, I need to amend my 'second goal' response. My response would go something like this:

Zooink, your serial killer suggestion makes the point nicely that statements that are simply grammatical remarks have whatever content one wishes to place in them, if any. What does 'being honest to ourselves' mean? It's like Socrates' questioning of 'virtue.' What does 'virtue' mean? It means whatever one thinks it means.

==

Wilbro san, thanks for the response.

I take the next paragraph from your response as your view of the awakened state (transcending the conflict/no-conflict pair so to speak) and move on with this thread (Please correct my view at any time as we move on.):

>> And still on the first goal, how would I characterize the state where there is no conflict? It would be the state that could recognize conflict as it arose, in which the recognition itself would negate that conflict. As you can see, I would characterize as a doing and not confine it as a definition that requires the conflict/no-conflict pair. I could define it in terms of presence and say that the reflection that gives the self itself is undivided, but that would require much defining of terms.

Since the notion of self is nebulous to me, I would like to move on without bringing the word but to focus on the "specific event" that is taking place in this state you characterized as:. "It would be the state that could recognize conflict as it arose, in which the recognition itself would negate that conflict."

This sentence indicates that there is a dynamic state of conflict resolution, which we may call wisdom, inspiration or awakening. In other words, it seems to indicate that there is conflict in one instance, but there is no conflict in the next instance. Or, the first may be called as bound state and the second as unbound state (i.e., no conflict). Here, my next question is: How do you characterize the specific mechanism of this shift of states. In other words, when the shift is taking place, what is actually happening then? What does "recognition" mean?

Thanks,

Kio

==

<<From Wilbro>>

I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around your question. What is actually happening when the shift is taking place? I am tempted to say that an experience is happening that, when reflected upon, has a sense of a shift about it. I can say that what derives from that experience is an insight into the nature of the binding that creates the disturbance.

Before the shift, the disturbance is, and after the shift, the disturbance no longer is. What allows the insight to be is that the source of the disturbance does not survive the shift, exposing it as the source. Once the source of the disturbance is recognized, the disturbance may be cut off at its source. If that source is not recognized, the disturbance comes into being, and remains in being until it is cut off at the source. And what is the source of the disturbance? I would say that it is being caught up in one's thought process, or so the shift could be characterized as saying.

(((* So, self identity is there….some identity that is caught up…I was thinking more in terms of program/process in brain that is wrongly programmed. Wilbro may emphasize "one's" thought, thus on self…))

==

<<From Me>>

Wilbro,

Thanks, but the response was too "abstract." It was a bit too dry for me. Also, as you mentioned in #489:

>> So, if the goal here is to bring my abstract view down to earth, I am more than willing to give it a try.

…and that is one of the reasons why we started this, let's get "down to earth" and not stay with definition, etc. as much as possible. So, let me rephrase the question from the original question, which was:

"How do you characterize the specific mechanism of this shift of states.?.."

To a question:

"Would you mind to provide me with, say, two specific examples that happened in your life and characterize the specifics of how the shift took place?" (If you can address one example for the case of major insight and another one for minor insight, that will be great.)

Thanks,

Kio

==

<<From Wolbro>>

The whole process began with the insight I described in the Intro to the Guide. That separated my life into a past and a present. The present was full of nothing but observing what I was doing, as if going along for the ride. That began the process of insight releases. Since it was/is a process, the specifics do not really come into it. The process is recorded in the Doodle Works.

((( Again abstract in my view, but specific in his view, perhaps.)))

The two major insights derive from two shifts. In one shift, the self that was comes to an end, and in the other shift, the self that is comes to an end. The first shift exposes the temporal self as a product of memory, as being remembered. The second shift exposes the presential self as the thought of self, for when thought comes to an end, so does one's sense of self.

==

<<From Wilbro>>

Kio, I just realized that there is a description in the Guide that is exactly what you are asking for. It is in Article 5 and has to do with the shift to the quiet center. It is a shift that can only known by knowing it. From description alone, there is no way of imagining it. This is why I feel specific life examples are not going to advance the understanding except for the one who has experienced them.

(((no way of imagining… because there is no imagining in solution??? But, as we hear Buddha, Coleman, Tamaki, et. al. I certainly gain some understanding….This is fine line we need to work for the abstract to get to earth.)))))
==

<<499>> Doodle work ((From Me))

Your #497 referred to the doodle work. I post here some sentences I found in DW together with my impressions. This is for those who do not know about it. My comments are not in quotations and are very subjective. The whole DW is found at wilbro's homepage (in the briefcase).

1. Fool Proof
"The way of looking that creates problems is the self-description that creates the me as a thing."
"Why is it not seen that the me, the self, the ego, whatever, is a by-product of description?"

2. An Open Letter of Sorts – about happiness and going through the process

3. Introductory Lecture(1) – self-observation, include experimenting exercise

4. A letter - 6 step approach- easy reading, pragmatic
"Do you seek happiness because you are unhappy, or are you unhappy because you seek happiness?"
"create a thought form, invest it with a self, then negate the form; what do you do with the identity remainder?"
"be a movement of separation, untangling, detaching, disconnecting, stepping out of, backing out of "
"no sweat; all of the sweating is being done in the startle box."
"waking dream, i.e., lost in thought and unaware of the world about "
"on how to stop daydreaming. Simply become aware that you are doing it, and it stops" X cannot allow such use of energy….
"When we become aware of an unaware act, the act comes to an end. In fact, it is the art of exorcising your unconscious."

5. The problem of the psychological(A) – This is similar to #6. Describes positive and negative way. Neg. way is attention to inattention way. "The solution is -- a state of mind full of attention"

6. The problem of the psychological(B) – About attention and inattention, the process to have the condition is the key. "the solution to the problem of the psychological is not a science, nor a religion, nor a philosophy, but an art."

7. Yet another postscript – Not too difficult to follow with certain intuitive sense, it is about how the "traps" are set to our mind (from trap creator’s view.)


8. The other way
"Assume that in one way or the other, we are all seeking the same thing, i.e., peace- of- mind. It could then follow that in some way or other, our mind is disturbed, else why would we be seeking it."
"The other way is not to form any notion of what the problem is, but to stop and observe the problem itself, thereby uncovering and rooting out the disturbance."
"when a division is negated, all things created by the division follow suit."
"there is another way of looking at things."
"the paradoxical implication here is that the only way the old field can understand the new field is to cease being the old field."

9. State of Inquiry – About passive observation, seeing the pebble generating waves in the pool. (pool as state of awareness)
"A disturbance may be thought of as a reaction, like a wayward pebble breaking the serenity of a small pool."
"we turn our attention toward the change back and forth between attention and inattention."
"Noises seem to pass through us; we are no longer startled."
"The goal is the means means that the means is the goal. There is no goal other than the means, and that is an understanding that can only be given by means of an insight."

10. Model – Similar to the Guide
"The solution path is the action necessary to shift the field from the problem state to the solution state."
"The whole insight comes with the understanding that the solution state is the solution path, that the goal is the means….. The solution is then a way."
"There is an experiencing in which the experiencer is totally present, therefore absent."
"The insight path that follows seems to be a process of shaking off a certain way of considering oneself."

<<500>>

11. The Field and The Gate – about thinking, self and no self (An critical subject; yet a hard reading)
"Essentially, in solving a problem, we think about what is, what should be, and how to make them one."
"when we ask of it the meaning of meaning, it resorts to subterfuge."
"This collection of words, thought limited by words, and the meanings they contain, is intended to expose the limited nature of words." – a critical point.
"What if one of the created meanings turns out to be the self of experience? And what if seeing that is the answer to the problem of oneself?" – Maybe a difficult point to grasp, but that is the very point Wilbro is pointing. This relates to A is not A therefore A or "knowing is not knowing --- and that is knowing" kind of sense as I see it.
"To experience means to go through, and a gate is something we go through." – perhaps this points a critical notion of gate as wilbro sees it. Could going through the gate be the expression of life, burning of candle? But, pop in and out of the state of attention is going through as well – a notion of awakening. Which does he mean? Perhaps, latter… or both? (See #153 log 12/13 for more refined description)
"It that experience of self were the negation of the self of experience, the gate would be the existential gate," – this sentence seems to refer to a movement to the state of attention. But again, "dying to live" notion has scientific connotation as well.
"If the self of experience is negated, then what passes through the Gate?" - This line is perhaps a good koan itself. Is the answer, …thunderbolt? Death and new life….?
"put the gate between the field and the Field in the center of the circle." Read next line to see the meaning/intention of this expression.
"Would there not have to be a problem of such a nature that any attempt to escape it only makes it worse?" Implied is that the thought cannot find the solution. Therefore….
"The first step toward a solution, and maybe the only necessary step, would one of bringing the escape to an end." This may tie to a notion of despair is a condition to be almost there, i.e., our efforts from self are exhausted. Also, connected is the notion of Hishiryo, thinking of non-thinking. Yet, wilbro suggests a shortcut.
"to locate the way out as the center of the confinement." For example, we are searching a solution our eyes moves around as if the solution is to be found somewhere out – perhaps beta wave mode. But when the solution is almost found, the eyes are not wandering anymore, e.g., Zazen practice. In solution state, it changes to alpha mode – as if that brain frequency is needed to connect right to left or brain to heart. From here, wilbro goes on to describe the process of the Guide. So…
"This ((observation)) cuts the chain of reactions that bounce endlessly between thought and feeling.".
"Note the connections, thus exposed, between thought and feeling, especially noting the feelings connected to judgments and conclusions. In setting this condition of observation, you will come off the wall and move to the center of your confinement. Stay with the insight process that follows, and you will find your way out."
"The Question is, "What's going on?" Any answer you come up with, regardless of how profound it may seem, is only another reaction. . In this way you keep the inquiry open, and that is the way to the gate you are seeking. Let the condition of inquiry move you to it. The way is not to do, but to stop doing."

<<501>>

----several paragraphs that follow is a bit hard to follow. It appears that wilbro is discussing about more long term or broader perspective on one’s experiences. It is about I, Me, and Non-self, the progression so to speak.
"When a thought of self, taken from the perspective of the Field, such as the cyclical movement through the Gate, is collected into a single notion that includes both the abstract and immediate self, i.e., the I and Me of it, and run it through the Gate, the no-self experience comes about."
"When one comes to the no-self ground, by releasing both the self and the fear, the ground is security. Then, thinking one's self away is a natural high*. In reflection, for the no-self experience can only be reflected upon, it is of a doing in which neither the I nor the Me is present. It is as if another power were doing the doing, with one only present to record it." Is this Kensho experience, or being one with X, oneness, samadhi –like Dogen’s Shikantaza? * Freedom to lose nothing more. It appears so. Then, more hard-to-follow paragraphs follow, e.g., second power reflection. Then,
"that the gate has a dual function; negation and revelation, i.e., release and insight."
"A passive natured one would say, "Stop thinking about it, and just enjoy it."" - because nothing more to think at that stage. Or nothing to think about ? or to be attached with.
"the line between thought and being blurs beyond recognition. The exploration of that blur seems to be an endless delight*, and something one can do anywhere, at any time." This is a mysterious expression. Is this about image doing the walk by itself? Is it about brain and heart, or right and left brain, or the field and gate experiences are being played, observed, and experienced presentially? Perhaps, experience of absolute peace as there is no self involved in it. Let the mind flow freely… * Moves from intellectual to spiritual/physical sensation?
"If the attempted description does not include the paradox, it will be misunderstood. If the paradox is included, it will not be understood, and, in fact, sound like nonsense." If we say anything, It is not there anymore. Perhaps, related…Here is a Koan on Wild Goose
Baso: (Seeing goose startled to fly away..) What is that?
Hyakujo: A wild goose.
Where does it go?
Already flown away.
(Twist the nose of Hyakujo.)
Ouch!
You say the goose is gone but still is here.

* The whole DW is much more extensive and I have only read perhaps 5 to 10 % of it.
* Now, back to the main discussion...

<<502>>

FYI, The following is taken from section 5 of the wilbro's guide (See his homepage for the link) that I assume he is referring to on his post:

The move to "with the fact" of the reaction brings you into new territory, for it is here that the insight process begins. The emotional content of the reaction is contingent upon your being caught up in thought. When you move to a "with the fact" relationship with the reaction, the emotional content of it is removed. The following account, written by a friend, will be helpful here.

"There was difficulty in understanding the idea of having angry thoughts but no feeling of anger. I was told to watch my anger, be aware of it, understand it, and it changes. This translated to no longer react with anger. No anger under any circumstances? But surely some actions are anger provoking. How about the other side of the coin; no lows, no highs? Or always sitting on the sidelines with no involvement of any kind? Certainly, understanding yourself, and becoming aware of your reactions is productive, but let's stop before going too far is noninvolvement is part of it.

Watching – observing those around you. Listening and finding phrases that are repeated by the same person duplicated by others. If they all say and do the same things, can I be different? Watching my anger, hatred – then something happens. I hear myself saying the words of anger, but something is different this time. I hear the words, a listener probably does not know something has changed, but I am not feeling anger. Almost like an actor reciting a role because it was expected of me, but I was not deliberately doing it; it was being done to me. It even begins to feel like being fun! Like a game to say the angry words and laugh inside at the same time. Certainly possible, since the thoughts and feel of anger have no connecting wire. Could this possibly be what I mistook for deadness? I certainly do not feel dead, dull, noninvolved, or disinterested.

But of course, deadness to feelings is not the outcome. Descriptions of intangibles like thought, feelings, and emotions are very difficult, and understanding can only come with actual experience, not through another's teachings."

The first paragraph is a good example of the resistance thoughts you may have about moving with the Way of Inquiry. These self-concern thoughts naturally occur whenever we enter something new or different. We will cover this more fully when we get to the recognition of the problem as the problem way of being, i.e., a problem way of thinking, feeling, and acting.

Notice in the account how she began by watching the way of anger in others, then turned the mirror on herself. She then went on to describe her first experience of being "with the fact" of a reaction. The thought-conditioned action went on, but she was no longer of it. The sense of not being caught up in the reaction may be described several ways, depending upon how you care to interpret it. One way, usually the first way, is the sense of being taken for a ride, or just riding along with it. Another way, which may develop, is the sense of observing the reaction from a still center. Another way, which is self-reflective, has the sense of self-transformation about it.

<<From Me>> 503

This is from the intro of the guide:

"The way of inquiry is something I stumbled into. Perhaps the only thing I bought to it was a natural curiosity about the why's and wherefore's of things. Somewhere around the age of forty, I reached what might be called burnout. I had moved from cause to cause, relationship to relationship, job to job, from answer to answer, in the attempt to find The Answer; but to no avail. The last move I made was to sell all that would not fit into a backpack and take off for the promised land; Europe. The old life was to be put behind me and the new life was to begin. In transition, I sat on the stern of the ship and saw its wake as the umbilical cord to be cut when I disembarked. The new me was to be. I had brought the dream of the final answer into full living color.

On the day I landed in Lisbon, I found myself on the ramparts of the castle that overlooks both the city and the sea. I saw the sun settling into the sea as the period that would bring my old life sentence to an end. So strong and so ideal was my dream of a new beginning that when I saw pigeons gathering at my feet, my first thought was one of disbelief; they were part of the old, not the new.

The feeling, which came upon me as I awoke from the dream, was one of absolute emptiness; and with it came the realization that it was myself I was trying to escape, and that such an escape was not possible. Resigned to my fate, I wandered Europe for two very memorable years. From a distance that seemed to be a mixture of resignation and curiosity, I watched myself recreate old patterns of action against a new background. It was thus that I came upon what I will call release insights and the Way of Inquiry. The way of resignation is not necessary; it can be replaced by the look of inquiry, a sharper and more direct approach to the release insights. It is a fact that to see through and understand the turmoil that is oneself, one must look from a quiet center."

Now, the next question:
You use the phrases like "passive observation", or "quiet center" to describe the process of "release insights" in the guide. So, let me ask what you mean by it: "Does the quiet center correspond to certain state of awareness, where attention is paid to inattention?" and "How do you cultivate such a skill?"
==

<<From me>>504

It is my experience that there are two ways to set passive observation into being. There is the way in which the person comes to see that the way of the search is a dead end, as in my case, and there is the way in which there is an observing of the reactions to observing, which I have outlined in the Guide, and is the case of the person whose account of observation of the emotional response was given. Both ways lead to that same experience.

Her words were one of having no connecting wire to the emotional response. My words would go like this: There is no longer any self in the act; the identity has been removed. In either case, it is not a matter of controlling anger, but one of stepping out of it, and that requires the condition of passive awareness to be in place.

The 'quiet center' is a state of awareness in which there is an awareness of one's condition of awareness. As to what that means, I have shown you that twice, and you have 'been there' twice. I can point it out to you in person, but until you 'cultivate' it for yourself, that window of awareness will close. If one stumbles into it on their own, through the setting of the condition, however it is set, and I see a part of Vipassana setting it, then moving off the track, the reflection upon that experience will set off the process. This is how it happened to me.

Being attentive to inattention, or, as you put it, paying attention to inattention, has the same effect as being aware of emotional responses, including any emotional response to the emotional response seen. Where before, one loses their identity to the thought, the same thought may occur, but this time, it is seen as being thought. It has the effect of removing the shift from awareness to being lost in thought and unaware of what is going on, and at the same time, it exposes the thought process to reflection upon it.

I know, abstract, but what can I say?
==

<<From Me>>

>> It is my experience that there are two ways to set passive observation into being. There is the way in which the person comes to see that the way of the search is a dead end, as in my case, and there is the way in which there is an observing of the reactions to observing, which I have outlined in the Guide, and is the case of the person whose account of observation of the emotional response was given. Both ways lead to that same experience.

Two questions:

1) While you said, two ways to set passive observation into being, i.e., intellectual and emotional, you did not mention bodily sensation. Why is it so?

2) I ask this one again differently: How have you cultivated such a skill of passive observation over time? What worked well, what did not?

* Wilbro, I realize that it is hard for you not to be abstract, but if you think it is hard, it becomes hard. Right? So, please passively observe, find the insight, and try to keep it down to earth if possible.

Thanks,

Kio

==

<<Wilbro 506>>

Well, there are several things to clear up here. >While you said, two ways to set passive observation into being, i.e., intellectual and emotional, you did not mention bodily sensation. Why is it so?<

I would not characterize the two ways as intellectual and emotional. In fact, I would oppose such a characterization for I do not see how they fit. I also see no connection between passive awareness and bodily sensation. Passive awareness is a state of awareness, while sensations are one of the things to be aware of.

>I ask this one again differently: How have you cultivated such a skill of passive observation over time? What worked well, what did not?<

Your question does not feel right. I was given the art with the insight that all of my striving was for naught. It was there from that beginning. What needed to be developed was sense of what that striving was, to come to recognize it, from the gross to the subtle.
==

<<From Me>> #507

Briefly, I re-read most of the posts we went through that are related to my Vipassana experience. I now have a hunch that your view/approach is strongly connected to self to non-self shift with passive observation as a way of bringing out the release insight. On the other hand, my view/approach has been more connected to impermanence and the process I identified with, i.e., much less emphasis on self- identity. As mentioned before, I have had difficulty of using the concept of self to relate to the process and my tendency has been to look more on the specific processes or programs themselves as they appear from moment to moment. (So, what was observed was more of process and its impermanent nature and not so much as the self-identity caught up in the process.)

Yesterday and today, I tried out the "self-identity idea"* as a way of getting out of the conflict and to find the resolution state in my mind. I did this in several occasions for conflict-resolutions. From these experiences, this seems to work fine. Consequently, I now "feel" that I can relate to your way, and the description of what is happening from that angle. I am still not sure if that is "the" angle or not, yet. As explained later, there are possible pros and cons in both approaches. As Buddha pointed out suffering, non-self, and impermanence as three characteristics of phenomena, there may be various ways to characterize the process, say from self-non-self angle and impermanence angle. (* In other words, I paid attention to the self-identity behind the process and observed what happened to it.)

Reflecting back, in #463, there was a discussion on observer-observed relationship and the process of "doing" and related subtle distinction you wanted to make. Here again, I realize that my way of viewing was more from observation of the process and the distinction was not using the identities such as self, non-self, type of way of looking at the situation. (No wonder problems, distinctions, or differences were unclear. I feel now that it was caused by different view points. It seems that I tend to directly look more from the viewpoint of observer-observed as one, and not carefully distinguishing as you do in two steps, i.e., identifying the self and find the false sense of self next.)

In #465, you referred to "Full solution." I take this as something like a total breakup of self that you seem to emphasize. Then, you said in #465, that "there is a problem that may be described as a binding, or an unbalance, or blockage. That, in my view, points to a problem with one's relation to oneself." This again indicates such perspective of "self" and its relation to everything else. In #466, You said, " I would also suggest that the base thought, "I am," is one's sense of self, and that that sensation can only be revealed by its coming to an end." This points to the same idea of identity.

On the other hand, I mentioned in #468:

>>"If Vipassana is viewed as a form of passive observation, all mind activity is sensed as bodily sensation as direct experience, where is the difference? I do not see the difference. Actually, the point indicated here is that just having "awareness" only on mind activity without connecting the bodily sensation may miss the point. This is because such "passive observation" has limitation in that it may not encompass the "whole" sense of mind-body phenomena. In other words, such view of the mind may not reach the depth of our past conditioning and intricate function of our unconscious mind."

Here, if I take your view I see that the above sentence may be seen as not incorporating the whole solution/self/observation of observer idea. (This is observer-observed identity idea you seems to indicate.) Even though vipassna will lead to the state of observer and observed becoming one, it does not seem to emphasize self, or observer type of 'notion' (or model if I may say so) in practice as much as you do. Another potential confusion between you and me may be based on the point that I tend to see the state "after" the resolution "without" referring to what happened to the self (as I have not paid enough attention in such way of thinking.).

On this point, however, your reflection may bring more concrete ending to what has actually happened, thus, the ending may be clear and always related to the shift from self to non-self identity. I feel the idea of impermanence in Vipassana is another way to come to the same conclusion but may be seen as weak (model) in your eyes. In any case, one is to notice the self and find the end of the self, whereas the other is to notice agitation/emotion/physical sensation and find the impermanence of it. (I need to test out the difference….and even to clarify the pros and cons of both approaches in the future.)

Also, I mentioned in # 468:

>>"With Vipassana, problems can be known through mind-body sensation. Then, resolution will be gained through awareness of the sensation with equanimity. This is a wholesome act of all of our being, both mind and body. The end result is a process leading to a "spiritual" life except that this may be called as a "natural" life."

Perhaps, this description of problem is one of the points you do not find as fitting to your view. You see the problem more related to self as mentioned before. If your resolution is always tied to self-non-self reflection, problem will be seen in such a manner and mind-body sensation as secondary or minor - not directly relating to your view. Also, the view on nature is more tied with 'process' view and not 'identity' view, as found by your comment on human vs. animal and the subject of "true nature". (in # 464 )

From 468 (my post)

"So, why not live our life not merely in the mind but also directly through our body? To me, that is life, a wholesome one - the life beyond words, and tangled thoughts and images. So, your term, self reflection may be replaced by observing the bodily sensation and being aware of the fact that everything is impermanence."

The first sentence is my resolution state. This does not require books to write, words to describe, etc. At this state is no problem, no difference, but as it is. However, this point may be easily "forgotten" if the words cannot describe what actually happened or when the mind activity become overwhelming. It is as if relying on bodily sensation (Vipassana) is too far and too weak a link as compared to the use of intellectual short cut (your approach - as I see as of now). Perhaps, this is why you mentioned this as mechanical process.

If so, I can see your point of vipassana meditator having to sit for a long time to regain the bodily sensation - eliminate the blockage - not as focused as in the case of your process. Or, if the focus is impermanence, the reflection on impermanence may be seen, again, weak in your eyes. In other words, you may suggest that the notion of impermanence is to be reflected back to the impermanence of self-identity notion.

Having said this, it is interesting to think about rapture experience as well as error eradication process of past conditioning in Vipassana. When such accomplishment is made, people witness the symptom (as evidenced by many commenting the Vipassana experience as throwing away the mental heavy load). Yet, there may be weak logical connection to the experience, leading to eventually either lose the touch or go into extensive meditation practice or anything in between without much learning on the process itself. There is certainly an art element in the process. (What this actually means needs to be clarified, if possible.)

The quote from the Pali Canon, Discernment, Right View may connect to this point:

"§ 185. Right view, when assisted by these five factors, has release of awareness as its fruit & reward, has release of discernment as its fruit & reward. Which five?

There is the case where right view is assisted by virtue, assisted by learning, assisted by discussion, assisted by tranquillity, & assisted by insight (vipassana).

When assisted by these five factors, right view has release of awareness
& release of discernment as its fruit & reward."

So, these words, or dharma, (and wilbro's guide) may tie to the virtue and learning (sila) whereas vipassana may encompass tranquillity (samadhi) and insight. Right view may then correspond to passive observation, a condition for the release.

Anyway, here are few more quotes and related interpretations:

<<Wilbro 487>>

"This state of understanding may only be reached by the animal capable of separating itself, and its world, into the observer and the observed. Thus the true nature of the human is not the true nature of other beings."

This view is different from Buddha nature, programs of universe, X, idea. Again, the self - no-self notion brings the difference. If non-self is seen as the natural state, there is no difference. (Actually, this goes back to Joshu, Mu koan: Does a dog have Buddha nature? On one occasion, Joshu responded as Mu, the other ocassion, Yes. )

<<From wilbro: 489>>

"Once the source of the disturbance is recognized, the disturbance may be cut off at its source. If that source is not recognized, the disturbance comes into being, and remains in being until it is cut off at the source. And what is the source of the disturbance? I would say that it is being caught up in one's thought process, or so the shift could be characterized as saying."

So, something is caught up…I was thinking more in terms of program/process in brain that is wrongly programmed. You emphasizes "one's" thought, thus on self…But actually, this sentence may be both identity and process…a happy medium?(LOL)

===

Even though my view is still premature, what then is the bottom line?

1. I will go through wilbro's process (so I think of in my imagination about that self- to non-self, two step process) and test out the outcome for a while.
2. I will try to identify the difference. Then, compare to the hypothesis I briefly outlined here.

BTW,

Even though the guide may provide with a sharper and more direct approach to the release insights with the dynamic process, a question remains as to how direct experience of truth at the physical sensation level may fit in. Whatever the case may be, I feel I can identify the description in Sec. 5 of the guide:

"The sense of not being caught up in the reaction may be described several ways, depending upon how you care to interpret it. One way, usually the first way, is the sense of being taken for a ride, or just riding along with it. Another way, which may develop, is the sense of observing the reaction from a still center. Another way, which is self-reflective, has the sense of self-transformation about it."

But the process does not work as smoothly always, so that led me to ask the question of cultivation in the last post. (I have an idea of energy reservoir kind of idea for the process to become effective.)

Well, enough for now..

Kio

==

Even though my view is still premature, what then is the bottom line?

1) I will go through wilbro's process (so I think of in my imagination about that self- to non-self, two step process) and test out the outcome for a while.

2) I will try to identify the difference. Then, compare to the hypothesis I briefly outlined here.

BTW,

Even though the guide may provide with a sharper and more direct approach to the release insights with the dynamic process, a question remains as to how direct experience of truth at the physical sensation level may fit in. Whatever the case may be, I feel I can identify the description in Sec. 5 of the guide:

"The sense of not being caught up in the reaction may be described several ways, depending upon how you care to interpret it. One way, usually the first way, is the sense of being taken for a ride, or just riding along with it. Another way, which may develop, is the sense of observing the reaction from a still center. Another way, which is self-reflective, has the sense of self-transformation about it."

But the process does not work as smoothly always, so that led me to ask the question of cultivation in the last post. (I have an idea of energy reservoir kind of idea for the process to become effective.)

Well, enough for now..

Kio

==

<<Wilbro>> 511

Kio, I sat down and wrote this just after your call. It wrote itself in one sweep of words.

If the two-step identity check is not in place, how is one to discern whether or not the goal assumed in Vipassana is not just another goal among goals? It may be that the self that has reached the goal is caught up in the process of reaching that goal. This seeking and finding is the process that exemplifies the self-identity caught up in the process becoming. The two-step identity check removes one from that process and the search comes to an end, not by reaching a goal, but by exiting the process. That is the difference I have been trying to describe.

I have just finished reading your four-parter and I would say you have captured the difference I was speaking to. I look forward to the results of your observations.

==

<<From Me>> 512

Wilbro,

It took about ten readings to figure out what you might be talking about on that post. If I read again tomorrow morning, I am sure takes another ten readings to digest. LOL Realizing how your mind functions more or less, I still wonder why you communicate that way. It is like Shobogenzo of Dogen or worse.... (Shobogenzo is known to be one of the most difficult books to understand in Japan. I really wish you had time to go through it. It will be a good lesson for you!)

Well, if there are those who are reading this illegible dialogue with perhaps doubt and curiosity, here are few side line comments from me:

Before posting my last four part series, I called wilbro on the phone and explained what I was to post. I did this because the subtle nature of the post may not be well conveyed to him. Actually, we communicated fairly well, and I was glad for that. As I said, I feel the difference is like having different angles to see the same picture but with pros and cons for each. This is the sense I have at this moment. It is subtle but I now know at least what wilbro is pointing at, and I feel I know how to address it. I described my finding the best as I could in that series post. And, I see wilbro pounding the table to press upon the point even more in the last post. (Basically, I see him convincing himself.)

Right now, I just hope we are clearing up the mist. Or, this could be still like an onion peel, who knows. In any case, I will promise to myself that if I really understand what wilbro is saying, I will make sure that it will be explained without requiring several dictionaries on the side.

Kio

* And, while we have a little pause here, I would like to thank you, wilbro, for your patience to go through this with me. Thank you!

==

<<From wilbro>>513

Since we have ourselves a little pause here, let me muse a moment on what I see going on here. The present situation looks like this to me.

Kio has finally caught the scent of what I am going on about. He is lucky it was only the table I have been pounding on; it should have been his head. Anyhow, even though he has caught the scent, he is still trying to squeeze it into his view. "As I said, I feel the difference is like having different angles to see the same picture but with pros and cons for each. This is the sense I have at this moment. It is subtle but I now know at least what wilbro is pointing at, and I feel I know how to address it." If he knew what I was pointing at he would not say that we were looking at the same picture. My point is that the two pictures are incommensurable, they are not of the same order, as it were.

Let me then muse upon that difference of order. Even though both may be viewed as goals, the attaining of a goal and the seeing that there is no attaining are not of the same order. A question I have asked from time to time, "Are you looking for happiness because you are unhappy or are you unhappy because you are looking for happiness?" is intended to bring that difference in order to light.

The first part refers to the unhappy self seeking happiness in whatever form that happiness is imagined to take. One of those forms is enlightenment, i.e., the finding one's true self, the state of equanimity, the finding of here and now, and so on. This movement is from the unhappy self to the happy self and is rooted in craving.

The second part refers to the whole of the first part. The craver finds what it craves, but it is still the craver. The finding gets old and the craver is off to another finding. Or the craver may rest assured with its finding, but it still is the craver. When the condition is set for the craver to come to an end, the second part comes into being. Until the second part comes into being, no distinction may be made.
==

<<From Me>>514

I think…

It is a matter of finding a connection from conscious brain to "whatever" it is.

While I have not tried, tantra, number counting, imaging, etc. "may" help to find such a state for some, perhaps. But, ultimately, it is to be done naturally because it is the "wonderful" "mysterious" "unknown" nature's work I think we are going after. Our job is to find the "natural condition" for nature to play its role (so that the connection can be established). Then, we are back HOME/original self -- again. BTW, I think this "whatever" is outside of our conscious brain. It may be characterized as unconscious, cosmic conscious, natural state, infinite, indescribable, Love, heart, etc. or "whatever." And when we connect to that, we have inspiration, insight, awakening, resolution, joy - away from limited human constraints.

The condition that sets the insight to take place may be characterized as samadhi, thinking of no thinking, Hishiryo, shikantaza, or whatever. Vipassana will certainly help. Then, moral conduct, sila, and past wisdom/understanding may be found helpful to still our mind to develop such condition. Since insight, awakening, release, rapture, etc. cannot be done consciously, our role is -- again -- simply put ourselves in such a setting. In other words, this cannot be done if we try. This is because if we "try", such process will bring our conscious brain, the mechanical process, in motion. It is not to use the same past logic or understanding but to come up with fresh insight - more as a live act. And, knowing, talking, writing, etc. does not mean anything either unless "we" can practice this art. Then, koan is a way of checking how we can go through this - a good training method.

Since we cannot live in "whatever" state all the time, we go back and forth between these states, thus it is called the middle way.

This is just my view and means nothing by itself. It is just my imagination talking.

Kio

==

* Only a part of her e-mail is posted.

Kio, Dear, thinking back to Ireland you seemed to me to be a happy man, generally untroubled and free. In reading this list I see you binding yourself up in restrictions and ‘shoulds’ and ‘aughts’ and ‘musts’ and ‘must nots’. What is going on here? Are you seriously going to give up fishing and salmon and Guinness, barking at dogs, being a fool? Are you really going to disappear into your head judging every move you make all day long? Because that is what it sounds like here. Come back out into the real world my dear friend, life is a blessing. It is a free gift - you don’t have to pay for it! You don’t have to become perfect, or be good, or a saint. You were fine just as you were - live your life! Don’t strive for enlightenment - it is already here.

But then again.... Maybe I really should mind my own business. A Zen person has nothing to offer! I should go off and be a perfect Zen Master only coming out when forced and then being incredibly cryptic and inscrutable or really awful to people who are trying really hard. I should deny my wisdom and enlightenment, (and everybody else’s) never speak of my own experiences and be cruel to my students.

I should walk about ever mindfull, in my black robes and sandals with socks, with a serious expression on my face and my hands discretely hidden behind my bib-thing with the teether attached. I should constantly correct other peoples understanding of Zen and criticise their practice and maturity and then tell them I am not a teacher. I should earnestly strive to think of absolutely nothing all day and to seek to achieve a state of complete and absolute detachment from absolutely everything including my self and my own mind, and especially my emotions. I should speak dispassionately about the absolute need for compassion and then never show any for anyone. I should memorise huge long lists of predecessors in my lineage and sit Zazen on a hard lumpy cushion staring at a bare wall for 20 hours a day (in the snow wearing only a thin robe and my grandad’s vest) until my legs dropped off. I should never break a precept, deride any one else that doesn’t and then rebuke them when they do. I should memorise long sutras and then criticise others for quoting them, deny their relevance and then claim them as the only absolute authority to truth. I should refute dogma and then spout it at every available opportunity; deny doctrine and then live by it.

I should be horrible to people who are on the right track and nice to people who are completely wrong. I should use lies, deceit, confusion and subterfuge as teaching tools; and sarcasm, personal attacks, tricks and traps as intellectual argument tools, and then claim that intellectual argument is delusion. I should deny the existence of ego and then expect my students to eradicate it. I should talk illogical nonsense at them all day and then imply that their confusion is insanity. I should hypnotise them until they go to sleep and then hit them with a big stick for doing so. Or bore them to death with long lectures about enlightenment and then tell them not to seek it. I should make fools of them with practical jokes and then when they have the grace to laugh at themselves, rebuke them for not taking their religion seriously. Then when they get really earnest and serious about it I should laugh at them. I should impress on them the value of the Boddhisattva vow and then scorn them when they claim it. I should hide from them when they need me and get in their way when they don’t; never answer their questions and then when they give up asking, complain that they don’t have enquiring minds. I should use any and all means at my disposal to teach them their lessons up to and including abuse, mutilation and death.

I should go and live in some dilapidated frozen hermitage somewhere really foreign where I could live the noble silence in absolute solitude and plant trees or dig tunnels until I died. I should fill it with devotional statues of the Buddha and worship at them three times a day and then scoff at anyone who even hinted at the Buddha being anything worth mentioning; or fart every time his name was mentioned. I should spend years studying Zen and then refuse to talk about it. I should work really hard solving silly riddles and suffering until I got a nice job with pretty robes and then complain at having to wear them. I should take a vow against intoxicants and then smoke and drink beer.

I should leave my children and my family and live on charity and beg in the streets for food, never eating after midday of course, and eat every morsel with complete mindfulness and total gratitude. I should shave off all my body hair, especially on my head so it doesn’t get in the way of my petals. I should never get tattooed or wear jewellery or make-up and if I was still too pretty I should burn my face with an iron or kill someone and go to prison for a long time and then die young and depressed in shame.

Have I forgotten anything? Oh yes! I should take a vow of celibacy and sexual chastity and then have mind sex with all my students. But above all I should never, never, ever, actually have a close intimate loving relationship with anyone because that is clinging and attachment and suffering and skandhas and dualisms and reality and life and love and ......and a Zen person has nothing to offer!

Live in wonderful state of moment, full of awareness & equanimity thus free from all attachment. May the day will always be... Practice may not have a limit... Great job, Kio. A record of rich experiences. Nyana.

I view these described below are the essence! With slight modification, I think this ties directly with Vipassana, i.e., we may be able to test how we are practicing the skills we obtained against the points described here.

Taken from: Majjhima Nikaya 118, Anapanasati Sutta, Mindfulness of Breathing -- As found in Accesstoinsight website: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html

"And how are the four frames of reference developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors of awakening to their culmination?

"[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is steady & without lapse. When his mindfulness is steady & without lapse, then mindfulness as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

"[2] Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

"[3] In one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, unflagging persistence is aroused. When unflagging persistence is aroused in one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then persistence as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

"[4] In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

"[5] For one who is enraptured, the body grows calm and the mind grows calm. When the body & mind of an enraptured monk grow calm, then serenity as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

"[6] For one who is at ease -- his body calmed -- the mind becomes concentrated. When the mind of one who is at ease -- his body calmed -- becomes concentrated, then concentration as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

"[7] He oversees the mind thus concentrated with equanimity. When he oversees the mind thus concentrated with equanimity, equanimity as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.

[Similarly with the other three frames of reference: feelings, mind, & mental qualities.]

"This is how the four frames of reference are developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors of awakening to their culmination.

(Clear Knowing & Release)

"And how are the seven factors of awakening developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination? There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor of awakening dependent on seclusion...dispassion...cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops analysis of qualities as a factor of awakening...persistence as a factor of awakening...rapture as a factor of awakening...serenity as a factor of awakening...concentration as a factor of awakening...equanimity as a factor of awakening dependent on seclusion...dispassion...cessation, resulting in relinquishment.

"This is how the seven factors of awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination."

* The task for us, I believe, is to go through these as direct experience, and as internalized wisdom that we can practice in whatever situation we are in. -Kio

Kio, I figured there was only one way to satisfy myself re this matter
of watching the breath. I began watching my breathing from the still
center and quickly reached a release state. I recognized the sensation
of the state as one I know well. It arises whenever I become one with a
doing, especially when the words flow on their own, where I am only a
listener to what I am saying. If there is a physical movement involved,
the sensation is one of smooth slow motion. My experience with this
state is that it is simply the reflection in which the observer and the
observed are not separate. Kierkegaard refers to as the state of transparency.

He defines it as follows:

"It is one thing to think in such a way that one's attentiveness is
solely and constantly directed towards an external object; it is
something else to be turned in thought that constantly at every moment
one himself becomes conscious, in reflection, conscious of one's own
condition or how it is with oneself under reflection. But only the
latter is essentially what thinking is: it is, in fact, transparency.
The first is unclear thinking which suffers from a contradiction: that
which in thinking clarifies something else is itself basically unclear.
Such a thinker clarifies something else by his thought, and lo, he does
not understand himself; externally in the direction of the object he
perhaps utilizes his natural talents very penetratingly but in the
direction of inwardness he is very superficial, and therefore all his
thought, however fundamental it seems to be, is still basically
superficial" (Works of Love, Hong, pp. 331-33)

The only question I would have concerning this breath watching is
whether or not it leads back to the understanding that allows me to get
to that state? If it does not, I can not see it as other than a trick.
As I have said before, the part of vipasssana that observes the
thought/feeling complex will lead to the understanding if not shorted
out by the "dogma of disconnect."