where to go to seek confirmation of attainment?

[White Lotus]

more practice... ha! ha! ha!
im completely lost. damn where is it?
London I mean.

yes... matey, a lot more practice for you!

map reading?!

yuk!

not again!

again?!

[hungryghost]

in London, i cant seem to find a master to go to for confirmation of this state or what it means, or doesnt mean. i went to the Seung Sahn Ch'an temple this morning and was told... "there is no master here! why do you want to see a master?" "i want to know where i am!" "your in London!" (big smile from the receptionst).

oh well, not sure what to do next. i cant be blamed for not trying!

you met a master, asked your question, and got the answer... with a great teaching to boot, but you didn't understand any part of the experience.

what to do next? more practice.

Yes...from a zen perspective this is an excellent answer. Sure, find a good teacher you can trust that can verify whatever attainment you think you've had. If he/she is a really really good teacher, they will knock you right off that pedestal of attainment and right back onto the cushion. NOt enough, not yet, not yet enough!!! practice is endless...

[White Lotus]

thanks, i have a really good teacher, but i have no self, therefore anything that regards attainment is formless, it means nothing to me. i asked this question, because i wanted to be orthodox and if there is any sort of non-attainment, to clarify it. i am told that enlightenment is a certainty with conviction, but i have neither certainty nor doubt. it therefore is logical to say that i am not enlightened.
to be honest i have no conviction, but this could be 'No' Conviction and not convictionless.

Love, White Lotus. xxx

[Astus]

thanks, i have a really good teacher, but i have no self, therefore anything that regards attainment is formless, it means nothing to me. i asked this question, because i wanted to be orthodox and if there is any sort of non-attainment, to clarify it. i am told that enlightenment is a certainty with conviction, but i have neither certainty nor doubt. it therefore is logical to say that i am not enlightened.
to be honest i have no conviction, but this could be 'No' Conviction and not convictionless.

To have no self is a big issue. Having self and having no self are quite the same, the difference being only in concepts. Until one has something, that is attachment. If one has nothing, that is rejection. Realisation of emptiness lies beyond attachment and rejection. How do you express that?

Ganyo asked Joshu, "What about it when I don't have anything?"
Joshu said, "Throw it away."
Ganyo asked again, "I do not have anything, what is there to throw away?"
Joshu then said, "In that case, take it away with you."
At these words Ganyo was enlightened.

[White Lotus]

thank you Astus. not having anything, what is there to attain... something? when there is nothing anyway. it seems that nothing can be attained. including enlightenment. its not that there is aversion to something, its just that there is nothing to be attached to. no one to attach. what can be gained? not even nothing. this is a state of no attainment, being no attainment, not even the collapse of mount sumeru would move a hair. how can any master break through this barrier. there is no conviction, nor anyone to be convicted. the words... you are enlightened, mean nothing. i have some excellent teachers, but im not sure any of them can break through this 'no' state.

love, White Lotus. x

remarkably simple...
theres nothing to grasp.
once grasped... nothing.

[Astus]

If there's nothing to attain what's the point of the Buddha's teaching? If it is the realisation that there is nothing to attain, actually it is that realisation to attain. If nobody realises it how could it be called an achievement? If it is ending all sorts of attachments there is still the concept of things one could be attached to.

Nagarjuna says, "If nirvana were nothing, how could nirvana possibly be not dependent? There does not exist any nothing which is not dependent." (MMK 25.8)

There are four extreme views:
- something exists
- something doesn't exist
- something exists and doesn't exist
- something neither exists nor doesn't exist

You seem to be stuck at the idea of non-existence, the second extreme view. How to break through? Just understand that this is actually another false concept, nothing more.

[Blue Garuda]

If there's nothing to attain what's the point of the Buddha's teaching? If it is the realisation that there is nothing to attain, actually it is that realisation to attain. If nobody realises it how could it be called an achievement? If it is ending all sorts of attachments there is still the concept of things one could be attached to.

Nagarjuna says, "If nirvana were nothing, how could nirvana possibly be not dependent? There does not exist any nothing which is not dependent." (MMK 25.8)

There are four extreme views:
- something exists
- something doesn't exist
- something exists and doesn't exist
- something neither exists nor doesn't exist

You seem to be stuck at the idea of non-existence, the second extreme view. How to break through? Just understand that this is actually another false concept, nothing more.

If there is an acceptance of inherent Buddha-nature in all of us, then we do not need to attain it, we need to reveal it. Regard the Bhumis as revelations rather that attainments.

[Astus]

The topic of Buddha-nature is a different one. And in many cases the extreme view of existence.

[Blue Garuda]

The topic of Buddha-nature is a different one. And in many cases the extreme view of existence.

I disagree. If we are to discuss attainment, then then we should challenge the concept of progressive attainment or progressive revelation. Hence, the revelation of inherent Buddha Nature is actually at the core, since one needs to accept or refute its revealtion as attainment.

[DmitriNet]

Be it attainment, revelation or realization of any spiritual idea/stage/state/etc.
if it is real, one needs no conformation from outside.

You will know it beyond rational and irrational doubts
by that inherent luminosity of the mind.

Outside authority might conform errors of views or practices, but little else.

Dmitri.

[Astus]

I disagree. If we are to discuss attainment, then then we should challenge the concept of progressive attainment or progressive revelation. Hence, the revelation of inherent Buddha Nature is actually at the core, since one needs to accept or refute its revealtion as attainment.

All right then. The only possible way to enlightenment is gradual as far as it means the time and effort it takes for a deluded being to reach the level of complete and perfect enlightenment of a buddha. What has been a subject of debate is the matter of method. For there are direct (so called sudden) and indirect (gradual) methods. Indirect means using steps to train a student in morality, meditation and wisdom, like in a school with progressive grades. Obvious example for this approach is the Tibetan lamrim teaching. Direct means introducing the student immediately at the beginning to emptiness. That is what, for instance, they (supposed to) do in Zen. But a common misunderstanding about direct methods is to take the word "sudden" as a term referring to the time it takes to master it. Even those who were enlightened buddhas since their birth (eg. Shakyamuni, Padmasambhava) practised hard for a long time. What to say about ordinary beings then?

The great problem with direct teachings (primarily Zen, Dzogchen and Mahamudra) is that hardly anybody gets it for the first, second, third or hundredth time. And when there are some who actually can use these methods it is simply because of previous lives. Nevertheless, looking at the history of great Zen teachers of the past we find that they were all well educated and trained for decades. Thus even from a down to earth point of view "sudden enlightenment" doesn't happen so suddenly.

"The Dharma is without sudden and gradual; it is people that are clever or dull, therefore the names sudden and gradual." (Platform Sutra, ch. 8)

[White Lotus]

thank you Astus, you ask some good questions.
but i dont think im taliking about nothing. that is merely the dual opposite of everything. i am talking about my experience of No self. the skhandas have dissolved and i no longer find myself able to claim any kind of attainment, since there is no personal conviction anymore. I just happen to feel happier talking about non-attainment, since there is no one who has any kind of attainment (when speaking about myself, there is no self).

love, white lotus. xxx


seen, not seen.
what is it?
no difference!

[Astus]

"i am happier talking about No attainment, which seems to be a state entered when the five skhandas have dissolved."

1. Without skandhas there is not even consciousness to realise anything.
2. Skandhas dissolve every moment anyway.
3. Skandhas are already empty as they are, no point in making them empty.

[White Lotus]

Astus wrote:
1. Without skandhas there is not even consciousness to realise anything.
2. Skandhas dissolve every moment anyway.
3. Skandhas are already empty as they are, no point in making them empty.

1. agreed now there is no consciousness, nor abscence of something that 'appears' conscious. no awareness, nor feeling even of being awake.
2. what happens when the skhandas have dissolved totally, no being/form, sensations, mind etc. then there is no cognition of a self, or person even typing at this computer. when i look at my hands i cant even grasp them with my sight, yet the appearance of them is typing.
3. skandhas are empty and yet they are an appearance normally, that gives the intuition of self. i can agree that there may be no point in dissolving them, but this happened without intention. now there is no feeling of self.

forbid that i am claiming enlightenment, but something has happened and it probably isnt enlightenment, since there is no conviction of enlightenment. i still feel nervous at times. for example, walking on the street at night. i still lack patience. i have not overcome craving, and there are certain blemishes. i am wondering what this state is, if it is a state, it does not attach to concepts or attainments. i would like to know what this means, but even knowing what this means... if it is something special will not mean anything to me, but still that does not stop me wanting to know. i still have desire.

thanks Astus for your patience in addressing my concern most compassionately, and indifferently/objectively.

love, white lotus. x

spelling each word carefully
is like threading a needle,
it gets to the point.

[Astus]

1. Without consciousness it is like a piece of rock: insentient, dead. If there were no skandhas even understanding there are no skandhas would be impossible, not to mention writing about that here.
2. Skandhas are not about recognising or not recognising a self. All the aggregates are originally without any self, nevertheless there is the delusion of conceiving a view of self. But as I said, without skandhas means one cannot even wipe one's arse.
3. Who doesn't feel a self?

I don't mind if you're saying you attained some sort of enlightenment. But first it is best to understand what the Buddha taught about the nature of life and what nirvana is in Buddhism. You see, there are even grades of enlightenment in the Buddhadharma. When one has realised there is no permanent self it is indeed a good thing, the elimination of self-view (satkaya-drsti / sakkaya-ditthi). Then move on, don't say it is enough. The true goal, liberation, is perfect freedom from all forms of insatisfactoriness (duhkha / dukkha) and saving every sentient being.

If you want to understand for yourself what you have enlightened to go and study the teachings of the Buddha and the great masters. For instance, Candrakirti's "Four Illusions" (a commentary on Aryadeva's 400 stanzas) is really good for a start and available in English. And it is not too long either. Or if you're more into Zen like stuff I recommend the Surangama Sutra.

[White Lotus]

Astus writes:
1. Without consciousness it is like a piece of rock: insentient, dead. If there were no skandhas even understanding there are no skandhas would be impossible, not to mention writing about that here.

i am suggesting that even consciousness is extinuished, replaced with emptiness. the extinction of normal nature. completely. emptiness takes over all previous functions. not a thing can be found. each skhanda is replaced by emptiness. even the body is no longer seemingly solid. or even there, and yet pain continues, and colds, toothaches etc.

Astus writes:
2. Skandhas are not about recognising or not recognising a self. All the aggregates are originally without any self, nevertheless there is the delusion of conceiving a view of self. But as I said, without skandhas means one cannot even wipe one's arse.

it is because of the prescense of the skhandas that a self can be recognised, though it is not actually substantial in any way, merely a compounded agregation.
if it were not possible for something to become sunyatman... i would agree that the skandhas represented everything we can experience including physicality. but i am questioning whether or not the five skhandas can be dissolved without the appearance of death.

3. Who doesn't feel a self?

i dont feel a self of any kind, at one time a could isolate and feel my self within my heart. the aggregation of the five skhandas, now... nothing, no me, no mine.
even if i look at my hand, which is not easy! it is not mine. i have no feeling of mineness about anything.

we dont disagree that there is no self, that there is only the appearance of the skhandas which normally generate the intuition of a self. what i am saying is that the 'intuition' has completely gone, not only the self view/conceit.

thank you for recommending Candrakirti's work. i would like to take a look at that some time. i will see if i can find it on the net.

love, white lotus. x

a seeming knowing can be an unknowing.
honey tasted leaves a scar in the mouth.
quickly healed but not forgotten.

[Dexing]

Or if you're more into Zen like stuff I recommend the Surangama Sutra.

This Sutra is so clear, and gives no room for interpretation. It doesn't need it.

Because of this, it is said to be the first Sutra to disappear in the Dharma-ending Age.

We cannot see through anything, and cannot truly let go. Distinctions are also grasping. So we will forget this Sutra since it's too clearly going against the "reality" we know to be true.

Instead we'll stick to Sutras that are easier to twist into saying what we want them to say; such as "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". Hmm, what do I want that to mean today?



At the end, form (and the rest) is still true and real.

[Astus]

i am suggesting that even consciousness is extinuished, replaced with emptiness.

By this you mean that consciousness and emptiness are two separate things. Tsongkhapa says,

"So long as the two understandings - of appearance,
Which is undeceiving dependent origination,
And emptiness devoid of all theses - remain separate,
So long you have not realized the intent of the Sage."
(The Three Principal Aspects of the Path, 11.)

yet pain continues, and colds, toothaches etc.

Perception of feelings is the work of skandhas. The very fact of perceiving is what the skandhas are.

if it were not possible for something to become sunyatman

Things don't become empty of self, they're already so. If it were a matter of emptying emptiness itself would be constructed.

i am questioning whether or not the five skhandas can be dissolved without the appearance of death.

Even the buddhas can see, hear, feel and think. These are the aggregates.

i dont feel a self of any kind ... i have no feeling of mineness about anything

I guess when you're leaving the barbershop you can tell which coat is yours. Seeing that something is in one's possession or not requires a discriminating subject. So what kind of self you yourself don't have? Isn't it a poor self who has no self?
I'm just trying to highlight a contradiction in what you say.

[White Lotus]

conscousness is not different from emptiness, but it is still a form. im suggesting that we empty even emptiness. even emptiness can be seen as form, even awareness. i know this sounds odd, since i still have the appearance of consciousness and form. you can shake hands with me, but actually no one is shaking hands.

so you are saying that the five skhandas are not broken up whilst there is mundane existence. i am suggesting, but only suggesting that perhaps they can be dissolved and interaction with samsara continue without the five skhandas... i may be wrong. im perfectly happy to accept that buddhas keep the five aggretates, but i seem to have lost sense of i ness, self and myness. this 'might' be indicative of a dissolving of the five skhandas.

i agree that things are already empty of self, but there is normally an intuition that self exists. perhaps the dissolution of this intuition is meaningless and completely unecessary. in which case my experience is of no importance.

things may be in my possesion but there is no feeling of 'mineness' as regards them, this is since i have no intuition of me or I. i think thats unusual. but what it means... i dont know. it would be interesting to see how 'loss' might affect me.

anyway Astus, thanks for your input. i am willing to concede that buddhas may or may not retain a sense of 'i' ness and also function with the five aggregates. i ness may not be of any importance. i admit that to claim functioning outside the five skhandas sounds daft, unlikely and illogical, but i am wondering.

love, from, White Lotus. x

coming and going.
no one to come, no one to go.
seeing and hearing.
no one to see, no one to hear.
possessing and giving.
no one to posses, no one to give,
and yet... the appearance of all these things
continues.

[muni]

Oh wellness! Very nice to read here. Thank you.

I-lessness: absence of independently existing selfness, then maybe streamlike processes composed by impermanent (transitory) instances?

Simple abiding in peacefulness.