truth
Twyvel, tonight I'll read the link you've provided. If you like it, it must have something for me. But I've grown very bored with the enlightenment industry and it many magazines. So much of it is bullshit. But the principle or strategy of no-practice of Trungpa Rinpoche is, in my judgement, the bottom line of Buddhist practice. The principle that samsara = nirvana, that Realitis already here, that we are as enlightened as we can be, is so counter intuitive to people who feel dissatisfied with life (particularly the anticipation of death, the knowledge that they can lose their wealth, that they are separate and alone, unable to really communicate with others, etc.) that this principle is rejected--even by practicioners of zen and vedanta. When people meditate it is explicitly or implicitly to gain enlightenment, to decrease or eliminate suffering, to become secure, safe from a reality that is alien and threatening to them because it does not live up their fantasy reality, like that painted by Kincaid or promised by Jerry Falwell. It is impossible to let go, as you say, because there is noone to let go; it is impossible to escape from suffering because there is no sufferer, only pain. I think the impossibility and lack of necessity to "let go" is the basis for the buddhist mediation method, called in Japanese Shikan Taza (just sitting). It is a kind of absolute letting go, an effortless non-practice in which one mere sees with a passive awareness of what is, a letting go of even letting go. And in that condition one sees--one doesn't figure out--that one's self is an illusion. but a necessary one, which is why it has been emerged at a certain age in the individual's life all over the world. It is functional in a society where people must have a "self" as a kind of point of reference for social interaction (or something like that). One does not KNOW his ego is illusory; he just SEES it for what it is: a sensation, an assumption, but in so objectifying it he realizes, as you stress, that the objectifier does not exist, at least it is not within his phenomenal field. This is not knowing, in a sense that one can provide an argument for it based on "evidence". It is "seen" in a way that is very personal.
I've gone on too long. Pretty soon, I will, if I havn't already done so, objectify what I'm trying to express, such that it becomes a false object subject to logical debate. I want to avoid that.
now.
We are miserable seekers, yet there are no seekers for who is seeking what?
