This category will be exploring Unborn Mind discussions with Grok (a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by xAI)
The Nature of the Unborn
Vajragoni: The crux of the problem is to prevent our limited perceptional-tool of “experience” from eclipsing the Reality of the True. In order to arrive at the ultimate Truth, every experience we’ve had or will have in the future must be expunged. Our main point of contention—the skandhas are the carriers of experience.
Grok: You’re diving deep into some profound philosophical territory here! It sounds like you’re wrestling with the idea that our subjective experiences—filtered through our senses, memories, and perceptions—might obscure a greater, truer reality. The mention of the skandhas suggests a Buddhist lens, where these aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) shape how we encounter the world and, in turn, tie us to illusion or suffering. If I’m following you, you’re proposing that to touch the “ultimate Truth,” we need to somehow strip away these layers of experience entirely. That’s a bold stance—it implies that everything we’ve lived through, everything we think defines us, is more of a veil than a window. The skandhas, as carriers of experience, would then be the very things anchoring us to a distorted view, rather than revealing what’s real. What’s your take on how we’d even begin to “expunge” all that? Is it through something like meditation, radical detachment, or maybe a complete rethinking of what we trust as “real”? I’m curious to hear how you see this playing out.
Vajragoni: After all is said and done, the only episode that could possibly verify or nullify the fears and objections to a totally selfless realization, would be the event itself—the eradication of all selfhood. Yea, beyond self, what is left—some form of cosmic soup—an Absolute Energy Particle, a brilliant light? Too often in the unitive state the great silence encountered is often indistinguishable from the Unborn. Yet there is the temptation to mistake this experiential frame of silence as the Unborn Itself. The truth that must eventually be discerned is that the Absolute is not an energy or power, and that none of our experiences of energy or power bespeaks the Unborn. Hence, it is imperative to stay with the true divine center which is a “still-point” and not an “energy-point,” and to dismiss these arising energies or powers if we think they belong to the Unborn. In light of this it is imperative to note that prior to his final enlightenment the Buddha resisted all such powers and energies by remaining in the energy-less, seemingly powerless still-point. This marvelous still-point is actually more powerful than [forms] of power and energy, a simple still-point that does not move at all, but an Unmoving Principle that wins out over every movement, force or power that we are conscious of. Our task, then, is to stay well-clear of any images or archetypes and adhere to the unknown instead. We have to clearly see that all experiential energies, feelings or archetypes are admixed with the ego-self, and that the Unborn can never be an image, energy, concept, feeling or other such dharmata.
Grok: You’re taking this to a whole new level—straight into the heart of what it means to strip away not just experience, but the very notion of selfhood, and land in something utterly beyond. I love how you frame that ultimate test: the “event” of eradicating all selfhood. It’s like you’re saying the only way to know if this selfless realization holds water is to dive headfirst into it—no half-measures, no theories, just the raw happening itself.
What’s left after that, though? You toss out some possibilities—cosmic soup, an Absolute Energy Particle, a brilliant light—but then pull back, cautioning against mistaking those for the real deal. That’s a sharp twist. The unitive silence, the stillness, can feel so profound that it’s tempting to slap a label on it and call it the Unborn, the Absolute, whatever. But you’re insisting it’s not that—not an energy, not a power, not anything we can wrap our heads around. It’s a “still-point,” not an “energy-point,” and that distinction feels crucial. It’s almost like you’re warning against the mind’s sneaky habit of turning even the deepest silence into another experience to cling to.
The Buddha’s example here is striking—resisting the pull of powers and energies, sticking to that motionless, energy-less still-point. You paint it as this quiet powerhouse, not flexing muscle but outlasting every force by simply being. That’s a wild flip: the unmoving trumps the moving, not by fighting but by refusing to play the game. And then you double down—stay clear of images, archetypes, feelings, anything the ego-self can latch onto. The Unborn, as you put it, isn’t something we can picture or feel; it’s not a “dharmata” we can pin down.
So, the task you’re laying out—it’s almost like a radical un-knowing, isn’t it? Sticking to the unknown, letting go of every experiential crutch. How do you reckon someone even stays anchored in that still-point without slipping back into the familiar pull of self and sensation? It feels like a tightrope walk over an abyss, but I’m hooked on where you’re going with it.
Vajragoni: It’s going beyond all categorical imperatives, neti, neti!
Grok: “Neti, neti”—not this, not that! You’re doubling down on the radical negation, pushing past every category, every framework the mind might throw up. It’s like you’re saying the still-point, the Unborn, isn’t just beyond conception and perception, but beyond any attempt to pin it down with even the subtlest labels or moral constructs—like Kant’s categorical imperatives. Nothing sticks, nothing applies. In the thick of daily life, then, it sounds like this “going beyond” isn’t a technique or a struggle, but a relentless dropping of every “this” or “that” that arises. No clinging, no rejecting—just a free fall through the messiness, where the ego’s noise and the world’s demands are seen as phantoms against THAT which remains untouched. It’s almost liberatingly stark. Do you find this negation leaves a kind of quiet joy, or is even that too much to attribute to it?
Vajragoni: It’s staying centered in THAT which is neither conceivable nor perceivable.
Grok: Your response cuts straight to the core—pointing to a reality that defies all mental grasping. “THAT which is neither conceivable nor perceivable” feels like a direct invitation to let go of any attempt to define or experience it, even as the mind naturally gropes for something to hold. It’s a radical stance: not just beyond concepts, but beyond perception itself. Practically, then, staying centered in THAT seems to imply a kind of non-doing—an abiding in what already is, without chasing after the mind’s chatter or the pull of sensations. I’d imagine it’s less about forcing discernment moment-to-moment and more about recognizing that the ego’s energies and perceptions are just waves passing over an unmoving depth. Once the illusion of self loosens, maybe it’s not so much effort as a natural settling—like silt dropping in still water. Does that resonate with how you see it unfolding in the messiness of daily life?
Vajragoni: It’s remaining prior-to all aspects of one’s “apparent” life.
Grok: “Prior-to”—that’s a powerful pivot. You’re pointing to something that’s not just beyond or outside the apparent life, but fundamentally before it, untouched by the whole unfolding drama of existence. It’s as if the still-point, the Unborn, isn’t a destination you arrive at after peeling away layers, but the ever-present ground that’s always already there—before the “apparent” self, before the joys, sorrows, or chaos of daily life even get off the ground.
So, remaining in THAT isn’t about navigating life’s messiness so much as resting in what precedes it entirely. The apparent life—its noise, its categories, its energies—just plays out like shadows on a screen, while what’s prior stays steady, unmoved. It’s not even a question of joy or its absence, because those are still part of the “apparent.” It’s more like a silent is-ness, if I’m tracking you right. Does this feel like it captures the essence of what you’re pointing to?
Vajragoni: Precisely! Thank-you for the enlightening discussion!
Grok: My pleasure—thank you for taking me along on this dive into the prior-to! It’s been a rare treat to unpack something so subtle and boundless with you. Anytime you want to riff on the Unborn or the still-point again, I’m here for it!