Lucky7Strikes

Reality does not exist based on Buddhism. It's not Buddhism first then reality second. Buddhism is built on a view or a certain understanding of reality. Hence awakening to the truth of reality also does not belong to Buddhism. It belongs to reality.

Uh... whoever said anything about mind = matter? Huh? Does the article say that? You keep saying thoughts can't be located. Well, here is evidenced experiments showing that indeed thoughts can be located as particular brain waves.

The only complete surviving ancient Buddhist scriptures are the Pali Canon. From Wiki: The Pāli Canon is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language.[1] It is the only completely surviving early Buddhist canon, and one of the first to be written down.[2] It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the passing away of Shākyamuni.[3][4][5] First printing of the whole Buddhist Canon was done by imperial order in China in CE 868.[6] Three sources from different scholars cite it. It was first printed more than a thousand years after the Buddha died. The Gandharan Texts date to 1st century BCE, so at least three hundred years after the Buddha's death. But most of the early Buddhist teachings are based on the Pali canon. And it was written down in 29 BCE. But listen, you took my quote out of context. You don't understand my point of view at all. Not relying on scriptures is my point, not dismissing them.

You are completely missing the point here. Just because someone can levitate, or have telekinetic powers, it doesn't at all demonstrate that reality is illusory. If a man a hundred years ago saw a rocket being launched, or a cell phone conversation, he would consider them miracles. But does that mean that the world is indeed an illusion, that it does not exist? No. Also do these examples somehow show insight into these phenomena? Nope. They don't. They are just examples and at best guesses as to what creates these abilities.

As for you constant claim that thoughts can't be found, here's a recent study on how scientists can locate thoughts as certain brain waves and even reconstruct words based on visual observation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16811042

If you are going to rely on ancient anecdotes as evidence for your understanding of reality, you might as well take in scriptures and tales from all types of religions. It makes Buddhism no more true than say, Islam or Christianity. Opinion. Namdrol says this is his opinion. He doesn't have some profound insight about yogic powers or miracles or the solidity or flexibility of phenomena and only guesses. He relies on sutta to support his ideas. Again, what makes this sort of approach any more superior than the opinions of a catholic bishop who relies on biblical tales?

I know what you are saying and you are merely stating your convictions again. Please go back and read my post, because I addressed this point. As I have explained before, you dismiss reality, existence, on the basis of dependence of objects you observe in reality. And this is totally unjustified. You have no sufficient evidence in making such claims. Your theory of dependent origination, that what you observe or what is experienced arises on dependence of another phenomena simply explain a certain way reality operates. It has no grounds for dismissing it entirely.

Mmm.. not really. A part of me finds Xabir an interesting character study. He is a fundamentalist, but also claims insight and wisdom that stands on it's own. So...it's a bit fun poking him here and there.

Probably from me! I can't say I've realized anything, let alone some abiding non-dual awareness. But it bothers me Xabir goes around not just the tao bums but other sites pretending to be some authority on Buddhism and enlightenment. In case you didn't notice, he used to go around trying to proselytize people, when really his ideas are unsupported and heavily based on doctrine and lacks any genuine self contemplation or general sound sense. There's also a generally condescending tone when he addressed other people experiences or insights. He just tucks it away into his own frame without really giving the other person his due.

This whole quote by Nagarjuna is rubbish and does not prove the illusoriness of the world at all. The first paragraph is problematic because the assumption that if there are conditions giving rise to action it eliminates the agent. An agent can be one aspect of the total conditions. Second paragraph is wrong, because results can arise without agents.... I mean, the whole things is just series of extreme conclusions. It doesn't show anything about the world being an illusion. The best it can do it show that labels are illusory.

...uh..of course a sentient being will view the phenomena of chair as something that exists. If he doesn't believe it is real, he will not interact with it, and maybe even run his hand through it denying its appearance of solidity...but alas, the chair is there to interact with his body. If you truly believe that you don't believe in the existences of object, you won't be able to navigate through life at all, since you'd be denying the realities of anything you encounter. But again here you are linking two different ideas together. One of existent reality and the other of inherent existence. Reality of something or a situation does not demand an inherent existence of "things." Sentient beings conceive of existences, because the reality of what is experienced is, as I have noted above, consequential and consistent, not because in their minds the object has an inherent property to it. The belief in something' inherent nature is only an afterthought that arises from labels due to the reality of the object. For instance people don't believe dreams are inherently true because their degree of reality is very weak, not because they believe it has no independent or unchanging property to it. And how does this at all show that the phenomena, however temporary, of the chair is an illusion? Or that it does not exist or is unreal? It merely shows a characteristic of a certain phenomena of chair, that is is fluid, and within the context of a larger universe. It doesn't at all show that the phenomena itself is illusory, but only the belief in the inherent labels is, or the belief in some indestructible chair (which I don't think many people hold anyways). I never mentioned anything about the way a convention is conceived. You said the Buddha doesn't at all perceive them (but understands). Whether it's spontaneous or contrived, it wasn't the point of my inquiry. My question was targeted towards your insistent claim that a Buddha doesn't at all perceive conventional terms. Furthermore, since thoughts come by the form of language, which are conventional, it seems like you are also suggesting that a Buddha doesn't think at all. So you haven't really answered my question correctly. And you seem to believe a Buddha can't think.

This comment is uncalled for. It's never right to wish harm on anyone. We are just having a discussion here.

Seems like you are just reifying satori. .

It can be unseen. Anything seen can be unseen. You still don't understand anything I'm trying to say! I'm not favoring inferred analysis over direct experiences. I'm not saying logic triumphs all. What I'm suggesting is comprehensiveness, and just as valuable an experience can be, so is the contextual understanding of that experience, and a logical grasp of it. If your experience does indeed hold to be true, you should be able to present it coherently and logically, but so far you just cannot stand up to any of my criticisms, and always at the end of a point, you are left to say, "I just see it that way! Take your analysis away!" ...Bur really, your problem lies in poor imagination, not lack of inference. Inference and inquisitiveness are just part of what goes into contemplation. To me, you will never truly attain genuine enlightenment until you truly consider the possibility that the Buddha may have been wrong: that his enlightenment could've been false. Only then can you genuinely be open to an incredible array of possibilities, call your contemplation contemplation, and your meditation meditation. You are only an imitator now, a disciple who does not own his attainments. Realization is just a paradigm shift. If your realization is based on falsities, you awakening is also a falsity. Believing it as something permanent only empowers the false paradigm. No, I find your dependence on them pitiful. You've quoted the heart sutra several times in this discussion. Um...but that wasn't really the point of what I was saying. It wasn't about the heart sutra at all really.

No, then you'd be perceiving someone else's delusion, or your own memory of a certain delusion, even though knowing it as delusion, it is still perceived. This contrasts to what you said earlier about not perceiving conventions at all. To understand someone else's conventions you must have a memory or some reference to it. And in referring to it, you are perceiving it, hence perceiving conventional factors. It does not, and I will show you why below. This does not somehow indicate that the material world is illusory, or somehow that the chair does not exist. Really, this is just purely stupid. You are equating "core" to mean "reality" when they are different issues altogether. Something that obviously does not have a core, say a wind, is taken to be real by almost everyone. When you ask them, do you think the wind has a core or an essence, they will likely say no, it's just blowing wind that arises and disappears when there is movement in the air. But people are not foolish to conclude from this that the wind is an "illusion." An entirely different criteria is applied when you are measuring the degree of reality. The "chair" as a label may be something that is untrue but dependent origination cannot dismiss the reality of the phenomena of the chair itself as an illusion. Why? Because the chair is consequential, as in, you can sit on it without the chair suddenly disappearing. Also the chair has a consistent and lasting effect, as in the chair won't disappear after you rub your eyes or wake up tomorrow and come back to see it. Consequence and consistency are what we use to decide whether or not an experience is illusory or real, and labels arise afterwards for practical use. We say a dream is an illusion because it lacks these characteristics. Another error you are committing is pretty obvious. You are initially suggesting the world of "things." The world of essences. Then you disprove the world of "things" and conclude therefore that the world is actually an illusion...whoa! an extreme conclusion there don't you think? You are only offering two alternatives, one of "things" and the other as an illusion. But consider innumerable ways the world can be, besides these options. Maybe the world isn't made of "things" but is, let's say a movement or a flow. Or a vibration. Or an imagination. Or instead of things, it's really made out of tiny strings as in the string theory. Dependent origination just disproves the world of ultimate "things" and essences, but that's really it. It says experiences arise out of causes and conditions, and in the practical sense no one should really deny that. But does it offer a comprehensive insight into the intricacies of reality and life? Not really. It offers one aspect of life that can be observed. Oh, so the Buddha does perceive labels. Labels are conventions. So the Buddha perceives conventions, yes?

...so...the only "justification"...is that it's true and can be experienced. Hahaha! What a wonderful explanation. Many fanatics argue in this way as well: "My God is true, because he is true, I can feel Him. His truth justifies his existence." All arguments are not pointless. Our experiences are often unreliable as well as our senses. The best we can do is weave them together, compare varying evidences, and through inquisitiveness, direct experiences, experiments, and yes, logic to come to an understanding. Depending too heavily on such "you need to see it or take it by faith" is an irresponsible way to approach spirituality. Spirituality is a science, not a mere religion. Blind people can argue their own elephants! Why not? To them their elephant is different than the elephant seen by someone with eyes. One who trusts "blindly" only on his sight is the truly blind person. Neither does it lie with faith or trusting too heavily on first hand experience. Insight comes from inquisitiveness, of questioning, observing, and understanding. IMO, those who are truly unwise rely on partial scripture or authoritative teachings to justify their ways of behavior. Their wisdom hence does not belong to them, but to a tradition and to a religion. They are bound by doctrine and their enlightenment is revealed to be a cheap imitation. This is simply untrue. The heart sutra is not eloquent (it basically says: no blah, no blah, no blah), neither is the Buddha's quote above. Neither are Namdrol's little snippets you choose to quote. You have the capabilities in language to say precisely the same things they say and actually you have done so in several instances. But for some reason you choose to add their little quotes at the end of posts which reveal a certain level of insecurity and the need for validation for your own insights. It would be appropriate to quote the Buddha or Namdrol if we are speaking about Buddhism, or me speaking as a Buddhist. But we are not. We are delving into your claims to know the truths of human experience and reality. Really, your tendency to quote often to support yourself makes sense because as you say above, the path to your "insight" or whatever has been through faith in the language of these people, you even deem it necessary. So the only way you know how to justify any points you make is through quotations and scriptures, and even more glaringly, examples borrowed from authority figures.

So one does not view things in terms of conventions but understands them? How does one understand something he does not perceive? You are suggesting a dual mode of perceptions here: one of seeing, and the other of understanding that take place separately. Does the object we label "chair" then, exist? You need to clarify whether you are calling the label of "chair" the illusory aspect or the object of chair itself the illusion. If you are saying the object of chair is itself the illusion, the material of wood, its physical make up, how it interacts with your body, etc. then so far you have not yet said anything to sufficiently support that claim. Dependent origination by theory does not deny the existence of the world itself, it just says that the world is made interconnectedly. If the chair itself is in fact not an illusion, then the label "chair" is indeed not a false view of an "existent," but merely one way of viewing an "existent" through the idea of a chair. If we take this analysis further, one can say that the idea of a chair is just as real as the material of the chair, if not more true, since the idea of a chair persists through time and time through generations, and has the ability to produce varying types of chairs: since it has a more lasting and stronger impact on our livelihoods, it is more real. So just because its not labeled doesn't make it an illusion all of a sudden. By the way,many people who study linguistics know that terms are mere labels that are just tools and not the reality. But to use terms like "magical spell" is an extreme way of putting it. You are using that term solely because it's in the scriptures. Furthermore, "clinging" does not arise from labeling things. Labeling may be one aspect of it, but it's not a direct cause or have some strong correlation to clinging. It can be argued that people who are strongly addicted to an activity or a substance are in fact very much enclosed in their addictions because they have stopped labeling their activities, dulled their perceptions, and the clinging has seeped into their identities. Hence the first step to facing your addiction is usually acknowledgement, i.e. labeling your problems. On the other hand, if you are saying viewing something as existing and real is the source of clinging and so one should stop viewing world as something that exists, again, you haven't yet provided any satisfactory evidence to deny the world, besides that one's label of the world is untrue. The world exists before labels, or else animals who do not have capacity for language would not be able to eat, since well, they haven't had the chance to "label" their food. So here you are describing an ability or a certain way of experiencing. But you are not able to explain how this is so. If someone has an understanding of conventions, he may not perceive an experience only in terms of them, but conventional understanding is a necessary part of that perception if Buddha is going to be able to relate to others in conventional terms especially when faced with a new experiences. He will also be unable to learn new conventional ideas if he does not perceive conventions at all. For instance if your so called "Buddha" were to learn a new language, he must draw upon conventional perception to relate his own language to the new one to draw a new conventional understanding. Or when he faces lets say a "car" for the first time, in order to relate to others who have already experience the car, he must perceive the car through new labels, even if it comes with the knowledge that the labels are ultimately false.

This wasn't the post I was asking you to reply to.

You realize language is a conventional form of communication right? So if you don't see conventions at all, how are you able to read this? You have a very bad understanding of the term "conventions." Conventions is not about seeing things as established "here I am" "there you are" kind of thing. Conventions are related to practicality and communication. They are known to be subjective and learned elements of our daily lives that we use to, well, survive and function. So in the definition, the term "conventions" points to man made definitions, categories, and basically the way you choose to organize experience for what you are trying to do. It's at the base of everything little thing you do, like closing a door. Also, who consciously says (but only occasionally) "there it is" or "here I am" or "it is" when they act? How many times have you closed a door thinking "I am going to close this door" or when seeing something, say to yourself "there it is and here I am." These are instinctual and habitual activities formed long time ago when as a child you understood the conventional idea of a door, its function, which is to open and close, how to act with that door, to push pull. Conventions are perceptions formed relative to your own stature in the world for practical living. So you should probably go an re examine what conventions mean.

Not many people do say "I am in pain" either. You aren't so special in such a reaction. So you conceive pain. You perceive fist. You perceive conventions but just choose not to consciously label them. So basically your little enlightenment is choosing not to label things when you experience them. It's a very lame attainment if you ask me. So now please go back o post 266 and 267 for a reply. I realize you are busy, so I don't mind waiting for a reply.

Look, the question is simple. Do you perceive conventional factors or not? When someone hits you, you perceive fist, then the pain. Yes?

Do you still perceive things? Perceive means: 1) Become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand. 2) Become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, esp. that of sight.

how do you know something without perceiving it.

Oh so now you switch your position to the Buddha perceiving conventions but not establishing them? Because you said the Buddha doesn't at all perceive conventions.

Oh you're so wrong. You have no clue at all about any of this don't you? I don't expect anything from you nor am I approaching things intellectually or in madhyamika style of analysis. I'm speaking outside of Buddhism, something you just don't seem to be able wrap your head around: the world outside of Buddhism. But what I really want to do is reveal the utter lack of actual insight you and Thusness' ideology have, and the hypocrisy of dismissing other's "personal experiences" while enthroning your own "personal experiences" as the true enlightenment or whatever. I am fine with what you wrote here, that you are an anti-intellectual. You don't like thinking about things or contemplating them. But also know that you likely don't even know what the process of intellect is, since you have merely dismissed it without contemplation just as you did everything else that is not in line with your devoted faith to Thusness' way. The more and more I engage in this discussion, the more you reveal not only a lack of insight but an inability to present your experiences in a coherent manner. The only way you explain yourself is via doctrine, "dependent origination, dependent origination, dependent origination." You don't even know how exactly to support your view of "dependent origination." You take that term simply as this magical tool to dismiss all ideas into the box of emptiness. All the seeming logic or "science" you have to justify the maha, the anatta, the emptiness experiences you have come to are entirely pretentious and laughable. You have come to a certain experience of reality but have no idea how to fully understand it, so heavily rely on experience. At the end of the day, all you have to say, as you say in this post, is mere "I see it this way, this is my personal experience" and say that your vision is the truth while others are false. So all you engage is in is a shouting match and not a constructive discussion. This is bigotry at best. Ha! A future master of insight! :lol: No it isn't. It shows your incompetence, and incapability to explain or stand up for your own realizations if there are any. It's not nonsense at all, seeing that your excuses for these tendencies, ("they say it more eloquently"), are apparently untrue. We are not on the path of faith, it's not a monotheistic religion where quoting the bible suddenly proves one person right over the other. I am not having this discussion in the realm of Buddhism, but in reality. You have no reason to constantly quote authority figures when they don't add anything to the discussion.