Lucky7Strikes

If it's the former, then it's not spontaneous or direct, since whilst experiencing (conventions), they have knowledge about that experience. Also to relate it to what you wrote above: So...in the seen, do they also have the knowledge about the "seen" (you know the whole thing you wrote above about experiencing conventions while knowing they are not truly existing). Then that's not just "suchness" of the seen is it? Rethink this analogy. See if you not knowing what is is a learned response or not. But you knew the tree, that it was in fact a tree. What you got rid of was that there was someone watching the tree out there and decided to just let the tree be the sole experience for that moment. Your realization so far has been baseless and the logic that supports it is nonsense. So all you did was make this peak experience the definitive reality on all occasions. It doesn't make it any truer.

Dependently originated on what? Dependently originate is not a clear verb in itself. It's not something one does, like "Jim is going to go dependently originate." That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "A is going to go originate."

Huh? What does a mindstream interdependently originate on? I thought you believe everything is disjointed, even each moment to the next. So how can there be a continuum of something called a "mindstream"? I really wish you didn't throw these terms out without much thought behind them.

This is a good criticism of Xabir's understanding of dependent origination. His excuse for there being no first cause is that...things are unarisen and empty. And to support this claim he says, it's unaraisen and empty because it is dependently originated. So his logic goes like this. 1. There is no first cause because 2. Phenomena is empty and unarisen because 3. Pheonomena is dependently originated because 4. Phenomena is empty and unarisen

I just read the Kalaka Sutta. It's basically: "hey, do this, because I tell you, and I'm a Buddha." I don't think you'd be a wise student to just take those claims on authority. Anyways, describe a daily example of experiencing life that way. You probably can't. And please reply to the rest of what I wrote. If you want to end the discussion tell me so I can know that after a certain point you can't answer for yourself.

@ H.E. Do you notice how neither Xabir nor Jack have not really replied to anything you have written? They just say what their own convictions are from selected replies (usually a sentence or two out of a whole page), and repeat their previously stated ideas and plaster their own quotes as evidence. No matter how much textual samples you bring here that will always be the case. Xabir is too invested (let's see, a blog running five years, a 450 page book, upbringing in his "Buddhism" for entire life, Thusness telling him a,b,c since he was 14) in his own beliefs to tweak even a little bit of the ideology he holds. @ Xabir, Please go reply to my post on the other thread when you have time. I would like some genuine answer after 3-4 pages of you slipping around.

I am not enlightened nor do I think I am close to such thing as enlightenment. I have never in the course of these discussions pretended to or claimed to know or have seen a higher truth than Xabir. I've just asked him bunch of questions to which he gives very roundabout, unsupported, grandiose, contradictory and impractical answers all under the assumption that indeed he is preaching the truth. Xabir's the one who has been running all over saying he is awakened and everyone else is deluded. His condescension is very real and imbedded in the way he interacts with people. especially on thetaobums. On Dharma Wheel he is a bit different, much more open minded and sheepish. On his own site, he acts as the authority unless Thusness chimes in. I'm not trying to be snarky or arrogant, but I guess my posts can very easily be read that way since I'm just trying to write in a way that shows how obviously flawed Xabir's foundation is. This is very difficult to see for someone who comes across his posts at face value, because they easily seem very intelligent, wise, well thought out, and genuinely insightful. His incessant quoting adds further to this misconception that these claims are well supported. But, again, it's like a priest quoting the bible to support his beliefs. I'm trying to say, "duh, look at how ridiculous what you are really saying is. Look at how much of a nonsense it is when we organize it 1, 2, 3." It's a nice contrast to all the nobility he shows When we are speaking in very abstract terms, I find it so easy to become lost in the abstraction itself to not realize how we are just stampeding over the blatant contradictions, meaninglessness, and the carelessness evident beneath the fanciful terms like emptiness, luminosity, dependent origination, anatta, and so on. Despite all this I respect Xabir. If I didn't respect him I wouldn't engage him in pages of discussion. I respect him as a seeker and a practitioner, that's why I reply to what he writes. I also think he is a very interesting character . Maybe you are misunderstanding our communication. I have absolutely no anger or hostility towards Xabir, but consider him a friend. He has a passion for what he believes is the truth and I have a passion for questioning the certainties we hold about life. But I do get frustrated how he just repeats his dogma sometimes and doesn't pay attention to what I write. So I feel like calling him a buffoon too.

.... What? If you have an objection to what I say say them. Don't call me an asshole because it means nothing other than to show your dislike for what I'm writing. In my opinion, what I write in criticism of Xabir has value. If I sound incredulous, it's because the more I engage in a discussion with Xabir the more it is revealed how obviously contradictory and unsupported his claims are. Despite the paragraphs and paragraphs of very wise sounding terms and quotes he uses, if you just sort of get down to it, Xabir is this groomed Buddhist fanatic and a very naive practitioner. He is very clueless about how his views have been formed and the tidbits of analogy he comes up with, like the santa claus example or this mirror example, just end up sabotaging the very points he is trying to make revealing that his own insights are just copycated ideas from people he has faith in. In the past all this would've been very different since we would be having a discussion contextualized within Buddhism. But now that I approach him outside of that frame, he just sounds like hard headed fundamentalist incapable of clearly outlining or explaining himself in a sensible manner. His entire argument is based on just "Hey I see the Truth! And you don't! Because, well, I see it!" I see something a bit frightening in his demeanor, that he is merely a true believer, that he is completely in the dark about himself (not surprising, since he says he doesn't have a self). What infuriates me is that he often, in his belief that he is awakened and everyone else who is not Buddhist is deluded and ignorant, pretends to understand or have genuine insight into issues such as suffering, that he literally just touches on via the textbook, or his own bible. The truth is, Xabir doesn't really contemplate, but pretends that he has. His so called "contemplations" are just following whatever Thusness or Buddhism tells him is the way reality is, what suffering is, what life should be like, how to behave oneself, how to treat others (oh yes, gain good karma by proselytizing), like some indoctrinated school boy who can't even tie his own shoes, but likes to tell himself how he now knows everything because he does homework every night. What I feel from him is the same feeling when I meet some fundamental and extreme christian telling me I'll go to hell for not believing god, and to prove his statements reads from the bible, and as proof tells me of his dream experiences of seeing jesus, or his daily communion with the Lord (all of this actual events), that he feels Him in the heart. Of course, if you want to learn about Christianity, and providing that this man is somewhat intelligent, it would be a great idea to continue engaging with him. There's nothing wrong with this man, but if you had any sense, you'd look into how this man's convictions came about and realize that it is simply insufficient to believe as "the truth" or the nature of reality. But I do have problems with this man going around being condescending (of course, unintentionally on his part, since he is actually saving souls from damnation in his mind) to others or even intruding on their own rights to explore the notion of God or the Buddha by falsely claiming himself to be an expert.

Why do I need to check out the Kalaka Sutta. I don't care about the Kalaka Sutta. I care about what you say. Also, you haven't. You had the one about the Buddha not running into a wall. And I said of course that is a learned response and not some spontaneous wisdom. You mentioned the direct experience of pain from a needle. But I listed examples why this is not necessary direct or spontaneous but only seems so. This was my reply: "When someone pokes you with a needle, it is never just "pain." There are all sorts of associative experiences that happen with it, like the location of the pain, the seriousness of it, if there are any further threats of it to the body, previous notions of being hit with a needle. (Conceptual and indirect does not mean that your feelings are formed into sentence structures in the brain, but rather that the experience is framed in a preconceived manner or when experienced, is being framed into a certain way of personal experience, a filter so to speak). Before a needle hits you your anticipated response to the event changes how the needle's pain is experienced. Have you ever had something painful happen expectedly vs. unexpectedly? It's very different. So even before the needle hits you, how you experience it is altered by all kinds of indirect factors. It's like having a whole sea of unconscious mind below the conscious mind when you are reacting to an event or surroundings." And your response was a meager: "It is more spontaneous if experienced unexpectedly." So are you equating unexpectedness to direct experience? So you live without any anticipations? Do you think that is even possible? How would you even take a step on the ground without the fear that it will be hollow then? You said looking into the sunset. And, I mentioned how you were just describing sensory experience of warmth, the light, which are all recognized within the framework of the senses: the sun's warmth is felt when you recognize the temperature via your skin. The light when you notice the vision of the sun and so on. The knowledge that it is the sun is also a learned acknowledgment. See, none of these are solely the direct experience of the sun. They are partial, categorical, learned. And then you denied the existence of the sun. That one couldn't directly experience the sun. So you altered your point to say that direct experience was just experiencing the temperature, texture, shape, movement without labeling them. But do you remember what we said about labeling? The discussion about how people don't label themselves "I" all the time, but live with a habitual sense of self, that it is the habitual action that is the problem not the conscious labeling of oneself? Labeling is unimportant. So then you started just defining "direct experience" again rather than giving me examples. That direct experience was the "experience of shapes, colors, and forms without the sense of a seer, anatta, and PCE, in seeing just seen, blah blah. I'm not interested in your definitions. I asked for examples of direct experience and so far the instance in which you thought was spontaneous and direct have not been so. I would also like to know how you have used this direct experiencing to realize dependent origination without inference or reason. But please do reply to the above post that I made before you reply to this one.

Um. Ok. You seem completely incapable of explaining yourself. Basically, your first sentence is, "I saw that it is an illusion because I saw it to be perfect, and I saw it as perfect because I saw it to be the case. Hahaha! Sameeee thing: "Hey! I saw it! Yea, because...I saw it" Nice...great insight. So wise. And what's wrong with effort? You ever think maybe making an effort is a perfect moment instead of not making an effort...? And your second paragraph is..."the insight just arose." Greeaaaaat. Great explaining there guy. I'm very near just giving up on you if this is just going to be the reply everytime I ask you how you came to a certain insight, why you believe something is the way you think it is, basically...support your claims with some sound sense. Ok so this just says toilet appears in different ways. Why are you saying there is no toilet or that the toilet is illusory now? What a load of textbook bullshit. Are you comparing craving for a hamburger to getting hot water boiled on? Hahahah! That's just sensationalist and incomparable. What if I like beautiful women and smoke cigarettes and don't suffer from that craving? Of even if I do suffer what's the problem? That I suffer? What's wrong with suffering that way then? Hell, having that relief of diarrhea can fell amazing than not having it. It seems like you are totally naive to the meaning and experience of suffering, and believe it's something to be eased from just for the sake of not suffering anymore. This is childish thinking. Anyways, I don't want to talk to you about this because....well, because I don't think we share much ground of understanding in regards to this nor do I believe you have given it much personal insight.

When I read replies like this, I start to think you are no longer worth having a discussion with. I mean, just trace this part of the conversation back. You basically mentioned that you were right because others had similar experiences as you. And I replied that this "evidence" is stupid since popularity of an idea doesn't make it true, since billions of people don't see life as you do. And your reply is now, oh yes, all those people are deluded. The point of this exchange was for me to point out to you how relying on the number of people agreeing with you is not a sufficient support for your "truth." And somehow to you it turns out to be "everyone is deluded except for those who agree with me." Describe an experience without a framework then! Describe to me this direct and spontaneous experience and wisdom that isn't learned. I've asked you this repeatedly and every time you cannot give me an answer when supposedly this is how you experience life daily. How do you know you are not reifying "non-reification" instead? But focus on the former: describe an experience without a framework. What? I don't think you understood what I meant. You said frameworks need to be investigated to be realized. Now they need to be "univestigated"? And how is there a resolution to that? Mhmm, and how do you know this? What support do you have for these claims. Direct experience? Well, your explanations sure don't seem like it! "A manifestation A is independent of B and C, but itself is a complete, whole, manifestation of B and C and thus independent of B and C in one complete manifestation, so that it is simultaneously dependent and yet unconditioned as the only thing in the world" Uh...excuse me? Again, let's just do this by indented sentences. 1. A is independent of B and C 2. A is manifestation of B and C, thus it is independent of B and C 3. So A is dependent and unconditioned. So statement 2 is contradicting itself. And statements 2 and 3 directly contradict each other (A is independent, therefore it is dependent). What are you trying to say? First of all, people seeing a flower as different appearances does not deny the flower's core. Just because something appears differently in varying situations does not mean its ultimate existence is questionable. You have no grounds (well, at least the way you are presenting it) to come to that "final analysis." The flower may indeed have a core, it may indeed even have awareness or some essential make up of flowerness that cannot be broken down. Perhaps you're just seeing it partially due to your own vision, as you said we might not be able to see that core with our eyes. But moreover, why are you "telling me" (yes yes keep telling me without supporting you claims ) that the flower is a dependently originated phenomenon? How do you know that? (Don't say inferred knowledge. Remember, you saw all this through your direct experience). Soooo...you are just saying reality is experienced in different ways. Woooow, another incredible insight!!! Ok, but then you jump the gun and say now that everything is empty and illusory including mind and matter? Hmm? How did you arrive at that conclusion from the previous observation... And you also say that reality in itself does not exist? Are you saying reality exists but is experienced in different ways? Seems like that what you are saying. And as for your logic that there is no mind and no matter...what? Your argument for that is that because they are distinguished conventionally, they don't exist. So now your definition of something's existence is that it has to be distinguished? Look, you need to be more clear and step back from the abstract lingo. You are just tossing out conclusions here and there and they are all just rushed. You make no sense. Oh god. Let me help you out......perhaps..the thought you were trying to find would have probably been, while you were typing the above sentence, "No, I mean you cannot find a thought right now." Pin it down somewhere? Why are you trying to pin it down somewhere when it's not in front of you? Do you try to pin down your kidneys to see if they are there too? Your thoughts are likely in you head ok? Destination? HAhahah! Does a teddy bear have a destination? Since when did having a destination mean something was substantial or non illusory? Also with "origin." When did the knowledge of something's origin negate or confrim its existence? You're just tossing words here. Come on man, you are making too many ludicrous supports for all these claims, "reality is illusory and empty" crap. Maybe all you are trying to say is that things are temporary. But just because something is temporary does not make it empty, or without reality, or illusory. Its...temporary....

Uh...and how is this different than what I wrote as a summary of your contemplation? Let's examine the first paragraph. At first you notice you have this tendency to want to return to a particular state...ok, then bam! "it's illusory, I must drop it!"..because...oh right, no reason given on how or why you recognized it to be illusory. No contemplation given into the nature of the urge or the here and now, and what that experience entails....just "it's an illusion, I saw it! (or because Thusness said so!) I must drop it!" Then let's look at the second paragraph. Ohhh..."the insight just arose!" Out of no where! Wow, you must believe in a lot of weird things if you just believe whatever comes up in your mind like that. And the rest is basically, "everything's an illusion! I saw it!" and a load of convictions you apparently already knew were true even before realizing them. The language of course, taken right off of Thusness stages. Great journal of contemplative insight there. Hey, why is it if I walk left or right the toilet doesn't move but the mirror image does? OH MY GOD! The toilet must be some independent entity while the image is an illusion! Lovely contemplation there. Actually, I tend to find happiness in a lot of impermanent things. Like good food, drinking tea, rain, relationships, etc. So you are wrong here. Xabir I don't care about any of that. I just care about you sounding like a total buffoon behind all that.

That wasn't the point of the reply! Holy crap I see that you are really losing the power to infer beyond the appearance of the replies. Great wisdom indeed! The point of the reply was in objection to you supporting your ideals on the basis that a lot of people have them. So without using the framework or the views shaping a direct experience, how is your direct experience more true than someone else's this so called "direct" experience? And maybe, just maybe, wouldn't you be "investigating the framework" through, oh I don't know, inductive and deductive reasoning, i.e. inferred knowledge? And maybe, "those views" shaping how you view a direct experience..be...in that same medium? Are you saying you directly experience all the causes and conditions that come together to form your experience of driving the car? Well geez, then you must also directly experience the car being made at some point, and the guy who invented the model, then the guy who dug up the oil to make the gasoline, and the truck that mixed the concrete under you, and of course! the sun. Gotta feel the sun burning "directly" as its heat through space, through the atmosphere down to the car. What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't deny the it ness of the flower at all! It denies that the flower has a definitive color or shape because it's experienced differently in different modes of vision, because your eyes perceive objects in a certain way. Doesn't mean that the object is somehow an illusion or "not there" that's just a far fetched and totally baseless conclusion. And let me guess. The tool you are using to locate the thought or dream is...maybe another thought? Hahaha! So basically you are trying to locate another thought (needn't be conceptually worded, just the effort is enough) with thought, and since you are now newly occupied with "thought of trying to find thought" and OBVIOUSLY not finding this thought you are looking for (well since, you are already occupied)conclude that the past thought is a total illusion? Holy crap. This is like a guy saying "Hey! I'm going to find where I was 10 steps ago...oh wait, but I'm here now! Ha! That 10 steps ago place must've been a total illusion!" or having gone 10 steps "Wait a second...I'm still just here and not 10 steps back! Oh my god, it's impossible to find that place again! It must be a total illusion!" It's...mind blowingly...stupid. Uh, well, then that wouldn't be spontaneous. It would be learned. No, now that I'm reading through your own insights, it wouldn't surprise me if it took you that long.

Uh Huh. And why? Why are you saying this. How are you supporting this grand claim?

Ah, right. Basically seeing for yourself that in seeing, no seer or seen. In hearing, no hearer or heard. Why? Because that's "the truth." How do you know that's indeed the correct way of seeing things? "well, it's written here/someone said it." Vipassana mode? More like "making myself see things in a,b,c" mode. Contemplation? About what? Did you ever ponder or think about why it's "in seeing, no seer or seen" thoroughly? Or did you just take someone's word, logic, and observations all via faith and then "discovered" (more like convinced yourself) them in your experience. Can't support your points in a debate? Post pages of quotes that are irrelevant or completely out of context. Even your own examples are borrowed examples you've been using for more than three years: Thich Nhat Hanh's wind, Thusness' red flower and usage of the term weather. The same examples repeated like a broken record because no genuine insight into the meanings of them. Three characteristics? That's funny for someone who acknowledges he doesn't really know what suffering is. What true contemplation have you done on dukkha, or annica? Anatta, Anatta, Anatta....that's all you can mutter, well because it is indeed a thusness stage, and oh no, you have to go through them! And the best evidence for anatta you have is, "oh, just see it!" Emptiness? Everything's illusory? On what basis? Again: "Ohhhh just see that everything is an illusion!" It feels good doesn't it, to believe that everything is just rolling along. Of course, life is a bit more fun when you aren't responsible and everything is just happening according to the stars (that's a metaphor now). Come on Xabir, do a little insight practice into your past 4-5 years of practice. And coming here telling everyone they are deluded, don't understand, can't see, and you are awakened and now enlightened. That you know "the truth" when you can't even see how much of a nonsense and fanatical your "wisdom" is. Your biggest flaw is you haven't looked into yourself.

And your support for these claims? "I just see it that way!" How do you know it's true? "It's just what I see!" How did you arrive at this knowledge? "Oh, so and so said it, so it must've been true. And I saw it that way too, because...you know, it's true." :blink: Alllll your fancy little concepts, underlying them all, are just a lot of hokey pokey evidence, parroting doctrine and terms, no genuine contemplation at all.

Ugh. You are just a crap load of disappointment. Read what you are writing, it's just totally fanatic. "If you see truth, it has to be the truth that I see!" And, "Hey someone else saw it too! So it must be true!" Wooow. You can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way you've seen? Hahahahha! Well I can list a huuuuuuuge number of people who don't see what you've seen! Like say, billions of people who you think are "deluded"! Nope, you said it was useless. You clearly don't really understand the use of inferred knowledge, but is obsessed with "direct" experiencing. Deductive and inductive way of approaching information is not merely just theorizing potential cause and effects, but also establishing them from one's observations. For example, we observe that when there is fire, there is also smoke. So we deduce a correlational relationship between the two phenomena. And the next time we see smoke, our mind uses that knowledge to infer that perhaps there is also fire somewhere. If our mind stopped doing this, you would have no idea of the relationship between fire and smoke, and moreover would not be able to even distinguish what a smoke was besides sense experience. All this is truly ironic because all these years you tell these hindu practitioners that their "direct" experience of God is all delusional and they are attached to it. So how do you link the 12 links without inferring their connections after seeing their cause and effects being played out? Do you just see them all at once simultaneously? Well if that's the case, it would just be 1 link wouldn't it? Progression is established by connecting a series of moments and their relationships. If all you had were just mere observations, then you wouldn't have the ability to draw connections among them. For instance even if the Buddha had seen the 12 links being played out universally, he had to understand whether they were just induced visions or valid observations. Ok, let's talk about that red flower example you like a lot. So what if someone sees it as red and someone else sees it in quantum vision. It still doesn't deny that the flower's reality! People just experience it differently. So why do you draw the extreme conclusion that the flower is an illusion? Actually doesn't the fact that you assume there are other ways of experiencing the flower establish its reality instead? Ah so I see, any learned experience is conventional and illusory. So I guess you are just going to ignore the body's biological impulses, genetics, environmental influences when you are acting in this spontaneous and wise manner? Where exactly does this spontaneous action come from? It just *poof* arises? Name me an example of one that's not learned or affected by preconceived conditioning, or any learned knowledge. ....for the millionth time...I do not care what Namdrol says or thinks. I don't hold him to be authority as you do. I don't know him so these statements say nothing to me, they are just statements made without support. And how does Namdrol know what a Buddha does, how a Buddha thinks, how a Buddha acts. Unless he thinks he is a Buddha, these statements are just meaningless and invalid. How do you know that? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Nice. So wise. . How do you know your own experience is illusory when everything is illusory? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Haha! And what supports your convictions? Wait wait, I know, "I just see it that way. And someone agrees with me." Great. What led you to this vision? "I knew it was true because my teacher told me. All I had to do was see it that way." Great! Very nice investigation there! Maybe you just woke up to another dream.

I don't think you understand or have given serious contemplation into these issues. It does not matter too much whether it is an imagination or something real. Those are terms that merely distinguish the power of certain experiences over others, specifically, the effect they have on our state of minds, both the intensity and the prolonged consequences they leave. Our own ideas about their origin (personal projection vs. belief of an objective outside world) also become factors in whether we consider something to be an imagination or real, and this closely relates to the amount of control we have over the experience. The less control we have, the more real it is, and the more in line with our paradigm of the world, the more "real" it is. So, really an object's reality heavily depends on one's way of perception, and perhaps only depends on it. When understood from such a perspective, whether something truly has a substantiality or tangibility is unimportant, but merely our relationship with it. Anyways, I was hoping you at least had some insight into this line of investigation, but seeing that you don't, I'd not like to focus on it. Well then you have a serious problem.

Mhmm, and I'm telling you your telescope, your "injunction," might be broken. Yes, and someone may find something different than you, see something different than what you saw. Whoa! Isn't that a novel thought? Consider it fully. It might scare you! And what's wrong with inference? Process of elimination is not useless. You clearly don't see the power of logic that can break or strengthen a person's convictions if used right. It's a powerful tool. The greatest scientific discoveries in the past century have been inferred, for instance much of Einstein's theories are still being tested today. If you think reason is useless, you should no longer engage in anymore discussions let alone write a book because its at the basis of what makes all this happening right now possible (the usage of words, the meanings, their relations, their organization, namely the understanding of cause and effect). Also, because it is a shared way of perceiving and navigating the world for much of mankind, you can use it wisely to lead someone from their paradigm of the world to yours. All you do is state your convictions and you go from there. That's not an effective way of communication and very far from wisdom. Reason also grounds us and unifies our perceptions into a coherent manner. Even chaos has a cause and effect to it. It's actually a very Buddhist idea, the idea of cause and effect, of conditions and understanding them. The Buddha upon enlightenment didn't just get up and go, "in seeing just seen." He saw the causes and conditions of existence, outlined the twelve links, and the the remedies in a very logical manner. It's ironic that you write inferred reason is useless and seem to very much cherish your "direct" experiences as I have often seen you criticize seekers of reifying experiences, or becoming attached to them. Right now, you are suggesting nothing different. Also, this is a bit off topic, but you actually communicate your state of mind to others, the luminosity or depths of samadhi or one's energetic being can be transferred. You see, this is the type of nonsense thinking I am talking about. So you don't know it's a tree. But you communicate that it's a tree. It's helpful if you just write your process of thinking in indented statements: 1. There is no tree 2. Therefore, I do not know what it is. 3. But I can still communicate that it's a tree. So the problem is that you are denying knowledge of something but affirming your ability to communicate about it. That's contradictory. A Buddha doesn't perceive conventions, or a Buddha perceives conventions but doesn't believe in them? If former, a Buddha would indeed bang into a wall, because knowing a wall, its potential effects on the body, pain, its solidity are are all indirectly known by the body and the mind. You may not consciously think all these things, but it's all ingrained since you've had this body. When you were a toddler, you probably bumped into walls. Why's that? Have you ever done a physical activity, such as play basketball, where you had to learn a specific motion such as shooting and it becomes instinctual? You no longer consciously calculate the angles or the strength that goes into the shot, it becomes immediate. But to say that the shooting has become a direct experience would be ignoring all the "conventionalities" that lie underneath the shot. It's simply been very habited to be noticed, and indeed, "perceived." If latter, if someone perceives conventions but doesn't believe in them, well that certainly isn't spontaneous or direct because you are interpreting a perception to be false.

I don't think you are contemplating this difference that well. View and experience are essentially the same thing. All you can do, I see clearly now, is repeat and parrot doctrine. You cannot support them through your own insights. You way of contemplation is not contemplation. Telling yourself "in sound just sound, no hearer or in seeing, no seer or seen" without investigating these claims is down right indoctrination unless you understand why "in hearing just sound" is the nature of reality. You may tell yourself that you experienced that directly, but probably didn't question whether your perception changed to confirm those statements instead. But it's hard. It's so hard to turn this around now for you since you've already dedicated so much of yourself to this faith in Thusness' way and Buddhism. The blog, the book, your personal history, teachers. It's become such an ingrained part of who you are. And that's why I know there is no way for you to admit you are wrong, or somehow yours or Thusness' insight of method of practice is at fault anywhere. No way, not now. .

Ok, so I see this is basically your position: "it's just true!" This paragraph above is very funny. So you "know" all that stuff to be true beforehand. And you uh, "investigate it" to see whether it's true or not? And what are the chances that it won't be true? Haha! Very fair and nice contemplation indeed. Your own contemplation! So far in this discussion, no logical basis, no empirical evidence, no objective proof, not even sound insight of your own. It's all just based on "I just see it that way!" And if someone asks why? how so? You just rely on 2000 year old quotes, and at the end of the day, it's still just "I just see it!" Does this really deserve 450 pages of explanation? Come on Xabir, your shortcomings are pretty darn blatant. IMO you still haven't even scratched the surface of awakening with such shallow insights into your own progression. So if there is just suchness of seen, do you not know that it's a tree you are looking at? If your answer is no, well then you must have a very hard time doing anything. If yes, how do you know that it's a tree by this direct vision?

Please reply to the rest of my post, but I'm going to make a quick reply to this. Ok, so let's edit it to see if it makes much of a difference. 1. There is no existent self 2. A self is already non-existent 3. Statement 2 is rejected because Statement 1 is true. Statement 1 is true, because..."Hey! I see it that way!" Uh..

Yeah, and the same question comes up again. What's the difference between the "imagination that there is a real city" and the "experience of a real city?" Mhmm, then you better have a bit of better evidence to tell all these liars besides, "hey look, I see it!," especially when your like "everyone sees it, but are deluded, except me who see it the right way." But more pertinently, if you say "all truths are false, except this statement," how is this statement supported exactly? This exercise is simply having insight to trace one's process of "realization," ideas, transformations, convictions. It's insight into the causes and interplay that happens in one's experience, and accompanied with mindfulness, one sees the causes and conditions of one's own condition. And you have a significant lack of insight into your own condition evident from these discussions that display lack of coherency and soundness in your line of thinking to support your awakening. It shows that you didn't really truly contemplate the so called "truths" of no-self, impermanence, enlightenment, but kind of just adopted them with a blind eye. So you can't really explain yourself besides, You are mistaken if I believe this discussion is geared towards a resolution, or some grandiose conclusion on what true enlightenment is, or if it's all One Awareness, or simply emptiness/d.o. I am just pointing out a bunch of fallacies in you that seem glanced over. And I couldn't care less about Bahiya. Why does Bahiya matter so much? Does he somehow lend you legitimacy? Ah I see, you are resorting to authority again since you cannot support your own claims.

Uh...as I said, this can easily be turned the other way around because you are saying this presuming the non-existence of a self. But if you presume the existence of a self (I'm not saying this, but for the sake of pointing out your faulty line of thinking here) it works just like your argument above which goes like this: 1. There is no self. 2. A self is non-existent. 3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also. And so far, your only support for statement 1 has been: "Hey! Look! You just have to see it!" Nice insights there! So if we do the opposite, 1. There is a self. 2. A self is existent. 3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also. And....statement 1 would be supported by, of course, the Xabir logic of "Hey! Look! You just have to see it!" If you want to keep on with the santa claus example, 1. There is santa claus. 2. Santa claus exists. 3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also. And...statement 1 is supported by, "Hey! Look! I've seen Santa Claus!" Which basis your entire arguments on personal observation and nothing else. And I bring up the plant example, precisely because you have no personal observation of plant awareness to support your claims of whether a plant is ignorant, has a self, or aware or not, since that's your only way of supporting any claims so far. Well, then name me something you experience that's not a label (not literally a label, but something understood without associations), something "direct." Isn't heat, rain, wind all labels, not only in the sense of language, but experience as well? I'm still waiting for a personal example from you since you keep avoiding this question, which is strange considering this is apparently how you experience reality all the time. But you had to quote someone from 2000 years ago to show this "directness"? I demonstrated the error of this kind of thinking above. You assume the non-existence of a self in the first place. And then you say you just have to negate any contradictions to this "truth," and furthermore any reaffirmation of this truth is redundant because it is already so. The error is pretty blatant. You have no evidence or significant proof of the assumption. This becomes even more hilarious when the statement is something like "everything is an illusion, except this statement." Yes, I know. It's "hey look everyone, I see it!"