Lucky7Strikes

Thank you Seth, that was a wonderful post!

Retaining insight and using it to liberate deeply rooted beliefs and habits is much more difficult than understanding the concepts alone. It is said that even Bodhisattvas sometimes fall into reluctance due to their attachments to heavenly bliss. It really comes down to dilligent practice. None of these discussions mean much without it. .

Check out the Buddha Boy. I wonder how he's doing by the way.

Well, it seemed like you sort of answered your own question...

Is this a rhetorical post?

You should know this if you've really read through my posts. I am here to be challenged in regards to the contents of my views and experiences. Why are you so afraid to be labeled? Is this a concern at all for anyone in search for the Truth? I think not. Let the reality of existence be Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu or whatever. I'm sticking to the one that makes most logical sense and is pertinent to my understanding of this very life.

Namaste. _/\_ As for the experience of the unity of luminosity and insight, perhaps it is better left untouched by words. Looking back through my posts, the swimming of the ego has both clouded, but also clarified my insight (and hopefully it will continue to do in the future. ). I now understand the Middle Way between fate and determinism.

I just copied and pasted a quote of Thusness Xabir posted earlier because I thought it was a good reply to TzuJanLi's emphasis on stillness/non-conceptual thought. I believe Thusness wrote that directed to a student.

I don't see a difference between mental constructs and reality. The habits generated from attachments to an "I" is why this world is experience by a particular min-stream. It isn't that there is an objective world "out there" or any established aggregates. The basis for creation is precisely the simultaneous rising (this is not a good word here, because nothing can be said to have "risen," the very nature of existence is the relationship between the subject and object (like a formula), but both are empty because both have no findable reality or substance to them. Chandrakirti delves into this as he disproves the reality of phenomena and the meaning of production, and likewise the falsity of finding an "I." Yes, the fundamental "beingness" can never be denied because it is a crucial element ot any sort of existence. It can't be said that there is existence without the "beingness," but the great thing about Buddhism is, as you say, this is not attributed to a form or a formless manifestation, but rather a "dependent" manifestation on non other than form. So its nature of existence is not any different than form or formless, in that it is also empty. It is like a Law that there is this luminous clear witnessing, but at once there is that which is witnessed, (both are verbs, not nouns) and I see no other way to see existence. The aggregates are not denied because they are real conventionally, I agree with that. But they also have no reality to them except that is given by the illusional sense of "I" and the part karmic imprints (such as this body) let happen. I have found are difference in regards to this very concept. When there is a delusional "self" there is free will, because the "I," in its delusioned existence continues to create form, take new form, and by the very nature of "reaction" karma is implanted in existence. Karma is created again and again by the delusional "I"'s actions and wills, and it suffers from the risings and fallings of its own, self. Hence this is how suffering comes about: it's not that there is free will or no free will, it's that free will is like the "aggregates" and "self" in that it is a conventional, but non the less dependently established concept. Now then, When one investigates into reality and sees that there is no self established, no aggregates established, and the luminosity and form, and their manifestation (but in reality, both have given "rise" to another, both are unborn, empty imputations), are all imputations of dependence, the past Karmic imprints are played out. This is why they often say the Sage fulfills his destiny, one's existence is itself the Path into the pathless land. One's life simply plays itself out, as a perfect harmony between the luminous Being and its Form are complete (Buddhahood), one with the Way (Way is used as a verb here!) There two guidelines really sums things up: 1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind. 2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.

When we use the word nature, it is a way of being. Impermanence can be understood as permanence, in that there is constant truth to the concept of impermanence. As with the doctrine of emptiness, we can say the "nature, the way, of emptiness," but this is not saying there is something called emptiness. Language is always tricky this way.

I agree with most of this, but it's just a matter of emphasis that I disagree on. Chandrakirti warns against EQUATING the aggregates with the "I" thought, because as he has noted, the posessor and the posessed arised mutually. It is important to negate the false imputation of the self, but also the false imputation of phenomena, as in the production (which is negated) of objects. Most significantly, he examines whether any such "cause and effect" is established in the last section I quoted, and finds them empty of inherence or meaning. The "I" thought is negated by examing it through phenomena and aggregates. THe latter in turn is also negated by the "I" (for how could one examine phenomena if one was not conscious of it as a object?). From my observation, your emphasis is often on negating the self by examing phenomena as rising and falling. The mantra of "no doer, only action," and fatal determinism (something I have, as you might remember vehemently denied), is also negated by Chandrakirti: Nirvana once attained, the self would be extinguished, and prior to this, a self would rise and vanish every instant. without an agent, there would be no karmic fruit, or else the actions done by one would give results that others reap.... It makes no sense that grasped and grasper should be one, for this would mean identity between doer and the done. and if you think that there's a deed without a doer of the deed, this is not so; for where there is no agent, there can be no act.

Thank you! _/\_

Most of what I wrote in this thread is trash. As for the quote above, it's a jewel. Did anyone actually read it before commenting? Or gave it thought?

I am rehashing this because after being bombarded by Xabir with quotes, I ran into some of my own. If the self were equal to the aggregates. It must, since these are many, be a multiplicity/ And it would be substantial, visible like every other thing, and not at all a simple misconception. Nirvana once attained, the self would be extinguished, and prior to this, a self would rise and vanish every instant. without an agent, there would be no karmic fruit, or else the actions done by one would give results that others reap.... When yogis see there is no self, yout theory implies that thye must likewise see that there are no phenomena. But if you now refute a self that's permanent, then for that very reason, self is not the mind or aggregates. It follows from your theory that when yogis see there is no self, they fail to understand the final truth of form and other aggregates/ They focus on them, "I" occurs, and so desire and all the rest because the nature of this form they do not understand. Now you may claim that Buddha said the aggregates compose the self; it's thus that you attempt to justify your view. But Buddha's words refute a self extraneous to the aggregate; in other sutras he explained that form is not the self. thus feeling, form, perception--these are not the self. conditioning factors, consciousness are also not the self. in other sutras this has been explained. that aggregates compose the self, in brief, has never been proclaimed. when the aggregates are said to be the self, this means the aggregates together and not one by one. and yet a emre assemblage is not "yourprotector," it cannot discipline or stand as witness, cannot be your self. were it not so, if we compare a chariot to the self, the mere collection of a chariots parts would constitute a chariot. the sutra says that "self" depends upon the aggrgates; this shows their mere coincidence is not the self... It makes no sense that grasped and grasper should be one, for this would mean identity between doer and the done. and if you think that there's a deed without a doer of the deed, this is not so; for where there is no agent, there can be no act. wherefore the Buddha has most clearly said that self is based on earth and water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness--these sic and also on the six supports of contact like the eyes. he also said quite certainly yhat it is based upon the mind and mental factors. thus from these the self is no distinct. it is not they, nor yet the simple grouping of the same. we grasp out ego independently of them. some think that when "no-self" is understood, this means the refutation of a permanent, existent self. but of our ego-clinging this could never be the ground. how strange to say that understanding this suffices to uproot belief in "I"... The self is not inherent in the aggregates, not aggregates inherent in the self. And why? it might be so if they were separate and distinct. but they are not distinct, and therefore this is but an idle notion. the self cannot be said to own the aggregate of form. for self does not exist, hus ownership is void of sense. one owns a cow, in difference, or one's body, in identity. but self and form are neither same nor different. Form is not the "I," and "I" is not a form possessor. there's no "I" in form, and form does no inhere in "I." Apply this now to all the other aggregates, and you will have the twenty views of "self"... a pot which in itself is not a self-sufficient entity, you say is indescribable apart from form and other features. the self is also indescribable apart from aggregates; do not, therefore, regard it as inherently existent. You do not think your consciousness is different from itself, but think it is distinct from form and toher aggregates. in all existent things these aspects of distinction and identity are found and so there is no self; it lacks the character of real existence. thus the basis for our clinging to an "i" is not a thing. and though not other than the aggregates, the self is not the aggregates themselves. it does not own the aggregtesl the aggregates are not contained by it Yet in dependence on the aggregates does self arise. ... in regards to the chariot analogy) if the chariot ("I") itself has no reality there are no "chariot parts" (phenomena") because there is no "[art possessor." The chariot burned, its parts are also burned; so too when fires of wisdom burn the ownder of the parts, the parts themselves are also all consumed. and thus the self---dependent on the aggregates, the elements, and the senses as they are in daily life--- is thought of as the owner of the same; these are the objects owned, the self their ownner. Without a worker, there's no work performed, and likewise without "I" there is no "mine." Perceiving that bothe "I" and "mine" are void, the yogi will be utterly set free. -from Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara In regards to cause and effect (something which you often cited) if a thing produces an effect, it is indeed a cause. and if no fruit appears, there is no cause and no production. and as for the result, it's only if the cause exists that it comes into being. tell me, therefore, which derives from which, and what preceds the other? If you say the cause makes contact with the fruit that it produces, they share a single force, and cause and fruit are not distinc. but if they stand apart, a noncause does not differ from a cause. when these two cases are refuted, there's no third to take their place. well then, your cause produces no result, wherefore the fruit, so called, has no reality and likewise, without fruit, a "cause" is quite unjustified. both terms, effect and cause, resemble mere illusions. therefore I'm not wrong in grantingthat the things of faily life exist!

.

What would happen if one directed that light towards the crown instead of the dantien? In the system mentioned, how is the crown opened?

Fate is your past Karmic residue. But which reality will you choose? Choose not to choose? Choosing is what creates Karma. You see... Destiny is selflessness in action! (Form isn't empty. Form is emptiness!) Let the tide in! I will let the guests come and go. The guests come and go. Come and go. Shhhhhh.... Haha! Good night everyone! .

What a waste of words.

The quote is from the Tao Te Ching. It is a warning against the mindset of "I am being compassionate." Boundless compassion does not know compassion. You're getting lost in your imaginations, mere speculations, of who I am, which is irrelevant. Stay to these words. This discussion was about whatever you called "Life" as you identified yourself with it. Why does it even come across that I am advising you? What does it matter if it is me that advises you or whether it is a piece of rock? Do you see the meaning in this? It is absolutely inconsequential. Moreover, you haven't yet made any attempts to understand anything I have written. How do you know it is wisdom or not? Or are you being compassionate and trying to guide the novices on this forum about the Tao? Do you need me to sprinkle some glitter on these words (in my humble opinion, of course) for you to consider them? Do you only listen to the ones who politely shake hands?

_/\_

True virtue does not know virtue. The fact that you believe you are being compassionate is true arrogance. A sugar coating to your ego. Even the conceptual boundaries of thought and no thought must be discarded. These are only after thoughts. The mind grasps the body, and hence there is birth, and the human. When there is birth, there is death. That is destiny. The phrase "I am writing like this on purpose" can easily be written as "writing like this is being done on purpose." It is an irrelevant point you make. Look over your own writings, it's just as pretentious and pompous. Do not see things is the dichotomy of free will and destiny, the self and no-self, the reason I started this thread is precisely against such thinking, but I don't think you've really read them, so please do before you respond any further.

You can't see beyond personal preference. Ahem* In my (oh yes, very humble) opinion...

I don't really care about your sincereity. I care about what you leave on this forum. Your words, your message, is all that matters here. Anything else is a mere speculation, an imagination. That's why I write like this. Haha! Your compassion! Hahahahhahaha! As for your stillness, A yogi is about to meditate by the river. He is thirsty so calls out to his disciple for water. But soon he enters deep profound samadhi of no thought. His awareness transcends his surroundings into great bliss. And after a few days, it begins to rain and the river overflows. The yogi suddenly awakes, and screams for water! water! only to realize his body is now half immersed in the river. The stage of no thought is no more profound than that of thought, for thought returns, and sometimes dissolves. All these are fleeting states. True insight arises in thought and no thought. It is constant. There really shouldn't be a preference for thought or no thought. Then, only then, thought or no thought, one simply lives out his destined journey.

I present my views and insights. Then someone says something counter to it. I try to understand why they say what they do. Then think over the two views. Then I try to figure out the better and more sensical one.