Lucky7Strikes

No it's not thought. The movement is not thought. True inquiry takes place without thought. It is the movement of that which gives rise to thought (thought includes language and emotions). Seek into the source of thought without thought.

Just like space and matter the seer and seen are not two, and not one. There are no established seer, seen, unseen, or to be seen. There is no findable seer in experience because the seer and seen are already creating the experience of "beingness." They are indistinguishable like time and events, but time is not events, and events are not time. We can also interpret this as the Buddha describing the body of Dharmakaya, which is one of three manifestation of awareness. It embodies truth of beingness of presence, of being manifestation itself. There is no higher state of existence than this state, because the Thathagata has gone beyond higher and lower here since there is no self. It is the very experience of everything that is, the see able "truth." (the way truth is used in this context is different than the way I will use it in the next paragraph. Make note of this.), but it is not the creation from the "unmanifest" for that requires duality, a struggle between the separation of "I" and "other." This is a state of being simply that which is, and should not be taken as the "truer" experience of reality, because there is no such thing as "truer" reality and "false" reality. Duality and nonduality are neither reality, because both are experienced (samsara should not be denied). By seeing the emptiness of both states and being able to transverse from one to another is true freedom. Don't get stuck in "suchness." By the way, Your understanding of my viewpoints missed some key insights, please re address the points I have made regarding that post. ------------ This is a state of being, not a true insight into reality.

Look into the nature of relationship between space and matter. The metaphor had nothing to due with super awareness of some sorts.

Insentient conditions cannot produce sentient results. Awareness is not a phenomenal thing. You are getting confused by the usage of language. Good, now look into why that experience is experienced by insentient phenomena.

Space is not matter, and matter is not space. Is space a thing? Is it by definition apart from matter? Yes.

Phenomena is that which can be located in the physical world and the formless state of being. Matter, time, space, light, all these things are phenomena. It is anything that be construed as "isness" Consciousness is not phenomena. Don't play language games here. You knew what I meant. Sentience is awareness and phenomena.

Why don't you go think for yourself? It's pretty straight forward.

Experience of sound is sentience. Sentience is not phenomena, it comes from awareness and phenomena.

You are right that there is no such thing as objective sound. There is sound"ness." I never said awareness is apart from sound. Awareness CAN be apart from sound. Sound can be experienced by the ear, by the body, by the heart. But when you investigate sound-awaerness, then sound and awareness can be experienced as if there is only that sound. This is a new state of awareness. Like space seen with matter and so it is seen as if there is only that matter.

Awareness is not thought. Just as brain is not consciousness. Go through this process again. Seek the source of the "I" thought and when it arises. The sense of "I." No, the alaya is simply another taste of consciousness, another habitual state of being.

This is irrelevant. Re read the quote you quoted.

He explains that there are types of consciousness based on phenomena. I have stated multiple times that consciousness and phenomena arise dependently. You see, consciousness is NOT phenomena. Good. Consciousness does not arise "from." Yes, "auditory" consciousness. Auditory consciousness is not phenomena. It is also a characteristic, a variety of taste, of consciousness itself. I agree with most of this. This is pretty good. But you haven't fully understood yet. I never said awareness was separate. Like matter and space, both exist dependently. No, consciousness is not inherently existing. How many times have I written: the relationship between subject and object exist, as in awareness is not sound and sound is not awareness, but that there is no established or inherent subject and object as in that awareness is not an entity and that sound is not existent by itself. We must conceptually distinguish awareness and sound, because there can be awareness besides the experience of sound, and there can be sound without it being aware. Awareness is dependent on phenomena. "awareness requiring objects to experience itself" is precisely the nature of awareness. Requiring something does not necessarily mean that it exists prior to phenomena. You see, you make all these assumptions and argue against them. We could've saved so much time if you just listened.

If all is illusion, then all is reality. If all is reality, then all is also illusion.

You are the movement which tries to find the "I." You are the awareness and thought. Just as we can say matter is because of matter and space. They can't be separated, but they are not one. Space is not matter, and matter is not space.

You investigate awareness with awareness, the "I" with the "I," trying to see the eye. You have to investigate investigation. Why is creation of mind not an established reality? Because all phenomena is dependently originated.

Again, just try to write out my view first instead of arguing your own point and assumed understanding of my use of words like "consciousness" and "dependent origination" I've done it twice already, and pretty extensively for your views to show that I understand what you are saying and how you use language and concepts. See, I'm pretty sure you can't, because you've just been yelling out your own views. Never with the ear to listen. And really this whole thing is turning out to be a great error in communication. You just can't listen for gods sakes.

I never said my cup was empty. See, again you don't read or listen.

Why don't you first tell me what my views are. I don't think you understood anything I wrote, but just blabbered your own point of views and cut and pasted random quotes. I am fully realizing that you were never here to discuss, learn, investigate. You are and always were here to be a bigot.

No I don't see consciousness as separate from phenomena. I see them dependently existent. Not one, not two. Do you know what that means? What the hell have you been reading so far? Yes, idiots do think alike.

And what did I mean by "relative"? What a half assed reply. I never mentioned emptiness as in relation to subject object. Try a bit harder.

double...

Um, no. Look more into the sense of "I" ness. I'm still waiting for you to tell me anything that which I have explained to you. I've heard this doctrine now for a million times. I get it. Now try to get what I've been saying to you. Because I honestly think you don't give a shit about what other people say, their own insights or views. Just like a fanatic yelling GOD GOD GOD.

Who? Whatever consciousness clings to as the source of action at a given moment. What and where? It can be here, there, everywhere, nowhere. No fixed entity, no self. In control? In control of what consciousness identifies as the "body" (not necessarily material or form). In control of its own manifestation. The "I" is not outside of sensations, nor is it sensations. It can be experienced as both, because "I" has no fixed location or existence. It is free to be what it wants to be. There is the relationship of the controller and controlled, but no established controller or controlled in phenomena. Only the relative relationship exists, but the actual content being subject or object is illusory. As long as the logic is sound and the interpretation is in line with my experiences and experiences of others, I will gladly say that I am wrong. If my tone of conviction bothers you, it is because I approach all this with good intensity. I got my views from Xabir . From Taoist princples, Sutras, my own insight, from people here and there, and the varieties of accounts people regarding reality. The paradigm I have found for myself fits so perfectly with everything I experience that I haven't yet found anything wrong with it.

There is an answer in Buddhism. You just haven't looked enough. What is awareness? What is knowingness? What is this illuminating quality? Where is it? How does it arise? Why does it arise? "god" terminology was not used to have anything to do with God you idiot. You need to read carefully instead of skimming. You have a wrong interpretation of experience because your method of investigation is flawed. I pointed this out in detail several times previously. Sensations are just creations of the mind, they are not established reality. Your experiences at the moment are limited so you don't have enough tools to contemplate this with.