Lucky7Strikes

You use the term "nothingness" so casually here without ever understanding or considering its meaning. Nihilism is not the same as materialism as I noted above. Why don't you actually read what I write.

You should've spent that time contemplating what I said instead. I have typed through 15 pages in this thread. I've repeated my ideas over and over again. Yet you and Xabir cannot get around your own doctrines and never fully make the effort to challenge held beliefs or listen to others, like a bunch of religious fanatics. Xabir often comes to this forum, cuts and pastes like a robot, because he has forgotten to investigate for himself. He's forgotten how to listen, how to rethink, how to consider newer potentials. I am insulting you so that you'd become angry enough to actually reconsider your ideals (not likely to happen) or begin to see the faults in them when you re emphasize them over and over to yourself. You don't have a teacher unlike Xabir, so you still have room for personal analysis. Xabir's cup's already too full. Go back and read from page 5 if you want details. I will briefly answer the questions above. Enlightenment is complete freedom of will. All habits, causes, and conditions are seen through as unestablished and falsely clung to as real. Consciousness is free to create its own experiences according to the conditions it decides to see, it can be everything but then it can be nothing. It can be dual and not dual, because all states are seen to be subjectively created. All experiences are transcended this way. Moreoever omniscience and reached through the ability of awareness to pervade through all modes of creations. Every possible manifestation and movement of consciousness is immediately realized. I am the interplay of consciousness and phenomena. I am that which consciousness is at the moment. I can be my body, not be my body, be light, be rain, be hand, be anything, be sound, not be sound. The expanding clarity is actually everything dissolving back into primordial awareness, wherein creation simply exists as potential. It is not complete subjectivity, but of luminous quality, a being of light, as consciousness and light, their dependence, define this state. This state is not enlightenment, it is simply a tool just as all states. True wisdom is seeing through all these states as mere plays of consciousness so that one does not fall into identifying consciousness with phenomena. So unlike some who think that a certain state of being is the "true" experience of reality, one should never fall into completely adherence to any states. This is the true middle road, rejection of both "all is subject" and "all is object" views.

You simply wrote out the functions of mind, but not what mind is or how it arises. You best answer was..."oh look it's right here." How does the mindstream arise? How does this experience arise? Tell me how sentience arises from non sentience. If you say "oh I just experience my mind in phenomena called sound, so my mind must be sound," you are giving sentience to the phenomena of sound and the conditions that produced it. There is difference between "certain" conditions and "condition"ness. Look into the difference. You have not yet understood the difference between momentary phenomena and continuation of the characteristic of phenomena. No, the unmanifest is not the ideology of emptiness. Emptiness is the doctrine of impermanence and non-inherent nature. The umanifest is simply that which has not manifested yet. The fallacy of your logic is in creating a "God" terminology, that "everything is this" sort of thinking. Mind is not existence, or else all that is existent would be sentient. The mind is not inside or outside. It is not this or that. It is not all or part. It can be all these things, but it is not because it has no fixed entity. This is the true meaning of "no-self."

It's ok to insult as long as intentions are good. It makes the discussion more personal. Abstract means precisely "of the mind." Nihilism and eternalism are not extremes. People love tossing around the concept of nihilism because of its negative connotation. Nihilism can mean two things. One regards to morality, where all moral values are rejected because they are seen to be completely subjective, and other to extreme skepticism of the validity of everything. Materialism is the word you are looking for on the opposite of eternalism. Buddhist eternalism is that there is an unchanging self, a soul, which is not what I'm saying. But Xabir's "all is object" is exactly the opposite extreme of eternalism, that the self is based on objective phenomena. Why don't you look into these concepts more carefully before simply adhering to doctrine? You need to be insulted. I don't like insulting people when it's out of place. But you need it.

No you have not. I can see it and you have only broken through the gate of certainty that once was "I am the body/brain." You are now at the door possibility, where awareness has seen a renewable possibility in its relationship to phenomena. You have yet to experience expanding Clarity, a return to the source that is yourself. The question "who am I" must become an active process of undoing, and one gains the ability to return to primordial awareness in which everything else returns to potential existence (but this is not enlightenment, it is simply another state of being).

What is mind? Is the experience of another person than also in the mind? What of the thing not within the mind, but in another mind? Is that also a "all" or is that not "all"? If mind is "all" then it doesn't arise from anything can it? How can an "all" arise from something? If you say that "all" is dependent on parts, if we take a part out of the all, then there is a new "all," so the "all"ness is still intact without that part. So we can't say mind is dependent on a specific part, the characteristic of all"ness" might change, but there is still the "all." So say that the moment of mind is dependent, but the "mind"ness carries on. How does it arise? From the stick, bell, ear, the brain? How does sentience arise from insentient factors? How has your mindstream come about? We not talking about a moment of mind, but mind"ness," its very experience. "In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent." Actually this is stupid. There are a lot of things absent, the "unmanifest" that exist as potential. But it is not something, it is unimagined, it is non-existent. This is precisely what gives creation its infinite potential. So it is better to think that there is cognition of non-existence from the perspective of existence, just as there is cognition of existence from the perspective of that which does not exist. This is precisely the way consciousness and phenomena both arise. What is the mind? Please define the way you are using mind. Do you mean thoughts? Do you mean consciousness? Do you mean intent? Do you mean movement? (these are all different things) That's not it. Go do some more thinking, you have ways to go.

Are you stupid? If you look for your keys, then you know your keys exist. It's all simple to me yes, but perhaps not to you. Contemplation of dependent origination is not for you to see something present. You used it in a wrong context. It was like saying, "the eye means walking." You say all is mind. Well, then reality is itself an abstraction. Why don't you go think about it a bit more, give it a day or two, then decide whether you understand it or not. Dependent origination is not limited to cause and effect, nor a connective transition (connection is a vague word, that was my fault) from A to B. A and B arise, but that is not A becoming B and so forth.

I did not use the word "transcend" that way. Again you are assuming my meaning without careful consideration. Well, it was a bad metaphor then. Your anger does not fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Your anger doesn't fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Anger, fear, suffering, loneliness, are all very useful feelings navigating through our lives. Once you have seen though all these phenomena as you have said through awareness, you have complete choice to utilize "anger" or not, one has complete knowledge of oneself and one's state of being. Hence these feelings are transcended. Zen is the living sutra. Zen is not conceptualization or idealization, that is why you find its abstract koans not so...valuable. They are there to destroy your mental formulations. The wrong approach to all this is "I will get the ideology down, all the words in the right place, in the right order. I will know all the definitions as such and then apply it to practice." I find this to be Xabir's main problem. Practice and insight must arise on their own and not by a set blueprint. The words must be your own words. The trouble comes when one begins to force ideology into reality believing in that that ideology is supreme, and abstract terms such as "no-self" become imbedded in wrong experience. Whatever you learn as Buddhism is only second hand to your current experience at the moment. Trust in your own intelligence and logic. So forget all these when you sit to meditate/contemplate. Look into it yourself. Something like...be a light onto yourself?

Where is right there? Is awareness one with the sound? Is sound awareness? Is there a sound awareness and non-sound awareness? Then how can we say there is such thing as awareness in the first place? How does this questing "I" arise? How does the mind arise? What is the nature of the questioning mind and awareness? I never denied I had a mind. Please go re read my posts and try to actually understand what I've been saying. I've replied thoughtfully to every point and logic Xabir has made, and considered them carefully (which I don't see the point of repeating it with you), I expect the same out of Xabir and anyone who wants to assert their own positions, otherwise this ceases to be a genuine discussion. SO you are arguing with a misguided concept of my position. I never said there was nothing or anything about nihilism in the sense of a extreme skepticism. This isn't a discussion about ontological existence or non-existence. "Dependent arising means there is something (well not a "thing" present." No. Dependent arising means that any experience or event arises due to another condition, hence that it cannot stand on its own or be eternal. I know what it means, and I've stated it so. The question of who am I is a technique also, which you have yet explored. It is not simply a conceptual questioning, but a phenomenal change of awareness. Actually they are very flexible. Let's look at the meaning of impermanence. When we say phenomena is impermanent, then there is permanence to that impermanence, a permanent characteristic and quality to that impermanence. When we look at dependent origination, we must look at how one thing arises from one another without a cause, which challenges the very meaning of conceptual "oneness" and "twoness." Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements. You must look at the purpose of the word's usage and their grounded meaning in reality. Abstract concepts like "dependent origination" and "impermanence/permanence" are more so geared towards deconstructing formulated opinions and views. Good. Mind and phenomena are not one, not two. I've made the same point over and over again. But you have to further look into what "all" means and what "parts" means. Hearing is not all when one sees the person and the stick. Then suddenly the all includes the hearing of sound and also the vision of the stick hitting the drum. You must also look further into the difference of actual content (stick, bell, etc) and the content"ness" (the existence of material stick, phenomena of soundness). The stick and the bell do not give rise to the sentient mind, but the sentient mind, as you have pointed out, necessitates the experience of stick, the bell, and the sound, to be. Keep going. Keep questioning, the more you question, the less obvious all this becomes.

You chose that name fully aware of what it means. You insulting Zen actually makes a lot of sense. This is the falsity of falling into emotions arising from a self confirmed "insight." Dependent origination goes into much subtler insights, it dives into the subconscious to slowly undo many attachments one has built. Do not glorify these moments of "eureka" you will have many of them and every time you will realize that your feelings are self created precisely by the question you have put forth as first. These are all clinging to answers which have not much to do with actual insight. It's like asking how many horns a rabbit has, and finding the "answer" one become ecstatic. And It's not about having a shield around you you fool. It's not about being unmoved. It's being able to be moved and unmoved, so concepts such as "moved" and "unmoved" are all transcended. I do get it. I perfectly explained Xabir's position twice to which he agreed that I understood. Why don't you and Xabir try to understand my position, because I don't think either of you do. My approach is always to understand first, digest it, see if it's applicable to reality, see the varying consequences. For months I was in complete agreement with everything Xabir put forth (you weren't here for that), I've learned much from him. But for the reasons I've outlined in this thread multiple times, his paradigm is flawed.

Yea I can't find it. Where is it? People like you laugh at the most basic questions such as "who am I?" not realizing their pinnacle importance to deconstructing basic assumptions such as "this is my mind." Or even when we say "I am using my mind?" or that my mind is communicating, or that the mind dependently originated, we have to look at with how the mind, an immaterial existence, comes about from material causes such as the eye, computer, words, and actions, moreover we must ask who is "using" the mind" whether the mind is thoughts or intentions, whether thoughts and intention are different, and so on. The entire book of Bodhidharma is actually an exploration into the concept of mind, it is not something to be easily glanced over. You still have much to learn, don't be so arrogant. Words such as "dependent arising" "impermanence" and "no-self" are incredibly flexible in their use when we begin to actually apply them to reality. Use "nature" along with those words and you have more flexibility and the terms themselves seem equally interchangeable. I've given my own interpretations of them over and over, and even recently to you which you do not understand due to laziness, shrouded by emotions. If this is not something you take likely, you would not be overcome with personal bias. Come here to learn. HAHHAHAHAHHA! YOU'VE SPENT DAYS AND DAYS HOURS AND HOURS!!!! MY GOD!! HAHAHAHHAAHAAHA! DAYS AND HOURS???? :lol: :lol: This is precisely the kind of attitude you should warn yourself against. Again, concepts of impermanence, dependent arising, and no separate self can all be used to arrived at a different conclusion when deciphering reality. If you've been cheerleading correctly, you'd know that Xabir and I are not arguing about the correctness of these concepts, but rather slightly differing interpretations of them. Remember that Buddhism is not reality, but that there is reality which Buddhism tries to understand, as with all traditions of insight.

Thuscomeone, whose first thread was named "clearing up Buddhism by Thuscomeone," Who names himself Thuscomeone, Whose avatar is the Buddha looking down, Who cries with joy at dependent origination and believes he has understood, Get over yourself. And what is this "mind" you speak of? Where is it? How exactly does it see? Oh and let me re write what you wrote: Your awareness is not an "I"ness to begin with so you wrongly conflate the two. Your awareness is by nature "I"less . . Now, what does conflate mean again? I think you did it right there. I never said I refuted the Buddha. I'm refuting Xabir and his posse. Buddhism has hundreds of different interpretations, tens of different schools. I abide by the Buddha precisely because I am willing to say that he is wrong. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't even be in these discussions. Ahem, now go cheer on the sidelines. .

Does your view of realization still come about through causes and conditions? Does it happen through a chain of events? If so, then it is a happening.

..double

Your turn now. Let's see how much you've been paying attention. ON the other hand, Xabir, after all that we've discussed, tell me what I've been saying, what my perspective is, because I honestly believe you never do give a shit about what the other person says in these discussions, I see this to be absolutely arrogant.

I didn't side step your question at all. I explained clearly my position in regards to seeing. You scanned it without any real efforts to understand. So I simply copied and pasted the same answer again, at which point you said it was a bit clearer, which moreorless showed not only your lack of comprehension but also the unwillingness to consider a different view of reality. I know completely what Xabir is talking about, and no they are no the most basic facts of reality. I've again and again pointed out its flaws, which Xabir is reluctant to actually investigate for himself, he simply parrots quotes and excerpts. The trick to thinking the way you do: "when I investigate the seer, there is no one there but seeing" is that you are consciously moving your awareness, the "I" ness into the seeing. It is like a man who tries to find point B, and upon arriving at point B and looking out from it, wrongly concludes "there is no point B" or "I am point B." Moreover, there is no such distinguishable experience of "seeing." in the first place. There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits instead. You must again investigate into seeing. It's not as simple as you'd like to put it: "there is just seeing." Seeing is usually experienced by the disparity of the seer, the origin or visual perspective (the eye,) and that which is not the make up of that agent of perspective (the "outside"). However, when meditation reaches certain stages into out of body experiences, one realizes that seeing is not limited to the physical make up of the eye, but that it is wholly a matter of a localized perspective of "here" and "there." Yet there is no inherent beingness to these locations, just as the eye is not the only way to see. We can enter states of being where the localized "here" becomes global, at which point the seen becomes the seer, the state of I"ness." By the way, you are contributing absolutely nothing to the content of this discussion. Cheerleaders can just stay on the sidelines please.

You cannot see beyond this, and it is due to your conditioning and the amount you have invested in Thusness and this view. You have an extensive blog dedicated to your views, probably have practiced for a long time under this doctrine and have made much sacrifices to confirm your points. The difference here is I have absolutely no problem with admitting that I am wrong at any given moment if what you say is pertinent to reality and reasonable, which I find it not to be. In past discussions, you've probably seen me do this, and I have expressed my gratitude likewise. ON the other hand, Xabir, after all that we've discussed, tell me what I've been saying, what my perspective is, because I honestly believe you never do give a shit about what the other person says in these discussions, I see this to be absolutely arrogant.

\ I just copied and pasted the first part from the previous post. It was clear enough on its own. Pay attention. It is beyond you at the moment, considering you can't even read clearly. And that clearly is your fault. It leads no where because you don't understand it.

Of course there is a wrong perception of reality. There is no wrong "experience" of reality. No an arhat comes back. We established this a while back when Vajra was here. I understand everything about your view and see clearly that it is flawed. I did not misunderstand. I know your position very well. You do not understand mine, because at some point in all this you have ceased trying to understand my view. You've been caught up in simply re confirming your views to yourself afraid that you, Thusness, Longchen, Dan, are all wrong. You do not know and have forgotten how to listen. I will write it out for your if you want, it really doesn't take pages as you often do: All experiences and phenomena dependently originate from causes and conditions from beginingless time. When there is an event or an element, another event or element is originated and so on. And because of dependence of phenomena, we find no inherent self-existence to any material or immaterial existence or event, since all are arising by the arising of another. Ignorance is the thought that gives reality to a dual perspective of a separate entity experiencing or witnessing phenomena, when in truth awareness is the manifestation of appearances themselves in the form of the senses and thought function. Enlightenment is the experience of reality as it arises spontaneously, where in the thought and habitual clinging to a separate oberserver or a doer apart from momentary phenomenal manifestation, the Presence, is no longer experienced or seen as a findable self. Everything, the universe, is experienced "as is" as conditions and causes make it so, and because there is no longer a conscious habit of "I," or "Mine," each moment is perfected in itself without fragmentation or friction of opposing wills and desires. Harmony is instantaneously realized. It is moreover seen that reality has always been this way, this very insight solidifies the experience of anatta. The illusion of a separate self within phenomena, or a higher Self controlling events and actions, had simply clouded this very experience of arising "now," which is the true nature, the true workings, of the dependently originating universe. The continuation of a specific chain, a disjointed flow of consciousness and action, of dependently originating events and causes can be called the flow of a "mindstream." Now tell me what I don't get.

There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits. Now close your eyes. There is darkness you see. But we can't really call this the same "seeing" as when you have your eyes open. So what can we say is seeing and what can we say is not seeing? The experiences of seeing are hence different. I'm sorry this is a bit beyond you. I try to be as concise as possible. There are no difficult sentence structures or vocabulary used. You are just caught up in your admiration for Xabir to give effort to understanding what I write. Also, you shouldn't just scan through people's posts, complain about not understanding it, call them a moron or expect to understand clearly, citing it as the author's fault and not yours.

Well, he has a wrong perception of reality that is due to clinging to experiences and wrongly interpreting them. The high wears off eventually after this life. He will cycle again according to past karma and habits for he has sold himself to the arisings of an objective world which is nonetheless his own making. A coward at best. Actually this is false. Consciousness recycles from complete "I"ness to complete "I" am not ness. It is in itself a cosmic cycle of creation and destruction. Adherence and identification to "all subject" or "all object" will simply create a new cycle of existence where new distinctions are made, or a self awareness arises. Why? because consciousness and phenomena dependently originate. And because no consciousness is in itself completely separated from the influence of other conscious minds. Like your Indra's net. So it is wise to take the middle road. Count how many times you make exceptions, "buts" "even thoughs" and "howevers."

Good. Nice. Bunch of cockroaches. Realization is another "happening" in all this chain of events. Good. All just playing out. Rolling on. Perception or non-perception are all simply happening. Ignorance or enlightenment. The ability to perceive reality also just happening.

Did you read anything I've written in the past threads carefully? Obviously not. Where is outside, where is inside? Where does one thing begin and end? What does it mean to distinguish? What does it mean for a thing to arise? What is interdependence? What is individuality? What is phenomena? You have to go back to ABC, and see what A, B, and C are. I have addressed your question over and over. Space and matter are not one not two. It is as with consciousness and manifestation. Awareness and phenomena therefore are dependent. Hearing arises in consciousness, as the ear arises, and the brain arises, due to past intentions and habits. All creation and experience come about due to a cyclical nature (habits) or a spontaneous will (free will). The interplay of consciousness and matter create the experience of "I" ness, of identification with that immediate experience, such as the body, and consequently arises the "other". Ignorance is believing in an inherent identity, clinging, to a phenomena as the origin of consciousness, this is where the slave becomes the master. The exchange of "I" and "other" is where intentions arise. You see, consciousness does not create any of these things out of thin air, but rather orders the void together into a coherent experience, creating distinctions in the process. Light separates from darkness, sound from silence, etc. The trick to thinking the way you do: "when I investigate the seer, there is no one there but seeing" is that you are consciously moving your awareness, the "I" ness into the seeing. It is like a man who tries to find point B, and upon arriving at point B and looking out from it, wrongly concludes "there is no point B" or "I am point B." Moreover, there is no such distinguishable experience of "seeing." in the first place. There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits.

Read my post again. Don't get wrapped up in personal bias.

I have no idea why Daniel is being so ignorant. It's not about "those that can perceive this" or not. Perception and non-perception are just rising universal characteristics at that moment, same with meditative training, frameworks, teachers, etc. He must believe that his perceptions were somehow earned by him or is a superstar, when there was no one ever to earn anything in the first place, the yearning for enlightenment simply arose, then the thought to meditate, then meditation, than whatever newly developed perception. These are all just simply happenings without a doer, the universe just rolling on, rain is falling again on the other side. Daniel didn't do any of this. There was never a Daniel to begin with. Anyways, he seems to be clinging to experiences, which one shouldn't do when investigating into the nature of reality. It's another thing to develop skills to navigate through reality, but seeing into its foundations is different. Daniel is scared. He is scared that all those experiences and insights and effort actually means absolutely nothing under his own view of reality. He can't face his own truth. WHAT? What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote above? I never said there cannot be compassion. What I wrote above has nothing to do with arhats or arising compassion. Compassion was just an example of the three I used to illustrate another point. I also never mentioned suffering being permanent or impermanent. Your no-self and denial of free will is precisely nihilistic. This is not true under your own ideology. Because there is no-self but only arising sensations and appearances and thoughts all at expense of no doer but the universe manifesting, enlightenment, the view and realization of no self (which comes about without a doer) can simply fade away as the rain evaporated back into the sky. I see contradictions everywhere. Is is due to your clinging to Thusness's teachings without personal courage to re digest and re investigate them. But it is also due to your tendency to jumble together illogical ideas and random terms/quotes based on seeming similarities to give yourself a sense of understanding and confirmation when it isn't there at all.