Lucky7Strikes

For any of this to be witnessed and experienced, you need to be aware of them. And since all these insentient conditions are not self aware, they arise "in" awareness. But it goes further than that. There is no actual sound of the bell, one's intent generatesthe human body which experiences a human realm to see a material world and hence give reality to the experience. In reality all this is a co creation of various conscious minds. Yes, exactly. But if one says the drumstick and sound are dependently originated, it means that the cause goes both ways, which is precisely wrong. All boundaries are drawn by the mind. All causes and conditions are made by the mind including this universe. Everything is a subjective creation. The artificial boundary however must arise for self-awareness/existence to come about, a subject object duality, which explains perfectly why this creation is experienced. Even "nothingness" is empty.

Insentient causes and conditions cannot give rise to sentience, awareness. Simple as that. You can create all these conditions artificially, but the interaction will not BE awareness. No complex chemical reaction can give rise to life. Good we agree here. BUt I'm gonna take this further and say that those causes and conditions are created by awareness interacting with phenomena, the mind. What exactly have you read of all the things I wrote. Why, it seems you can' think beyond your own paradigm of "reification," "Thusness stage 5," "Brahman is sooo different from Buddhism." You've been absolutely scared away from pondering what exactly "subjectivity" is. I've said for the millionth time that subject and object dependently arise for any experience existence to come about. BOth positions of "All is subject" and "all is object" are extremes. Experience works through reflection. Moreover, the subject, the "I-ness" is not a source, not an all encompassing thing, not a locality (although it CAN be experienced as all these things) it changes in relation to the object of experience. There is just the NATURE, the relationship, the dependence of subject and object. I've heard your broken record player many times and understand it. Now please listen to mine, because yours doesn't make sense. I've never said awareness has self-existence, or that it has a fixed location, or an essence. Why don't you at least try to understand what I'm saying because you clearly don't after all the these posts. He should've just rolled a blunt. No experience is more delusional or more truer than the other. Sure, there can be happier ways to exist and sadder, but there is no such thing as illusional reality. Reality is whatever is experienced; Truth is not experience, it is the way existence works. It doesn't matter whether it's a new phenomena or not. First of all, dependent origination means that the cause goes both ways. To say sound dependently originates with the drum and drum stick means that the sound also causes the existence or the arising of drum and drumstick, which is stupid. YOUR ATTENTION! Where is this YOU? When you say "combination of causes and conditions" you are saying that there is a set border, a boundary, a definition, to these causes and conditions. For example where does the eye end and begin, where does light end and begin, where is this attention? Causes and conditions are the quantifying of phenomena which is absolutely subjective to interpretation and experience. HUH? AND AREN'T ALL MANIFESTATIONS JUST CONDITIONS UPON CONDITIONS? Where do you draw the line between condition and manifestation? There's so much inconsistency in your thinking. There is no INHERENT, INHERENT subject and object. This is very different from saying there is NO subject and NO object. LISTEN WILL YOU? Just let all those quotes and lingo go for a second. AND LISTEN. At lease try to understand. OF COURSE THE LISTENER CAN"T BE LOCATED!!!!!!!!!! Run around, LOOKING FOR YOUR OWN BODY!!!

Yes. I do not think phenomena itself is conscious either but needs a perspective.

But then the time frame is restablished and one returns to the state of Consciousness + phenomena for that meditative state to be acknowledge by reflecting on it. Anyways, if your goal is to be a dead tree, just being conscious, simply aware, go ahead. Either you come back, or you just become attached to that state and forget the truer pleasures or life, which is to share that joy.

This is what I think, Sound can create light, or rather return to its source, because sound is created by light, the two arise together. For light to exist without a source, it must create a reflection of itself, which is any manifesting phenomena.

And when did I say consciousness was an object in the above quote? . You believe in a Universal Consciousness (God, Brahman, Whatever) and I believe in the individual. As for the guy you quoted above, I will ask him otherwise: show me consciousness that experiences itself without phenomena manifestation which includes time and space. But Dwai, these are too many words. I'd rather go meditate. .

A subject also needs an object. An eye cannot see itself. Dwai, you are a slave to your Gods, ready to go to war and kill your kin as Arjuna did. People like Xabir on the other hand are slave to phenomena, reveling in the role of irresponsible existence, "going with the flow" as with whatever rises, believing it to be reality. Both are extremes, subject and object rise dependently and hence existence comes about and knows itself (also known as you). Each individual creates their own destiny towards self-discovery. no phenomena, no Universal God, no superior creation can bind him.

By your view, the sound is different from the experience of sound, yet the conditions of phenomena that creates both are the same? Good, I agree. Consciousness cannot be found in phenomenal manifestation. But then you say this: No, when I say consciousness is one with sound, I mean consciousness is sound. And if consciousness IS sound, it DOES mean subject object are inseparable. By your logic, there is no subject object in the experience of sound. BUT Sensation are not aware. Sensations are phenomena constructs: production of sound waves+soundwaves + ear+brain interpretation. So how does awareness rise? And what observes sensation? Sensation? Phenomena is not awareness. Find me a phenomena, a manifestation, an object, a soundwave, an physical interaction, a chemical reaction, that is aware of itself.

Redness is an experience of the physical property of wavelength and the eye's perception and the brain's interpretation of its frequency. All phenomena can likewise be investigated into properties, conditions, and function and nowhere is consciousness found in phenomena. (note: I'm not saying there is objective redness, just that the appearance of redness can be traced to a phenomenal property, remember that we are investigating what consciousness is so please don't go off for 5 pages on objective and subjective universe).

So awareness, consciousness, is not sound. You've made thoroughly contradicting points here that do not lead to any consistency. If you say the link is the chakras, you are also saying that consciousness is within the body, beyond the body being linked to the body, or IS the body. Whatever experienced is consciousness? Consciousness is not the manifested phenomena. Or else you are saying consciousness IS sound, which you also deny here by saying it interdependently originates (which mean they are not one but originates from one another without a definable source). Sound is just sound waves, hearing is just the ear tissue and sound waves, the filtering condition is the brain, which are all insentient manifestations (unless you want to say consciousness is produced by the brain, which I don't think you are saying). Find me the individual transient mindstream of consciousness in phenomena. It is not in sound, it is not in the drum, it is not within, without, or between. What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with Advaita's all encompassing universal consciousness. You are so paranoid of this view you mention it everywhere where it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have not asserted any of these "beware" positions here, but asked you a simple question as to where this consciousness is in manifesting phenomena and you've answered with an absolutely contradicting and inconsistent answer. Find my your consciousness. If you say awareness is simply phenomena, one should be able to find it in phenomena, such as "the drumstick is conscious" or the "sound is conscious" or the "drumstick and sound put together is conscious." I never said anything about origin or birth of consciousness. Please be concise and argue about the point in hand. The quotes of Padmasambhava can easily be reinterepred under my paradigm and make perfect sense.

I disagree, not being able to experience the 3 poisons is being bound to the inability to experience them. One can feel greed, hatred, see through deluded eyes all with the rightview that these are baseless. Freedom at the beginning is freedom from being bound, but perfected freedom is to be bound and not be bound hence it is truly being unbound. Like a actor who takes on various parts (but there would be no real actor anyways) but is fully aware that the act isn't real. Yes, but I guess the sneezing and child saving example makes sense in this case also.

Double.. Yes, I agree that this is a valid path of non action. Past karmic imprints are simply played out with no more karmic, good or bad, conditions created to bind the seeker. But there is the path of action in which the karmic tendencies are rooted out by willful insight or if you are drew, um, sitting in full lotus . A Bodhisattva may save a drowning child, feel proud but simultaneously sees into that pride and it is let go without a doubt or seen directly as false and unfounded. Hence it is not abiding pride (so we can't really call it pride).

We both agree that there is no established self or an inherent self. So the quote from the sutra applies to both our paradigms. Anyways, what I wrote about free will has nothing to do with compassion.

Edit: Actually, let's take a final look at this example. The arising experience of "sound" is also a conditional phenomenon that cannot be aware. Sound is just the soundwave vibrating off of the drum stick hitting the drum, and the ear that hears it is also made of insentient tissues, sound is ontologically no different in characteristic than the sense organ in that soundwaves are not sentient. So how is sound awareness?

I will add one final note on the significance of free will. Without free will, I am just a rolling pile of dirt. Manifestation all happening on its own accord. My liberation/suffering does not come by "my" effort but rather causes and conditions create that effort to lead to Buddhahood or serial killerhood. Experiences just arise without a doer.... If this paradigm is reality, I will gladly go kill myself and suffer in hell for eternity while screaming a big giant fuck you to creation in general, oh but then, that would also be something that is simply happening. I will gladly no longer judge good from evil, for what is good when there is no one but just arising experiences? Ha! But then I can't do anything! How lame, how sad...all the creative potentials just out the drain for a secondary high of "no-doership"

We have both said the same things for the past few lengthy posts. More words will be fruitless. I understand the difficulty of seeing an alternative from the teachings of Thusness and other masters you have revered and learned from. I do not expect for me, a random internet forum member, to prove you wrong through these arguments. I completely understand your perspectives and reasoning and paradigm of reality: phenomena arises as awareness without a doer (awareness being another factor in manifesting phenomena) from causes and conditions interdependent on each other, and even the delusional thought of dual perspective of "I" and "other" is itself a rising phenomena that is without any "being" apart from manifestation. Everything happening on its own (see, that took three to four lines ), the difference comes from my interpretation of that model and yours in accordance with concepts such as "freedom" and "enlightenment." I have learned very much from you in the past, but this is where we diverge. I do not participate in these discussions to teach or convince, but to understand other's perspectives and further my own practice as I believe in my own insights foremost. Let me also add that I believe one can heal an amputee's leg, even give him new legs through intent at a certain stage of abilities. And that freedom comes from the complete free will to create and navigate realities and worlds, creating causes and conditions along with it. Oh, and one can make the moon green too. . I wish you the best on your path. _/\_ Edit: Actually, let's take a final look at this example. The arising experience of "sound" is also a conditional phenomenon that cannot be aware. Sound is just the soundwave vibrating off of the drum stick hitting the drum, and the ear that hears it is also made of insentient tissues, sound is ontologically no different i characteristic than the sense organ. So how is sound awareness?

Right. The sound experienced as afterthought is simply a different way sound is experienced. Just as one experiences the "past" (which was the "present" when experienced at that time) as an after thought, there is no real or truer way an event is experienced. There are many instance when we can only determine an experience from the relative perspective of an afterthought, remembering dreams are like this. But again, these distinctions are all made by the subject object awareness of "I" and "experience," without reflection, no event can be said to have been perceived or experienced. Dualistic thought must return. Again, these are states of awareness. Awareness can be non-dual (in your definition where subject object dualism is no longer experienced or been aware of), but dualistic perspective with a localized awareness re emerges, time and space are seen again in a relative paradigm of "now" and "then" and "here" and "there" and "this" and "that" to reflect on the previously experienced state of dharmadatu. The state of selflessness. of letting go, (not perfectly pure dharmadatu) is quite blissful because there is a release of all chained conditions as there is no conscious will to grasp them. Awareness is delocalized in this state. Where awareness resides is what you are. You are clinging onto a condition of awareness where is is delocalized and prescribing that to reality. In your instance, to "see" this you must consciously investigate it (this is like the eye trying to see the eye and seeing that it can't find it, says there is no eye and just the vision), move awareness into that understanding, which is intentionally done in order to experience this mode of reality. If you say that all experiences were always non-dual, this defies the very meaning of awareness which must be aware of something to know of self-awareness. You would also be saying that the senses are aware themselves, which is false because the senses happen through the construct of insentient material. A ear alone is not conscious of ear consciousness. Form cannot experience itself, it is dependent on awareness. And awareness is also dependent on form to know itself. This is dependent origination. Your right that insight is different. People can have same experiences but come to different interpretations. Arising sensations can happen in two instances. Spontaneous will to sense that sensation or do a certain thing by the agent and doer, or a previously made intent manifesting. The experience of being human and the sense aggregates of the body arises from a chosen will to do so in the past. You are alive as a human form because you have chosen to do so, and you are experiencing bodily senses because of this. Presence of sensation does require intent. All forms can be altered by intent. I can cut my ear off by my will and in my reality sound no longer can be experienced in the manner of "presence" but only as memories. This does not mean there is no such thing as sound, there is "soundness." I may paint a picture but not use the color green, and the reality of that painting is without green, but the potential of "green-ness" exists. Potential for creation is infinite in this way. NOTHING can happen without previous will or a currently manifesting will to do so. Because existence is aware through the dependence of awareness and manifest phenomena, the interaction of the two, creation (which happens by intent), must also be continuous. Existence is eternal just as intent. Your definition of effortlessly experiencing letting go is a habitual accessing of that state, like learning to experience having a hand. It's a valuable ability gained. Someone "realized" in your definition is therefore clinging to this experience as reality. There is great danger to seeing this as reality, the bliss and "freedom," and irresponsibility one feels is wonderful. One feels as if creation is just a dance dancing by itself on and one, but this is not so. The true enlightened being accesses both states of duality and non-duality appropriate to conditions at hand, and moreover alters those conditions by his ever powerful will. As for the efforless experience, it's like saying that you don't have to have intentions to be a bodily form when the body is a manifestation of a previous intent or a habit. It is a creation from the past. Moreover, if all reality was already non-dual, no samsara will arise, no delusion would even come about. The BUddha defines volitional aggregate to the BODY's volitional aggregate. The body doesn't have a volition itself.

If samsara is conditioned and without free will, it can never transition into your definition of nirvana. If actions lack a doer, it DOES mean selflessness, and in there is and never was a self making choices in the first place. "Choices being made" is not the same as an agent making that choice. We wei is a state of experiencing. It is not reality.

Feel your hand from your brain. Now become your hand, let awareness reside in it. All phenomena is like this. Dependent on simultaneously arising awareness. Again there is not one way to experience sound. Again, the I trying to find the arising of I is a man running around looking for his own body. The eye trying to see the eye. All these require movement of awareness, an intent. These are great ways for awareness to enter into a state of spontaneity and no-doer ship, a process of letting go. But that is not how reality "is." Reality is always subjectively experienced by one's will. I never mentioned a super awareness. Everything is not 5 aggregates, 5 aggregates rise from awareness intent. Awareness is not bigger or anything like that, it arises dependently with the any manifest phenomena whether it is a particular sensation, the time/space divide, or any other particularities. The aggregates cannot be self-aware. The self the padma talks about is an inherent self. A static identity one assumes. That is not why i'm saying. I do not expect you to change your views immediately with regards to awareness and subject object relationship. I just want you to understand the consequences of denying a self that chooses.

Now you are clinging onto language. When I say "made by" I mean arising due to, phenomena rolling on right?. In regards to spontaneous and simultaneous manifestation working due to collection of conditions, either you are contradicting the very meaning of "spontaneous" and conditions, or you are positing that there are separate units of frozen time frames this world works by, and I think I actually read something you quoted from a Zen master that each frame of time can be experienced this way, but time is a subjective thing that changes by perspective. If you begin cutting time into slots, you fall into zeno's paradox. Same with space.

Xabir you cannot explain a way out of this. This is very simple. No doer means that the will arises without a agent. That will is not "made" by anyone but arises due to conditions. A condition or a collection of conditions it simply does not matter. "we" don't make choices according to you, choices arise and are made by conditions. I don't disagree with the quote above because it gives credit to volition for changing conditions. And volition is not conditional but must arise from a doer. If you say that volition is just an arising event, that defies the very meaning of volition. Same with free will. Free will precisely means that there is an agent of the action choosing that action and has options.