Lucky7Strikes

That is pure determinism. According to you, everything is just a rolling pile of senses and objects. No-self means that there is no inherent, no true location or manifestation of self, the I"ness," awareness.

I meet your "all is past" and raise you "all is present." . But yes I agree. Past experiences are only good as getting the practitioner to where he is now. All paths are different, but the "now," enlightenment, or whatever for everyone can be different. For example, I'm not trying to become an energy master, I just want to know who I am. I mean... IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK? .

Please read my post/s again. Also if you've been paying attention to all these "debates" you'll know that there is a great disagreement and different understanding of all these "ism"s you box together. But that's not important. These religions are adhered to because us sentient beings depend upon them to explain the meaning of our existence. They are valuable in that manner. But yes, someone's wrong and someone's right. And the Buddha, or my interpretation or your interpretation of it, can be wrong to. Fact is I don't care, there is Truth to existence, and I want to know. If you think you can't know, that's another belief. But that doesn't sit with me, going with the "flow" and dying is no different than being born in a pig sty, fucking, eating, and dying. From my personal opinion, I don't think you realize how serious all these seemingly nonsensical debates are. Who are you ralis? WHO ARE YOU? A rolling pile of sense filled dirt? .

Actually the Koran doesn't say much. Later Muslim scholars and judges (Uh muftis and qadis I think their called?) formulated their own opinions based on hadiths (much of which were fabricated) to apply to practical life. There was also no way of government one can coin Islam, the controversy of hierarchy is what led to all the factions that later developed (sunnis and their Caliphs or the shi'ites and their imams). Fearing God is one of the main pillars of Islam from what I know. And the Buddha did leave interesting discourses on ways of life (like how a good wife should act and treat her husband) and how a King should govern, what one should eat, etc....

Bindo, who are you? .

There's a way the world works whether you like it or not. And if it works two ways, it works two ways. if it works in no ways, it works in no ways. Subjective, objective, one world, million worlds, there is truth to existence.

And what are you? It's perfectly fine I guess to just live life as it is. But then how are you any different from those whose sole purpose is to chase pleasure, or whatever one "feels" like? That's not why I started practice. I want to know the Unconditioned, I want to know what the hell all this is exactly about. .

The ego exists. The fools are ones who deny the experience. The ego has no defined or stable substance to it, and its attachment to phenomena as real or true is what the Buddha is preaching against. The point of this discussion is not a Atman vs. Anatta. It is the right understanding of anatta. It seems like you have reified (I know we all love that word) the states of "Stage 4 I Amness" and "Stage 5 Anatta" but these are simply extreme state of awareness moving from a centralized self to a decentralized other. Awaerness is what I am. And I am like the space that lets manifestation happen. The movement of awareness, its interplay with manifest phenomena, is intent, which can occur locally from point A to B, manifest positively or negatively, from a center to all, or without a center to be found. It is un arisen for it is the very basis of any existence.

These discussions are practice. The Truth, the one Law, abides at any state whether you are practicing or not. Meditation tremendously helps the seeker onto another state, another perspective, of experiencing reality, but the the Way (this is not a "objective" reality ) does not change.

Have you experienced anything without witnessing it? It is a simple question. Don't get too caught up in doctrines and equations. Just see. Every experience is dual in nature. Even the experience of non-duality cannot be without a reflection of it from a later dual perspective of "Now" and "Then." "All of transience awakens." No, that mean nothing awakens. Because there was never a self to begin with, awakening simply happens. No will to awaken. It is determinism, that is an extreme, not some "mystical" blah that dodges the blatant question.

AND... WHO ARE YOU? HUH? YOU, YOU, YOU.... WHO ARE YOU? YOUR BRAIN, BODY, FACE, EGO? (oh wait, I know, a BITCH SLAPPER!) .

And where is this self you speak of? Where is it? SHOW ME SHOW ME SHOW ME! And have you known anything without witnessing it? NO, NO MORE STAGES!!! These are states. There is no such thing as a superior state. That is becoming imprisoned by another set of conditions. No-self does not mean there is no self. It means that there is no fixed entity called a self. Each individual Awareness is absolutely free, it is the Void, the "I"-ness. Each and every being, who experiences existence is it. The merging of the existent, the manifest, into the I ness is the experience of I Amness. The merging of the non-existent, the "I" ness into the existence is Anatta. Both of these states are impermanent, for the experience of be recognized, the duality of I and You need to arise. There must be reflection.

. HAHAHAHA. . (Uh, I hope you were kidding, if you weren't...go see a therapist).

The very act of ANY existence posits a mirror like "self-awareness." Without perspective, which is absolutely empty, like (like, soooo not exactly the best metaphor I'm using here) clear space that lets form, a table for instance, take shape. To deny it is like saying, "the table exists without the space that it occupies." Likewise, the source of awareness is hollow. Sort of like how the eye can't see itself, but you can only see because you have an eye. You become accustomed to a certain patterning of the self/awareness and think "this is the "I"" Usually this is based on an imaginary location, like the body, or parts of the body, like the brain, or even an energetic body which is without form and lets awareness more freely navigate. But the more structured it believes the "field" of awareness is, the more limited it becomes in context of freedom to move around. Like how some people have poor circulation and can't fully "feel" their feet (I used to be like that ). Or how other's have out of body experiences because the structured limit of "I" is much looser than others. So in answer to your question, yes, I am aware of my self writing this, precisely because I am aware of experiencing it. You made a very important point about absorption becoming an experience after that perception is passed. The experience can only exist when there is a reflective consciousness of it. It's how ANY existence is recognized or comes into being. So people can experience these states, but all return to a reflective "self."

I disagree. There is always a self and the other. That is the nature of awareness and the only possible reason existence has come about. Why? because "non-existence" is also empty. The state which you talk about, the state of no self, is simply a restructured identification from a previously held "self" to the "other." For example, my awareness may identify with being a body, and see itself in relation to everything that is not the body. And upon realizing that my awareness is not limited to my body, it can be freed into other modes of existence, such as followingly a parallel motion to every rising event, giving the illusion of "oneness" or whatever. But such experience are impermanent, as all experiences are, because one must reflect on its existence, as an "other" to know of experiencing it. You come back to a self, you inevitably return to a time frame. If we go back to the example of reading. As your awareness can "become" the words that you read, the meanings are presented "to" the reader. Again, there is the reader emerged in the act of reading, but a counter part, the experience itself, the meaning and the sound of words, simultaneously arises. This doesn't mean that there is a fixed entity such as a self (an energy body to speak of). The self can be anything, just as its "outer" experiences can be any manifestation. Simply put, a self cannot experience itself. Nor can a experience be had without a self. It needs a objective reflection.

Well Buddhist don't believe in a self, so I guess that means there's no free will, just causes and conditions. And Advaitnas, at least to my knowledge, think everything is a manifestation of Brahman, so they don't have free will either. Not that I support or agree with either. .

Yes, presence is something that flows, it cannot be grasped. And to align one's awareness with it by realizing thus, it may trigger the sensation of "beingness" or "timelessness"...something like "everything has already been and always is in the present." But there is still the flow, still the change from another perspective. Relative presence is still seen from the perspective of "past" and "future" But then who perceives this beingness out side of this..."oneness?" The luminosity? Who perceives the non-perceiving state?

Where does this moment end and the next moment begin? Then what is cause and effect?

LIKE and illusion. Not illusion. Life is not suffering. A certain way of experiencing it is. Nirvana and Samsara are one (well, they aren't one, but more like "there's heaven on earth" sort of one.)

And where is this YOU? What is it? Is it an energetic form? Does it have boundaries? And if it has boundaries, where does YOU end and OTHER begin? If you are at one with coming, as in you BECOME the motion of coming, no actual relative coming is seen or experienced. Same with going.

New dawn, starjummper, etc... What do you want? What exactly do you want out of this? You sure don't seem that concerned about "saving" Kunlun practitioners.... If your system is great, whole and what not, great. GO, DO, YOUR, OWN, THING. Non of your criticisms help, except conjure up quality replies from other Kunlun practitioners (so I guess that's good ). Just makes you look bad comin out here and calling people devils, liars, possessed...

Vajrasattva is very "chilled out" in person. It's difficult to judge people from posts. He is also a martial artist, so some may find him a bit too...yang... But pride and confidence are often easily mixed.

Xabir, what is my Awareness dependent on? What am I? Why do I feel I 'ness'? If there is no "I," how can I attain enlightenment? What is the source of my intent?