goldisheavy

Both the self and no-self are relative in the way Seth is talking about them, because both are specific experiences that only have meaning with respect to each other. So for example, lack of a story tying everything together was meaningful in comparison with previously being aware of just such a story. As the experience of a unifying story faded, a new kind of experience was born. From one relative to the next. So all these experiences are relative: closed/open, self/no-self, ignorance/wisdom, etc. In Buddhism the idea of not-self (different from no self) is not an experience, but the truth of all experiences. In other words, the experience of self is not-self (in that it has only meaning relative to other possibilities, and no inherent meaning), and the experience of no self is also not-self. A person cannot get closer to (or further away from) the absolute by changing one experience for another. In fact it's precisely by confusing the relative with the absolute that the problem starts. Confusing the relative experience of self and confusing the relative experience of no self for the absolute are both undesirable sorts of confusions to have.

When we talk about the mind as an "it" we're not being precise. But we have to discuss something, so it's natural to use loose language. Specifically when we use words like "it" we're using a word that normally refers to some kind of object, or something specific. So with this in mind, with great caution, we can say that the mind is not dependent on its contents in the sense that there is always cognition occurring. The details of cognition vary, but cognition has no beginning and no end, it just keeps happening. There no specific content of cognition that can stop cognition.

I'm not scared. I just don't want to promote ignorance. Well, the state of mind depends on its content. So in some sense the mind is dependent on various content in it, and in some sense it's not. Not necessarily. I don't like to use sanskrit jargon for that very reason. It just brings confusion. Let's use English. The mind is a word everyone understands. People have misconceptions regarding the mind, but we can clear those up. On the other hand, talking about alaya is a waste of time because none of us have a strong intuitive connection to that word. It's not part of our culture. The mind is not just alayavijnana. The mind is your day to day mind -- this is the most important starting point. I think alaya is something like the subconscious mind the way hypnotists understand it, but that's just part of the mind, or an aspect of mind.

Semantics is the study of meaning. You're asking me about the meaning of something very subtle and hard to understand. I am right to be cautious. I'm not going to answer these questions if you disregard my questions to you. I'm still waiting for you to clarify what you mean by "apart."

It shouldn't mean that. Be more careful next time. I'll give you an example which is not to be taken literally. It's only an example of how "different" is not the same thing as "apart." Even though I give this warning, I am almost certain you'll take it literally and stretch my example beyond what it was meant to illustrate. If you look at a snake, the tail of the snake is different from the snake, but you can't say the tail is apart from it. Use this example to become certain that "different" does not imply "apart." Do not take this example literally. Once you are certain that different does not imply apart, forget the example, because it's useless beyond that.

What do you mean by "apart"? Again, it's important. Please answer as specifically and as narrowly as you can. Give examples if you can to substantiate your meaning of "apart" so I know how to respond.

It depends. Some in childhood, some later, etc. It's not like I only have one problem, nor is it the case that all my problems hang out together like a flock or a herd.

Nope. The mind is nothing like a thought. A thought is like an object. Like a teacup, only subtler and more fluid, as well as more private, etc. It's still an object. It's very important not to confuse the mind with something like a thought.

My mindstream did not start, but my problems did. ("My" is used loosely here, more like the mindstream leading up to my current condition.)

The question I was asking is an important one. I can't really answer your question until you answer mine. Intentional recognition occurs. This fact is what I call mind. Don't look for it as if it were an object. It's not.

Maybe. English is not my first language either. I think Xabir's English is more than adequate.

Heartmind is not an attainment. It's simply the core of your being. You should assume you already have it and stop looking for it as if it were like a third hand you've been overlooking all these years or something like that. A lot of times teachings talk about things which you are supposed to intuitively feel you already have or instantly relate to. If you don't intuitively connect with the heartmind concept, then its appeal is lost and you need a more skillful teaching. The best thing to do is the following: 1. Forget all the teachings. 2. Determine what your real problem is, if any, in your own language and on your own terms. Don't let anyone tell you what your problem is. 3. If there is no problem in your life, you're done, do not proceed to step number 4, quit here at this step. 4. If you do have a problem, try to feel it and formulate it in the best way you can. Usually there are many ways to formulate the same problem. Some formulations are more superficial and some are less. Some formulations may even lead to a direct insight. It's important to keep the feeling of the problem connected with the formulation at all times. Never allow formulation to become separate from how you feel. Never allow a formulation life of its own. 5. See if you can solve the problem yourself. Don't give up too soon. 6. If you cannot solve the problem yourself, look for inspiration among various wisdom traditions. Looking for inspiration is different from seeking to slavishly follow. Once the inspiration has been found go back to step 4 with the newly found inspiration in mind. 7. Healthy condition, life is good.

I've heard this before. It's obvious you took this on faith.

I only want to hear from you personally. I am not interested in quotations. Why? Because I have multiple shelves of Buddhist books at home, including all kinds of "advanced" ones, such as Dzogchen (Bon and Buddhist flavors) and Mahamudra. And if I want to read such things online, again, I know where to go (yes, I've read a bit of www.accesstoinsight.org too). So the only thing of value in this thread is you, personally you. I don't have your mind on my shelf. Your mind has a capacity to surprise me. Old quotations I've read thousands of times (or ones just like them) do not surprise me at all. I want to have a real discussion. I don't want something like a Sutta/Sutra/Tantra/commentary/Dharma talk club where we sit around and discuss some Suttas forever (perhaps you want something like that?).

Get ready for a bunch of quotations.

Thank the heavens you understand this much.

Xabir, you have the good taste that's expected of the hearer. You need to stop quoting everything you like and learn to think for yourself now. You've heard the good stuff, but you haven't really understood the import in your own life on your own terms. Had you really penetrated the teachings you could explain them in thousands of different ways from your own mind and heart without any need to run to a good quotation. You could give personal life examples. You could use analogies and people's day to day intuitions to lead them to realization. You have none of these abilities because you're stuck at the level of the hearer. You hear the teachings and you know a good thing when you see it. That is commendable. But that's not good enough. Go further.

So you're saying that in Udana suttas Buddha talks about something of which he has no personal experience, since he hasn't achieved parinirvana yet. Both of these situations are Nirvana and not Parinirvana, which traditionally is understood to be something that occurs at death. Buddha would not be talking about something of which he had no personal experience of, would he?

Do sentient beings suffer from real ignorance?

I am speechless.

So why do you think one bit of illusion is better than another? Why advocate one over the other if you know both situations are illusory?

You're wrong. You didn't answer anything. I asked for you to describe in personal terms, with examples from day to day life, how it feels for there to be solidity. Describe it so well that I can feel this solidity myself, because I have no idea what you mean by it. This requires a personal account utterly free of the doctrine-speak.

You're saying that in the Udana Suttas Buddha is talking about some future state that has yet to occur?

It is a mental conceiving, due to ignorance, due to the view of inherent self/existence, or there being something graspable, locatable. Like... the view that there is a self here, leads to grasping on to 'this'... be it 'self', 'awareness', or whatever being reified. In reality, 'self', 'awareness' is simply an illusory construct - awareness is not a solid subject 'here'... the ungraspable process of experiencing is itself self-luminous, but due to reification, due to the view 'there is' with regards to awareness, we keep referencing back to an 'awareness'.... If this illusion of solidity of self (rather than condition of solidity - which was never there to begin with) is dissolved, clinging stops, we no longer fixate on an illusory 'self-ness', 'here-ness', 'now-ness', an inherent 'awareness here', an inherent agent, perceiver, doer, etc.... Then there is simply hearing hears, seeing sees, everything is vibrant aliveness and clarity without the illusion or sense of a perceiver... there is no sense of an agent or self standing apart from the flow of experience... the process flows and is self-luminous just as it is. It is wonderful and blissful to see and experience this... and freeing, since there is no more clinging to any sense of self. Then when the emptiness of object realization arises, there is no clinging to 'there is' in terms of objects either. What a long way not to answer my question. I asked you a specific and intimate question. A personal question from me as a person to you as a person. I didn't expect you to regurgitate bits of (Thusness' distorted flavor of the Buddhist) doctrine to me.

I still don't understand. You are saying that solidity is a feeling that something is "inherently there", etc... can you explain in more detail what this means? If this condition of solidity were not true, how would experience be different?