goldisheavy

This is what I mean. This 'unfindability' or 'unestablishability' is illusory. Do you see this? Santa can be found as a character in various works of literature and in the shopping centers around the New Year's time. This is because people try to locate Tathagata as if it were an object. What should Tathagata say to such misguided attempts? Tathagata spoke differently to people who were more enlightened than run of the mill idiots. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.04.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.02.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html That recognition is an illusion. All recognitions are illusory. Not true. You can't wake up from the eternal sleep. Your dream has changed, but you're still dreaming friend. All recognitions are somewhat illusory. You've grasped a part truth to be the whole truth. Who are you kidding? You know what I mean. Why weasel in parenthesis? This situation of there being no findable, independent, permanent self is the truth? Or is it an illusion?

Dalai is wrong about mind. The mind is not really dependent on anything. It's the forms or cognitions that are dependent. Not the fact that cognitions are taking place at all. The problem is that people have a lot of conceptions regarding mind. These conceptions are wrong. So when talking about the mind, are you talking about a day to day run of the mill conception or the real deal? The mind is not whatsoever dependent on intellect and knowledge. The state of the mind is dependent on such things, why yes. All these appeals to authority are tiresome, are they not? Who is impressed by such things?

Are you confusing solidity with stability? What do you mean by solidity? Do you mean things like you being unable to go through solid walls? Let's speak more precisely here. Stability refers to the fact that experiences tend to be consistent. In other words, roughly the same furniture is found in your place of living every day, etc... That's stability. Solidity refers to objects maintaining spacial integrity. For example, the solid tea cub doesn't pass through the solid surface of the table, etc. That's solidity. So, more precisely now, what are you talking about?

This is why religion is trouble. If you love freedom, stay away from religion. Use the wisdom that's sprinkled throughout the otherwise ignorant religious teachings, if you can find any, and lead your own life away from religion. Then no one is going to care if your behavior is proper or not. But if you want to ride the coat-tails of religion and have your freedom at the same time, you're asking for trouble. Religion is a prison.

Very well said. The mind is neither an object nor a substance of any kind. And yet the mind is real. People have trouble with this formulation because usually when someone says something is real, they're talking about an object or a substance of some kind. Naturally protestations arise from this. To say that the mind is both real and deathless is skillful means more than anything. It gives people an easy place of access into the deathless: their own day to day mind. Sure, people also have erroneous conceptions regarding the mind and praising the mind will cause some intermittent clinging to the erroneous conceptions about the mind. That's a fair price to pay for the instant intimacy that's gained in this formulation.

1. You speak of the absence of agents all the time though. 2. Absence of Santa Claus is also an illusion. An agent is an appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind it is illusory. An absence of an agent is another appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind is too is illusory. I do. Do you see that the absence of seer, that "seeing is just the seen" is simply another appearance arisen dependently on "seer sees"? The former is the negation of the latter. In other words, absence of seer is an exaggeration if you fixate on it as the ultimate truth. Reality of self is an illusion. Unreality of self is another illusion. Try to attain this symmetry of realization. Don't lean toward the nihilistic side of the absence. You proclaim the absence of the seer as the victory over the bondage that clinging to the perception of the seer brings. It's not really a victory though. It's just another form of bondage. Now you are clinging to absence.

If I thought I was empty but others were full, yes, I'd be humbler. Fortunately when I've experienced my emptiness in that same moment I've experienced the emptiness of all things and all beings as well. You do offer this "observation" often. It's as if you have an axe to grind. Instead of discussing the content of my posts you prefer to discuss my personality and politics. Being against organized religion is a political decision on my part. I see the harm organized religions do in the political sense and thus I stand against them. I myself could enter organized religion and escape its harm, but if I did that, I would be validating the idea of religion in general, and then many other people would be encouraged to join organized religions. But unlike me, these people would be harmed much more than helped, since these people wouldn't have my wisdom to protect them. This is why I don't support organized religion. It's not for my own sake.

I have two questions for you: 1. What's wrong with thinking for yourself? 2. How do you select an authority to follow without thinking for yourself?

This is correct. Wrong. My views reflect reason. I cling to reason and not to pride. Wrong. First of all, I do listen to xabir. When I listen to xabir I hear ignorance and I don't take it seriously. It's not like I tune out xabir because his name is "xabir". I evaluate each of his posts on a case by case basis. If he says good things, I cheer them. If not, I poo-poo them. Overall I claim that xabir is far from enlightened. He's quite ignorant and is not to be trusted as an authority. He can be a good Dharma friend though, but he's not a master or a Guru. I have exactly the same opinion about Thusness. Thusness can be a good Dharma friend, but again, he's ignorant overall and not to be relied on as a Guru or a master. But I'll go even further than that. Even if I thought that someone was worthy of the title "master" I would still urge people to think for themselves. I would not recommend that anyone start to follow the master. You want me to give up critical thinking and personal experience? I'm surprised you advocate following an external authority. I thought you'd be going around urging people to think for themselves, like I do. Turns out you do just the opposite of that, what a disappointment. Who is your authority?

Is this a hypothetical "you" or are you talking about me? If you're talking about a generic hypothetical "you", then you're just ignorant when you say that the mind is something particular. If your use of "you" is meant to refer to me, then not only are you ignorant, but you impute your own ignorance on me as well and on what I say, without bothering to understand anything I say. That's much worse. What do you mean by "just a convenient label"? Why is it convenient? Tell me if this description is accurate: You think that matter really exists independent of mind. In other words, if all the brains were destroyed, it is your belief that the world of matter would go on without any minds in it. Isn't that what you believe? If my description above of your belief is an accurate one, I ask you to please stop saying "things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent" because you have no idea what that implies and you have no right to use that phrase.

Here's what you said just a moment ago: Continuing... I was going to tell you if you answered my question.

No. Most beings, including you, cherish misconceptions regarding their own minds. They conceive of mind as something particular, and this is one of the principal causes of cycling in Samsara. Matter does not exist according to "The All" Sutta. If I tell you what I mean by the word "mind" will you try to look for it as some kind of object?

It works like shit and you know it. Mind is a much better word. Read this to understand why "universe" is a shit word: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html (the commentary for this sutta is completely wrong, btw...) "Universe" suggests something that exists beyond the sense bases. It's not "more vague." It's actually crystal clear. Universe is something Stephen Hawking would talk about. If I tell you what I mean by "mind" will you try to look for it as an object of some sort? The deathless is not beyond the mind. Buddha perceives the deathless how? Does Buddha jump outside of his mind to perceive the deathless?

Right. And this unborn infinite potential is your own day to day mind.

You don't really understand what I mean by mind. The mind is not non-duality. Further, the reason I talk about mind the way I do is because of the skillful means. I am saying that the mind is deathless, and by saying that, I am suggesting that every person has access to the deathless because every person has a mind. This is skillful because it makes the whole of truth and immortality something intimate and personal right from the start. There is no need to jump into some mysterious otherworldly experience to get in touch with the deathless (although it can help to put things in perspective if you do). That's not true. Buddha himself talked about it. Read this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html And then tell me if Buddha has violated the entire dharma in that Sutta. If I pointed you to it, would you be looking for it as an object of some kind? That's stupid. Universe is not the totality. A universe is equivalent to a realm in Buddhism. Realms are partial and relative arisings. In other words, there are countless universes instead of just one. Mind is greater than universe in scope. Bodhisattva's mind can go from one universe to another. Also, most people conceive the Universe to be a collection of knowns, such as stars, nebulas, black holes and other things we can observe and interact with. The mind is infinitely vaster than any collection of knowns.

I use it to mean that known is framed in terms of unknown. Because of this, the knowns have a degree of mysteriousness to them. This is exactly what I was talking about at the very start of this entire thread. I said that people have a mysterious dimension to them. So talking about Mystery is just a way for me to honor this fact. It's a tip of the hat to the fact that unknown is important. I know the koan you're talking about but I can't really confirm or deny what you're saying. It all depends on how things are interpreted. For example, is the sack mind? Or is it attachment? Or is it ignorance? Or is the sack worldly life? Or all of the above? Or none of the above? I think the meaning(s) of koans like these are not always obvious. If you drop your mind, are you mindless? If yes, how do you recognize you dropped anything? If not, what have you dropped? This is why it's so critical to always think for oneself and to never fall prey to groupthink. No matter how wonderful or agreeable anything is, it must be questioned very vigorously and honestly. No exceptions. It's so temping to read some koan or Dharma talk and just take it for granted. But you'll never become enlightened that way. That way you can only rise to the level of the hearer. Hearers recognize the truth when they hear it, but they are not wise enough to produce their own insight. So hearers have good taste when it comes to evaluating and appreciating the thoughts of others, but they are like zombies compared to the bodhisattvas and the buddhas. They can't think for themselves.

There are different levels of consent. Conventionally we will say that weaker person has been victimized by the stronger, and this is both correct and compassionate. The law should punish the stronger abuser and protect the weaker person. However, what about a deeper spiritual truth of the situation? Well, the weaker person did not consent to go to the gym. The weaker person consented to be a couch potato. So when later down the line someone who agreed to go to the gym beats the weaker one up, can you really say the weaker one does not consent? Consent runs very very deep and people habitually only see a very superficial layer of it. Yes, it's possible for two people to struggle and both can win and lose. From person's A perspective person B lost. From person B's perspective A lost. Both can be correct if they enter into different realms when this happens. In other words, just because you can be the most powerful being in your own realm does not mean you are the most powerful being in every possible realm. This seems to make eminent sense to me, because anything else would restrict the possibilities, which must remain infinite according to a principle of infinite ultimate potential. In day to day life we're not really dealing with ultimate possibilities though, but rather, we are dealing with relative probabilities and with our own deeply entrenched habits. So we still have to respect the pattern to some degree. And by respect I don't mean something sentimental, but I mean it the way a fireman respects the fire. A-priori knowledge does not originate at all. It's like a stream without beginning and end. There is no originating point. At least, none that I can see or am willing to admit. Remember how I said our imaginations are smaller than the total sum of all possibilities/potentials? How known is contextualized by unknown? If you try to understand everything solely in terms of the known, you'll have a lot of trouble.

It's a fucked up source with fucked up numbering. Here's the real link: http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama37.asp 8:253. What's the error in 8:253? The error is asserting a relative condition (plants having the same awareness as humans) as if it were ultimate. A plant may sometimes have an awareness similar to a human, in some realm, under some conditions, etc... But to assert that's how it really is, it is always like this and only like this, that's wrong. 8:253 does not contradict 1:165, does it? Read 1:165 and get back to me. Use the link I gave you and avoid Xabir's blog next time.

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama3.asp This is the link to the Sutra.

I accept appearance of dualism. I don't accept dualism as something more than an appearance, as something substantial and true in and of itself, independent of mind, etc.

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality. So when I asked for a quote, it's obvious I wanted a quote from Surangama and not from Xabir.

Not interested in Xabir's blog. Xabir is ignorant in my view. Try Surangama Sutra next time.

Can we have a quote?

When you search in this way you are searching for an object of some sort. Let me correct what you write: "if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit the appearance of thoughts. Thoughts create the appearance of dualism. You must accept the apparent dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm the appearance of multiplicity." Also you can replace "appearance of" with "experience of", which means the same thing, but might sound better for you. Don't take it literally. It means "no idea of mind." Not "no mind" in the literal sense. When you let go of all your conceptions of mind you are said to have no mind. In other words, your mind abides free of conception of itself.