xabir2005

Far from being linguistical issues... they represent real, actual, different realization-experience for me. See (which I think you did) - Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment I can trace different dates for you where there are different moments, shifts, paradigm leap of perceptions... different realizations that changed the way how I perceive reality forever, and these makes a huge difference experientially - and as insights deepen the further I was able to relinquish and let go of any subtle clinging and effort. I wish you can see what I experience, but until then, you just have to take what I said or what Thusness described, by experience, through faith... or not. But faith is definitely an important part of the path for me, even though it is just a means to an end and not the end itself (i.e. without faith in Buddha and Thusness, I would not have taken their words seriously enough to contemplate them and thus result in the realizations I have today, and thus transcend the dependency on belief or faith on these issues since I have seen it for myself).

In terms of non-dual experience, may be similar. But the view of inherency is what causes clinging and this makes a major difference. It is not just 'intellectual views', but whether there is the true realization of right view (i.e. anatta and emptiness) in actual experience which dissolves all latent view of self and inherency and source. Therefore dissolving bond of duality does not mean dissolving bond of inherency... and bond of duality is just a subset of bond of inherency. There cannot be liberation when there is still clinging, even to a Self or a Source. Therefore as Thusness said before, without the insights, all form of 'letting go' is another form of holding in disguise. Now your clinging gets subtler and subtler but still it's a clinging... whether as the Watcher, or a non-dual Source or Consciousness, or anything at all! It is not just 'sound like they are worlds apart', but in actual fact they ARE worlds apart... even though as Thusness said, the experiential or phenomenological descriptions may sound 85% similar (say, non-dual vs anatta), yet that 15% is what makes a world of difference. I certainly wouldn't say they are 'deluded Asshole' - but anyone short of Buddhahood is still deluded to a smaller or larger degree - myself not spared since I am also not yet a full complete awakened one, i.e. Buddha (There are different degrees of awakening even on the paths, different bhumis, different paths in the four paths, etc). Yes I am familiar with Nisargadatta's teachings - have his book since a long long time ago. As I said before (maybe not here, not sure), he guides the person to I AM first, then tells them to go beyond it - leading to Thusness Stage 3 (dissolving into nothingness), but does not talk about Anatta realization or even non-dual realization. Still very stage-like. And he sees that nothingness as ultimate reality. I will not say he is free from the extremes - he still posits an eternal absolute reality and true self, though prior to I AM or consciousness, the 'nothingness' prior to everything or the manifest sense of self (but viewed as absolute and inherently existent). The steps are summarized in http://www.prahlad.o...20AWARENESS.htm - as this disciple or student states, first the "I am that I am" (Thusness Stage 1) which comes along with the realization of his universality (Thusness Stage 2 - I Am Everything), then the transcendance of that into the nothingness/the absolute unaware of itsef, prior to that universal mind (Thusness Stage 3). Nisargadatta describes, In that state one does not know that one is. This state is known as ‘Parabrahman’: ‘Brahman’ transcended. ‘Brahman’ is manifest; ‘Parabrahman’ is beyond that, prior to that; the Absolute. Then there are many Advaita and neo-Advaitins that talk about non-dual realization, which is beyond the 'I AM' and even a step further than the 'nothingness', but still it is substantialist viewpoint, i.e. Thusness Stage 4. The very view of a Self leads to clinging no matter how you deny it... No matter how non-conceptual the state is - I AM is non-conceptual, yet with latent dualistic and inherent view, it lends to reification, making a pure identity out of it, which one then tries to constantly abide as. With the right kind of contemplation they can get into non-dual... but without right view of anatta and emptiness, they will not go beyond that. On the other hand, many simply get stuck in I AM for decades or the whole life without even getting beyond that... it is quite common actually. Therefore right pointers are necessary for progress usually.

Funny... cos Tibetans are the ones who place a lot more emphasis on Right View (due to strong Madyamika influence) than some of the Zennists I see (but many Zen Buddhist also place importance on the View). There is no fundamental difference between Mahayana and Theravada - Mahayana emphasizes more about compassion, however, does not neglect the core which is the elimination of afflictions and liberation. The only real compassion comes from realizing your true nature, so you understand the condition of all other sentient beings and thereby spontaneously work for their liberation. As Tibetan Buddhist Loppon Namdrol states, Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person. The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on. The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom. Also, Real bodhicitta comes from realizing your nature. The rest is just contrived bullshit conceptual bodhicitta that is of no use at all. ... Uncontrived bodhicitta is based on one's personal experience of the nature of the mind, and from that stems limitless compassion for others. What I am saying is that intellectually cultivated bodhicitta is next to useless. .... (Contrived bodhicitta is) Completely inauthentic and not connected at all to sentient beings real situation, which is that they are suffering because they do not know their own nature. All the contrived conceptual wishful thinking about how nice it would be to save sentient beings does not help them, or oneself, even one little bit. I am not saying "don't be nice to people" -- of course one should be nice. But one shouldn't paint being decent with religious fantasies. .... we are not talking about mind training -- at least I am not. I am talking about fake bodhicitta. It is better for people to admit that they don't want to attain buddhahood for all sentient beings if in fact they really do not have that kind of compassion. Otherewise, bodhicitta just turns into a bunch pious foppery.

Actually what's so stressful about this? You just need some faith in the Buddha, have right understanding along with right practice, and the right view is what liberates. It does not bind, it is not just a belief (well after realization it is no longer a belief), it is what liberates. Ultimately right view is no view - the absence of all wrong views, all views, all proliferations. The Buddha taught about 62 wrong views - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html - but there is no reason to get stressed about the apparently large number of wrong views simply because just one decisive realization is enough to dissolve all views all at once. For example when you realize anatta - no self, none of the 62 wrong views can survive... because all of the wrong views are just some form of self-view one way or another. You don't have to 'tackle' each view one by one provided you just have right understanding and then contemplate, and realize. So I really see no reason to get stressed about it... in actual fact having right view is nothing truly difficult or stressful. I'm surprised you didn't see the importance of right view in the sutras you read... as obviously, this is one of the central things of Buddhism. As Namdrol says: "View is more important than practice. That's why we are Buddhist and not Hindus." "Meditation without a correct view is an incorrect meditation." I personally will say, view and meditation are all damn important. But indeed there is a reason why the Buddha himself placed Right View at the top of the Noble Eightfold Path and commented, "Bhikkhus, here right view is foremost." He further said, "Monks, when right view is supported by five factors, it has awareness-release as its fruit, awareness-release as its reward; it has discernment-release as its fruit, discernment-release as its reward. Which five? "There is the case where right view is supported by virtue, supported by learning, supported by discussion, supported by tranquillity, supported by insight. "When supported by these five factors, right view has awareness-release as its fruit, awareness-release as its reward; it has discernment-release as its fruit, discernment-release as its reward." As we can see, right view and successful practice of insight and tranquility are interdependent.

Forgot to add to my previous post: (Hinduism and Monistic traditions is at fault in 41, 42, 43, 44 Some Taoists at fault in 46, 47) While Master Nan is right in pointing out the importance of the path, and I should add in fact the whole point of the path (or of Buddhism) lies in letting go, I will also like to add this by Thusness: "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...." And to those of the "dharma is simple, just let go" thought, he had this to say: "Hi Dawnfirstlight, I see it otherwise. Dharma is deep and profound. Even if we were to search the entire globe, still it is hard to find one that can be completely detached. Try as we may, ‘attachment’ continues to arise. The reason being detachment is not a matter of ‘will’, it is a matter of prajna wisdom and only in Buddhism this is pointed out and for this I am grateful to Buddha. Although it is not right to spout high views, it is also important not to over simplify matters. In my view, if our mind is filled with ‘dualistic and inherent thoughts’, even with utmost sincerity and honesty in practice, there is still no true ‘detachment’. To seeker, As we are so attached to our ‘dualistic and inherent views’, confusions are inevitable and the journey will not be a smooth one. For now, take AEN advice. Be strong! "

No... You are wrong with regards to the 50 skandha demons. They only affect those who *have not* realized the twofold emptiness, not those that have. None of them have realized the twofold emptiness which is why they can still be affected by attachment to states, experiencess, or identify them with I, me, mine. If all states, all skandhas, everything whatsoever is empty, not I, not me, not mine, how can it cause clinging and deviation? One who realizes the twofold emptiness has by definition ascended to the Bodhisattva ground (bhumis). You should read my comments on Shurangama's warning on the higher level mistakes: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html Incidentally in the past, in the I AM stages, I misinterpreted certain passages (also about the unmoving buddha-nature) whose translations tend to sound like I AM-ish accounts... As some confirmation of my experience. But as I progress later I found out that I was far from understanding the true essence of the sutra earlier on. You can search "shurangama" in my ebook: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

The establishing of any form of metaphysical essence is going to cause clinging... And it will not be apparent until you have passed through them into deeper phases of insights. This has beeen my experience. Anyway, Tao should be understood as "flow".

1. And 2.: actually what I meant was that the realization does not leave traces, there is no "object of realization" being clung to. As an example: I realize there is no self, in seeing just the seen no seer, but I do not assert "non-existence" (which is an extreme) as a truth since non-existence is asserted based on a predicate of existence. Therefore, the "no self" here is simply a non-asserting rejection of the view of the existent self, while not asserting new claims such as "non-existence", and in effect there is in seeing only the shapes, colours and forms vividly experienced, no self but also "no no self". Therefore I cannot possibly cling to a "no self", there is just the traceless realization authenticating itself moment by moment in all diverse manifestation - seeing forms, hearing sounds, chop wood, carry water, everything expresses Buddha-nature, primordial purity, enlightenment. This is what Dogen calls practice-enlightenment: you don't practice For enlightenment, your very practice itself expresses enlightenment: in sitting just sitting (zazen) which is the universe sitting - air con humming, cool breeze blowing, in walking just walking, there is nothing the great way does not pervade. No longer do I sit meditation in search for something, as every moment is simply the expression of perfect buddha-nature. There isn't even a "being conscious of" or a need to remind of "no self" - no self, no no self, only the direct, intimate, self-luminous and non-dual sensate world expressing moment by moment as an interdependent and empty process, complete in a single manifestation. And if every moment and manifestation is simply so, what need is there to cling to special state, a previous moment of vision, or a thought like "no self", or anything at all? As what Joan Tollifson once asked Toni Packer if she'd ever had one of those big awakenings where life turns inside out and all identification with the body-mind ceases. Toni replied, "I can't say I had it," she replied. "It's this moment, right now." Dogen also says: "To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." However to answer your question about whether realization is permanent: the answer is yes, just like waking up from a deluded dream you can no longer believe in the monster, or when you realize there never was a real santa claus that you can no longer believe in santa claus, likewise when you realize no self that realization cannot be unseen and the false view is from that point on relinquished. As Dogen says: "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." To your last question: there is no "diamond sutra bodhisattva" as distinct from other kinds of bodhisattvas. The definition of a bodhisattva on the bhumis are generally accepted throughout Mahayana Buddhism. As the glossary states, a 1st bhumi bodhisattva is one who has directly realized the twofold emptiness.

The realization of anatta and emptiness is not the asserting of a new reality, but merely the throwing away of the erroneous views through clear insight. There is in fact no trace or clinging to the realization if one truly realizes, because this is a realization of a non-asserting rejection of a delusion - and not the attainment of something special or ultimate - and therefore not an object that can be clung to. On the other hand, if you only realize the I AM, or what VM calls non-illusory Self or the Present/Presence, that alone is insufficient in overcoming all the latent views of duality and inherency. And as long as false view is not overthrown through the realization of right view, there will always remain traces of clinging. So in short you got the order wrong. You should move on from the I AM realization instead of "moving on" from anatta and emptiness, which is the viewless view that removes all views and traces of clinging.

No. D.T's explanation of shunyata is not in accord with the Buddhist understanding of shunyata. As Thusness told me many many years ago, the problem with D.T.Suzuki is his inclination in conceiving an ontological essence. As long as you have the view of a true existent, there will be a clinging to that. If you conceive an ultimate reality, you will cling to that. This has been my experience and is unmistakeably so. Anyway Buddhism from the start (not just post Siddharthan Buddhist), I.e. From the Buddha's pali teachings, already does not posit an ultimate origin... We speak only of interdependent origination I am not too familiar with Taoist doctrine so I cannot comment... Thusness would have been the right person (but he isn't around though he has a secret account here but rarely ever posts), since he was trained under a Taoist master about two decades ago. He did mentioned before however that Taoist understanding of nothingness and buddhist shunyata are different teachings, but neither is Taoist experience, view or method similar to Hinduism since it talks more about dissolving to nothingness than about realizing the Self. He has since converted to Buddhism, but Taoism remains his second favourite religion (Buddhism the first), then followed by Hinduism. He also likes Christianity (he went to a church and listened to a sermon in recent years and said he would have converted if he was still in his youth) but it is a pity that Christianity (like the bible) has been heavily distorted by political agendas, so it remains his "number 4" in that list. Anyway, gone off topic.

Not exactly. There is ultimately no samsara and no nirvana, it is only spoken of conventionally. Samsara and nirvana is also empty of true existence. When suffering (samsara) is conventionally spoken, nirvana (the end of suffering) is conventionally spoken. But if there is ultimately no suffering (suffering being dream-like, illusory, dependently arisen appearance without substance), then there is also no real cessation (nirvana) of suffering. Therefore samsara and nirvana is also relative truths. Relatively speaking. Since suffering dependently originates from the twelve chains of causation starting with ignorance, the arising of deep wisdom will cut off the chains of ignorance, I and mine making, karma making, clinging and attachment. Since there is no more conditions (e.g. Ignorance) for suffering and afflictions, they stop arising. Since rebirth depends on karma, which depends on ignorance, one who has ended ignorance also no longer makes the conditions for further births in samsara. Samsara is just a label for the human condition under the chain of suffering and ignorance. If you break ignorance, that can no longer be called "samsara". "Samsara" is not a place or even a thing, it is simple the state or condition of someone who is deluded and suffering, and that designation no longer applies for one who is awakened and liberated.

Of course there is no "belief, faith, etc" in I AM. I already said it is **nonconceptual** Presence-existence-consciousness, just an undeniable timeless beingness/presence/consciousness however you want to describe it. And when I said "non-conceptual" I mean it literally. There is just this undivided, non-conceptual, direct, immediate pure-presence-existence that is shining vividly and undeniably. And although it seems like final realization, since it is complete in itself, it is not. Because non conceptuality is not enough to remove subtle *latent* ingrained views and framework and this, you do not see. It will only become apparent when further insights unfold.

It is the end of samsara (the world of suffering and delusion), but it does not mean a denial, rejection, or disssociation of the world. Here Zen teacher and academic David Loy may clarify: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/david.htm That saṁsāra is nirvāṇa is a major tenet of Mahāyāna philosophy. "Nothing of saṁsāra is different from nirvāṇa, nothing of nirvāṇa is different from saṁsāra. That which is the limit of nirvāṇa is also the limit of saṁsāra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So Nāgārjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvāṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Saṁsāra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvāṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Mādhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirvāṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogācāra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth. But if, as Buddhism claims, there never was an "I, " how can "I" experience dualistically? The answer, of course, is that "I" do not experience dualistically; the sense of duality is only an illusion, since all experience is and always was nondual.

An arhat achieves nirvana with remainder while alive: freed from mental suffering, ignorance, afflictions, craving, anger, fear, sorrow, attachments, and so on. Yet his senses are fully functional. The arhat after physical passing is "nirvana without remainder", nirvana means cessation, means ceased without remainder. While nirvana with remainder means, well, cessation of afflictions with remainder of body-mind. Especially for Mahayana the goal is not just personal salvation but to be liberated and yet stay in this world to save sentient beings out of compassion. The problem does not lie in senses, mind or body but in ignorance and attachments. If you are liberated, you attain nirvana even in the midst of life.

Vm: .as xabir has not experienced Presence, This is what I disagree and you refuse to see

an arhat achieves nirvana with remainder while alive: freed from mental suffering, ignorance, afflictions, craving, anger, fear, sorrow, attachments, and so on. Yet his senses are fully functional. The arhat after physical passing is "nirvana without remainder", nirvana means cessation, means ceased without remainder. While nirvana with remainder means, well, cessation of afflictions with remainder of body-mind. Especially for Mahayana the goal is not just personal salvation but to be liberated and yet stay in this world to save sentient beings out of compassion.

I think one of the first things Eckhart said was about false notions of creator. Your blanket labelling of theism on non-theist (including traditions like Advaita) is completely, utterly irrelevant. In your ignorance you think Hinduism is theistic whereas in reality there is no such thing as a "Hinduism" because "Hinduism" is just a label given by the Islamic invaders for a large number of traditions that takes Vedas as authority but are extremely dissimilar in philosophy and doctrine, many contradicting each other. Theistic Hinduism is only one part of the religions - there are many non-theistic schools of Hinduism including but not limited to Advaita Vedanta. And this is something Seth Ananda already told you but you just failed to listen. Which makes me wonder why I bothered to repeat again...

I don't have much interest in continuing a debate... And I think neither does he. Just want to share this URL with vmarco as I think it is good for contemplation: http://www.joantollifson.com/writing1.html

??? Completely off topic and irrelevant to this discussion. If you don't see value in my insights then too bad. I can't be bothered - I only share (as some may benefit from it) but what others think of it is none of my business.

The problem with you is that your religious studies (probably more connected with theism) have resulted in your blanket "oh this is theism" on every religious person, tradition... And your life experience doesn't seem to help that much in this regard. And this is what you need to decondition yourself if you are ever to free yourself from ignorant notions about the other traditions. Obviously, you are unable to see teachings like Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism or even Samkhya which has nothing to do with theism, creation, or a creator - they are simply teaching the same-same Pure Presence you experience (and don't give me quotes from unreliable sources to support your strawman brahman). Obviously most people are just theists in your particular Western society (not mine - I am Asian) or have simple minded belief about God, but certainly Not All. In fact is it hilarious to even think I could be accused of Theism - joke of the year... You are truly an incorrigible pigeon-holer. It just shows how much your conditioning is distorting your perception of others with your blanket "they are all just theists"... Preventing you from ever understanding what the other party is talking about. You are unable to see, as Seth Ananda have said, a wide spectrum of practices and views due to your blanket "oh its just theism" or "oh its just alaya" on everything. I, For one, am not a believer of theism, god, creator, creation or whatever. Never have I ever held such views in my life, ever. I do not come from a Christian or theistic background. In fact, I do not even hold your eternalist view of a "non-illusory Self" (Thusness Stage 1) - the views get refined as insights unfold without denying or rejecting the luminous clarity. It is not like clear light is denied (how can it be), only that false views about it, and its relationship with all transient phenomenon gets transformed as the path of insight unfolds... Eventually you will realize the true meaning of the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. What you realized as Pure Presence is merely one aspect pertaining to the non-conceptual mind realm (the nonconceptual pure presence, existence, beingness, consciousness) which you then reify into a non phenomenal noumenon... You are still unable to see the one taste of clear light in all perceptions and phenomena, the deconstruction of observer-observed duality, the truth of anatta and emptiness. If you do not open your mind and choose to remain close minded... There can't be progress. So you still have much unlearning to do and you need to become more openminded before the further phases of insights can arise... I can say from experience the Pure Presence is just the first step. And the path has nothing to do with "intellectual masturbation" but are real insights into what is always already the case - only not discovered for so long. It is about deconstructing your false views that are distorting your perception even after countless glimpses of the pure presence you experienced. Its good you have faith in Buddha, but without going through all the Thusness Seven Stages you will not correctly understand how is it that Buddhism differs from other teachings. P.s. Talking to you is like this: Me: the apple I just ate is sweet. You: no what you ate is not apple it is pear, only I have real apple, and you are a theist believer. Me: no I don't believe in god, and what I ate is in fact an apple. You: no only theists (??) would mistake a pear for an apple... Blah blah blah

Again, I insist, I have experienced the same Pure Presence you are talking about, and you are always making your fake strawman about Brahman (and your fabricated strawmans "a myriad of special, bliss-like dimensions, where you could be a god" are just laughably irrelevant) that simply don't represent what Thusness or what Advaita is really talking about. And anyone who reads Thusness Stage 1 with unbiased mind will be able to see that they are the same. It is just the same-same non-conceptual timeless Pure Presence, the pure consciousness-existence-presence that so many are talking about. Even the Eckhart Tolle - author of The Power of Now - equates the Now with "I AM" in his own words. But you just like to play with words, such as "it is not I AM but the non-illusory Self" which are actually just two different words for the same thing. And if you put aside your fabricated strawman version of Brahman and just talk to a Hindu about your experience, I am sure they will see a lot in common, as this great article ( http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx ) states: "If you have understood what I have written above, it is easy to understand why when Ringo Tulku presented the Shentong view in an Indian symposium, all the Hindu Indian scholars happily agreed with it and told him happily, “This is the same view as our Vedanta!.” Also, a few centuries ago, Jonangpa Kunga Drol Chog, a throne holder of the Jonangpa, had visited Muktinàth, where he presented his views to the Hindu yogis present there. These Hindu yogis also called him a genuine Hindu yogi after they heard his Shentong view." ... "If the Ultimate View of Buddhism is Shentong, why did thousands of Brahmins from the time of the Buddha until the 12th – 13thcenturies, become Buddhists and refute the Hindu view as wrong? Many of them were brilliant Hindu / Vedic scholars before they became Buddhists. How could all of these scholars uphold the Shentong view while refuting the view of the Upanishads, if they were saying the same thing? Shenphen Hookham says, “They have their own view and we have our own, so what’s wrong if they are the same?” This implies that the views are the same. Do all the Shentongpas agree to her reply? If they do agree with her then were all the scholars like Candarakãrti, Jñànagarbha, Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla, Ratnakarashànti, Bhavaviveka, Buddhapàlita, Sàntideva, Prajñàkaramati, and thousands of others just fools to refute the Hindu âtmà view of the Upanishads and become Buddhists?" Next... Obviously you have no idea what the realization of an Arhat is. And never have I suggested that the Arhat is one who is of the I AM stage realization, or your realization. Why? The Arhat is one who already realizes anatta, or emptiness of self. In fact even a stream entry has already realized this. This realization corresponds to Thusness Stage 5. Then what about Bodhisattva? A 1st bhumi bodhisattva is defined as one who realizes the twofold emptiness - the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena: the latter corresponds to Thusness Stage 6 realization. The first emptiness: the emptiness of a subjective self, agent (perceiver/controller/doer/thinker), soul, being, within or apart from the five aggregates. One sees that the framework that "a seer is seeing the seen" is delusional, I.e.in seeing always just the experience of the seen, colours, shapes and forms without a seer. One realizes that a subjective self is illusory. Emptiness of phenomena means each of the five aggregates does not have objective existence. There is no formness in form, no substance of thought, etc. So they are appearing but empty, illusory like a magician's trick, like a mirage, a dream. Here is an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary site on the definition of twofold Emptiness: Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the ātman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood. ... One last thing before I move on to the next point - your statement "Over and over the Buddha described Arhats as still holding on to the notion of an ego, a personality, a being and a life." Is wrong. Instead this is what the Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, what do you think, can an Arhat have the thought, 'Have I attained the Way of the Arhat?'" Subhuti said, "No World Honored One. Why? Actually there is no dharma called 'Arhat.' World Honored One, if an Arhat had the thought, 'I have attained the Way of the Arhat,' that would be an attachment to self, others, living beings and to a life." I don't see how this statement can be misunderstood as it is as clear as daylight - unless you were not reading with two eyes open. It clearly states that an arhat does not have self-view and self-notions, and if he were to have it, he cannot be called a real arhat. All Buddhists will agree that an arhat is free from conceit or the view and sense of a self, since that is by classical definition what an arhat is about - realizing and perfecting the realization and experience of the truth of no-self, all defilements and afflictions stemming from self-view and conceit are destroyed. Also you said "I recall Buddha saying once that as began to discuss the nature of reality the Arhats who were there collapsed from the shock,...and thus unable to hear what was being pointed to. " While it is true some Mahayana sutras may have chosen to present things this way, they are not historical occurences as only the Pali canon of scriptures present the historical account of Buddha and the arhats - the Mahayana sutras are latter days visionary accounts of unknown masters and so are metaphorical and not something that truly occurred in the historical sense, and anyway real arhats cannot even experience the slightest shock or fear much less faint from it, but I disgress as the issue of the origin of Mahayana sutras and Vajrayana tantras has been discussed in details in this thread: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 and http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434746 Next issue I want to address is your notion of four turnings. While not denying the validity of them, they must be understood in context - in other words you should have a firm understanding of each preceding turning before understanding the next, otherwise your understanding will be no different from the non-Buddhist. As Thusness have told me 6 years ago when I only began to know him: the Buddha is not here to teach some minor aspect of our essence, I.e. The luminous clarity/luminosity, as that is already done in the Upanishads and the Vedas. Without clearly understanding and realizing anatta and emptiness, the luminosity will be grasped wrongly and turned into the Ultimate Self. Buddhism does not deny the luminous clarity, but through the realization of the twofold emptiness we relinquish all grasping including the reification of the "Presence" into an Ultimate Self. Luminous clarity is not "empty of other but truly exists as a Self" like the Shentong thought: rather luminous clarity is empty of any truly existent self. It is neither intrinsic emptiness nor extrinsic emptiness - both are extreme views. And we do not reify luminosity and presence-awareness into some ultimate non-phenomenal noumenon, and due to nondual insight we see the one taste in all sense perceptions and thoughts - what the Mahamudra masters keep talking about. Also, I see that you like to quote Mahamudra masters, but you should understand that Mahamudra masters always talk about the emptiness of the nature of mind. No Mahamudra master that I know reify reality the way you do like the extreme shentongpas (some Mahamudra masters teach shentong but it is a very mild version without falling much into great faults of eternalism). And the great Mahasiddhas always sing about the emptiness of mind, such as what 3rd Karmapa said: "Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind. Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever. Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut." And like what the sutras stated: "Thus, there is no mind in the mind, but the nature of the mind is luminous-clarity (prabhāsvarā)." While the nature of mind is empty of self, nonetheless the unceasing stream of luminous display isn't denied. But this is clearly different from some of the Shentong sources you present which interpretes clear light through the eternalist framework. The clear light in the Mahamudra tradition is also taught to be completely empty of self. And anyway the Prasangika Madhyamika view is held as definitive throughout all four traditions in Vajrayana including Kagyu and Mahamudra (not Shentong or at least not your extreme version of it), the view of Prasangika Madhyamika is philosophically the same with Mahamudra and Dzogchen, except that the latter two systems introduces students to the view not through a series of logical inference or analysis but through direct pointing out into the nature of mind. So while the third and fourth turning talks about luminous mind and introduces the student straight to it, it always goes along with emptiness: luminosity and emptiness is inseparable, and is not emptiness as you understand it, it does not mean emptiness of other. Without right understanding of anatta and emptiness, there is no need for Buddhism at all. P.s. I, simple jack, seth ananda, vajrahridaya, are not into arhat path or hinayana, we study mahayana, vajrayana and the direct path of mahamudra and dzogchen in fact. We just happen not to share your perculiar view of Buddhism (skewed towards a certain shentong view) which we think is extreme and eternalistic. We see clearly that your view is no different from the Hindus... And anyway you also grossly misunderstood what an arhat (or a bodhisattva) have realized. I doubt you will understand nor concur much with what I write (as you yourself said you don't understand the seven stages) so I will just leave it at this for now.

To sereneblue: so again as you can see, vmarco refuses to see what the "I AM" of the first thusness stage is talking about. It has nothing to do with the "I" of "I think" but is so clearly described as a non-thought, non-conceptual, formless, non-illusory Self or Pure Presence that vmarco is talking about. He just refuses to see it. And by following the "mountain doctrine" or shentong which is just advaita or hinduism doctrine under the guise of buddhism, he has prevented himself from truly understanding the teachings of the Buddha. I AM (what vmarco calls Pure Presence) is an important realization but by no means the final goal or nirvana or liberation of buddhism (though it is very appealing and does appear like liberation), so keep that in mind in your path I am not the only one criticizing vmarco for his failure to see that his realization is no different from the atman-brahman of hinduism or the I AM - others like seth ananda and simple jack and vajrahridaya have said the same. P.s. I have gone through Thusness Seven Stages after knowing Thusness for just a couple of years, nothing like "lifetimes" is required. As I have stated in my ebook, I follow and advise on direct path method. Now, I originally have no intentions to comment on his thread since vmarco's advise is probably helpful and valuable to many readers and I do not wish to sidetrack - but since you brought up the Thusness seven stages, I felt I should comment to prevent misunderstandings. Now let's get back to vmarco's topic.

Vmarco is only describing the first stage despite him not wishing to see it this way.