xabir2005

Quoting the Buddha and others is perfectly fine since they address my point rather than me typing out everything. I am not interested in re-typing things again. Sorry, I don't have much time.

Different contexts. Anyway one of the subjects in the URL I showed you - Prahlad Jnani, who is still living, was being studied by the Indian authorities. Obviously they didn't think he is a fake.

The point is you need to have correct view, i.e. anatta, d.o., etc. Without that you will not be awakened.

I'm saying that brain waves are not thoughts. Brain waves are related to thoughts, but are not thoughts. Just like smoke is related to fire, but not fire. You cannot locate thoughts this way.

Real in the sense of what I said means truly existing, truly 'there' or 'here', substantial, with core, or having the characteristic of permanence, unchanging, inherent (having an essence in itself), independent existence. There is no ultimate reality, but clearly and undeniably, the knowing and appearance is manifesting - but not reified as 'real' - as in inherent, existing, graspable. Anyway when you see a movie, the things you see are not truly real - or like special effects, computer animation and so on, it looks real but isn't really real - or like dreams, magical illusions, which looks real but isn't really real - a merely dependently originated and empty, insubstantial, illusory appearance. Can't deny appearance, but cannot reify as 'real'. His understanding about emptiness is still theoretical, he has not given rise to direct experiential realization. Before I realized anatta and emptiness, even at the I AM and non-dual stages, I already had some conceptual or theoretical understanding about the teachings of anatta and emptiness. But I was unable to 'see' it. The truth of anatta must be realized directly, then the 'One Mind' is deconstructed.

Namdrol: Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha. And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years. Mahayana sutras were almost certainly later compositions. Tantras later than that. But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths. All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.

Existence means existence of 'something'. An entity must be established to have some reality in order for it to be existent, then become non-existent. The Buddha: ..."What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?" "No, lord." "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." So through this analysis, we discover there is no Self of the tathagata, for it to be existent, non-existent etc. This analysis with regards to Self can be applied to phenomena as well (therefore twofold emptiness: emptiness of persons/subjective self, and emptiness of objects) - if phenomena dependently originates, this is to say there is no core or substance of anything that is unaffected by causality - as such this arises, that arises, this ceases, that ceases, everything is entirely causal without some 'causally unaffected substance'. The analysis can go even into atoms and so on (some people may think that gross objects are dependent but the elements are truly existent - in fact as Namdrol states, this is "the primary difference between Buddhist schools was in how far down they were willing to extend that analysis. The non-Mahāyāna schools stopped at paramanus i.e. "atoms"; the Mahāyāna Yogacara school stopped at consciousness. Madhyamaka extended its analysis all the way and came up with emptiness as the basis of reality i.e. that in the end, reality has no objective basis whatsoever"). So as Namdrol said: Molecules are made of atoms which are made of electrons and protons, etc. By stopping at the salt molecule, you are making precisely the mistake Madhyamakas criticized Sarvastivadins for making i.e. arbitrarily stopping your analysis at a false level of irreducibility. And earlier explained, And at the end of the day, we will still be left with the fact that all of these so called "things" are just imputations of identity onto impermanent collections, which themselves are composed of still further impermanent collections. So whatever clinging we have to any impermanent collection whether internal or external in terms of identity is certain to lead to suffering. This is the point of Madhyamaka i.e. to demonstrate that the beleif that attributions of identity onto impermanent collections are anything more than mere conventions is a delusion. Of course these conventions work, but they are no more real than the habit of the "I" we attribute to our personal collection of aggregates. The habit of "I" certainly works, but that "I" is not real. The imputation of salt onto a given collection we have chosen to call salt "works" but the "salt" can't be found apart from the imputation we make onto that collection so we can use it effectively. The problem most laypeople have with the MMK is that people rarely are acquainted with the views that MMK is seeking to correct. Without understanding Abhidharma, most of the arguments in the MMK will seem rather pointless if not obscure in the extreme. Some people mistakenly think that MMK is a panacea -- when it fact it is rather narrow text with a rather narrow project i.e. to correct Abhidharma realism and bring errant Abhidharmikas back to a proper understanding of dependent origination and help them to abandon a kind of naive essentialism that had crept into Buddhism. Madhyamaka as a whole is an excercise in trying to introduce people to the real meaning of dependent origination i.e. the emptiness of persons and phenomena based in the Buddha's observation that statements about existence and non-existence were at odds with the real meaning of dependent origination. Since there are no permanent phenomena, claims for the existence and non-existence of phenomena are completely naive on anything other than a conventional level. So you can keep insisting that salt harms snails as much as you like. Since you are making a conventional statement you are not going to get any complaint from me, but if you assert that there is saltiness in salt, for example, you have only two courses -- mire yourself in the myriad contradictions of asserting that there is an essence of salt or simply accede the point that "salt" is a conventional identity proposition that is at best a functional imputation and nothing more than that. N p.s. such analysis is still inferred, and if you wish to come to a realization of it, you may have to practice according to the contemplative traditions - whether it is Vipassana, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, etc.

I have read this news. I am not surprised and think that it might be possible to refine that technology to be of good use in the future. Mind and matter are highly interconnected, but it doesn't mean mind = matter, thought = brain, or mind is located in brain.

Modern examples here: http://www.amazingabilities.com/index.html

Btw greg goode books are about nondual, one mind. Not really about anatta but has deep clarity about nondual realization. He is coming out with a new book soon.

You should talk to more trained expert yogis. http://vajranotes.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/magic-milarepa-passing-through-solids/ The scholar launches in by asking: “Does this rock have solidity?” (Scholars are prone to ask such questions, imagining that these issues are highly consequential.) The scholar expects Milarépa to be ignorant of the logical analysis that pertains to such questions. He is therefore surprised and not a little put out when Melarépa answers: “No.” Undeterred, the scholar says: “But this is nonsense! See for yourself!” and taps the rock with his staff to prove his case. Milarépa simply passes his hand through the rock as if it were not there, and says: “See no reason to believe in the existence of this rock.” The scholar is quite taken aback by Milarépa’s powers, but his arrogance gets the better of him and he concludes that this must be some kind of trickery on Milarépa part. So the scholar then waves his hand through the air, asking: “Does this space have solidity?” Milarépa replies: “Yes”, and proceeds to beat on the air so loudly with the scholar”s stick, that the man has to cover his ears for the din. At this point the scholar realises that he has made some sort of error. He sees that he was rather badly mistaken in assuming he could best Milarépa in an intellectual debate. He is all the more impressed when Milarépa shows no sign at all of being jubilant about his own victory. ..... yadave wrote: People, hummingbirds, and snails must all "go around the tree" to get to the other side. Words and perceptions may differ, but the "tree" is real in this sense and no personal hubris of mine causes this to be so. Namdrol: But some people don't. yadave: Namdrol, are you saying some people go through the tree, as in walking through a wall? Regards, Dave. Namdrol: One day Candrakirti was walking through a passageway in Nalanda, his head in a book, and he bumped his head on a pillar -- a student saw this and said "Aha! That pillar is not so empty, is it!". Candra looked at him, and passed his hand right through the pillar much to the student's embarassed astonishment. Or so this traditional story runs. Of course there is kashina meditation -- ostensibly, if you meditate on the kashina of earth, you gain control over the earth element and can travel through mountains, etc. It is my opinion that the apparent solidity of phenomena such as trees and rocks, etc., is directly related to the solidity of one's delusion. The more solid one's delusion, the more solid apparent phenomena seem. On the other hand, people with very solid delusions regularly kill themselves too, through not recognizing that solid things will kill them, like the ground when they attempt to fly off buildings. But is said also in the suttas that the Buddha once levitated to an elevation of 14 palm trees. Such yogic feats are described too often in Buddhist texts generation after generation for me to simply reject them out of hand. N

@sereneblue: one more point, even though accumulating merits and cultivating virtue is important, that in itself is insufficient for gaining enlightenment. Also, trying to stop thoughts itself will not bring enlightenment. Even if your thoughts stop, it is merely a temporary state of tranquility, not the realization of the nature of reality. In order to attain realization, awakening and then liberation, you need to practice contemplation. This may include methods like self-inquiry or vipassana (but these two can lead to somewhat different insights). In other words, insight meditation is important. As Thusness said before: Participant 1: Yeah I think so. This means that I still need to do insight meditation? Thusness: Yes you have to do insight meditation. Even if you attain calmness you still have to do insight meditation. You must feel the awareness... You must sense it everywhere... That is very important for liberation... Etc (continued in http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/262408 )

First you need to understand what is the realization of I AM or Atman. It is that in a transcendental moment without concepts, one discovers the pure presence-beingness, a pure sense of existence, which is undeniably present and conscious. In that moment of realization there is no reifying it into a purest identity, but due to latent framework of seeing inherently and dualistically, that Pure Presence is taken as a purest identity and reified into something like an Eternal Witness. Then later one discovers that the subject/object framework of seeing reality is false, that there never has been a subject object, observer-observed dichotomy. At this point every perception and sensation is experienced as Pure Presence and Awareness. But even though one has overcome the dualistic framework due to nondual realization, because one still cannot overcome the view of an inherent self, one still subsumes everything to be One Mind, One Naked Awareness - like an inherently existing mirror inseparable from and manifesting itself as all its reflections. There is no witness/witnessed dichotomy, but Awareness is seen as inherent. Then comes the realization that there is no seer-seeing-see, there is no self, no agent, never was and never is. In seeing always just the scenery, shapes, colours, the process of seeing without a seer. Same goes for hearing, thinking, etc. At this point one realizes no subjective self, but objects may still be seen as inherent, until one realizes the emptiness of phenomena. So you can see that each level of realization includes and transcends the previous realization. The next realization does not deny a previous realization and experience, but refines the view. So the masters have said before, "keep the experience but refine the view." For example non-dual realization does not deny the non-conceptual beingness and presence experienced in the gap between thoughts, but understands it is merely one aspect of consciousness pertaining to the mind realm, and actually all manifestations, seeing, hearing, smelling etc are equally pure consciousness without subject/object dichotomy. Hence this takes away the specialness and ultimacy of I AM-ness but seeing the one taste or single flavor of all manifestations - I AM is no more I AM than a sound or a sight. Then the next realization, anatta, sees that there is no self, while not rejecting the previous insight of no subject-object division (if in seeing just the seen no seer, non-dual is already implicit) but further deconstructs the view of an inherent self or awareness into its constituents streams of cognizance or manifestation arising from the various sense doors, so in effect it is realized that the process itself rolls and knows without a knower. By the way realization of anatta and emptiness is not an experience - it is a realization that there never was or is a self or an object of phenomena. In seeing just the seen, no seer, always has been the case. It is not an inferred conclusion, or a mere experience, but a realization that this has always been so - there is no self right from the beginning, self is merely learnt, a deluded framework. In other words no-self is not a state or a thing you find, but a delusion that you permanently see through in a moment of realization, like waking up from a dream, or discovering that santa claus isn't real, or the likes. I do not agree with Ken Cohen's view that sensual reality is real/existing. Appearance cannot be denied but is empty. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. "Though the knowing part manifests individually without ceasing [mkhyen pa’i cha ma ‘gag par so sor gsal kyang] since compassion is present as the wisdom of vidyā [thugs rje rig pa’i ye shes su bzhugs pas], the aspect of action and agent [bya ba dang byed pa’i rnam] appearing as [du snang ba] an object and a subject [yul yul can] does not exist." - Kongtrul (Compassion here means something like unceasing manifestation/appearances)

Indeed faith is very important. Only by relying on faith of a truly enlightened master, studying and practicing the teachings seriously, can one be expected to attain true enlightenment and liberation. Even today after having some direct realization non-dependent on faith, I have faith in certain things. For example anamatva talks about invoking higher powers. I, too, invoke on higher powers - especially the Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva (Guan Yin) and it is my experience and belief that it is highly effective. So even though I have never personally met or saw Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, I have faith in him/her. Higher powers do not necessarily need to respond only to the "correct name" so to speak. Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva can also help and respond to someone who believes in a creator God, for example. But if you have right view and understand that there is no creator God, then in that case just chanting "namo guan shi yin pu sa" would suffice. The Lotus Sutra chapter 25 states: http://www.fodian.ne...ld/0262_25.html "The Buddha told Inexhaustible Intention Bodhisattva, "Good man, if living beings in this land must be saved by means of someone in the body of a Buddha, Guanshiyin Bodhisattva will manifest in the body of a Buddha and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Pratyekabuddha, he will manifest in the body of a Pratyekabuddha and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Hearer, he will manifest in the body of a Hearer and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of the Brahma King, he will manifest in the body of the Brahma King and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of Shakra, he will manifest in the body of Shakra and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of the God of Sovereignty, he will manifest in the body of the God of Sovereignty and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of the Great God of Sovereignty, he will manifest in the body of the Great God of Sovereignty and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a great heavenly general, he will manifest in the body of a great heavenly general and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of Vaishravana, he will manifest in the body of Vaishravana and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a minor king, he will manifest in the body of a minor king and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of an Elder, he will manifest in the body of an Elder and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a layman, he will manifest in the body of a layman and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a minister of state, he will manifest in the body of a minister of state and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Brahman, he will manifest in the body of a Brahman and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Bhikshu, Bhikshuni, Upasaka, or Upasika, he will manifest in the body of a Bhikshu, Bhikshuni, Upasaka, or Upasika and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of the wife of an Elder, of a layman, of a minister of state, or of a Brahman, he will manifest in a wife's body and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a pure youth or a pure maiden, he will manifest in the body of a pure youth or pure maiden and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a heavenly dragon, yaksha, gandharva, asura, garuda, kinnara, mahoraga, human, or nonhuman, and so forth, he will manifest in such a body and speak Dharma for them. "If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Vajra-wielding spirit, he will manifest in the body of a Vajra-wielding spirit and speak Dharma for them. "Inexhaustible Intention! Guanshiyin Bodhisattva has accomplished merit and virtue such as this and, in all manner of forms, roams throughout the land, saving and liberating living beings. "Therefore you should all single-mindedly make offerings to Guanshiyin Bodhisattva. Guanshiyin Bodhisattva Mahasattva can, in the midst of fear, crisis, and hardship, bestow fearlessness. That is why in this Saha world all call him the "Bestower of Fearlessness." "

Sincere repentance to the triple gems is said to be an effective method to purify karma. Other methods in the Vajrayana tradition includes Vajrasattva purification. http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol6no2c.htm http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/tantra/level1_getting_started/vajrasattva_purification_basics.html

@wowee: I don't know if you believe in karma, but for your own sake I hope you avoid making such unwholesome mental and speech karma. Even though karma is ultimately empty and illusory, the conventionally observed efficacy of karma cannot be denied on that level. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.03.than.html "Once, monks, in this very Rajagaha, Suppabuddha the leper was the son of a rich money-lender. While being escorted to a pleasure park, he saw Tagarasikhi the Private Buddha going for alms in the city. On seeing him, he thought, 'Who is this leper prowling about?' Spitting and disrespectfully turning his left side to Tagarasikhi the Private Buddha, he left. As a result of that deed he boiled in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, many hundreds of thousands of years. And then as a result of that deed he became a poor, miserable wretch of a person in this very Rajagaha. But on encountering the Dhamma & Discipline made known by the Tathagata, he acquired conviction, virtue, learning, relinquishment, & discernment. Having acquired conviction, virtue, learning, relinquishment, & discernment on encountering the Dhamma & Discipline made known by the Tathagata, now — on the break-up of the body, after death — he has reappeared in a good destination, the heavenly world, in company with the devas of the heaven of the Thirty-three. There he outshines the other devas both in beauty & in glory."

@luckystrikes: when I say emptiness, or no inherent existence, I don't mean rejecting the notion of existents as having some intrinsic, independent, consistently stable or unchanging essence only. Like you said, generally nobody sees the world as having intrinsic... Etc essence. It is not just "no inherent existence" but "no existence" (or any of the extremes). Likewise when we say "no independent self" or "no unchanging self", it doesn't just mean that since it could be taken as meaning "so there is a self, albeit dependent, or albeit changing". It doesn't mean "the seer exists but depends on the seen" but rather it is "there is no seer". We realize that there never was or is a self. So what is really meant here is "no self". "No independent, unchanging self" is just an extended pointer but the main point is really no self. Same goes for emptiness of phenomena - emptiness really means no existing phenomena (and also no non-existence, etc). It is the view of existents that cause suffering. The ordinary mother will grieve after her son's death. Why? Because there is the view of I - subjective self, and mine, the objective possession of self, which includes objects of craving like "my son" seen as truly existent. Even though the son is known as being impermanent rather than everlasting (so no "unchanging self"), the view of existence itself, and the posessiveness and craving after that object, is what causes suffering and clinging. And the investigation and realization is really about discovering no self and no truly existent phenomena. Related notes: "The difference is that for Tsongkhapa, conventional truths are able to withstand ultimate analysis since all that is being analyzed is the subtle object of negation, inherent existence, not the existence, of a conventional truth. For Gorampa, they can not, since no phenonena can survive examination via the course object of negation, existence. Gorampa accepts that Candrakiriti specifically identifies (in the Prasannapāda) a subtle object of negation, but according to Gorampa, it is just a formal identification since inherent existence is automatically eliminated when existence itself is analyzed. According to Tsongkhapa, what is being misperceived by sentient beings in conventional truths is the inherent existence of conventional truths i.e. he claims that when an ordinary person sees a chair, they are seeing an inherently existent chair. However, Tsongkhapa also claims that ordinary sentient beings are incapable of distinguishing between mere existence and inherent existence. Gorampa points out that Tsongkhapa's first assertion is untrue, since inherent existences does not appear, and Tsongkhapa's second assertion is self-contradictory, sentient being only see existences, not inherent existences. Tsongkhapa replies that conventional truths are linguistic entities, mental imputations, and that therefore, the notion of inherent existence is embedded in all imputations of conventional truth. Gorampa counters that this interpretation of conventional truth is faulty, since in fact relative truths are first and foremost appearances to a deluded mind, and what such a deluded mind grasps is not a truly existent object, but rather a merely existing object, and imputations of inherency are confined to the philosophical speculations of scholars, not the naive imputations of ordinary persons such as Chai wallas, who would never imagine their tea cups had some intrinsic nature that made them teacups. So, at base, a large part of the disagreement hinges on how these two masters understand conceptual operations in sentient beings and what they understand Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita and Candrakirti to be saying about such conceptual operations. This is why Tsongkhapa places such importance on seperating and identifying the correct object of negation, and why Gorampa thinks that such an effort misses the point and is unnecessary, since the coarse object of negation is sufficient for removing wrong views via the classic tetralemma (in ordinary persons -- awakened persons have no need of the caturskoti). N"

The point is that sentient beings conceive things in terms of 'existence' and 'non-existence', even if the 'existence' is not seen as having some sort of 'unchanging, independent, etc' existence.... nonetheless it is still taken as 'it is there', 'it is', 'exists'. To very view of 'it-ness' is the existence or inherent view I talk about. Dependent origination is what removes the view of 'existence' and 'non-existence', just as Buddha said: "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. Chair is dependent on various factors - without space there can be no chair, or if the planet heats up by 5000 degrees the chair will also indeed disappear, and so on. Of course the heating up is not likely to happen, which is why the phenomena you label as 'chair' is likely to appear consistent for some time, yet it does not mean there is independent existence without supporting conditions. Not really. Even their 'understanding' of conventions are completely spontaneous and non-conceptual. The conventions are totally non-conceived. Such thoughts do not land in the awakened consciousness. SN 1.25 PTS: S i 14 CDB i 102 Araha.m Sutta: The Arahant translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe © 2007–2012 The Pali title of this sutta is based on the PTS (Feer) edition. [Deva:] He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits? [The Blessed One:] Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.[1] That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.[2] Notes 1. Ya.m mata.m: "whatever is thought." Mrs Rhys Davids's emendation of yamata.m in the text (paraphrased as "conceits and deemings of the errant mind," following the Commentarial maññana.m "imagining"). 2. Cf. DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them."

The appearance of road, the appearance of car, and the appearance of car accident are all illusory, magical emanations. As Nāgārjuna states: "Why? This action does not arise from conditions, and does not arise without conditions, therefore, there is also no agent. If there is no agent, how can there be an result which arises from an action? If there is no result, where will a consumer be observed? Just as the Teacher's emanation is emanated through his consummate magical power, if likewise the emanation also makes an emanation, there is again a further emanation; in same the way, though that agent performs an action, it has the form an emanation. For example, it is like another emanation created by an emanation making a [third] emanation. Affliction, actions, bodies, agents, and results are like fairy castles mirages, and dreams.

As my friend (and 'student' of Thusness) Simpo said, There are actually 2 significant events: 1. In the 1980s when i was a teenager, i sat down to meditate for the first time. I experienced great bliss. In this meditation, i experienced 'no ultimate right or wrong' aka non-judgemental and is soaked in a vast ocean of bliss for a few days. Haha... i thought i was enlightened. On hindsight now, i know that i was not. That is why now when people write about non-dual to meant 'no right/wrong' I know which stage they are at. 2. In the 1990s, i join a meditation class that held sessions every Sunday at a Buddhist temple. I was learning one-point meditation. One afternoon when i was meditating at home, all the sensory impressions stopped including thoughts. I was in a state of 'No-thoughts'. One may think that when there are no thoughts, one must be unconscious. No there is no unconsciousness. Instead what was being experienced was pure Presence/awareness. However due to not understanding the nature of consciousness and reality, this awareness was experienced as an Eternal Witness/Observer. This is the pure experience of I AM presence. There are further stages of insight and that includes No Self and Emptiness. This is a universal truth and can be investigated, discovered as such.

The importance of Realization I posted in the other thread: No it is not. It is that I have personally realized and verified certain things on my own accord, and such a realization does not depend at all on conditioning, inference, faith, or what not. It is like 'Kensho, Satori' - The mystical experience in Zen is called Satori (wu in Chinese). Satori is that which lies beyond most forms of insights such as those arising from contemplation or via imagery and is a intuitive grasp of the reality "beyond forms." Suzuki says Satori has these characteristics: 1. Irrationality. "By this I mean that satori is not a conclusion to be reached by reasoning, and defies all intellectual determination. Those who have experienced it are always at a loss to explain it coherently or logically." 2. Intuitive Insight. "That there is noetic quality in mystic experiences has been pointed out by (William) James...Another name for satori is "kensho" (chien-hsing in Chinese) meaning "to see essence or nature," which apparently proves that there is "seeing" or "perceiving" in satori...Without this noetic quality satori will lose all its pungency, for it is really the reason of satori itself. " 3. Authoritativeness. "By this I mean that the knowledge realized by satori is final, that no amount of logical argument can refute it. Being direct and personal it is sufficient unto itself. All that logic can do here is to explain it, to interpret it in connection to other kinds of knowledge with which our minds are filled. Satori is thus a form of perception, an inner perception, which takes place in the most interior part of consciousness. 4. Affirmation. "What is authoritative and final can never be negative. Though the satori experience is sometimes expressed in negative terms, it is essentially an affirmative attidude towards all things that exist; it accepts them as they come along regardless of their moral values." 5. Sense of the Beyond. "...in satori there is always what we may call a sense of the Beyond; the experience indeed is my own but I feel it to be rooted elsewhere. The individual shell in which my personality is so solidly encased explodes at the moment of satori. Not, necessarily, that I get unified with a being greater than myself or absorbed in it, but that my individuality, which I found rigidly held together and definitely kept separate from other individual existences, becomes lossened somehow from its tightening grip and melts away into something indescribable, something which is of quite a different order from what I am accustomed to. The feeling that follows is htat of complete release or a complete rest---the feeling that one has arrived finally at the destination...As far as the psychology of satori is considered, a sense of the Beyond is all we can say about it; to call this the Beyond, the Absolute, or God, or a Person is to go further than the experience itself and to plunge into a theology or metaphysics." 6. Impersonal Tone. "Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Zen experience is that it has no personal note in it as is observable in Christian mystic experiences." 7. Feeling of exaltation. "That this feeling inevitably accompanies satori is due to the fact that it is the breaking-up of the restrction imposed on one as an individual being, and this breaking up is not a mere negative incident but quite a positive one fraught with signification because it means an infinite expansion of the individual." 8. Momentariness. "Satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience. In fact, if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not satori. Source: Suzuki, D.T. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D.T, Suzuki, (New York: Anchor Books, 1956), pp. 103-108.

No it is not. It is that I have personally realized and verified certain things on my own accord, and such a realization does not depend at all on conditioning, inference, faith, or what not. It is like 'Kensho, Satori' - The mystical experience in Zen is called Satori (wu in Chinese). Satori is that which lies beyond most forms of insights such as those arising from contemplation or via imagery and is a intuitive grasp of the reality "beyond forms." Suzuki says Satori has these characteristics: 1. Irrationality. "By this I mean that satori is not a conclusion to be reached by reasoning, and defies all intellectual determination. Those who have experienced it are always at a loss to explain it coherently or logically." 2. Intuitive Insight. "That there is noetic quality in mystic experiences has been pointed out by (William) James...Another name for satori is "kensho" (chien-hsing in Chinese) meaning "to see essence or nature," which apparently proves that there is "seeing" or "perceiving" in satori...Without this noetic quality satori will lose all its pungency, for it is really the reason of satori itself. " 3. Authoritativeness. "By this I mean that the knowledge realized by satori is final, that no amount of logical argument can refute it. Being direct and personal it is sufficient unto itself. All that logic can do here is to explain it, to interpret it in connection to other kinds of knowledge with which our minds are filled. Satori is thus a form of perception, an inner perception, which takes place in the most interior part of consciousness. 4. Affirmation. "What is authoritative and final can never be negative. Though the satori experience is sometimes expressed in negative terms, it is essentially an affirmative attidude towards all things that exist; it accepts them as they come along regardless of their moral values." 5. Sense of the Beyond. "...in satori there is always what we may call a sense of the Beyond; the experience indeed is my own but I feel it to be rooted elsewhere. The individual shell in which my personality is so solidly encased explodes at the moment of satori. Not, necessarily, that I get unified with a being greater than myself or absorbed in it, but that my individuality, which I found rigidly held together and definitely kept separate from other individual existences, becomes lossened somehow from its tightening grip and melts away into something indescribable, something which is of quite a different order from what I am accustomed to. The feeling that follows is htat of complete release or a complete rest---the feeling that one has arrived finally at the destination...As far as the psychology of satori is considered, a sense of the Beyond is all we can say about it; to call this the Beyond, the Absolute, or God, or a Person is to go further than the experience itself and to plunge into a theology or metaphysics." 6. Impersonal Tone. "Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Zen experience is that it has no personal note in it as is observable in Christian mystic experiences." 7. Feeling of exaltation. "That this feeling inevitably accompanies satori is due to the fact that it is the breaking-up of the restrction imposed on one as an individual being, and this breaking up is not a mere negative incident but quite a positive one fraught with signification because it means an infinite expansion of the individual." 8. Momentariness. "Satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience. In fact, if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not satori. Source: Suzuki, D.T. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D.T, Suzuki, (New York: Anchor Books, 1956), pp. 103-108. I too, do not find it depressing or nihilistic at all. You will not be able to understand Emptiness if you study it with other concepts in mind - you have to really study the teachings on the teachings' terms in order to get any understanding out of it. As Greg Goode (who was into Advaita and once tried to read emptiness teachings through those concepts) said, http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about." Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

Spirituality is a science, but the science comes from yogic meditation and comtemplation and realization, not empirically observable data. Contemplation, inquisitiveness and so on are the process of trying to understand. But when realization arises, a truth can no longer be unseen, and it is not an inferred understanding, but an experiential realization of the way things are. If inference can lead to awakening, there is no need for meditation or vipassana at all, all you need is to keep thinking and thinking. But inference in fact, cannot lead to awakening. That is why Buddha's practice instructions always talk about meditation, not spending hours intellectually analyzing his words. Anyway again, it's not just 'experience' but a 'realization', a waking up. Experience can be temporary, but insight/realization is permanent. So you don't think what I quoted is valuable... I see it otherwise. I went to check where I quoted Heart Sutra. I found out that it was in reference to anamatva's post, not your post. anamatva posted this thread on Heart Sutra, and said that my understanding does not correspond with the Buddhist sages or something. This is why I needed to quote from relevant texts to point out that my views are in fact in accord with the scriptures. I don't think I kept quoting Heart Sutra to you except in brief mentions when relevant.