xabir2005

In the same way you can understand someone's delusion without being deluded yourself. Chair is illusory, not the label. Well the label is also illusory but besides the point. Actually it does. What dependently originates is empty, unborn, uncreated. Why? There is utterly no substance or core or inherent existence in whatever dependently originates. If an arising depends on conditions for its arising and ceases upon the cessation of its conditions, such an activity has no substance or core at all, is completely empty. So the problem actually lie in perceiving that labels refer to true existents, or the view of existents. Oh you mean Thusness sutra? Anyway I said magical spell because that is how our views affect us indeed. Buddha labels things for sentient beings - for example he explains in details what are the five skandhas, the eighteen dhatus and so on. Fine. But he does not establish the five skandhas or eighteen dhatus to be real or existing, so whatever spoken is purely conventional truth, and not perceived as such. In other words he does not establish or reify the labels he makes but the labeling are simply purely spontaneous undeluded wisdom, a skillful means in teaching. Yes but he don't perceive the car through new labels, but understand sentient beings delusion through new labels.

Not just experiences, but the insight and realization of right view - i.e. realizing anatta and emptiness, realizing that there never was a self, or substance of phenomena. I don't know what you find incoherent. Dependent origination is really important and central, the key to understanding Buddhism. Not just experience but realization. The only justification is that it is a truth that can be directly realized, and all arguments are sort of pointless, like trying to argue the colour and shape of elephants to the blind. You need to see it, or take it by faith then open your eyes (contemplate and then realize). Arguing about it endlessly is going to lead nowhere and so I find very little point in continuing this conversation. Insight does not lie in arguing and intellectual analysis or theories. "This doctrine is profound, hard to see, difficult to understand, calm, sublime, not within the sphere of logic, subtle, to be understood by the wise." Majjhima Nikaya It is not the case that after arising of insight you still depend on faith for your understanding (in that case your understanding is from your own realization that arose after contemplation), but before understanding faith is necessary. And as for quoting, it is just that some people or texts can explain something very eloquently and even if it is some unfamous person, I can still quote him/her, authorship doesn't matter so much as its wisdom. (just so happens that sutras or some people have said things of interest here very well) SN 48.44 PTS: S v 220 CDB ii 1689 Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1997–2012 I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at the Eastern Gatehouse. There he addressed Ven. Sariputta: "Sariputta, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation?" "Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation." "Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation.

Conventions can be used purely for practical purpose, but because you clearly realize that all conventions are utterly false and have no basis in reality, one does not believe or view things in terms of conventions. So there is just pure perception unfettered by conventional views, while not impeding the ability to understand someone's conventions or make use of conventions in language and so on. Practical action does not require views of existence - like the existence of a chair, a table, etc. And conventions are actually just labels which are understood by the worldly beings to imply existence of something (self, chair, weather, etc), but it is not understood as just mere empty and illusory labels but are taken have some kind of truth which thus becomes a magical spell in how we see and navigate the world (in terms of true existence of self, things, etc), and awakening allows us to see through the falsity of conventions and drop it. It is not just about not consciously thinking in labels (as you said most people do not consciously label everything all the time but still the view of existence is affecting their perception, leading to clinging) but rather the dropping of the false view of existents that serves as a basis for taking conventions to be reality. Understanding the world's parlance of conventions does not mean you perceive in terms of conventions - Buddhas know the conventions of worldly deluded beings and can have no problem talking in terms of self, things, etc, but it does not mean he navigate or perceive the world through conventions and his actions are completely non-conceptual and spontaneous.

Nope. It is not about not choosing to label things, or not labelling things. It is about not viewing or seeing an existent - not seeing 'there it is', 'it is', or 'I am'. This is viewing conventions. I do not see such conventions at all. So I do not cling to any sense of a self, a watcher, or an object of perception.

There is just the pure sensation of the pain (without the words of it), but it is not established as "I am in pain".

Only pure perception without perceiver or something perceived. Conventionally you can say 'I saw the sight', but ultimately there is no seer, and no thing that can be established as being seen.

pure knowing without reifying or establishing a knower or something being known

I maintain that Buddhas don't perceive convention. There is knowing but no establishment of objects known (conventions).

@lucky7strikes: on a not so related yet related note You seem to be expecting madyamika style intellectual analysis on "emptiness", but I and thusness are not too keen on these kind of analysis. Our insight is a non-inferrred, non-intellectual realization. Oh and its ridiculous that just because I like to quote people who said certain things very well means I'm insecure. What nonsense. Anyway: Dakpo Tashi Namgyal ("Mahamudra"): "In determining the mind's innate identity or manifesting mode, the meditator should examine if the mind can be identified with the void or with the formlessness of the void. To determine if the mind has a definitive manifesting mode, the meditator examines if it can be identified with the lucidity or with the form of lucidity. Should the mind appear to be of the void state, the meditator should examine if it is a nonexistent void or the void like that of space. Should the mind appear to be luminous, the meditator should examine if this luminosity is like the radiance of the sun, moonshine, or the flame of a butter lamp, or if it is inborn lucidity without light or color. Thus, the meditator should examine the mind in numerous ways. No definite understanding or determinable certainty can be achieved regarding the mind's abiding reality through mere knowledge or intellectual comprehension and without thorough examination. A meditator should therefore examine thoroughly with a persistence in the manner of an inquisitive person crushing a bone with a stone!" Namdrol: intellectual pursuits are like mirages, always promising satiation and just creating more doubt. Proof and rebuttal is merely intellectual accepting and rejecting. N ... "Sherab: Mind can never transcend itself. This is why intellectualism is useless. N" ... "Madhyamaka is not equivalent with Dzogchen and Mahamudra. As both Longchen pa and Jigme Lingpa points out, while the intellectual structure of the view of Prasanga and Dzogchen are identical i.e. free from all extremes, the former is based on an intellectual analysis whereas the latter is based on a personal experience. In Dzogchen and Mahamudra meditation is based on an example wisdom. This is not the case with Madhyamaka. Since meditation in Vajrayāna systems is based on an example wisdom gained during the introduction of the third and fourth empowerments, Gorampa points out in a treatise refuting some on Tsongkhapa's interperations of the Guhyasmaja sadhana that it does matter very much what your intellectual view might be; whether cittamatra or madhyamaka, since your meditation is not based on an intellectual analysis, but rather a path wisdom derived from the introduction of third and fourth empowerment."

@C T: no time to do detailed reply in camp, might reply more another day. Buddha engages sentient beings in conventional truth precisely because sentient beings are deluded and perceives conventions. Anyway, it is a fact, not an opinion, that Tsongkhapa's views are at odds with other traditions. And it is solely in the Gelug tradition that Tsongkhapa's statements hold any weight. Take your time and read this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/

I'd rather you read more reliable sources than wikipedia. Anyway it is well established that in Advaita tradition, the world is maya (illusory), being maya, there is no creator and no creation. Only Brahman (Pure Presence/Undivided Light etc) is real, unchanging, etc. So you are just criticizing your own bogeyman formulation of Brahman that has nothing at all to do with the real Advaita tradition. You are unwilling to see that your views are much prevalent in non-Buddhist religions.

Your belief that Brahman is not Pure Presence is the first lie. Advaitin sage Ramana Maharshi: 1. Who am I ? The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive senseorgans, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning's, I am not. 2. If I am none of these, then who am I? After negating all of the above-mentioned as `not this', `not this', that Awareness which alone remains - that I am. 3. What is the nature of Awareness? The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss 4. When will the realization of the Self be gained? When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer. 5. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there (taken as real)? There will not be. 6. Why? The seer and the object seen are like the rope and the snake. Just as the knowledge of the rope which is the substrate will not arise unless the false knowledge of the illusory serpent goes, so the realization of the Self which is the substrate will not be gained unless the belief that the world is real is removed. 7. When will the world which is the object seen be removed? When the mind, which is the cause of all cognition's and of all actions, becomes quiescent, the world will disappear. Your belief that Brahman is a Creator is the second lie. In the Advaita tradition, it is only the Brahman with attributes that is seen as a creator, but that is all from the viewpoint of ignorance (avidya) and ultimately untrue. In the ultimate reality - the Brahman without attributes - there is no creator, and no creation. The notion that mAyA has no reality in itself, and that brahman is the only real, allows the sRshTi-dRshTi vAdin to "graduate", so to speak, to ajAtivAda, the view that no creation really occured ever. You seriously need to study some basic Advaita otherwise you are attacking your bogeyman version of it, really. The real Advaitins will laugh at you.

It is not just a state of label-less... by the way non-dual is not the same as realizing no self and no object. Non-dual can simply mean the non-division of subject and object. Even that is a great profound change - no longer are you seeing from a vantage point inside the body at 'a world outside' but in seeing, there is just that experience of sight/scenery, no distance, division, separation at all, no separate perceiver or self. There is a huge experiential difference there that you will only understand when you have glimpses of experiences or the realization. But non-duality (of subject and object) does not mean anatta or emptiness. Non-dual luminosity is also empty and utterly unestablished. And this is where you are in total contradiction to the Heart Sutra and what the Buddha and Nagarjuna and countless sages have taught. Nagarjuna: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?" The problem here is that you assert that 'Everything exists'. There is in fact, no existence. Also, your 'duality' here is different from the 'duality' as defined by me - that of subject and object. Also it is different from how Buddha defines duality - that of being (existence) and non-being (non-existence). So we have to be clear what our terms imply. Seeing through the illusoriness of subject and object division is not the same as seeing through the illusoriness of existence/being and non-existence/non-being. Buddha: "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. No, this is not the understanding of Buddhism. Always already, there is no self, it means 'self' is merely delusional, like santa claus, like seeing flowers in the sky because you have cataracs. It is the purely delusional vision of a sentient being. Always in seeing, just the colours, shapes and forms, no seer. In hearing, always just sounds, no hearer. This has to be realized. It is a Dharma Seal. It is not a temporary state of experience. And this is where you fail to understand something. Anatta and emptiness are not talking about a transcendental state, but the nature of reality, a fact that is always already so. (btw I don't know if you are seeing the topic of anatta and emptiness with Taoist conditionings, but you should study the anatta/shunyata teachings on its own terms and dont let your other conditionings affect your understanding of it) As I said before: First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal). To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically Anyway I will be going back to camp and may not have time to reply soon.

There is no 'thing' in the 'sky'. Whatever seen and felt are just shapes and colours and forms that are utterly insubstantial - dependently originated, empty, dream-like appearances. If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence. The Buddha's rejection of the four extremes of existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence, neither existence nor non existence, is at the center of the whole emptiness teaching. So there is no such thing as 'existents' or something 'non-existent' since 'non-existence' here implies an existence that came into being and then ceases or enter non-being. This has nothing to do with nihilism - it is not a s statement about the non-existence of anything but merely the non-asserting removal of the claims of existents. This has nothing to do with escapism - there is no escaping from anything. Diamond Sutra: How should this Sutra be explained for others? By not grasping at appearances and being in unmoving thusness. Why? All conditioned dharmas Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble or a shadow, Like dew or like a lightning flash. Contemplate them thus." Heart Sutra: Therefore, O Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, objects to touch, or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: There is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, and no path. There is no cognition, no attainment and no non-attainment.

The point about anatta, and emptiness/d.o., is that there is no observer, and nothing observed... There is one good article that describes the experiential realization of anatta and emptiness: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

Because Brahman is seen to be Pure Presence, not the conditional state of mind you had in mind. By taking 'Tathagata' as real, you are in fact holding the same self view and also having the same experience as that of Brahman. You should read their texts with open mind and I'm sure you will find much similarities.

No, cause and effect cannot be truly established. It is only a valid statement on the conventional level where the existence of 'knife wound', 'bleed' and so on is imputed. There is nothing tangible at all. Nothing can go away because nothing has come into being in the first place - there is no thing that comes into being or ceases. It is like it is not the case that 'self' goes away when you stop thinking about it - it is that you realize all along, there is no self. Also as Namdrol just said today: You need to examine your attachment to the imputation you label "reality". That is the rabbit horn to which you are attached. But part of the problem is that what you think is real is the external whole. You are happy to accept that your mental functioning creates an illusory identity, but you seem to think inert things like lettuce to be more real than your mind. Minds and lettuce however are of a piece, they are both depend phenomena and therefore, amount to no more than passing illusions. N It is nothing about being mentally handicapped. It is about seeing an untruth as untruth, it is about waking up from pure delusions and seeing that no one phenomena can be established, let alone two. It is that your presuppositions of existents are utterly unfounded upon analysis. You keep saying 'when things hit you, *I* will feel pain, so *I* must exist' but all these statements are made on the assumption that *I* exist and is the feeler of pain (and not the other way round - that I exist because of the pain felt, etc) - but I clearly realize that there is no self at all, and no matter what statements you make it doesn't change the fact that there is no self. Even if pain is felt, there is still no self. This is what is always already the case. But this no self also goes to all phenomena so all the five aggregates are empty as per heart sutra - no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no volition, no consciousness. So likewise there is no real pain and no real cause of pain either. Your establishing of pain and likewise cause of pain is based on the pre-analyzed assumption of existents. Cause and effect is established dependent on the view that something has come into being, and that coming into being has a cause of that being. Pain is a phenomena that dependently originates and thus coreless and substanceless - no pain can be established, not a thing that has been created or comes into being, hence pain being merely illusory - there is no pain, how could there be said to have a pain that has a real cause? No... sun is empty because all dependently originated phenomena are empty by nature. There is no sun. It cannot disappear (or rather, there is no 'it' to disappear) because there is no 'the sun' that came into being. Same goes for no self. No self is not so because you lose your label of self or you stop thinking of self. It is that always already, there is no self. It is pure delusion. It is like santa claus.

For one who realizes true wisdom, conventions cease to take place, because conventions take place solely on the level of delusion. A Buddha only perceives wisdom. Therefore the Buddha said himself, "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer... ...Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime. So in reference to your question, I do not conceive or construe of 'warmth' and so on as being true, I do not construe anything whatsoever in the suchness of cognition, and being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' I have to agree with Longchenpa here: “From the [ultimate] perspective the meditative equipoise of the realised (sa thob) and awakened beings (sangs rgyas), there exists neither object of knowledge (shes bya) nor knowing cognitive process (shes byed) and so forth, for there is neither object to apprehend nor the subject that does the apprehending. Even the exalted cognitive process (yeshes) as a subject ceases (zhi ba) to operate.” (Longchen 1983: 201f) Therefore “At this stage, [Nyingma] accepts the total termination (chad) of all the continua (rgyun) of the cognitive processes (‘jug pa) of the mind (sems) and mental factors (sems las byung ba). This exalted cognitive process which is inexpressible beyond words and thoughts (smra bsam brjod du med pa'i yeshes), and thus is designated (btags pa) as a correct and unmistaken cognitive process (yang dag pa'i blo ma khrul ba) as it knows the reality as it is.” (Longchen 1983:201f) And a Buddha is someone who never leaves equipoise. Only awakened beings below Buddhahood switch. Anyway your view point may be more similar to Tsongkhapa's view (a view at odds with all other traditions) which Namdrol (and I) rejects. Only Tsongkhapa thinks that awakened beings perceive conventions. There's a discussion about this in http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=5770&start=80

Well said. Vmarco can only understand Hindu Brahman if he has an open mind.

Things are empty not because they 'lack imputed concepts'. In fact sentient beings always see in terms of existence and nonexistence, is and is not, so imputation is always going on. Only in awakened beings does imputation start to stop, and in Buddha is fully stopped. Things are empty by nature, without core, without substance - what dependently originates is empty. All that you are putting forth here are conventionally observed cause and effect. Conventionally observed cause and effect (knife stabs = profound change in body) are all fine observations but only on the conventionally level, pre-analysed level. But a conventionally observed cause and effect does not mean they are actually real or substantial, or that there is actually a real cause and a real effect. If you realize emptiness you realize there is no self, no body, no knife, no pain, no .... let alone a real knife that caused a real body to transform, etc. All these without denying of course luminosity and appearance. But nothing can be established. When you realize emptiness, you stop conceiving of such entities... What it feels like in direct experience is that everything becomes vividly clear, luminous, and yet because nothing whatsoever is established, there is nothing whatsoever that becomes an object of clinging... so all appearances are self-arisen and self-liberated without action. For a sentient being yes. For an awakened being, there is just spontaneous action without perceiving conventions... of course all these actions are wholesome, because they arise from wisdom and compassion, and are spontaneous, but does not require perceiving conventions like 'I' and 'others' which is why Diamond Sutra talks about the need to give rise to the thought of saving sentient beings without conceiving of an 'I' and 'sentient beings' that are 'saved'. Conventional truths are valid only on that level so I do not fault you for making the observation 'when someone hits you, you will feel it'. But ultimately there is no someone, no me, and no hitting, and no feeling. But this is not like a nihilistic absence... as form is emptiness, emptiness is form, so emptiness, luminosity and appearances are inseparable. Vividly manifest, yet utterly empty and insubstantial, like a breeze. Conventionally observed truths are consistent but by no means ultimately real. On the level of conventional truth, there is valid and invalid statements - like 'sun causes sunlight' is a valid conventional statement while 'moon is made of green cheese' is an invalid conventional statement. But ultimately, there is no sun, no sunlight, to even speak of a sun that caused a sunlight.

The key is that though appearance is appearing, or felt, to reify it as 'the hammer is there' or 'that IS there', this is the state of delusion. The 'is' and 'is not', 'existence' or 'non-existence' are false views about the world. So the Buddha says, "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. ~ Kaccayanagotta Sutta Only when all delusions are seen through can one truly start to experience liberation.

Yes, Dzogchen is a non-gradual path to awakening and awareness. It is not the same as mere noting or other forms of mindfulness practice which are gradual. Here's an article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/mirror.html You may want to check out other books by the same author such as 'Crystal and the Way of Light', 'The Self-Perfected State' and so on.

I certainly do not have such problems in the sense of doing things with the idea of 'things being inconsequential', but I do not perceive of any conventional truth as real. In action, I am always responsible, always helpful, kind and compassionate to others as much as I can. I do not do things that harm myself or others. Ultimately there is no 'myself and others', but when dealing with the area of morality, you have to use conventions (including 'myself and others') just for practical purposes of communicating. But in action, it can be completely spontaneous with no perceived projected conventions. This is the state of a Buddha. Actually the entire purpose of Buddhist practice is to attain liberation and furthermore a state of omniscience. What does liberation entail? Freedom from the ten fetters or afflictions: belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)[7] doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)[8] attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)[9] sensual desire (kāmacchando)[10] ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)[11] lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)[12] lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)[13] conceit (māno)[14][15] restlessness (uddhaccaŋ)[16] ignorance (avijjā)[17] Note that all these stop arising not because you dissociate from feelings - dissociation is a state of delusion because there is the view that there is a 'self' that can 'cut itself off' from the feelings. Rather, it is that there is no longer the condition of ignorance that can result in the afflictions, and therefore the afflictions permanently stop arising. Having not even arisen, they of course cannot be dissociated from or indulged in. When all ten fetters are cleared, this is the state of Liberation. It is not however about a 'me' not being affected by the world since there is no such 'me' that can 'cut itself off from the world'. Nor does it mean a person becomes cold to others - in fact compassion should increase, not decrease, as a result of awakening since now you know the true condition of sentient beings, the trap they are in, and the suffering that arises out of that. p.s. I am not making any claims here, I am just stating that it is possible for the end of all afflictive emotions (but compassion and so on are good, non-afflictive).