xabir2005

It is simple really. You treat the 'Undivided Light' as the ultimate Self. Brahman is the Presence that is the Ultimate Self, it is not dual. It is a non intellectual, non conceptual realization. Basically, your view and experience is really no different from Hinduism. You have not realized the view of Buddha.

A nicely written post just posted by Namdrol: 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

No. You are not understanding the Hindu Brahman at all. It is exactly the same as what you are experiencing. It is the Pure Presence you are talking about.

The 'there is hitting, bleeding, and hammer' is simply a conventional observation. Ultimately, there is no 'thing' that can be observed. Concepts is our imputation on appearances. Appearances are just like dreams, illusory, nothing real. The cause is illusory, the effect is illusory, which is to say that there is no real cause and no real effect. The 'conventionally observed' transformations in a dream does not make the [conventionally imputed] cause and effect of a dream real. This is why the Buddha said "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. p.s. "(One says), 'All these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination.' But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist. "Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [Wylie: sems, Sanskrit: citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition." [32] ~ Primordial Experience Also, Namdrol: The conventionally observed efficacy of karma and its results cannot be denied. But even karma is ultimately illusory. 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.

Oh I didn't pretend it had anything to do with discussions. I just randomly found and shared it here because I think it is interesting.

There is no principle apart from phenomena. Phenomena dependently originates. If no phenomena, no dependent origination. The same goes for the ultimate nature of mind. As Namdrol nicely puts, If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other. .... It was queried whether the nature of the mind could exist whether there was a mind or not -- but such an assertion has obvious flaws, like asserting wetness without water, or heat without fire.

I don't engage in Madyamaka reasonings. I very much prefer Mahamudra and Dzogchen style approach to gaining insight.

It is most important since seeing a fundamental essence is the cause of suffering and the cycle of birth and death as it leads to grasping. It is what all Buddhists are trying to get rid of through enlightenment. That is a conventional observation which is only valid as a conventional truth. On that level only, the pre-analysis level, the sentient-being's-vision-of-things level, it is a valid statement, and that for practical purposes we all (even enlightened ones) communicate through the language of conventions. On that level also, 'self', 'others', space, time, and so on are also valid conventions. We use it all the time in language, even the Buddha talks about it just for practical purposes. But all conventional truth upon analysis, are seen to be false. For example 'A causes B' already presumes the existence of A, and B, and that A caused B. But if we investigate A, or B, we find there is no real essence to A or B at all. There is really no A or B at all, let alone an A that caused B. Ultimately, we realize there is no hitting, and no bleeding, and no hammer. We realize what Heart Sutra is talking about. Of course appearances can't be denied, but to state that there is a real hitting, bleeding, or hammer in or behind appearance is to make false reifications. When all conventional truths are invalidated through the wisdom of emptiness, all concepts ceases.

A cause is precisely another phenomenon (for example 'sun' is the cause of 'sunlight'), and all phenomenon dependently originates and hence empty, so no cause can be established. So conventionally observed cause and effect is upon analysis, empty, and illusory. Just contemplating on one phenomenon is enough to realize the empty nature of all phenomena. Those who meditate on a single phenomenon and thus understand That all phenomena are like an illusion and a mirage, Ungraspable, hollow, false, and not solid, Will soon proceed to the heart of enlightenment. ~ The Sutra Requested by Sky Treasure Through one, you will know all. Through one, you will see all. ~ The Sutra of the King of Meditative Concentration

In other words, you are saying I AM (what you called Presence) is beyond the Alaya.

Vmarco is talking about I AM, not the Alaya. To him the Alaya is still not ultimate, the I AM is. That is what I would have said in the I AM phase of insight too. However, both Alaya, and the true I AM is not yet the realization of non-dual and anatta. From Simpo_, another one of my friends and Thusness's students who been through all 7 Thusness stages - 13 Jan 12 Hi Jui, You are doing well. This something beneath 'witnessing' is what we call the 'I AM' phase. However, you have not reach the pure experience of it ... which will appear as all-pervading / borderless. Will like to stress that this 'witness' as being underneath is a FALSE impression. The witness/awareness is not underneath ... it is embed with the flow of thoughts. To understand that the witnessing is not underneath, one must progress towards the next phase which is the insight of non-duality or 'no subject-object division'... which should in turn lead to the insight of no-self. Good luck... May you enter the stream soon. ..... In a paradoxical manner, realised Buddhist practitioners do understand why and know how the idea of God (and even Soul) come about... Along their way on the realisation path, they would have come across transcendental experiences that could easily be identified as God (and even Soul)... BUT in order to move towards deeper level of realisations ... they will have to go beyond these states. Just a sharing about my personal experience of what the experience of God and Soul are. Certainly nothing definitive . God experience - This can either be 1. the I AM/Eternal witness experience with no thoughts or 2. the luminosity experience when mind deconstruct. When luminosity is experienced without the understanding/realisation of non-duality, this bright 'light' will be labelled as God. The God experience is the ultimate subject-object division experience. Soul experience - surprisingly the soul experience is more subtle to experience that the God experience. Haha. This state should be the same as Alaya consciousness. Soul experience is the subtlest experience where a mental formation is still being registered. It is experienced when the physical mind level activity is suspended. This state is a formless state that have registered all past life experiences of a Being. Because it retained all the past life experiences of a Being... it will be exalted when compared with the physical (gross) mental state. However, an important point to note is that this formless subtle state DO NOT necessarily understand its own empty and no-self nature. To me, the 'soul' state is the original point of cyclical transmigration. If the non-dual and emptiness nature is recognised at this level/state, the 'Being' will be enlightened. If this state is ignorant of its own non-dual and empty nature, it will move into dualistic action believing in the projections. Not written in Buddhist teaching is that the Soul state (in my experience) actually holds the intention of what it attempts to achieve in a particular lifetime. I have personally experienced the 'purpose' of incarnation... however as i have mentioned.. because this formless level of consciousness may not necessarily realise its non-dual and emptiness nature .. it will 'seek action' as a way to resolve what is being perceived as karmic issues.... resulting in transmigration. The dream state roughly seats between this formless 'soul' state' and physical gross mental state. For New age guys that talks about recieving guidance from the Soul, many do not actually experience this 'soul' state directly. Rather, they experience projected images and feelings. This so-call 'soul' state is extremely subtle and cannot be experienced when gross mental formations ( such as language and images) are present. Ultimately... both 'God' and 'soul' experiences are not entities/selfs and are non-dual and empty. Note: I will not respond to anyone who dispute these understandings unless they themselve have pass beyond non-dual and emptiness phases.

Ah, misread you.

Good article: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/nyingma-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments

No. A core means an independent substance. There is no such thing in what is dependently originated. Dependent origination is merely conventionally designated, ultimately empty. You cannot find a cigarette nor can you state that the cigarette is real since no cigarette as a reality or entity can be pinned down, cigarette being a mere dependent origination and conventional designation. For example the consciousness that manifest dependent on eye and visual object is dependently designated as 'eye consciousness', but in reality there is no independent, findable, substantial reality of 'eye consciousness' or 'the consciousness'. Therefore, Nagarjuna: Whatever is dependently co-arisen That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation Is itself the middle way. .... Dependently arisen entities Are called “emptiness,” [For] that which is dependently arisen Is that which has no inherent nature. (22)

Since cause dependently originates, and what dependently originates is empty, likewise there is no real effect when there is no real cause.

Entity of its own means an independent essence of its own. Activities that dependently originates is empty of being an entity of its own. Since activities dependently originate and ceases upon the cessation of conditions, they have no self-essence (svabhava) No establishing of conventional reality is necessary for action. A Buddha's knowledge is also not in terms of establishing entities. As for powers, I merely wanted to bring out the point that powers are of course not solely attained by those who are enlightened. There are people who focus their practice on powers without any wish to attain enlightenment. This is actually a common knowledge. Anyway, I did not make the claims about powers, and I do not see why there is a problem with quoting scriptures which I see as an authority on these matters.

So Buddha's and countless masters' teaching people is a result of engaging ignorance? haha... that's funny.

It depends on who is the interpreter of Shentong. It seems Vmarco's source is strictly from the eternalist POV. I remember Namdrol saying some of the Kagyu's and Shakya's interpretation of Shentong is less prone to eternalism (though maybe still a tinge of it). I have read a little bit on Thrangu Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche's teaching on Shentong, they seem pretty ok to me at least on the surface (have not dwelt more indepth). So it is not just a strict 'eternalist or not' - it really depends on the teacher's interpretation. Some are more prone towards eternalism. This is a good text but I don't know why you think it has to do with Shentong.

No. I read that article a long time ago. The person you quoted from, Bill Bodri, does not understand Hinduims. He himself is only at the One Mind stage, the Brahman level of realization. And he is caught up in words trying to distinguish himself from hinduism not understanding that hinduism is talking about the same thing as him. What you realized is just the I AM. It is not yet the realization of no self or anatta. All the Upanishads and Hindu texts talk about it.

Actually I did address your points.