xabir2005

Won't do detailed reply from phone. What dependently originates is empty of any core, substance, inherent reality whatsoever. Hence, empty and illusory. Spontaneous does not mean causeless, it means no independent agent/controller. My life is like a lucid dream - dream doesn't cease but I do not conceive anything as real. Actions are non conceptual and spontaneous. Addiction is habitual craving. Craving requires object of craving, even if it is a sense of security. If there is no independent core, it means existence cannot be established. Existence requires an entity as a base. If an entity cannot be established, the four extremes of existence, non existence, both and neither don't apply. I only said you do not need to be enlightened to have powers. You derailed the discussion.

Never said that. I only said that conceiving conventions is not necessary for action. You did not understand me. What I meant is that the entire conceiving of a unicorn, a noise, and a unicorn causing the noise is deluded cognition, i.e. conventional truth. If you realize emptiness you stop conceiving them. I do not conceive of conventions or movement. Sentient beings perceive deluded cognition (conventional truths), awakened beings (pre-Buddhahood) switch between deluded/undeluded cognition, while fully awakened Buddhas only perceive wisdom/undeluded cognition. I am not yet a Buddha but ignorance no longer holds that much sway on me. The analogy used is like a jar emptied of contents but the smell lingers.

No. I mean mental clinging requires the view of an existent. You can continually ride a bike without any clinging or attachment at all. Repetitive action is not the sort of clinging that is harmful/opposite of liberation. Of course endlessly riding a bicycle may be tiring and all that, but by itself does not prevent liberation. Addiction requires you to perceive something - pleasure, whatever, as existent, and furthermore conceived as satisfactory, and so on. Craving cannot arise without an object of craving, and the object of craving is always a view of something that 'is' - even if that object is seen as something that fades, still, it is seen as something that is existent, satisfactory, graspable, etc. I don't even know why you are talking about this. I was just saying that it is doctrinally established that powers require shamatha skills (well there are exceptions like powers from spells and mantras - this is one of the reason why Buddha didn't want to showcase powers because people may misunderstand him to be a practitioner of spells and mantras). Also, there are living people who have some powers and they all say that shamatha is necessary - simpo being an example, there are many others.

Emptiness means the rejection of the position of existents, a non-asserting negation. I do not assert non-existence, only reject the notion of existence.

There is no contradiction. Because ignorance and defilement dependently originates, there is therefore no ignorance and defilement. What what is conventionally called ignorance and defilement dependently originates, is realized to be empty of inherent existence. Nagarjuna: Whatever is dependently co-arisen, That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18) Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist. Therefore a nonempty thing Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19) Cause and effect is established based on a real cause and a real effect. Since there is no real cause and no real effect, cause and effect is illusory, i.e. unestablished. Because what dependently originates is empty, so cause is empty, the effect of a non-existent cause is also empty. There is no real cigarette just as there is no real anything at all. Whatever dependently originate is empty of any substantial, independent, findable existence.

Having previous experience of rain and acting according to that knowledge may not be a conceptual inference. It can simply be a non-inferential, non-conceptual, spontaneous action. You do not actually have to conceive of the inherent existence of rain and the likes. It is not contradictory. Only sentient beings perceive the real existence of cause and effects, and it is valid from the perspective of deluded cognition. It is not seen as valid in wisdom. Like in a dream, you perceive the unicorn making a loud sound. You say the unicorn made the loud sound. That is valid only as conventionally observed phenomena, but that conventional truth is actually ultimately false. There is no real unicorn that caused/made a real loud sound.

The view 'is' and 'is not', 'existence' and 'non-existence' are behind all forms of clinging. You cannot cling to something you do not perceive as existent, or rather you cannot cling when you do not perceive a 'something'. You can only cling to something you perceive as existent, and the view of 'I, me, mine'. I do not believe his shamatha stages are the same as Buddha's. His description of shamatha jhanas are different from the Buddha. This is something I, Thusness, and many other practitioners I spoke with agree. There is a difference between 'sutta jhanas' and the kind of jhanas that various teachers put forth. I have no idea why you mentioned Daniel.

Of course. Buddha described the process so clearly. There is no vagueness. But there isn't - I never put forth any metaphysical position. Defilement are in terms of the ten fetters. There never is a 'me' even now. There is no me. Defilements arise due to ignorance, ceases due to the cessation of ignorance. Ultimately, there is no defilement, no ignorance, what dependently originates is empty. Because everything is empty of any independent existence, or entity, so they are illusory and non-arising. Conventionally we say, cigarette and fire causes smoke. But if there is ultimately no real cigarette, no real fire, there is also no real smoke. Sentient beings establishing real entities misperceive real cause and effect.

All metaphysical assertions can be solved/resolved/dissolved through the insight of anatta and emptiness. But things like detailed knowledge of karma, etc, maybe only a Buddha has. Only a Buddha with omniscience is able to know in details all those matters. I am not aware of ANY teachers in this age who have such omniscience. But if there is really a living Buddha right now, I'm happy to look into his/her teachings. As for karma, it is one of the imponderables. Only a Buddha is able to know the exact details of it. But in actual fact you can trace your karma and rebirth in meditation, but only to a limited extent (only Buddha is able to trace indefinitely). My friend Simpo who is another 'student' of Thusness has talked to me in details his many past lives (fighting in WW1, being a Nyingma lama in Tibet, being a Japanese, a Chinese, etc etc) and the effects of karma of past life in present life when I met up with him. So this is how I know it is possible to have knowledge of karma and past life in meditation - in fact not even enlightenment is needed for it, as he already started recalling past lives before he realized anatta or emptiness (he was in the I AM stage for about two decades before knowing Thusness). Buddha recalled his past lives and realized the effects of karma even before his liberation/awakening. 1st knowledge is past life, 2nd knowledge is karma, 3rd knowledge is 4NT and liberation. Therefore, he only attained liberation AFTER his knowledge of past life and karma. Buddhists are well aware that many unenlightened yogis have access to powers, past lives, etc, even evil persons like Devadatta was once praised by Sariputta (it became something of a slight embarrasment later) in his mastery of psychic powers. You do not need to be a Buddha - heck, you don't even need to be enlightened, or Buddhist, or wise, or ___ in order to achieve these powers. You just need some mastery of shamatha. I too seek for omniscience like that of Shakyamuni Buddha. However, this takes a very long time, so I'd focus on my liberation first as a more immediately achievable thing, while not forgetting the more long-term goal. Luminosity is not about concepts... True understanding is not touched by reasoning, or the 'sphere of logic'.

I have no insecurity about my knowledge especially when it comes to anatta and emptiness. However I am not omniscient like a Buddha. It is not necessary to conceive 'conventional truths' since 'conventional truth' is simply a false way of perceiving reality. There is no truth to it. You do not need to conceive 'there is an existing weather' - just as you do not need to conceive 'there is an existing self' - there is none. But this does not mean spontaneous action to avoid being drenched by the rain cannot happen, but it does not happen due to conceiving a conventional truth which is ultimately untrue. The Buddha's actions are totally spontaneous and non-conceptual. Anything more than freedom from proliferation is delusion. Anything other than the middle way is extreme. The link is a conventionally observed phenomena so on that level it can be accepted. But ultimately, what dependently originates is empty. Both cause and effect are illusory, there is no real arising, and no real cause. Cause and effect is illusory. But even at the anatta level, you already know that there is no continuation of A to B in causality - in other words as said earlier, when rebirth takes place, it is the psychophysical phenomena that 'reborns' but it is NOT the same psychophysical phenomenon as this birth. Rather, the karmic cause of this birth ripens as a unique, new, psychophysical phenomenon. There is no real continuity of any entity at all. B is not A, it is utterly new and unique. Inference cannot be made without concepts. If a spontaneous action arise without concepts, it is not via inference. Not vision. Anyway there is no luminosity apart from appearance, from manifestation. I have seen through a delusion as a delusion. It is permanent. The fetter of self-view is permanently ended, but it does not mean I have achieved the final goal. My further progress is in allowing right view to burn away all my latent tendencies and defilements so that I may achieve complete liberation, and further the omniscience of Buddhahood. No arhant have the delusion of self, much less a Bodhisattva or a Buddha. There can be no disease of emptiness unless I hold on to a position of non-existence. I do not, as I said, emptiness is a non-asserting rejection of existents (and the other extremes) without positing anything. Like the raft that has been discarded, the fire that ceases after burning away the candle, I do not have any notions or positions of emptiness whatsoever.

I too have realized the I AM after questioning myself 'Before Birth, Who am I?' for almost two years. But that is really not the end of the path and far from the totality of Buddha's realization. At some point if you are open to investigating further, you will realize the distinction of Noumenon/Phenomenon is arbitrary and delusional. Anyway what you have described is really no different from Brahman. Brahman is also known as the Noumenon behind all phenomenon. 'No arising and ceasing' of the sutras should be understood in terms of emptiness, that arising and ceasing are false concepts due to the empty nature, not eternalism. There is actually no 'Beyond'. Master Sheng Yen: ...By the practise of Ch’an one can eliminate the ‘I’; not only the selfish, small ‘I’, but also the large ‘I’, which in philosophy is called ‘Truth’ or ‘the Essence’. Only then is there absolute freedom... ...When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the ‘I’ does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognise that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena... ... One who has entered Ch’an does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth...

Those who misunderstand the first two turnings and seek only to understand luminosity, wind up as non-Buddhists, Hindus. Or a Hindu in Buddhist drag. As Thusness said before - there is no need at all for Buddha to teach if he is just about the luminosity aspect - since the old Vedas and Upanishads already covered it well but reified it into a Self. Buddha is here not just to talk about luminosity. He is here to teach the teachings of no-self in contrast to Self (of the atman-brahman), impermanence instead of Permanence (of the atman-brahman), dependent origination instead of a Source (the atman-brahman). Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable, and the inseparability is known in Vajrayana traditions as 'buddha-nature'.

Was randomly going through some old conversations with Thusness. Found an old convo dated 7 April 2011: (8:40 PM) Thusness: it is very difficult to move from substantialist non-dual to anatta even after arising insight of anatta, there is still this problem (8:40 PM) AEN: oic.. (8:41 PM) Thusness: very often u need to have clarity in DO to rid it...that is using DO to refine the experience of anatta so when a person undergoes awareness practice until a certain phase (non-dual), it is very very important to keep instilling the right view (8:42 PM) Thusness: keep breaking the essence for this, a certain amount of faith in the teacher is very important (8:43 PM) AEN: ic.. (8:43 PM) Thusness: otherwise one will not be able to progress to the next phase (8:44 PM) AEN: oic.. (8:44 PM) Thusness: even if u have undergone the experience, u will not be able to realize anatta until practitioners realized that it is not necessary to have 'essence' at all...it is just simply a distorted view (8:45 PM) AEN: the experience of D.O.? (8:46 PM) Thusness: no anatta (8:46 PM) AEN: oh icic experience of anatta like a glimpse of no mind experience? (8:46 PM) Thusness: yeah (8:46 PM) AEN: ic.. (8:46 PM) Thusness: like luckystrike... (8:46 PM) AEN: yeah (8:46 PM) Thusness: there is the experience of no mind (8:47 PM) Thusness: so for u, there must be willingness to let go of the 'wrong view' entirely then with the experience of no-mind and realization, the adoption of the view carries u...until u perfect the experience then the doubts is completely gone ur entire experience transcend the entire idea of 'essence' the center is completely gone...just flat, disjoint, unsupported, dimensionless and pure experience manifested as whatever arises this is very important and must take note otherwise u will not be able to advice correctly (8:50 PM) AEN: oic.. (9:01 PM) Thusness: in another 1-2 yrs, u will be master of insights...lol (9:01 PM) AEN: lol (9:39 PM) Thusness: why not make ur e-journal permanent on the side bar (9:39 PM) AEN: ic under where must reads? (9:40 PM) Thusness: below total page count before must read put ur e-book can? (9:42 PM) AEN: wah create a new column just for it haha (9:43 PM) Thusness: haha...since that is ur hardwork (9:44 PM) AEN: haha i will put it after must reads (9:51 PM) AEN: added (9:51 PM) Thusness: lol (9:52 PM) Thusness: put different color the heading (9:53 PM) AEN: har but white wld be suitable other colours not so suitable bcos of background image (9:53 PM) Thusness: oh...lol Clarity is simply the absence of delusion, not the presence of a position. A noticing, rather. You can stare blankly whole day, or you can actually notice a fact. That is why three characteristics are taught. You don't just stare blankly or focus on something - that is concentration practice. As Ciaran said, "to discover that orcs from lord of the rings aren't real, you don't just stare out the window, not seeing orcs, and wait for the insight to land". Real realization is not pseudo wisdom. When you realize anatta, you realize there is nothing linking A and B. Then when you realize emptiness, you realize there is no A and B at all. But first you have to break the self-view. Otherwise you will see a linking substance, an inherent essence or self. There is no transition in the sense you think of it, just as there is no soul undergoing reincarnation but doesn't deny rebirth on the conventional level. In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena: "What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?" "A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King." "But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical combination as this present one?" "No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be born." I like to quote people who have much very good expressions of something. Just because you see something, doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a better expression than you do. SO I am borrowing their expression and I don't see why not. It doesn't mean I am unable to express myself but it just means someone may do it better or have done it perfectly. I do not limit myself in any way. As Thusness said (14th Nov 2010): (5:34:56 PM) Thusness: but some of the expressions are beautiful. Some times just few of these beautiful phrases help to articulate expressions... (5:35:13 PM) Thusness: and that is what i look for because it is so hard to express. (5:35:39 PM) AEN: ic.. You don't need to conceive of conventional truth to function... you can know conventions purely for understanding and communicating to others, but you do not need to conceive of them mentally. I never perceive of movement because the sense of self as a dualistic observer which can contrast movement has pretty much disappeared from my life. There is just each moment of manifestation complete in itself, without movement, yet self-releasing (doesn't stay). No you do not establish A and B. It is a deconstruction of a self that links appearance, not an establishment of mind moments. The point about no self linking A and B is not that A and B exist, the point is that there is no linking self, and that in A just A - no seer-seeing-seen, but even A and B are empty. In actuality there is also no A and B. But first you deconstruct the subjective self view first. It is all a process of deconstruction without any need of establishment of any kind of positions. Also this is an important point: "...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe. "...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..." "...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..." - David Loy No, anatta is not a mental (conceptual) conclusion just as I AM realization is not a mental (conceptual) conclusion. Anatta realization rather results in the permanent ending of a previous deluded view and proliferation in a moment of non-conceptual realization. Actually I do not make such an inference. I do not hold on ANY positions at all. Experience is always self-luminously evident and there is no doubt about the luminous essence of experience. 'Luminous essence of experience' is a description of a non-conceptually self-evident fact, not a position. I simply do not have any positions or beliefs about it. It is just that this luminosity is shining right in your face so to speak, you do not need to make any kind of inference at all. You are the one in a serious hole of self delusion in the literalistic sense of it - not realizing anatta, that you won't dig out for a long time unless you take Thusness's advise. "Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic." Spiritual realization has nothing to do with logic, has nothing to do with drawing mental conclusions at all. Whether that conclusion is made consciously or is a conclusion that is latent (therefore instinctual reaction).

Negation only applies to delusion. When there is no delusion, there is no negation necessary. Therefore there is no position being put forth. It is not for example, my position is A, therefore B and C is wrong. It is that, A, B, C, are all delusional. I do not propose the A is non-existent, or existent. I only say that the view that A is existent is false, without proposing that A is non-existent. If you do not have delusion, there is no need to negate, the negation of intrinsic nature is merely of therapeutic value pertaining to the delusion of sentient beings. It is like healing the cataracts of sentient being that produce deluded view. I do not have positions. And please don't make nonsensical deductions like "That I do not have position is a position", for that would be as ridiculous as saying "That I have no cheese is a cheese". Ultimately, nothing becomes another thing. Anatta and emptiness deconstructs the view of 'something becoming something'. There is no 'one's location' at all - it is as delusional as 'the location of santa claus', so how can you be mindful of it? However, you can certainly be aware that there is a felt (deluded) sense of self and location. The only way to resolve it is by realization of anatta and emptiness. It is like 'notice the fact that ....' It is a fact that can be noticed. There is no self. It is not a matter of agreeing to it. You are simply looking at your experience as it is, and you discover that the sense of self is utterly delusional, fictional, has no bearing to reality at all. There is no seer seeing the seen, seeing is simply the seen without the seer, you discover that the view 'seer-seeing-seen' is false and delusional. Causes and conditions is not 'movement'. Nothing is a movement. A is not B, but B is a manifestation of all of not-B including A. But it is not the case that A moved into B, because A abides in the phenomenal expression of A and B in B, etc. Dogen: Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death. Identification is all conventional truth on the pre or uninvestigated level. When you realize ultimate truth, conventional truth no longer applies, or is seen through as delusional. But on the conventional, deluded level of conventions which is how we communicate, we can talk about a self as if it remains the same self from yesterday to today, we can talk about objects, etc as if they 'exist', and so on. But that doesn't mean they are ultimately true. I don't identify anything. You don't need to establish A and B. You just need to deconstruct the view that links A with B. At this point everything is felt disjoint in the sense that everything is spontaneous, insubstantial, bubble-like without a self linking manifestation. There is no self linking A and B. Of course even A and B is not truly existing, but first you should realize the emptiness of self. Then after emptiness of self is realized, you go on to realize emptiness of objects. Then you see that A is just an appearance without a truly existing A-ness. B is without B-ness. All is illusory like a dream, like mirage, like a magician's trick. The discovery of I AM is not made from inference. Non-dual is not made from inference. Anatta is not made from inference. Emptiness is not made for inference. I'll give you a hint: no true realization is made from inference. I've done my investigation and relying on my own knowledge now. My practice is now not done for enlightenment but an expression of enlightenment. In other words, I used to sit with a purpose, now in sitting it is just sitting, the sound of air con humming, the cooling sensation on my skin, and so on. That alone is buddha-nature/primordial purity/enlightenment. On the other hand if you still have uninvestigated notions or views of inherent existence or self, you should continue investigating until they are seen through in realization. All inference process are pre-realization... For example in self-inquiry, many thoughts arise like 'I am so and so'... but maybe through an inference or just a sheer moment of clarity you see that such notions are arbitrary and mentally created, so you drop them and continue investigating until you discover the I AMness prior to all concepts. But it does not mean I AMness is discovered inferrentially - it is a non-conceptual, non-inferred certainty of Being. The inference part is not even necessary as some people don't even go through that inference process, some people awake to it spontaneously, or whatever. But if the inference part is necessary to let you see the ridiculousness of some of the concepts then I say go ahead, but don't forget that intellectual reasoning etc has nothing to do with the real self-inquiry that results in a non-conceptual moment of seeing as it is. In other words you can engage in endless reasoning and inference due to the endless scenarios and imagination of the mind for a hundred years and still not wake up to I AM, or you can take a short moment and truly, with deep curiosity, inquire and investigate what is the truth of my Being prior to all the bullshit nonsense of the mind. That is all that is required for self-realization.

http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2011/12/1000-well-spent.html

I think you missed the point, or rather, overlooked certain points. Hard to understand is one thing, which is also important because people tend to oversimplify things - simplifying things may be good for certain things, but not when it comes to Buddha's dharma (unless you are just introducing things to beginner and putting things as-it-is might scare them off). But don't overlook this point: "not within the sphere of logic", "The very coming to rest, the non-functioning, of perceptions as signs of all named things, is itself nirvana". Nirvana, wisdom, is not the gaining of a new point of view or position or view.... It is the cessation of all views, positions, intellectual concepts, etc... it is the cessation of all forms of clinging. Right view is no view. As Buddha taught, he teaches the dharma for the purpose of abandonment, and even right view is merely a raft to be ultimately let go of, not for a purpose of clinging to a position. In other words, right view is a form of non-asserting negation, like fire that burns the candle leaving no traces of candle or the fire itself in the end. I never said 'lets look for where I am'. I said, investigate if experience is simply a flow of self-luminous experiencing without an experiencer. Thorough investigation will show that yes, indeed, experience experiences itself without an experiencer, there is in seeing always just the seen without a seer. I will paste a conversation by Ciaran I just read today. The answer to this is: I do not perceive movement at all. There is no movement in impermanence. Movement is only perceived through the delusional consciousness of duality. Posted this some time ago: Movement is perceived when it is falsely perceived that there is some unchanging self-entity that links two moments together. For example as a bystanding observer on the roadside, it appears that a car quickly moves through your field of vision. So it appears that you, as an observer, observed an object moving across. What if however, you are on a vehicle moving at the same speed as the other vehicle, do you perceive movement of another vehicle? No. Why? Because the observer is now at the same speed as the observed object, and movement only occurs as a contrast between the unmoving subject and a moved object. But what if there is no observer at all (which is what we realised to have been always the case in the insight into anatta - the observer being merely a constructed illusion) - with no reference point, is there movement? No. Because movement requires a dualistic contrast, and without a perceiving subject, perceptions have no reference point to compare with. In fact there is no 'perceived object' either - there is just disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing images that has no link to each other. Without a self and an object, only unsupported and disjoint images, each manifestation being complete and whole in itself with no dualistic contrast, transience reveals itself to be non-moving. You don't say "You" walked from Point A to Point Z. Because there is no 'You' there to link or observe movement. Instead, Point A is Point A, Point B is point B, and so on... Z is Z, whole and complete in itself. Each moment, ever fresh, whole, complete, and leaving no trace the next moment. As for defilements: defilements only arise along with the sense of self. If the sense of self arise, there is reference points, (sense of self itself being merely a clinging to a falsely constructed reference to a person, a self) and so there can be a perceived movement. If there is no sense of self/Self, then also there is no sense of movement (such as during a PCE, even though PCE is just experience and need not imply realization). We realise that any sense of a movement is merely a dualistic referencing and contrasting, a referencing that asserts an entity (a subjective observer) that links the process and sees movement. It is not attention in and of itself (which as you agreed is necessary for daily normal functioning) that causes perception of movement, but the delusion of an inherent self and of dualistic perception. None at all. My insight has nothing to do with inference made after observation. There is no inference involved. It is a clear realization of a delusion as delusion - that the notion of a self or a seer or agent is delusional, in seeing just the seen, the seer-seeing-seen framework is delusional. Like solving a picture puzzle and noticing the figure didn't need inference, you either see it or you don't. No amount of inference will make you solve the picture puzzle. Of course this is just an analogy.

I like to quote Buddha because it so happens he often express my realization and experience well. And its not like I simply quote without explaining. Contemplating by investigating your own experience, challenging your views of inside, outside, border, subject and object, agency, inherency of objects are al contemplation. Closely observing phenomena to discern their impermanence, arising and cessation is also contemplation. Contemplating if seeing always is just the sight without seer, challenging the longheld belief of an agent behind perception, is also contemplation. But it is based on looking or investigating one's experience, not logical reasoning. Seeing the falsity or delusional-ity of a position is not the same as establishing a new position. It just means you saw that your position is delusional and untrue. This is not a new conceptual position but a seeing through of a position.

there is no "you" to become one with "everything" There is seeing which is just the experience of forms, shapes, colours, but no seer Hearing, no hearer But our mindstreams and experience are unique, so no universal consciousness. However our unique mindstreams are without self or subject-object duality

Buddhists don't pray to gods or heaven, and we consider such being in a higher plane but still worldly and impermanent. In other words gods are born there due to their good past life karma but they are not necessarily awakened and not necessarily liberated, thus are also subject to the cycle of samsara. Therefore rebirth in heaven (long life but still temporary) among the gods is not the ultimate aim of a buddhist. We view awakened beings, arhats, bodhisattvas and buddhas as being of much higher status than worldly gods. However we don't consider such beings as God (creator), just beings like you and me who happen to awaken. Every single person can become awakened, can become a buddha. We just need to practice. In terms of devotion, Mahayana Buddhism has this aspect because we accept the presence of bodhisattvas and buddhas, while I think the stance of Theravada is that arhats and buddhas entered final cessation. All phenomena arise due to causes and conditions, ceases due to the cessation of causes and conditions. Therefore the universe is not run by some omnipotent being, but by karma, by causes and conditions. So that is the "underlying law" if there is any.

My view has nothing to do with nihilism. It is the inseparability of luminosity, energy/appearance and emptiness. There is no denying the experience or appearance of love, chi, or even tao. But there is nothing "self" about them. They are all psycho-physical phenomena. Love is a wholesome mental state. Chi is also a psychophysical phenomena that can be utilized for a good purpose. Tao, described by Lao Tzu has nothing to do with an ultimate self - it is instead, talking about the way things are, and is described as flowing like water. There is no self so "all is me" is a false notion. But there is no self does not mean "nothing" or "void" or "nihilism" but on the contrary clarity, aliveness and luminosity in full blast without the confusion and obscurations of delusions like self-view. There is just seeing without a seer, hearing without a hearer, everything happening without a seperate observer apart from the observed. Basically your misunderstanding of my message as nihilistic has to do with your not understanding what anatta, dependent origination and emptiness means. These truths are called by Buddha to be the middle way - that liberates us from views of existence and non-existence, eternalism and nihilism, and only when such false views are seen through Is liberation from samsara possible.

Buddha is not saying not to have faith. He is saying, don't blindly believe but check if it is sensible. If people say killing infidels is good, don't just accept it but check if it is sensible and beneficial. But if something is sensible then put your faith in that person and follow the path. So, the basic premise that by contemplating, meditating, investigating the three seals lead to dispassion, freedom from afflictions etc, such is a sensible premise, such a thing is beneficial to my wellbeing. It does not mean depend on intellectual analysis for everything because intellectual analysis itself cannot produce insight. Bahiya was praised by Buddha for not pestering him with dharma qns but simply put his advice to practice and see things for himself. Far from unsatisfactory, the Buddha is setting him up as a good example for others to follow. You may see it as unsatisfactory but I see no reason why - since whatever the case, one wakes up and that is the point. One realizes the true nature of reality and is liberated. The true activity of true compassion is in waking people up, in any way that can work. It is not limited by your conceptual limitations of what true compassion should be. Zen master hitting his student is also compassion.

Bump