xabir2005

my motivations are sincere, not self-serving but other-serving. After all a bodhisattva should give rise to great compassion and help those who are still deludedly in samsara. I'm sure many have similar motivations. The fact that I realized is not a result of mental inference but an experiential seeing of a fact, like noticing the figure in a picture puzzle. It is not a logical set of reasoning that got me to seeing the figure. Of course this is just an example. You are not satisfied by the perceived lack of logical process behind my contemplation, but vipassana and contemplation is not meant to be purely intellectual. Nonetheless it can help one realize truth and that's what matter. Did Buddha teach intellectual analysis? He didn't. He taught four foundations of mindfulness can lead to liberation. He taught anapanasati meditation, etc etc. He teach people to contemplate anicca, dukkha, anatta, but not as an intellectual exercise. And it has worked effectively for countless people. Bahiya was liberated by just one line from Buddha, the one that got me to realization.

or maybe I no longer have feelings but think that some of the discussions are senseless? P.s. This conversation is getting ridiculous, so I'm out

I'm sure trolling is not tolerable and I might get moderators to look into this matter if you insist P.s. Of course I am aware of the mocking remarks which is why I talked about the importance of faith and sincerity in order to progress spiritually.

You don't have to repeat your point. And as I said, "You sound like Gerard's clone or something everyone is entitled to their own opinions about me, but pls don't troll around this thread. I very much prefer to discuss dharma with sincere minded people."

You sound like Gerard's clone or something everyone is entitled to their own opinions about me, but pls don't troll around this thread. I very much prefer to discuss dharma with sincere minded people.

and that post is meant for you especially the first para: "Sincerity, honesty, faith or at least open-mindedness, and a right understanding of the human condition is necessary." P.s. You can see it as a sharing as I don't see myself as a teacher. I like what Daniel Ingram said: "I like teachers who just happen to be friends who know and will share good stuff much more than Teachers." Thusness happened to be such teacher/friend, and I wish there were more people like him.

Look, I think I am doing a very helpful job in helping people gain clarity, and many people who would otherwise have gotten stuck in certain phases of insight or not have clear instructions have all benefitted. So you either accept by faith that I am awakened and benefit from my advice and writings, or you don't, and I don't care. But you will never stop me - nothing will - from sharing the truth with the world to me, you are like the guy who saw Buddha and turned him down after hearing his proclamation, which is a pity. Lastly, Thusness have said to me privately before that the insights presented in the blog is something I won't find elsewhere, it is truly deep and rare, but he also does not want to offend other people (I have written some comments on other traditions and teachers that might be seen as offensive, and I have taken them off, I think it was a mistake). But the truth remains that clarity and depth of insight is truly rare in the world - of course not non existing, but rare (I have however recommended books from various authors on many occasions that I think are highly enlightened). And the maps and path we presented are rather unique and have great potential to help a lot of people. As for my ebook, Thusness asked me months ago to put it at the top section of my blog - that is, above his three must read articles (something I placed there myself). I thanked him for his support for my ebook but told him I will not do so, and placed it right beneath his articles.

I completely understand your view and I must say I have been through that phase of realization and view. Taranatha's view is in fact no different from the nonbuddhist view being rejected. The nonbuddhist view of Atman-brahman is also said to be beyond conceptual notions, yet reified as truly existent. In actuality it is just nonconceptual experience of clear light/luminosity falsely reified into an ultimate permanent self due to latent view/framework of inherency and duality. You should read this article http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx So the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Śāntarakṣita as a wrong view. http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx The Vedàntic Sutras and Sàstra-s are full of statements like: This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence. This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual. This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc. It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual coginition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition). If you have understood what I have written above, it is easy to understand why when Ringo Tulku presented the Shentong view in an Indian symposium, all the Hindu Indian scholars happily agreed with it and told him happily, “This is the same view as our Vedanta!.” Also, a few centuries ago, Jonangpa Kunga Drol Chog, a throne holder of the Jonangpa, had visited Muktinàth, where he presented his views to the Hindu yogis present there. These Hindu yogis also called him a genuine Hindu yogi after they heard his Shentong view.

this path is not an intellectual endeavor. It is a yogic contemplation on the nature of mind. It requires you to investigate your own experience, to see things as it truly is. I am not too familiar with chi kung...

Sincerity, honesty, faith or at least open-mindedness, and a right understanding of the human condition is necessary. If we don't understand the human condition, there may be a lack of motivation to practice dharma. And this is why the Buddhist teachers traditionally prepare their students to first contemplate on subjects like the endless cycle of samsara, the impermanence of life, the rarity of human birth, the suffering, birth, death, ageing and sickness, the suffering, sorrow and lamentation or parting from what one loves and the suffering, sorrow and lamentation of not getting what one wants and so on that are integral to life... The suffering that results from the afflictions of craving, anger and ignorance, the suffering of karma which ripens in this life and in future lives. After all, the first teaching of the Buddha is on the four noble truths - the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering (nirvana) and the way to end suffering (noble eightfold path). Plus, with some faith in the Buddhas and awakened beings, one can then be motivated to seek for an end to the beginningless cycle of samsara and suffering, and seek the eternal bliss and liberation of nirvana. Also another aspect of motivation comes from glimpses of experience as you progress in your path. As I said before, if you have tasted paradise, how can you turn your back on it?

Sometimes I wish I can have countless emanations that can help do full-time forumming to respond to super lengthy posts like lucky7strikes from my handphone (I have no computers on weekdays and my weekend time is short and precious), plus I have so many other forums to take care of. Becoming a 1000 arm avalokitesvara with 1000 phones will be nice. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening

The problem however HE, is that Buddha placed right view as the foremost, most important factor for realization. It is the first factor of the noble eightfold path. Without right view, no matter how you practice, you will not realize anatta, d.o. and emptiness and you will fail to attain liberation. If you held views of eternalism or annihilationism, you will fail to grasp Buddha's realization no matter how hard you practice. But if you have been instilled right view from the start, your progress will be fast like mine. Since the view is more important than the practice and without the right view, practice will not lead to insight, hence more importance is placed on the view. Of course the practice is also important and without experience and realization, the view can't be truly seen. So the view, realization and experience are three essential things. In short, different view leads to different results. Liberation is dependent on right view.

The benefits from this is far beyond any worldly benefits in the world... Anyway there is a section in my article on the benefits of realization, the last section. You might want to take a look.

Or some genuine compassion to save sentient beings would be nice

The dilemma about proclaiming attainments is that it is at once empowering for some, but it may make you sound like a lunatic to others. This is not just a dilemma I face - even the Buddha has such encounters. If you think proclaiming one's attainment is not something an awakened person is capable of, I suggest you read this carefully: http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt13.htm On the way not far from Gayâ the Buddha was met by Upaka, an ascetic who, struck by the serene appearance of the Master, inquired: "Who is your teacher? Whose teaching do you profess?" The Buddha replied: "I have no teacher, one like me does not exist in all the world, for I am the Peerless Teacher, the Arahat. I alone am Supremely Enlightened. Quenching all defilements, Nibbâna’s calm have I attained. I go to the city of Kâsi (Benares) to set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma. In a world where blindness reigns, I shall beat the Deathless Drum." "Friend, you then claim you are a universal victor," said Upaka. The Buddha replied: "Those who have attained the cessation of defilements, they are, indeed, victors like me. All evil have I vanquished. Hence I am a victor." Upaka shook his head, remarking sarcastically, "It may be so, friend," and took a bypath.

so writing books = ego? Daniel ingram didn't write books? Dalai lama didn't write books? Go re read the chapter where Daniel rants about how a good dharma teacher should not have taboos about proclaiming one's attainment but openly discuss what he has realized and is capable of teaching, as if writing a resume like any other so that people will know what he can learn from the teacher. Plus the relentless attack on "mushroom culture" and the taboos surrounding the discussion of attainments. My ebook is available for free and I intend to keep it that way, but will be published for those who wish to keep a hard copy - I doubt I will cover my cost. I hope you didn't take my comment to lucky about sky flying mahayogi seriously. Its a joke and I was just goofing around. I was laughing when he made the sarcastic comment to me. I find that there are not many books about one's spiritual journey with depth of insight, and my ebook has helped many and I have received many comments of how it helped them, including advanced practitioners that includes an awakened Soto Zen priest. Daniel's book is good but belongs to gradual path while mine is direct path. There are other direct path books, but none that goes through the same exact path as me. My book is therefore a unique book. Not everyone will resonate with my book or the path I walk, but some will and do. Your narrow mindedness has prevented you from learning from people. It is recorded in the suttas that there were people who attained arhatship at the age of 7 and were praised by Buddha for being competent dharma teachers even at that age. If you bother to ask around, you can ask what Kenneth and Daniel thinks about me and Thusness.

Not establishing inherent nature, arising according to conditions, is wisdom. Manifesting in accord with conditions, not establishing nature/existence is wisdom. http://baike.baidu.com/view/10568.htm 求助编辑百科名片 所谓“缘起”，就是说：世间上没有独存性的东西，也没有常住不变的东西，一切都是因缘和合所生起。所谓“性空”，就是说：因缘和合所生起的假有，本性是空的；如果自性不空，则不能有，这就是“真空生妙有”的意义。

无性 means no inherent nature, 随缘 means manifest according to conditions. Nagarjuna says: “众因缘生法我说即是无. 亦为是假名亦是中道义“ Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence. This is not the same as nothing, non-existence or nihilism. While all appearances are vivid and luminous, they are nonetheless empty of any independent existence, yet while empty, they are appearing vividly. Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. So we say, 一切有为法皆如梦幻泡影，如露亦如电，应作如是观 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)

No, the seeing that it is not real is enough to drop that convention. Because it is useless and not real, and why do you need to keep bringing up a falsity? You won't bring up something you don't conceive as real. For example after I realized santa claus is false or rabbits with horns is false, I do not keep projecting it anymore. Even if I talk about them, I no longer 'conceive' them as real. Even if you conceive something is real, you don't necessarily keep bringing it up. You don't keep conceiving 'United States, United States' even though conventionally you live in United States. All the more when you realize they are empty and illusory... you will then stop conceiving it totally, but still be able to use the word when communicating. It is a non-conceptual, spontaneous wisdom that is not dependent on establishing 'it is a car'. Yes, so knowledge and past experience is necessary. But using knowledge does not require the establishment of true existent. My typing on the keyboard right now does not require me to conceive of an inherently existing keyboard and the inherently existing location of the letters L, E, T, T, E, R, yet the action is spontaneously manifesting. The notion of location only comes up when you reflect on it and then conceive or establish there to be something called 'the L button' and its 'location'. The notion of location is actually an afterthought of the action, and is not required for the action. Likewise the establishment of self, agent, existence, location, conventions, etc are not required for an action. Via knowledge of conventions. True. But it is also possible to 'just listens to music' without conditioning. Anyway NDNCDIMOP does not mean one is freed from all conditioning, however it is nonetheless a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception. Thus AF people also say such a mode is free from affects/emotions, however I think they are making too much of a claim if they say they are permanently freed from all emotions as obviously they still have habits and conditioning. It is like taking a state of calmness to mean one is permanently freed from afflictions, naive of latent tendencies. But I digress. Yeah, it is based on realization, not mere experience

Thank you for complimenting The Exceptional Sky-flying Mahayogi Archaya Xabir

Reifying objects and reifying action is still fundamentally the same - you still establish something existing. I do not establish anything. You can observe the entire process of activities as coming forth via conditions, when the entire sense of self/Self is seen through, deconstructed, and utterly dropped, then the entire experience is clearly seen as a causal process. It is not an inferrential thing, nonetheless it is experienced that every manifestation is a causal activity. Of course, you don't even establish causality as existing because what is causal is fundamentally empty, nonetheless there is this insight that things manifest via dependent origination. So while you don't infer what causes this and that, nonetheless, you realize that it is the nature of everything that they manifest via dependent origination as if the entire universe of causes and conditions are coming together to manfiest this moment, and that they are fundamentally empty. The practical thing to go about is this, imo. First realize anatta, then continue dropping any trace of sense of self/Self until everything becomes experienced as a process of activities, then the seamlessly interconnected nature of everything will reveal itself. You will see for example, that when talking to another person, there is no you talking to him, rather it is just an interdependent stream of activities. It is directly felt and seen experientially that instead of a 'you' talking to a 'him', it is that in dependence on such and such conditions, such and such activities arise, on and on. My typing on this forum is not a 'me' typing on the forum, but my eyes, the words on the screen, my brain, the computer, the room, all coming together to manifest this activity of typing, all a seamlessly interconnected/interdependent process of activities manifesting as one complete, whole, non-dual manifestation-activity. ok The 'How' is explained in my article Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition, it is also explained in Thusness's article. But if you felt there is anything you want to clarify I can do so. Relatively, they are different phenomena, there are just diverse multiplicity of phenomena, there are only composites. It is like B and C is manifesting in and as Just A yet distinct from A. As an analogy Thusness gave, it is like the black hole - a black hole has like the weight of a galaxy or universe in one very small point, this is like Maha. Everything coming together manifesting as one manifestation, one manifestation 'containing' the entire universe, like the net of indra. Thich Nhat Hanh emphasizes a lot about Maha, he keeps saying if you reflect on a piece of paper, you find the sun, the wood, the trees, the rain, the .... on and on. Of course this is not just an intellectual exercise which will be pointless... rather he is pointing out that the net of indra principle and the Maha experience. But same and different are also notions that are based on relative truth, ultimately since everything is empty there is no 'same' or 'different'. What you can say is dis-joint, in other words there is no continuity of an entity, but you do not say there is ultimately two entities that are different. Units of phenomena are relative, and when everything dependently originates, they are thereby empty of inherent existence and illusory. So talking about A and B is also just a relative means of pointing out something (for example the disjoint aspect), fundamentally there is also no A and B, but this requires not only insight into anatta but the secondfold emptiness. It does not happen in a 'where' as 'where' don't apply for activities. But activities are mutually interconnected and interdependent. My activity of typing on this forum has a resulting activity on your side of typing to me, but actually there is no 'me' or 'you' that are typing, it is just one process of interdependently arisen activities, all the causes and conditions manifesting itself as such activities. We are halfway across the world, but still dependent origination occur. There is a Zen koan about drinking gin, you get drunk. Dependent origination is not limited by notions of time and space. Because it is not an inference but a direct seeing of everything as not subject-object interaction, but a non-dual, dependently originated process of activities. That means you don't need to see all the causes and conditions which would have traced back to the beginning of the universe and the past universes without beginning... Rather, it is just the seeing in this moment that what manifest is agentless and causally manifested, and as if everything is coming together for this one complete moment. It is like the impersonality experience of 'life is being lived', but it is not life is being lived by a higher power, rather it is the total exertion of everything in terms of causes and conditions into this activity, and in this activity there is 'JUST This'. So Maha is an integration of impersonality, non-dual, anatta, and dependent origination. No, nerve cells are matter, thought is mind. But then we may come to the question of: is mind a product of matter? IMO that requires knowledge of rebirth. Otherwise it should be taken by faith. In terms of inference, it could be reasoned, "Rice seeds produce rice sprout and not wheat. Wheat seeds produce wheat sprouts and not rice. It is foolish to suppose, based in observation, that causal homogeneity is unreasonable." .... "The first moment of mind in this life therefore must be dependent on a previous moment of mind from the last life." - Namdrol In short, what dependently originates is empty of core, what is empty of core means empty of location since location applies in reference to an existent.

Having knowledge of conventions is not the same as establishing the convention as real. When I see something, I am free of conventions. The only usage of convention is when I am communicating with others. And I know that they are fundamentally false. For example, when you see a car, you don't need to know "it is a car" in order to start driving. The convention "it is a car" is utterly useless except for practical communication purpose. The car is simply a label imputed on a composite, and the composite works dependently to produce a function called 'driving', and the entire composite and interdependently originated process of activities are all fundamentally empty of an entity called 'car'. There is no car. But conventionally for linguistic purpose, we label it and call it a car. But in real life, I do not conceive of 'car', I do not establish a 'car', there is just the suchness of the seen, the spontaneous activity of driving (without establishing anything), etc. You can work perfectly well not conceiving of conventions. It is the termination of all signs. Nagarjuna says, "The elements do not themselves exist individually, So how could their own individual characters exist? What do not themselves indiivdually exist cannot predominate. Their characters are regarded as conventionalities. ... Other than as the imputation of a convention What world is there in fact Which would exist or not?" Candrakirti says, "The very coming to rest, the non-functioning, of perceptions as signs of all named things, is itself nirvana.... When verbal assertions cease, named things are in repose; and the ceasing to function in discursive thought is ultimate serenity." There was no idea of 'tree' at the moment of seeing. It is on reflection that I made those statements. It is more accurate to say 'there is just shapes, colours, movements, light', and then even those are empty - my point is that there is just the direct perception of the appearance without conceiving of anything at that moment of perception. You know when you hear music, you simply enjoy the music right? You don't even have a second thought about what music it is, you just enjoy it. Does that mean I don't have view of inherency at that time? Of course not. It just means the view of inherency is not manifesting itself in a form of conceptualization, in other words it is in its latent mode and non-manifesting mode so to speak. When twofold emptiness realization arises, even the latent view is then removed. My realization is based on realizing that always already there never was a self, a seer that is seeing the seen, in reality in seeing just the seen. That entire framework of duality and inherency is utterly delusional and fabricated. It has nothing to do with making peak experience definitive. There are a lot of people who have peak experiences, but very rarely do you see people who have direct insight of anatta.

I do not have a belief in self. I find that even after going through the technical four paths, Daniel's insights on anatta still does not cover as much as I did. Also, my path does not go through the nanas as it is a different path, just as the path of Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, or even non-Buddhist paths like Advaita, AF and so on does not go through 16 nanas. I call my path a direct path. p.s. of course, I do not consider Daniel's four paths as the same as Buddha's fetter model four paths. I find Daniel's so called Arhatship is in fact closer to Buddha's stream entry. You should also consider the fact that I was considered by moderators in Dharma Overground (Daniel's forum) to have attained Arhatship even though I do not consider myself an Arhat in the traditional sense. Also, having achieved Kenneth Folk's 7th stage of enlightenment under his 7 stages of enlightenment model which extends even beyond the technical four paths, he told me that I was an 'exceptional yogi' to have seen through the illusion of self at the age of 20. Just because you are not attached to something doesn't mean you have to burn it - it is question of whether it is sensible to do so. Many people have benefitted from my e-book, so I shall not do it.