xabir2005

Haven't read his books. But it appears Bodri is not just about stillness... it is more about realizing the One Mind - http://www.meditationexpert.com/zen-buddhism-tao/z_what_is_seeing_the_Tao.html

Reifying only happens when you see something inherent and solid, like a moon made of green cheese and a truly existing santa claus (for example). I don't see a truly existing 'non-reifying' so I don't reify 'non-reifying'. Since I do not assert/view/establish a truly existing thing or the non-existence of a thing, I do not grasp on them. Then it is Just B and Just C. Like the Zen masters say. When sitting, just sit. When eating apple, just eating apple, and it is as if the whole universe is eating apple (all causes and conditions manifest as eating apple). A monk comes to the monastery of Master Zhaozhou and asks for instruction. The master asks him, “Have you had your breakfast?” The monk says that he has. “Then wash your bowls,” is the Master’s reply, and the only instruction he offers. In abhidhamma, they talk about time units and milliseconds etc, which is interesting but I don't study abhidhamma and I don't remember numbers well. Ultimately, the transience turns out to be timeless, complete, whole, and yet self-releasing. You don't experience movement even though there is change (but no changing things). There is no real 'where' because what dependently originates is empty of a locatable core or essence. What dependently originates is empty, means empty of locatable core. 'A' is thus empty of 'A-ness'. There are two insights and experiences - the Maha experience (integrating anatta with dependent origination) described above, which Zen and Zen Master Dogen emphasizes, and the 'dependently originated is empty of a locatable core and thus illusory, dream-like' which Mahamudra and Dzogchen emphasizes. We should integrate these two insights, then we will understand these two traditions. But on the other hand, a pure Zennist may not understand Mahamudra, and Mahamudra person may not understand a Zennist because their emphasis and practice is different. But it does not mean one insight is less valuable than another, therefore we should integrate them. Everything becomes a process of interconnected activities. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions, all comes together and then manifests itself as the drumbeat sound - and in that sound JUST the sound but it is the entire universe coming together and manifesting the sound. This can lead to the Maha sort of insight and experience. You may want to read the Genjokoan article I typed out more carefully. Thoughts being produced by brain does not mean thought = brain or thought happens in brain, but anyway I do not hold such materialistic views. Also, the notion that thoughts abide and come from the head is not something that holds up to experiential investigation. Thought and sense perceptions are appearances that dependently originates and are empty of any locatable essence. The principle of dependent origination and emptiness is not too difficult to understand conceptually, but to realize it experientially is not as simple, which is why Buddha calls it a very deep truth. First realize anatta, otherwise D.O. will be misunderstood. The principle is as such: “That which arose from conditions is unborn; It has no arising by virtue of intrinsic existence. Since it depends on other conditions it is empty.” -Gungthang Tempai Drome One last point: emptiness isn't just not finding the whereabouts and location of something, it means there is no CORE of something, therefore no location. As I said before you can realize I AM and say it is not locatable, but it is not realizing anatta or emptiness. In other words saying I AM is not locatable is not the same as realizing no self, not finding the whereabout of thought does not mean realizing 'no thought'. Realization of emptiness means realizing no core of thought thus no locatable core of thought, it is dependently originated and empty. But the realization is not just about 'not finding the whereabouts'. I'm rushing out so I'll stop here.

It's the same actually. Interdependent origination expresses the seamlessness of all causes and conditions like in the net of indra http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/04/net-of-indra.html

You are misunderstanding what is being said here. What he is saying is that this essence or nature is not only perculiar to an awakened Buddha. All deluded sentient beings too have similar essence and nature, and this is the essence and nature of all displays whether nirvana OR samsara (which means sentient beings too are of similar nature). However none of this implies a universal substratum or God. The idea of a universal consciousness is generally alien to Buddhism except maybe some very late misinterpretation of Tathagatagarbha.

Anyway the thing about Dogen I was talking about earlier: Realizing Genjo Koan – Shohaku Okumura In our practice we just sit with our bodies and minds in the zendo, and we aim to practice the Buddha Way in our activities outside the zendo as well. In practicing the Buddha Way there is no separation between the self that is studying the self and the self that is studied by the self; self is studying the self, and the act of studying is also the self. There is no such thing as a self that is separate from our activity. Dogen Zenji defined this self as jijuyu-zanmai, a term that Sawaki Kodo Roshi described as “self ‘selfing’ the self.'” To illustrate this point we can think of the relationship between a runner and the act of running. When we think of this, we realize that no runner is separate from the act of running; a runner and running are the same thing. if the runner becomes separate from running, then the runner is not running. If this is the case, the runner can no longer be called a runner since a runner is defined as “one who runs.” The great ancient Indian master Nagarjuna presented this example as part of his illustration of emptiness and the negation of a fixed, permanent, fundamental essence that “owns” the body and mind. Running as well as sitting, eating, drinking, and breathing are very ordinary things. But when we say, “There is no ‘I’ other than running” or “running without a runner,” we think we are discussing something mysterious. but this view of the teachings of people such as Nagarjuna or Dogen is mistaken. These teachers are trying to express a very ordinary thing in a truly realistic way without fabrication. To do this they use words that negate themselves in a way that reveals the reality beyond our thoughts. When we practice the Buddha Way, there is no self, no Buddha Way, no others. This is because self, Buddha Way, and others work together as one. What we call “our actions” are actually the work done by both self and other beings and objects. For example, when a person drives a car, the person thinks “he” as subject drives “the car” as object. But in reality we cannot drive without the car; we can only become a driver or be driven with the aid of the car, and the car can only express its full function as a vehicle of transportation when someone drives it. Our cars affect us both psychologically and materially as well. We will drive different cars in different ways, for example, depending upon the style or quality of the car. The feelings and attitude of a person driving a cheap old truck carrying a load of junk will likely be totally different from the feelings and attitude that person will have driving a luxurious new car carrying a VIP. A car can also provide us with the ability to travel quickly and conveniently, yet if it breaks down, we may have to make more effort than usual to get where we need to go repair, fuel, and insurance costs can exert an added financial stress on our lives and can even feel burdensome. So in a sense the car own us and shapes us as much as we own and control it, and the action of driving can actually be manifested only by a person and a car working together. This reality of mutual influence and interconnectedness is true not only for a “special” practice done by a group of people called “Buddhists”; in truth this is the way all beings are working within the circle of interdependent origination. The Buddha Way includes both self and objects. The Buddha Way includes both people sitting and the sitting they do. They are actually one thing. This is very difficult to explain, yet it is an obvious reality of our lives. This reality is not some special state or condition that is only accomplished by so-called “enlightened” people. Even when we don’t realize it, self, action, and object are working together as one reality, so we don’t need to train ourselves to make them into one thing in our minds. If self, action, and object were really three separate things, they could not become one. The truth is that they are always one reality, regardless of what we do or think.

A newborn baby doesn't have habitual labeling of things and yet he is able to respond to light, see the sun, etc, of course he doesn't cognize 'the sun' or 'the light' but if it is too bright he spontaneously close his eyes and if something is too hot he cries, even if it is the first time he experienced it in his life. I'm not saying wisdom is the same as a baby since babies are ignorant of conventions while those who are awakened knows conventions, but are not trapped by them. They know convention so they can understand language and make use of language but they do not believe or view truly existing self or things. But my point is that the state of not viewing conventions as truly existing, and spontaneous response (like a baby) is possible. Or another analogy: when you see a lump of thing in front of you, you don't know what the hell that lump of thing is, so it is just pure vision. But when as you went closer, you recognised "Oh that is gold!" And so it becomes an object of grasping and craving. So it is not the case that all our experiences are learnt, as before we recognized it as gold, we don't know what the hell it is. I remember mentioning it used to be spectacular 'Wow' moments of peak experiences, but now after anatta realization it has become my effortless natural state without entry and exit, so it is a bit weird for me to talk in terms of 'an instance' as if it is one special particular moment, since it is also this very particular instance of my typing on the keyboard now, just this is enlightenment, buddha-nature, perfection, primordial purity, etc. But if you want to know the first time NDNCDIMOP happened, that was in 2006, I can remember looking out of the window when suddenly the sense of an observer inside my head looking outwards, the sense of distance between 'me the observer' and 'the tree out there' completely vanish and there is for a few moments only the tree, swaying of the branches and leaves with a crystal like clarity in amazing lucidity and details and aliveness. It was truly wonderful and amazing. But then the sense of me returned very quickly and I longed to return to it but don't know how to. I went to the Buddhist forum and wrote about how the seeing is the trees, the scenery, etc, that I am not a seer but I am the seeing, the seen, etc. That was way before I had any realization, only a momentary peak experience (which occurred from time to time since then until realization of anatta made it natural and effortless without entering/exiting)

Your stance is simlar to Advaita Vedanta notion of Brahman. When you realize anatta, it is not longer seen as such. It does not mean consciousness is denied but the inherency of consciousness. One sees that the notion of agency, or an ultimate awareness observing or manifesting things is an illusion... in seeing there is just the seen without seer, no agent, no source behind things. So there is not 'awareness and manifestation' not even 'awareness manifesting as everything' since 'awareness' is only 'manifestation'. There is no 'The Awareness', but six streams of dependently originated awareness-es as explained in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/12/dependent-arising-of-consciousness.html , which is distinct from the monistic non-duality of Advaita. So what this realization entails is the deconstruction of 'Awareness' into the six streams of dependently originated consciousness, without a cognizer. There is just a process and stream of activities of knowing without knower, and each manifestation of cognizance is distinct, disjoint, it is just a diverse display of manifold rather than a collapsing of multiplicity into Oneness such as in the case of One Mind. By the way my advice (because this is my path and Thusness's) is to contemplate and realize I AM, which then progresses to Non Dual (at first One Mind) then eventually into No Mind and Anatta. So for us it is advisable to go through step by step, but understand the importance of right view otherwise progress will be stalled. I have discussed all these experientially in details in my article Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21871-experience-realization-view-practice-and-fruition/

No, I did say I am right and that many others had similar experiences but they are two issues. My point was that what I discovered can be seen by anyone because it is a plain fact waiting to be discovered by doing some investigation and contemplation, it is not a 'reserved' truth. Those are just examples pointing out the possibility of spontaneous, non-conceptual experiences, which are aspects of wisdom but not the totality of it. In other words experience of spontaneity, non-conceptual experiences (which everyone has experienced some time in their life) does not indicate wisdom. Even NDNCDIMOP does not indicate wisdom. It may simply be a peak experience. Wisdom must arise from realization, the realization of twofold emptiness that turns deluded cognition into correct cognition, in other words cognition undeluded by any false views of inherent self or objects. As an example? There is no example for an ignorant person: only Buddhas are able to comprehend wisdom. The most I can describe is like Kalaka sutta: in seeing there is just the suchness of the seen without establishing a cognizer or something cognized (luminous yet illusory). It's like asking "how do you know you are not reifying a moon made of green chase?" "how do you know you are not reifying a santa claus?" I do not, because I do not see a moon made of green cheese nor do I believe in something called santa claus. Similarly, I do not see anything inherent or graspable called "non-reification". You are confusing me with your own confusion of me. Or maybe I didn't explain myself well. I am saying, uninvestigated framework of viewing self and things dualistically and inherently must be seen through and relinquished, but it can only be done so by realization. A is a new phenomenon and thus disjoint from B and C, but it is the manifestation of the causal interaction of B and C, so it is like the universe is manifesting as A - a complete, whole, non-dual phenomenon. Another analogy: under dualistic framework, we misinterprete dependent origination to mean subject reflecting external conditions. But actually this is not the case - in seeing just the seen - dependent origination means the whole universe of all causes and condition exerting itself into JUST A - so "A" contains all of "Not A" but is itself 'unconditioned' (not subject interacting external objects) 'complete-in-itself' manifestation of 'Just A'. I might post something later on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan which I think is good. The point is that there is no core behind appearances, since appearances dependently originate without substantiality. It is not that 'flower has no core' but 'there is no flower-core or flower-ness behind an appearance conventionally labelled as flower'. To say 'flower has no core' or 'self has no core' already suppose that there is a self. But when we say appearances are empty of core, we merely reject the view of existence since appearance that dependently originate are empty of any inherent core. But anyway what we realize is that all manifestation dependently originate, all phenomenon dependently originates and thus are empty of any inherent existence. Therefore, a flower cannot be established - phenomenon dependently originate. There is no 'a flower' since all phenomenon dependently originates and thus are empty. This is the case for all phenomenon and not just phenomenon experienced subjectively. When we realize that what appears dependently originates and is empty, we are not saying 'everything experienced is just mental events so whatever experienced are illusory' (in this case it just means whatever experienced is mental and illusory but does not say anything about phenomenon beyond subjective awareness) but 'all phenomenon dependently originates and are empty of any inherent core, substance, locatable essence that can be pinned down', in other words dependent origination and emptiness applies and is the nature of all phenomenon, mind or matter. (Ultimately, there is no mind and no matter, since all phenomenon mind or matter dependently originate and are fundamentally empty, mind and matter are just conventions about a bunch of illusory empty phenomenon.) This is why I said earlier that this is not about denying what we observe nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only appears in dependence on other phenomena. By first realizing anatta and then further penetrating and seeing everything as dependently originated activities, followed by a deeper insight into the emptiness of all phenomenon. This is nothing inferred. In the Buddhist understanding of things, plants in itself does not have consciousness but then a spirit may 'take residence' in a tree or plant. Let's not even talk about plants. Let's talk about people and animals. Obviously, people and animals have consciousness. But does that mean 'consciousness' is an entity that is located and residing in a particular location in the human body? Not really, as consciousness is fundamentally empty and dependently origianted as well, empty of any core or location. But it can appear to an untrained mind that consciousness is located somewhere as an atomic entity or soul. This is not the case when anatta and emptiness is realized - consciousness is simply a mental experience without subject and object, without localization. It is not something you can pin down in one part of the body and say 'there it is!' So even if plants have awareness (which they don't) that doens't mean plants have an independent, inherent existence. Awareness and consciousness are also anatta, dependently originated, and empty. Having consciousness does not mean there is a Self. How do I know that? Anatta and Emptiness is the nature of all phenomenon and this is realized to be the case, non-inferentially. One realizes that the whole view of 'seer-seeing-seen', the whole view of agency, of a self-entity is completely delusional. There is no such thing! Never was there a 'self'. It is as delusional as the delusion of the existence of moon made of green cheese, rabbits with horn, santa claus, etc. Uh no, I never said there was 'existence'. I mean since all things are empty, whatever labels 'mind', 'matter' are mere conventions like 'weather' or 'river' but actually don't point to an inherent, locatable core or substance of things. Thought is something you can observe in plain sight (not in the visual sense but in the mental sense) so obviously it is not hiding somewhere like your kidneys (if you presume the existence of kidneys). The presumption is that what is observed has its location somewhere, but when you look at where thought abides, where it comes from and where it goes to, the thought-ness of thought cannot be found, non-arisen and no-cessation. Thought is seen to be a magical apparition, illusory, dream-like. The same goes to all sense perceptions as well.

There is some fundamental difference though. What I call mind is empty of self, impermanent (as in arising and ceasing moment to moment but uninterruptedly flowing like a river), everchanging, without agency, dependent on conditions. What they call God is inherently existing and have a Self, independent, ultimate, unchanging, an ultimate agent and origin for all things. Both may have a similar experience of the luminous mind, but one sees the empty nature of luminosity and thus attain liberation from all clinging (Buddhism) but the other may fail to see its empty nature and thus reify it into something much more solid and inherent thus causing grasping and delusion. As Thusness say, Although there is non-duality in Advaita Vedanta, and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta rest in an “Ultimate Background” (making it dualistic), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change. It is not mere semantics but there is a vast practical difference... I have gone through those experiences and phases of insight so I know.

No, if God were dependently originated, that would strip God of the title of creator, since God would then be a D.O-ed manifested/manifestation rather than the manifestor or creator. God would then not be an agent and thus no God at all, and the process would have arisen due to dependent origination without agency which is what I am point out to be directly observable and realizable (but not by the process of inference I gave you which is just to point out certain logical inconsistencies). "There is no beginning" was said by Buddha in reference to samsara - not a creator since he rejected the notion of creationism. Basically the Buddha's criticism of God is that if there were such a thing as a God, that would have been an evil (if personal) or harmful (if impersonal) entity... since there is so much suffering in life. He did not speak about an ultimate beginning, but he does talk about kalpas, aeons, etc... even aeons after aeons, the cycle of samsara goes on and on. No beginning can be found. It makes perfect sense plus it can be seen in direct experience that all manifestation dependently originates. Buddha say mind precedes all dhammas - in that case, warmth and light also preceded from mind and karma. In other words, our experience, whatever they occur, don't occur purely as a result of matter - the materialist or modern science understanding of things. Buddha is not a materialist. He says things dependently originate, but yet mind precedes all dharmas. Of course this doesn't make mind an agent because mind itself dependently originate dependent on previous moments of mind, a process that has no beginning. But the basic point here is that we do not say 'brain creates mind', Buddhists are not materialists, and we believe that the mind continuum does not merely cease upon physical death which would as a consequence reject rebirth and karma (the view of annihilation), but neither do we posit an unchanging self or soul, so we teach a middle way beyond extremes.

I don't have to wonder... I know from my experience, insight and understanding that God is incompatible from Dependent Origination, which is why the Buddha explicitly rejected notions of a Creator. Once you have realized anatta and dependent origination, you will see what notions are incompatible... The notion of creationism falls under the view of partial eternalism, which are eliminated with right knowledge and insight. No, the teaching of dependent origination rejects the view of creationism PLUS the view that things arise randomly, by chance, spontaneously, without cause... and it rejects that things exists without cause, independently. Every arising has a cause, so it is not just 'random', but it is not by some ultimate God. As for how this physical universe began, here's an excerpt that may offer some general intro understanding of the Buddhist POV: Buddha: Mind pre­cedes all dham­mas. Namdrol: When we say that matter comes from mind, it is very simple: physical matter arises due to the traces of action and affliction collectively aggregated in all minds every time the container universe forms. Basically, dependently originated. And this physical universe is not the only one - there had been innumerable past universes, and there will be innumerable future universes. Not random, but rather cause, conditions and effect. There is a beginning and end to this universe, but there will be innumerable future universes, and there was innumerable past universes. This is the Buddhist understanding of universes. This is why there is no beginning to samsara even though there is a beginning and end to a particular universe. Can you describe what you perceive to be intelligence? Is this intelligence separate from you? How do you know this intelligence is some sort of Creator? Ever read books like Tibetan Book of the Dead? In Vajrayana Bardo texts, there is an instruction to the dying in their bardo states (they can still hear you even though clinically dead) to understand all of their perceptions as their own display. The experiences and visions you perceive in your bardo, near death state are an expression or display of your own cognition. They do not represent some external figure apart from yourself. Understanding this you do not fall into the error of assuming a subject-object duality. Basically, your experience cannot be denied, but the framework in which the experienced is interpreted is often based on dualistic and inherent thought (dualistic means subject-object, inherent means something inherently existing, self, etc). This is why the old Masters say, keep the experience but refine the view. I have to say that your experience sounds very much like the experience/realization of I AMness with the aspect of impersonality. This experience is well described as the 'Spirit of ALL' since it appears like you break out of the vase of individuality into an all-pervasive, impersonal Presence. That experience is without subject-object duality. I have had such realization before. However the mind wrongly interpretes this as a universal substance or source... until further insights develope. The experience is impersonal (stripped of the construct of personality) but to call it a universal source is an extrapolation due to the framework of duality and inherency. Eventually you will see that the 'all-pervading Presence' is actually the essence of the individual mindstream when the mind ceases gross conceptualization and experiences, and stripped off of the construct of personality. This experience appears transcendental and often (falsely) interpreted to be some cosmic God. When anatta is realized, consciousness is understood to be an individual mindstream that is nonetheless non-dual and without any self, but not a universal source of things. This is elaborated in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

As you said - Buddhist understanding is different from other religions, and it is not just a slight one. It is a fundamental paradigm difference as Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche explained in his article Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html If you cannot accept Buddhist teachings, at least be open it and when you feel ready to investigate it with an open mind. p.s. One of the important lessons of D.O. is that it breaks down hierarchy. Early last year, Thusness came to my house, and drawn to me a diagram of hierarchy (such as 'Awareness' or 'Ultimate Reality' or 'Source' at the top), and the next diagram representing the D.O. insight breaking all hierarchies into 'all are flat manifestations'. Later, my Taiwanese teacher also sent me a letter telling emphasizing the equality of all dharmas, talking about this essentially same issue. And while it is true that there are relative 'hierarchies' in samsara - ultimately all these are empty and illusory, dependently originated. Even the highest gods are bound to be reborn, their birth completely dependent on karma. As for 'Brahman', Buddhism does not see a 'Brahman' but sees Anatta and D.O. - no hierarchy at all. Life is intelligent - but there is no agent behind intelligence. Life is, no 'liver' of life. The insight into anatta and dependent origination does not deny 'Life', 'Intelligence', 'Vitality', 'Clarity', 'Luminosity' but simply replaces view of 'Self', 'Source', 'Ultimate Agent' with dependent origination and emptiness (which when seen dissolves all views). Dependent Origination and Emptiness has nothing to do with 'dead', 'inert'. Otherwise emptiness, luminosity and energy/appearance cannot be said to be inseparable.

Dharmakaya is not an agent, it is the emptiness, which the tantra described as empty of a ground. Emptiness, luminosity and energy/appearance are inseparable. However nowhere does it indicate some sort of ultimate source or agent. First of all when you realize anatta, the entire idea of agency is seen through as false and delusional - there never was an agent behind experience, the entire framework and view is fabricated. This realization breaks down subject object view (I, the seer, sees the objective universe) an inherent self view - the view that there is an inherent, independent, unchanging self, awareness, agent behind the process of phenomenal activities. There is the realization that in seeing there is just the seen, no seer from the beginning, the view of self is a delusion... What this means in effect, not just by inference but this can be directly seen and experienced, is that there is only just a process of activities - there is no-thing substantial, only a process of seamlessly dependently originated activities. No thing is created, they dependently originate according to condition. Dependent origination is incompatible with the idea of a God, Source, or Agent, and as long as you cling to such notions you will never truly realize and experience what D.O. is. What I want to stress is that all these are not just theories, it can be directly realized and experienced... and this realization is beautiful and liberating.

Mindstream means a stream of activities occuring as a causal continuum, not the continuity of any entity. Because there is causal continuum, relatively speaking karma of your past life still ripens this life, events of yesterday can be remembered, etc. But it does not mean there is a soul, self-core or an unchanging self. A is the cause of B. B arise due to causal relation with A. So B is not different from A, but neither is it the same as A. A and B are disjoint and yet, B is interdependently originated in accord with A as a causal condition. An example is a causal continuum - I am neither same as my teacher, but neither is it totally different, since teacher imparts knowledge to me and therefore the knowledge of this continuum is a causal continuum of my teacher but not a continuity of an entity. Nonetheless understand teacher and me to be disjoint, relatively speaking, yet interdependently originated. 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." Namdrol: Causes and effects are not the same, nor are they different. The mind that takes rebirth is not as same as the previous mind nor is it different. This is the reason why it is possible for sentients beings to experience serial rebirth through the appropriation of an infinite series of new physical bodies over time, relatively speaking. By saying that there is no actual rebirth, one is committing oneself to a metaphysical position called ucchedavada i.e. annihilationism. Commiting oneself to the position that there is an actual self, person, or entity that is reborn is called śāśvatavāda, eternalism. But when one understands that one instant of mind is neither the same nor different than the next instant of mind; since they are not the same, one avoids śāśvatavāda; and since they are not different, one avoids ucchedavada — thus one can understand the truth of rebirth, karma and its result, and dependent origination in the manner in which the Buddha intended and leave off the metaphysical speculations that plague non-Buddhists about such issues. One can then also understand that since the mind has no beginning, it never arose; and since it never arose, it never ceases. N

Actually, there is no logic or reason why things are dependently originated, or why things are impermanent, or why things are anatta. It just is. Just like there is no reason or logic why the mind is luminous - it just is, it is the essence of mind. Mind is not luminous because God wanted it to be luminous - it is simply so. You don't need reason to see this fact in direct experience, and neither can inferrential thought ever touch luminosity. A thought can however point - sort of, but the pointer is not the pointed. You never actually see Buddha giving detailed logic about emptiness, about anatta, impermanence, dukkha, etc. He did elaborate on it by giving examples (such as dukkha is such and such), but not through logical analysis or reasoning. He prefers people to investigate it in direct experience. He only says 'suffering is such as such' and can be seen and observed in direct experience. You either see it, or accept it by faith and then contemplate then see it. I cannot give you a logic, but I can point out certain things you can look into: there is no controller or agency behind sensations and thoughts*, there is no perceiver or agency behind perception - in seeing just the seen not seer seeing seen, etc. You just have to investigate and see them yourselves. Dependent on sense organ and sense object, various modes of consciousness manifest. Through this dependent origination, the eighteen dhatus arise as the Buddha has elaborated in details**. It is just the way things are. * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir." ** http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm "No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness." "Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time. "Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

God only has its meaning as a truly existing ultimate origin. I'm sure HE is not talking about a man with a white beard (Abrahamic sense of God, or the god Brahma). More of an 'emanationistic' kind of Ground of Being, i.e. Brahman. However even such a view contradicts the basic tenets of Dependent Origination and Anatta. You cannot call D.O. as God because D.O. is not an agent, it just means dependent on various causes and conditions manifestation arises and upon the cessation of various causes and conditions, manifestation cease, and there is no unchanging, eternal agent whatsoever.

The problem is that God implies a universal, unchanging, independent source of things. Such a notion is utterly rejected in buddhism in various texts. Buddhism teaches anatta, emptiness, insubstantiality and interdependent origination. No truly existing ultimate origin can be found. There is no mind-agent or a universal mind, only a mind stream that interdependently originates without a beginning, in fact utterly empty and non-arisen. Minds have no beginning because they are fundamentally empty and unarisen. It is not the case that our minds were created or derived origin from a God. And by the way God can't be a manifestation when it is a source of manifestation so what you said is contradictory, and all manifestation interdepedently originates without an ultimate agent or origin, hence there is therefore no God in Buddhism.

Actually I already answered you with my explanation above. You don't deny the unceasing flowing of river, but you understand river is empty of any unchanging or independent core. There is no river-ness behind flowing, just the unceasing stream of activities of flowing. Same with mindstream and knowing without knower.

@lucky: it is difficult for me to reply long posts on my handphone. I only have computer on weekends. @harmonious emptiness: there is no such thing as a universal consciousness in Buddhism. So there is no universal source in Buddhism. Mind is not an unchanging thing: there is no mind apart from mental activities and consciousness, all of which dependently originate without a self. The essence of mind is luminous: having the quality of knowing, awareness, intelligence, aliveness. All our experience is self-luminous. There is no self - there is knowing, no knower, mind is mind-stream, no mind-agent. But self-luminous mind is empty of an unchanging identity or entity, even if it is a universal one - there is no universal source. The luminous essence, empty nature, and uninterrupted energy or manifestation are inseparable. There is no true existent anywhere. For example, river is no river - the river's nature is empty of some independent and unchanging entity that is river, being empty, it is unceasingly flowing and stream-ing and unimpeded, manifesting as the everchanging stream of activities. Similarly as the third Karmapa says, "All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever." Mind is not an entity but a mere convention for insubstantial, ephemeral self-luminous mental activities. There is no agent or source of those activities like there is no agent behind river, no river-ness standing behind the flowing activities. No thinker behind thinking or seer behind seeing. Everything interdependently originates, there is no ultimate source or origin, no beginning to manifestation since everything arises through aggregation of causes and conditions

The Guhyagarbha Tantra teaches: "This mind-essence devoid of ground and root Is the basis of all phenomena." Very well said. The ground of all things is groundlessness - empty. The nature of all things is no-self-nature - emptiness. No ground of being (as in a truly existent and established ground of all things) can be established. All your quotations are talking about the lack of a truly established ground and lack of true existent. This empty nature is the nature of all things.