xabir2005

Seen from the perspective of hell, ghost realm is heaven. Seen from the perspective of human realm, anything below that is hell. Seen from the perspective of deva realm, human realm is hell. But none can compare to Nirvana, which is the end of all suffering. All clinging is suffering when compared to Nirvana. All realms are suffering when compared to Nirvana. To paraphrase the Buddha, even when if its a little bit of shit, it's still shit, thus not recommended.

I already described it to you. Go figure. Or check out Kalaka Sutta. No time to reply any more for now.

I saw that it is an illusion because if reality is already perfect and complete in this moment (which I saw to be the case), why do I need effort to get to something? So I dropped the effort. But this is ironically still effortful. It is not a natural resolution. I did not see that it is the view of inherency, the attachment to a Here/Now, to an actual ground, that is the problem. The insight arose during contemplation in a vipasasnic setting, it is just realized that everything is disjoint, unsupported, ephemeral, insubstantial, etc The point is everything dependently originates, and the toilet 'moves' or changes accordingly too. There is no 'the toilet' apart from all the conditions at the moment giving rise to the appearance you call 'toilet'. Yes but to grasp it leads to suffering, ultimately. Actually suffering should also be understood in the context of countless lifetimes in samsara. I once went to a bookstore and flipped through a very interesting book on how to quit nicotine. The author used to smoke 40 sticks a day, he's a chain smoker, but managed to quit it entirely through correct understanding of the nature of nicotine and nicotine craving. He says there is nothing great about nicotine at all except that it relieves craving temporarily (in the same way eating food relieves hunger temporarily) giving a false illusion about the greatness of nicotine, but if you don't have that craving or need to begin with, why will you need nicotine? So nicotine is not in itself something great, but it gives temporary relieve to the craving so it is misperceived as something good. It is actually just to satisfy the pathetic nicotine addiction... nothing else. So in order to quit successfully all we have to do is to change our false perception about nicotine. I only read a bit but it is quite an interesting book. Later on, I discovered a sutta that gave a rather similar analogy. Also not just for smoking cravings but basically every situation: for relationships and sexual desires, if you are straight, you aren't attracted to same sex people and you won't find pleasure in same sex relationship (well you do but in a non-sexual friendship manner which is a different story), so basically the pleasure is dependent on your particular inclinations and craving, so isn't it the same as the smoking case? I can say the same with food, etc, since one type of food can seem very nice to someone but not nice to someone else (e.g. durian), so the pleasure is dependent on your particular inclinations and craving, so the pleasure is derived simply from your craving, and craving arise due to grasping on things falsely (there are also other conditions and factors but those are not primary ones). So it is the disease of craving, clinging that results in suffering. That perceived pleasure itself is a result of the disease of taking suffering to be pleasure, like taking boiling water as pleasurable, or scratching a sore wound as pleasurable. If there is no craving to begin with, there will be peace. This is like feeling a bad diarrhea and stomachache then going to toilet to shit feels great but actually there is nothing great about shitting and if given a choice you prefer not to have diarrhea. Same goes for the leper and the hot boiling water example: pouring boiling water when you're a leper feels great but of course you prefer not to be a leper. Craving, attachment, brings much suffering and harm and yet we constantly indulge in them in delusion so we can never find the peace and happiness of nirvana. Now that we know the possibility of nirvana, we should strive and make an effort. Something I wrote to a friend some time ago: Imo the key is in paying clear attention (mindfulness) and meditative investigation on the defilements until their nature becomes clear: impermanent, unsatisfactory and nonself is the way to insight and as a result natural dropping occurs. It cannot be willed but it can occur as a natural dropping through seeing with naked awareness, but not by reacting to it, nor is it by temporarily suppressing the arising of thoughts (both which are dualistic action presuming that there is a doer that can control the objects of arising, and therefore cannot lead to a true resolution of defilements). However when insight arise into the nature of defilements, we naturally stop being drawn in by the allurement of the defilements. We clearly see defilements as suffering/unsatisfactory, as as being empty. Sentient beings are entranced by craving for temporary pleasures, not knowing that the very craving and clinging leads to suffering: in the same way that scratching a sore wound may feel very "right" or pleasurable but is actually making things much worse and increasing the suffering every time you scratch. It is the blindness of sentient beings to the nature of that craving that sustains the samsaric cycle of suffering. So liberation from defilements can only happen when we realize the nature of defilements and craving we harbour are like hot charcoal that burns, naturally we drop - it is not by reasoning or willing ourselves to drop. This deep seeing thus naturally leads to disenchantment, dispassion and liberation. This is why arahants can no longer give rise to craving: not because he has strong will, but because his combination of wisdom and samadhi is so complete that he can no longer be delusioned about the nature of craving and suffering. It is like you can no longer pick up an object once you recognise it to be hot charcoal. Practicing this way also leads to an experiential understanding of the four noble truths: suffering, cause of suffering (craving), end of suffering, way to end suffering. Here is something I find useful and effective regarding dealing with addictions: "In addition to various recovery programs, the most effective way of undoing addiction that I know of is by giving non-judgmental, open attention to what is happening right now in this moment without seeking a result or trying to change it in any way – simply seeing it clearly. Let's take alcoholic drinking as an example. If you're not yet ready or able to completely stop drinking, then pay attention to the whole process of drinking as it happens. Notice that first impulse for a drink – see what triggers it, be aware of how it happens, notice what it feels like in the body. What is this urge itself actually like? What thoughts are showing up, what mental images, what storylines, what sensations? Is it possible to pause for a moment and fully experience the bodily sensations that go with this urge for a drink, the sense of urgency, the excitement, whatever it is? And then the whole process of "deciding" whether to give in to this urge or whether to resist – how does that so-called decision-making process actually unfold, what are your thoughts telling you? And then buying the bottle, opening it up, pouring the first drink – what does each moment in this process feel like in the body? And then the first sip, what is that like? And how do you feel after one drink – what is pleasurable about it, what isn't? What moves you to have a second drink? What is this urge – do you really want another drink, or is there a fear of what you might feel if you don't keep drinking? How do you feel after that second drink – do you actually like how you feel? What do you like about it and what don't you like? What do you feel like the next morning? What thoughts and stories are arising? Simply paying attention to this whole unfolding process and observing it every step of the way. You'll learn a lot. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to these questions, and the answers may be different at different moments. It's all about paying attention, being aware of your thoughts, noticing the storylines, feeling the sensations in the body, discovering what is actually going on every step of the way. When you realize that you are pinching yourself, and when you see how it happens – what the allurement is, how it seduces you, how you do it, how ultimately unsatisfying it is, how it hurts – naturally, you stop. The more the light of awareness shines on these habitual mechanisms, and the more clarity there is about how they work, the more choice and the more possibility there is. The urge for a drink may still arise, but it may be possible not to go with it. And when it isn't possible, then you drink. And you notice what that's like. Maybe over time drinking happens less and less, and maybe alcoholic drinking falls away completely at some point. Maybe at some point a clear decision to stop emerges, or a decision to go into some recovery program, or whatever it might be. It is not actually "your" decision, it is the action of Life Itself." - Joan Tollifson, http://www.joantollifson.com/writing9.html Also here is what the Buddha says about the leper who takes pleasure in being scorched: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.html "Magandiya, suppose that there was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. His friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him, and thanks to the medicine he would be cured of his leprosy: well & happy, free, master of himself, going wherever he liked. Then suppose two strong men, having grabbed him with their arms, were to drag him to a pit of glowing embers. What do you think? Wouldn't he twist his body this way & that?" "Yes, master Gotama. Why is that? The fire is painful to the touch, very hot & scorching." "Now what do you think, Magandiya? Is the fire painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, only now, or was it also that way before?" "Both now & before is it painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, master Gotama. It's just that when the man was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, his faculties were impaired, which was why, even though the fire was actually painful to the touch, he had the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'" "In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of 'pleasant.' "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of sensuality. "Now what do you think, Magandiya? Have you ever seen or heard of a king or king's minister — enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever — who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace?" "No, master Gotama." "Very good, Magandiya. Neither have I ever seen or heard of a king or king's minister — enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever — who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace. But whatever priests or contemplatives who have dwelt or will dwell or are dwelling free from thirst, their minds inwardly at peace, all have done so having realized — as it actually is present — the origination & disappearance, the allure, the danger, & the escape from sensual pleasures, having abandoned sensual craving and removed sensual fever." Then at that moment the Blessed One exclaimed, Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease. The eightfold: the foremost of paths going to the Deathless, Secure. When this was said, Magandiya the wanderer said to the Blessed One, "It's amazing, master Gotama. It's astounding, how this, too, is well-stated by master Gotama: 'Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease.' We have also heard this said by earlier wanderers in the lineage of our teachers: 'Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease.' This agrees with that." "But as for what you have heard said by earlier wanderers in the lineage of your teachers, Magandiya — 'Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease' — which freedom from disease is that, which Unbinding?" When this was said, Magandiya the wanderer rubbed his own limbs with his hand. "This is that freedom from disease, master Gotama," he said. "This is that Unbinding. For I am now free from disease, happy, and nothing afflicts me." "Magandiya, it's just as if there were a man blind from birth who couldn't see black objects... white... blue... yellow... red... or pink objects; who couldn't see even or uneven places, the stars, the sun, or the moon. He would hear a man with good eyesight saying, 'How wonderful, good sirs, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' He would go in search of something white. Then another man would fool him with a grimy, oil-stained rag: 'Here, my good man, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' The blind man would take it and put it on. Having put it on, gratified, he would exclaim words of gratification, 'How wonderful, good sirs, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' Now what do you think, Magandiya? When that man blind from birth took the grimy, oil-stained rag and put it on; and, having put it on, gratified, exclaimed words of gratification, 'How wonderful, good sirs, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean': Did he do so knowing & seeing, or out of faith in the man with good eyesight?" "Of course he did it not knowing & not seeing, master Gotama, but out of faith in the man with good eyesight." "In the same way, Magandiya, the wanderers of other sects are blind & eyeless. Without knowing freedom from disease, without seeing Unbinding, they still speak this verse: Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease. "This verse was stated by earlier worthy ones, fully self-awakened: Freedom from disease: the foremost good fortune. Unbinding: the foremost ease. The eightfold: the foremost of paths going to the Deathless, Secure. "But now it has gradually become a verse of run-of-the-mill people. "This body, Magandiya, is a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction. And yet you say, with reference to this body, which is a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction: 'This is that freedom from disease, master Gotama. This is that Unbinding,' for you don't have the noble vision with which you would know freedom from disease and see Unbinding." "I'm convinced, master Gotama, that you can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I would know freedom from disease, that I would see Unbinding." "Magandiya, it's just as if there were a man blind from birth who couldn't see black objects... white... blue... yellow... red... the sun or the moon. His friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him, but in spite of the medicine his eyesight would not appear or grow clear. What do you think, Magandiya? Would that doctor have nothing but his share of weariness & disappointment?" "Yes, master Gotama." "In the same way, Magandiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma — 'This is that freedom from disease; this is that Unbinding' — and you on your part did not know freedom from disease or see Unbinding, that would be wearisome for me; that would be troublesome for me." "I'm convinced, master Gotama, that you can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I would know freedom from disease, that I would see Unbinding." "Magandiya, it's just as if there were a man blind from birth who couldn't see black objects... white... blue... yellow... red... the sun or the moon. Now suppose that a certain man were to take a grimy, oil-stained rag and fool him, saying, 'Here, my good man, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean.' The blind man would take it and put it on. "Then his friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him: purges from above & purges from below, ointments & counter-ointments and treatments through the nose. And thanks to the medicine his eyesight would appear & grow clear. Then together with the arising of his eyesight, he would abandon whatever passion & delight he felt for that grimy, oil-stained rag. And he would regard that man as an enemy & no friend at all, and think that he deserved to be killed. 'My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by that man & his grimy, oil-stained rag! — "Here, my good man, is a white cloth — beautiful, spotless, & clean."' "In the same way, Magandiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma — 'This is that freedom from Disease; this is that Unbinding' — and you on your part were to know that freedom from Disease and see that Unbinding, then together with the arising of your eyesight you would abandon whatever passion & delight you felt with regard for the five clinging-aggregates. And it would occur to you, 'My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by this mind! For in clinging, it was just form that I was clinging to... it was just feeling... just perception... just fabrications... just consciousness that I was clinging to. With my clinging as a requisite condition, there arises becoming... birth... aging & death... sorrow, lamentation, pains, distresses, & despairs. And thus is the origin of this entire mass of stress.'" "I'm convinced, master Gotama, that you can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I might rise up from this seat cured of my blindness." "In that case, Magandiya, associate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." When this was said, Magandiya the wanderer said, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. Let me obtain the going forth in Master Gotama's presence, let me obtain admission." "Anyone, Magandiya, who has previously belonged to another sect and who desires the going forth & admission in this doctrine & discipline, must first undergo probation for four months. If, at the end of four months, the monks feel so moved, they give him the going forth & admit him to the monk's state. But I know distinctions among individuals in this matter." "Master Gotama, if anyone who has previously belonged to another sect and desires the going forth & admission in this doctrine & discipline must first undergo probation for four months; and if, at the end of four months, the monks feel so moved, they give him the going forth & admit him to the monk's state; then I am willing to undergo probation for four years. If, at the end of four years, the monks feel so moved, let them give me the going forth & admit me to the monk's state." Then Magandiya the wanderer received the going forth & the admission in the Blessed One's presence. And not long after his admission — dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute — he in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of the holy life, for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the here & now. He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus Ven. Magandiya became another one of the arahants.

And my point is the people you talk about are deluded. By a lot I don't mean like majority but a substantial number of people from past to present. The Buddha had like thousands or tens of thousands of students in his lifetime who are awakened, many more have since awakened. That is quite a substantial number even though still small when compared with the current population of 7 billion people. All views are false. Seeing truth is to stop establishing views, but it is not that there is some 'thing' that can be pinned down as a truth or reality, the truth is simply the lack of anything that can be viewed or pinned down as reality. Anyway I am not comparing 'direct experience'. For example one can have NDNCDIMOP like I AM, but due to false framework it is reified. But I am not rejecting the direct experience of NDNCDIMOP, I am rejecting the framework in which the NDNCDIMOP is reified. As the masters said, keep the experience, refine the view. The experience (as in the NDNCDIMOP) is not the problem, you can't deny the pure luminous presence, you can only reject self-view, false views, which are mental proliferations. The resolution to uninvestigated framework is realization. Not really, but it is seen that whatever manifest is sort of like the conspiracy of the universe (all the supporting causes and conditions) to manifest as this moment, complete, whole and non-dual. The view of a manifestation coming from a particular direction, source, or agent is completely seen through. Car driving is as much the road's driving or the car's driving as it is 'your' driving, in reality there is no agent or source, just one complete manifestation as a result of all the causes and conditions. A manifestation A is independent of B and C, but itself is a complete, whole, manifestation of B and C and thus independent of B and C in one complete manifestation, so that it is simultaneously dependent and yet unconditioned as the only thing in the world (in a figure of speech way, as an experiential expression of 'in seeing just the seen'). You cannot pin down any it ness of a flower. There is no core of a flower. It is just like a mirage or a bubble, appearing yet without core or substance. Whether you see a flower as atoms, as red, as black, as void, whatever observations you make about a flower is dependent on how you observe it, so in final analysis every phenomenon is dependently originated. For example you might be thinking, a person sees A with regards to a flower, another sees B with regards to a flower, but actually the true existence or core of a flower is Z (something you cannot see but can only postulate). But I'm telling you that even if you are to discover Z, that too is a dependently originated phenomenon. Everything is a dependently originated phenomenon, there is no inherent existence at all. So there are just different appearances but no core at all. This has to do with the nature of all phenomenon - dependently originated and thus empty. So this is not a statement about 'everything is only mind, the objective existence are illusory' but rather an insight into dependent origination and emptiness of all phenomenon, such that what we conventionally call mind, and what we conventionally call matter, are equally empty and illusory. This is not about subsuming everything to be mind-only (which will have given reality to 'mind'). Mind and matter can be distinguished, but only conventionally, and what is conventional isn't true. Ultimately mind and matter are equally illusory and empty which is to say there is no mind and no matter. In short: This does not deny appearance as we observe it, nor is it to say that there's no reality outside the mind (subsuming everything into into mind), but simply that no 'reality in itself' exists. Phenomena only manifest in dependence on other phenomena. An independent core cannot be found, established, pinned down, as everything dependently originates and is empty. No, I mean you cannot find a thought right now, the current thought while appearing cannot be pinned down anywhere, you cannot find an origin of the thought, or a destination of a thought. Actually come to think of it, it is possible I have realized all these 5 years ago, but incredibly difficult. I will have to be of similar calibre like Bahiya. Happy new year!

I investigated and contemplated them in my experience until it is seen and realized. Impermanence came to me after anatta insight, and it has to do with the 1st stanza disjoint aspect. As I wrote in my article: Few months later, even though it has already been seen that ‘seeing is always the sights, sounds, colours and shapes, never a seer’, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, like 'The actual world right here and now', which I can 'ground myself in', like I needed to ground in something truly existing, like I needed to return to being actual, here, now, whatever you want to call it. At that point when I detected this subtle movement I instantly recognised it to be illusory and dropped it, however I still could not find a natural resolution to that. Until, shortly maybe two weeks later, a deeper insight arose and I saw how Here/Now or something I can ground myself in doesn't apply when the "brilliant, self-luminous, vivid, alive, wonderful textures and forms and shapes and colours and details of the universe", all sense perceptions and thoughts, are in reality insubstantial, groundless, ephemeral, disjoint, unsupported and spontaneous, there was a deeper freedom and effortlessness. It is this insight into all as insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like, disjoint manifestations that allows this overcoming of a subtle view of something inherent. There is no observer observing something changing: simply that the "sensate world" is simply these disjoint manifestations without anything linking each sensation to another, without some inherent ground that could link manifestations, so manifestations are 'scattered'. Somewhere this time, Thusness wrote me a post in blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-aside-presence-penetrate-deeply.html Those are great analogies. I actually came up with one new analogy on my own I haven't heard anywhere else (it spontaneously occured to me when I was looking at my reflection) with regards to Emptiness, that I wrote in Chinese. Basically it goes like this: when we look at our reflections in the mirror, if we are not aware it is merely a reflection it seems like our image is located inside the mirror, as if it has substance. But if that were the case, why is it that when we walk left and right, the images changes according to our movement? So we know that the image is not inherent. That image is dependently originated and has no substance, merely an illusory image without core. Similarly when we investigate all appearances, they too are discovered to have no locatable core or essence anywhere, merely being a dependently originated and thus empty appearance, like the moon reflected in water, like the reflections of the mirror. It just means everything is impermanent and ungraspable, what is impermanence and ungraspable leads to suffering when grasped. What is born will die, what arises will fade, so you cannot find happiness in what is impermanent. It does not mean that everything is literally suffering (as in, afflictions), if that were the case there can be no liberation. So a distinction is made between suffering as a characteristic of phenomenon and suffering as in afflictions. As the Buddha said: .'"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." p.s. here's a good article http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html "So the first noble truth, simply put, is that clinging is suffering. It's because of clinging that physical pain becomes mental pain. It's because of clinging that aging, illness, and death cause mental distress. The paradox here is that, in clinging to things, we don't trap them or get them under our control. Instead, we trap ourselves. When we realize our captivity, we naturally search for a way out. And this is where it's so important that the first noble truth not say that "Life is suffering." If life were suffering, where would we look for an end to suffering? We'd be left with nothing but death and annihilation. But when the actual truth is that clinging is suffering, we simply have to look for the clinging and eliminate its causes." You have too much assumptions and you don't know my realizations. Its best you focus on your own practice and investigation. p.s. even the attainment of sotapanna implies the end of self-view, and the contemplation on three characteristics must lead to an understanding of anatta in order to end self-view. Since liberation lies in the end of the 'I am' conceit, anatta is kind of essential, but anatta is also linked with the other dharma seals. Also, some people focus on anicca first then anatta came later, for me it is anatta first then anicca become apparent, it all depends on what one practices.

Said it somewhere in my reply to you above.

As a matter of fact is, billions of people are deluded and that is why they suffer. And when you wake up to truth, you will not have any doubt about it. I never said inferrential knowledge is useless in all situations. I said it is useless when it comes to awakening. Well, I mean, largely useless, not totally. It can be helpful if it helps you establish 'Right View' but still, a conceptual inferrential understanding does not in itself lead to awakening. What is ironic? I think I didn't say 'direct experience' as a problem, I say it is the uninvestigated framework of inherency and duality that is a problem, and those are views, proliferations, not direct experience. But those views can shape how we view a direct experience. Through contemplation (as in Vipassana kind) they can be resolved in a moment of awakening. Firstly I must say, I don't have direct experience of all the links of the 12 links or have very clear understanding into all the exact workings of dependent origination. I also don't know stuff like karma and rebirth, at least not much. I'm not a Buddha. The general theory of D.O. can be seen in one moment, as in when there is no illusion of a self/Self, all activities are realized to be the manifestation of causality in a single moment, like the whole universe is hearing this sound, doing this action. As an analogy: it is not 'I' that is driving the car, it is equally the car itself, the road, the sky, the sunlight, everything coming together to manifest as this action of car driving, without imputing a subject and an object. I cannot however tell you the exact causes and conditions or the 12 links from direct knowledge, furthermore considering that my understanding of 12 links spans 3 lives, from past, present to future. To know the exact details of dependent origination probably requires the wisdom of Buddha, but Buddha does not rely on concepts and inference, so it can only be by direct knowledge and wisdom, and who is to say he can't have that direct knowledge considering he even traced and remembered 91 aeons of his past lives and karma. When someone beats you, pain is felt, with supporting conditions or cause of the other hand. It can be directly observed and no need of inference. It denies an it-ness of a flower, which is what I mean by reality. If there is no substance there is no reality, but nonetheless appearance is undeniable but is dream-like, illusory, coreless, like a mirage. It means there is no substantiality - like a thought you cannot establish the substance, location, origin and destination of thoughts. Or when you dream you cannot locate where the dream image comes from, exists, or goes to. It looks very real as in out there, the dream tiger you see is out there, but when you wake up it's all gone and you can't say it was here, there, anywhere. But you don't have to wait for it to be all gone - even in the midst of a thought arising you cannot find where the thought came from, where it abides, where it goes to. Actually learnt knowledge may not manifest as concepts, etc. It can also manifest as a spontaneous response. If it were that easy I would have become awakened 5 years ago. I realized a dream as illusory. I do not posit some other reality called 'Nirvana' because even Nirvana is also illusory and dream-like.

The way I talk about illusion is different, I say everything - whether of deluded cognition, or awakened cogntion, are all equally illusory, so there is no such thing as a non-illusion, not even Nirvana. Why? Because they are by nature empty - there is no substance at all, so that is why there is ultimately no wisdom, no ignorance, no eye, ears, nose, etc (basically no Everything). Having no substance, yet appearing vividly, therefore Emptiness is Form. So basically everything is illusory... but whether people realize it is another matter, this is why practically speaking, all the people are suffering right now because of their perception of inherent existence of self and things. Their state is such that they do not recognise their dream as a dream, so they treat the dream-tiger as real, and suffer as a result of it. This is just an analogy of course. So the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, knowing that all along there never was any substance to ignorance or wisdom or anything else, nonetheless understands that a lot of sentient beings are deluded about things and suffer as a result. For example even though everything they perceive is illusory, but nonetheless it appears very real to them and so they suffer needlessly. And it is because of this understanding that we show deep compassion and try to help other beings awaken. If Buddhas are not able to understand the situation of sentient beings, there will be no Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to help sentient beings. They have wisdom, they understand the situation of sentient beings, but they don't rely on concepts. Wisdom is spontaneous. For example some people may upon seeing that the building is on fire, spontaneously without even a thought for themselves rush into the fire to save the children. They did not even have a moment of thought to analyse or think. Anyway a Buddha has five wisdoms: [edit] Tathatā-jñāna Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Tathatā-jñāna is the jñāna of Suchness or Dharmadātu[4], "the bare non-conceptualizing awareness" of Śūnyatā, the universal substrate of the other four jñāna.[5] [edit] Ādarśa-jñāna The Melong is very important in the esoteric Mantrayana traditions such as Dzogchen. Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Ādarśa-jñāna is the jñāna of "Mirror-like Awareness", "devoid of all dualistic thought and ever united with its 'content' as a mirror is with its reflections".[6] Ādarśa is Sanskrit for "mirror", the term may be parsed into the etymon of darśana with a grammatical adposition. Kalupahana (1991: p.99) proffers that: Samatā is also identical with the second ādarśa when samatā becomes the non-duality of upāya and prajñā.[7] [edit] Samatā-jñāna Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Samatā-jñāna is the jñāna of the "Awareness of Sameness", which perceives the sameness, the commonality of dharmas or phenomena.[8] Kalupahana (1991: p.99) proffers that: The Tattvāloka says "The wisdom of equality of Tathāgata is the non-dual method of upāya and prajñā, and it is the wisdom of the universal that can be tasted in the dharmādhtu." [7] [edit] Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna is the jñāna of "Investigative Awareness", that perceives the specificity, the uniqueness of dharmas. [9] [edit] Kṛty-anuṣṭhāna-jñāna Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Kṛty-anuṣṭhāna-jñāna is the jñāna of "Accomplishing Activities", the awareness that "spontaneously carries out all that has to be done for the welfare of beings, manifesting itself in all directions".[10]

I have already done my contemplation. It involves investigating the nature of the sensate world in a vipassana mode and discovering its nature in terms of the three characteristics and emptiness. I do not rely on intellectual analysis. This is not the way of vipassana.

The problem does not lie in what name you give to reality. The problem is when you do not comprehend its emptiness and thus fall into the extremes of eternalism, postulating a real source of phenomena, or a real substance or Self [as in with the capital S] underlying phenomena, and of course if you simply talk about emptiness but not the uninterrupted stream of luminosity and appearance, you might fall into the extreme of nihilism. By the realization of the unity of luminosity and emptiness you are freed from extremes.

The point is that dharmakaya is talking about emptiness. Emptiness not as in an Absolute void or ground of being, but emptiness as the lack of inherent existence. What dependently originates is empty, and this emptiness is all-pervasive. Of course it is not just dead emptiness but the inseparability to emptiness and luminosity.

Yes I am aware of your stance. Your understanding of God is not Brahma but Brahman - same as the concepts of an ultimate reality or ground of being in other religions. However, my understanding is similar to Simple_Jack. Dharmakaya is not a ground of being, it is talking about emptiness. I'll post something about the three kayas in the next post by my Mahayana master. Emptiness and luminosity (what you call consciousness) is inseparable, so it is not just dead emptiness, but at the same time consciousness is not reified as some transcendental Source or Self because its nature is empty of identity or inherent existence/self. This inseparability of luminosity and emptiness is known as Buddha-nature. First of all, God means 'Source'. At I AM and substantial non-dual phase (Stage 1 to 4 in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ), Consciousness is seen as the Source or ground of being in which appearances arise out of and return to. However, this is no longer seen as the case after anatta realization. There must be insight into 'how' Mind and phenomena actually co-arise - and thus there isn't a sense of Mind as a Source, and phenomena arising out of, or within, or being part of, this One Mind. Phenomena actually has no beginning and end, and therefore we cannot say phenomena began and originated or ended from/within a permanent Source. All these are false notions which are also dependent on notion of time, an illusory construct. The notion of One Mind as permanent as opposed to things beginning and ending in time, the notion of Mind being the source of appearances coming and going within this One Source, are all false views, and are all the views of inherency. Time, beginning, end, and an origin/Source, etc are all false views. One must see all these are just more illusory mental construct, there must be an arising insight that burns away these views. If we see that mind is not the 'source of phenomena', then we realise there is just phenomena, sensations and perceptions which are all 'mind', but without an independent, permanent, substratum, essence or Source. There is no temporal existence beginning and ending, arising from and then subsiding back 'in' Mind, since mind and phenomena (can't even be separated) have 'both' existed since beginningless 'time', there is no One Mind being the first cause, no Mind being permanent vs phenomena being temporal (having beginning and end) -- can't even be divided in the subtlest way -- there is just one co-arising without subject and object division, just phenomena/mind. All phenomena are timeless and without origin. There is just mind, but not a permanent independent mind/source, but mind as transient phenomena itself, without beginning or end, without time. One then understands what Zen Master Dogen mean by 'Impermanence is Buddha-Nature'.

If what you see is true than naturally it is non falsifiable - others will see the same thing as me if they do their investigation. I can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way I've seen. For example even now, I cannot deny I AM - I AM is just the luminous essence of mind experienced as a non-conceptual thought, but due to wrong framework it is taken as Self. Then one discovers non-dual - then I AM is no longer more I AM than a sight or a sound, but still a clinging to One Mind can occur due to univestigated framework of inherency. Nonetheless the non-duality of subject and object is a truth - there never was such a division, and this is what I cannot deny. Then I discovered anatta, again something I cannot deny. I never said they are completely useless (otherwise why is there madhyamaka teachings), but in itself they cannot accomplish much. Inferrential understanding can give rise to faith or intellectual conviction, but faith or intellectual conviction by itself cannot lead to experiential realization or liberation. His knowledge of 12 links is not by inferrence but direct knowledge. Never tried to, so no comments. Yeah conventional truth assumes things like 'that thing over there is a red flower', but as I have shown you and Thusness have shown the analogy about the red flower being empty of redness or flowerness due to D.O. and emptiness, ultimately 'that is a red flower' is false, it is not true. The ultimate truth is its emptiness. But from the perspective of conventional truth, 'that is a red flower' is true. Know that 'that is a red flower', 'red', 'flower', or 'that is a rose' is actually a learnt knowledge, it is something learnt, and the same thing goes for everything else including 'self', 'awareness', etc, a baby doesn't perceive a thing called 'self', 'awareness' but it is learnt. Before we learn it, we have no means of conceiving a red flower as red flower, we do not know conventional truth. But learning conventional truth doesn't mean its ultimately true, like the word 'weather' doesn't point to something inherent, like any other word ultimately doesn't point to something inherent. Anyway found an interesting piece of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka A Prasaṅgika asserts that something exists conventionally if it meets all of the following three conditions: if it is known to a conventional consciousness if no other conventional cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known if reason that accurately analyses reality (that is, analyses whether something intrinsically exists) does not contradict it Whatever fails to meet those criteria does not exist.[5] Therefore Prasaṅgikas cannot accept that intrinsic nature exists, even conventionally. You have learnt from the past, but it doesn't mean you have to perceive conventional truth, knowledge can manifest in action completely spontaneously and non-conceptually in pure awareness/wisdom (see the fifth wisdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wisdoms ). Loppon Namdrol: The primary Mahayāna sutra metaphor for a Buddha is a wishfulfilling gem because a wishfulfilling automatically gem fulfills the wishes of sentient beings without concepts. ------- What I am saying is really simple: Buddhas do not have conceptual minds, therefore, their acts of speech are not connected with concepts and signs. ------- Buddha's interactions with sentient beings are completely spontaneous and non-conceptual. ------- Buddha don't have thoughts, therefore, they have no concepts. They are however omniscient. What you said is relatively true, but ultimately, all is equally illusory and empty. Then so do all awakened beings because no true realization is shakeable. You cannot be lured into dream again after you wake up.

Whatever you are talking about is just I AM. Frankly I AM is not rare, and is not considered awakening in Buddhism, which is why you don't hear it as often in Buddhism as you hear it in Hinduism or other contemplatives. It may be considered awakening in Advaita, but not in Buddhism. You are just at Thusness Stage 1 out of his 7 stages and I am not saying this to put you down or something - it is something I've been through myself, but I hope you are open to the possibility of further insights. You are assuming too much. You claim emptiness and d.o. but you treat the physical world as real. I'm telling you there is no such thing as a physical world and no physical light. No such thing at all. Every appearance in your experience is actually just sensations and perceptions that due to false framework of viewing dualistically and inherently, conjures a mental image of a physical world and a solid body. Actually there are simply points of sensations and there are fundamentally just points of awareness no different from undivided light. You have to challenge all notion of physicality, mind-matter dichotomy, objectivity, subject-object dichotomy, inside and outside, boundaries (where does undivided light end and manifestation begin? don't let assumptions ruin your investigation). When all are dropped, the division between undivided light and divided light is also completely dropped and everything, the five skandhas, eighteen dhatus reveal themselvess as the "bright substance of wonderful enlightenment". There is no physical light, only undivided light. So now you understand this: Shurangama Sutra: "Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral phenomena, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. Who would have thought that production and extinction, coming and going are fundamentally the eternal wonderful light of the Tathagata, the unmoving, all-pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of True Suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, one will never find them." I am fully aware of your point of view because that is what I've gone through between 9th Feb '10 to Aug '10 in my e-book (under I AM phase): http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html . But further investigation made me see through the duality between 'undivided light' and 'divided light' - it made me realized there is no such thing as divided light at all, everything is undivided light, in other words the transience is also undivided light, then afterwords even undivided light is further deconstructed. The view you are presenting is not Buddhist, it is Hinduism (and I do not consider Shentong/Jonang as a Buddhist view). Don't be so sure... My posts show 1) I once discovered I AM, and perceived a distinction between I AM (as the noumenon) and all phenomena 2) This is followed by non-dual insight, where all phenomenal are collapsed into the noumenal, such that there is no such thing as noumena vs phenomena - there is no such thing as me seeing the objective world - there is ONLY undivided light, and all appearances are also the undivided light. Your very assumption that what you are seeing is physical or objective is an illusion, it is actually all just light, all is just Buddha-nature. 3) This is followed by insight of anatta, where undivided light is emptied of any identity such that 'in seeing theres just the seen', the process, the activities 4) This is followed by the second-fold emptiness of shunyata And this is what you have not realized. There never was subject-object duality, ever, in anything. You have no inkling what I am talking about... it is best to let go of assumptions and continue investigation. Here's a sharing: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html The first stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it. Then later you realised that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. (but due to our dualistic momentum, there is still no clarity even if there is the experience of non-duality) Ken Wilber: While you are resting in that state (of the Witness), and “sensing” this Witness as a great expanse, if you then look at, say, a mountain, you might begin to notice that the sensation of the Witness and the sensation of the mountain are the same sensation. When you “feel” your pure Self and you “feel” the mountain, they are absolutely the same feeling. When you are asked to find another point on the surface of the sphere, you won't be sure but you are still very careful. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center. When you say 'the center', you are marking a point and claim that it is the only point that has the characteristic of a 'center'. The intensity of the pure beingness is itself a manifestation. It is needless to divide into inner and outer as there will also come a point where high intensity of clarity will be experienced for all sensations. So not to let the 'intensity' create the layering of inner and outer. Now, when we do not know what is a sphere, we do not know that all the points are the same. So when a person first experiences non-duality with the propensities still in action, we cannot fully experience the mind/body dissolution and the experience isn't clear. Nevertheless we are still careful of our experience and we try to be non-dual. But when the realisation is clear and sank deep into our inmost consciousness, it is really effortless. Not because it is a routine but because there is nothing needed to be done, just allowing expanse of consciousness naturally.

I understand... but experiencing an imagination does not make it real, it just means experiencing an imagination. (but it sure can appear damn real, like a dream appears real in the context of a dream but doesn't mean there is any reality, substantiality, tangibility to it) I don't tell myself. I investigate the nature of seeing and discovered it to be so. This seeing is not shakeable even if Buddha or Thusness were to tell me I'm wrong.

The empirical evidence and way to discover it lies in the method and your own experience. See In other words, if I say 'the mind is luminous' or I want to show you the I AM aspect, I don't give you 100 inferrential reasonings why the mind is luminous or why I AM can be discovered. I don't even say 'you are not this and this, therefore you must be I AM'. That is completely inferrential and close to useless. I also won't tell you 'I'm going to show you my luminous mind, look at my hands, I am holding my luminous mind out to you right now, that big luminous ball in my hand, that's evidence'. Can't show you objective evidence for something that can only be discovered (conventionally speaking) in one's subjective experience. The only way you can prove that thing is to tell them to investigate, do self-inquiry for 2 years, find out for themselves. I do not know 'it's a tree' because the fact is, there is no tree. It is only for communication that sometimes I say 'it's a tree'. Spontaneous action and awareness does not necessitate perceiving conventions, and does not preclude one from using conventions to communicate (but doesn't mean you believe in them). A Buddha's action is completely spontaneous and non-conceptual (a Buddha don't perceive conventions). In other words, I won't bang into a wall just because I don't perceive the convention of wall when I'm walking. My walking is completely spontaneous based on wisdom. I don't establish a controller, a walker, a walking, a destination, a wall, an obstruction, without any concepts, thoughts, notions, the action is completely accomplished spontaneously in full (non-conceptual) awareness.

Actually its the same as what you are talking about. However, all Vajrayanist except the Shentong/Jonang which veers towards eternalistic extremities, all teach that clear light is fundamentally empty and are just mental activities. Mental activities does NOT mean they are conceptual. They are non-conceptual mental activities or what Thusness call non-conceptual thought. The Dalai Lama also clearly states this as the case: The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the ‘clear light’ (abhasvara, ‘od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, ‘dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered ‘permanent’ in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted… When you realize anatta, you realize that Mind is empty of any identity or entity that can be called Mind, but its essence is luminous clarity and its expression is uninterrupted, like a river is empty of an entity called 'river' but its activities of 'flowing' is uninterrupted. This is a further insight after I AM, and in fact even after substantialist non-dual phase.

On Mahaparinirvana Sutra - Loppon Namdrol: Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following: That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”. Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues: "Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’. Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’." So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about: "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists? Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”. The Bhagavan replied: “Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha. Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?" Thus, the Lanka says: All yaanas are included in five dharmas, three natures, eight consciousnesses, and two selflessnesses It does not add anything about a true self and so on. If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states: Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified. Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves. Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect. And: Although tathaagatagarbha possesses seven consciousnesses; always engaged with dualistic apprehensions [it] will evolve with thorough understanding. If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state: "`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha. `Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya. And: `Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings. Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned. Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here: "Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’. So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states "Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion. Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings. When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon. ............... http://www.byomakusuma.org/EnlightenmentBu...72/Default.aspx ...Tathagatagarbha Now, I would like to deal with the concept of ‘Sugatagarbha’, or ‘Tathagatagarbha’, or ‘Dharmadhatu’, or ‘Dharmakaya’. Many Hindu scholars think that these words prove that Buddhism is basically speaking about Hindu Brahman. If one studies the Ratnagotravibhaga, and the Srimala Sutra, it is easy to see that they make it very clear that Sugatagarbha and Sunyata (emptiness) are cognate words. Sunyata is the mode of existence of all phenomena, including the mind, which knows this; whereas Brahman is a separate entity altogether from all phenomena. Brahman is something that truly exists (absolutely existing / Parmartha Satta). Sunyata is not a thing or a ‘Super Thing’ but the mode of existence of all things. Therefore, it is nonsense to speak of it as knowable epistemologically but not as a thing ontologically except interdependently. The Brahman, according to Hinduism, is not existing interdependently, but truly existing – the one and only truly existing substance. The Brahman is svabhavasiddha (inherent), whereas Sunyata is nisvabhavata (non-inherent); the Brahman is svalaksana siddha, whereas Sunyata is a Laksanata. The Brahman is Paramartha satta (ultimate existence), whereas Sunyata is the unfindability of such a parmartha satta anywhere. Since the Ratnagotra makes it clear that sugatagarbha is just a cognate word for emptiness (Sunyata), Sugatagarbha and Brahman cannot be the same. The confusion is often created by the statement that the Sugatagarbha or the Buddha nature exists in all sentient beings. The word 'exists' is the perpetrator of confusion here. The ‘exists’ is only for conventional usage, or giving way to conventional usage. Without its use here, one cannot express the fact that this is the mode of abiding of the true nature of mind of all sentient beings. ‘Exists’ here is a synonym of ‘is the mode of abiding’, so ‘exists’ here does not mean ‘abide’ (skt. sthita) but rather ‘non abidingness’ (skt. asthita). This is the mode of abiding, or the sugatagarbha present in all sentient beings. Even in the last sentence, the word ‘present’ can create the same confusion. ‘Present’ here would mean presence of the absence of self-existingness or self-characteristicness, etc. What is positively named ‘Sugatagarbha’ is that it is said to exist in all sentient beings. This ‘exists’ is qualitative rather than existential. It is also more epistemological, whereas the Brahman is more ontologically truly existing. The Brahman is not non-abiding but rather ‘kutastha’, which mean self-abiding. I have already elaborated the differences of Sunyata Sugatagarbha and Brahman in my article in the Buddhist Himalaya, Vol. VI, 1994-95. The word ‘Samantabhadra’ used in the DzogChen tradition can often mislead people to believe that Samantabhadra is some kind of a god in this system. However, there is no God in any form of Buddhism. Great Buddhist Masters like Nagarjuna, Odiana Acharya, Kalyana Rakshita, etc., have written books proving that such beliefs are only for children. So Samantabhadra cannot be some substitute for God. Samantabhadra is a poetic, metaphoric expression for the enlightened state, i.e. the Sugatagarbha all sentient beings already possess. This is the way things really are, the way things really exist from the very beginning. However, it is called primordial enlightenment, because this state is always there and never was not. We, sentient beings, have apparently wandered from the knowledge, which is already there as our true mode of existence. Therefore, we have to be re-enlightened, i.e. come to recognize the primordial enlightened state already present in us, and through practice become established in it... ...There is a difference in the Tathagatagharbha and the Tathagata himself. But there is another difference too. What they call the unconditioned is the Atman as found in the texts of Hinduism. What the DzogChen of the Nyingma, the Mahamudra of Kagyu, and Lamdre of Sakya, the texts of the ‘Profound and Vast’ tradition call the unconditioned, is the Tathagatagharbha, Samantabhadra, Emptiness, Nisvabhavata, Anatma. As we have seen, these are diametrically opposed paradigms...

With your understanding you will never understand why Buddha taught dependent origination and emptiness. It is for the removal of the view of existent self that it was being taught. This is the way to liberation. This is what separates Buddhism from other religions also. As in concepts, I agree. Concepts cannot conceive non-conceptual truth, however, that doesn't mean everything is 'Divided Light'. Everything is fundamentally the 'Undivided Light' as Shurangama Sutra is made clear. When seen correctly, impermanence turns out to be Buddha-nature (even 6th Ch'an Patriarch Hui-neng and Zen Master Dogen said this). At the I AM phase, I thought only the I AM is not moving and everything is moving around it, or are like popping in and out of a vast unmoving ground of being. Then I got to non-dual, anatta, etc... a new understanding of non-movement arose. I wrote this last month to some other forum, I don't think you will understand/experience it now, but nonetheless: (Something I wrote in DhO) There is no movement at all in ANY form of NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) of any manifestatation: be it NDNCDIMOP of a thought, of a sense perception, of anything. For those I AM experiencers: they experience no movement while abiding in the Self. Actually what is meant by abiding in Self? It is simply abiding in the NDNCIDIMOP of a non-conceptual thought. However that is treated as the ultimate, the purest identity, etc. So to them, the non-conceptual thought is clung to as Self, and the Self has no movement, while all other manifestation has movement. So the Self may seem at this point to be a "still-point at the center of a turning world" (except that the 'point' is not a finite point but an infinite all-pervading presence) But what happens when you experience PCE or NDNCIDIMOP in all other six sense entries? A sound? A sight? etc Then you experience something amazing: Everything that you thought was 'moving', that is transient, in fact turns out to be not-moving. In other words, transience reveals non-movement. In seeing - just seen, in hearing - just heard. Each manifestation is complete, whole, in itself - there is no self or observer apart from the transience to measure movement. So at this point 'non-movement' shifts from simply abiding in the Source, to every transient phenomenal manifestation. One point remains however: your emphasis on phenomenal descriptions can lead to an over-emphasis on experience to the overneglecting of insights. Why? You can have countless non-dual glimses, and yet without the correct insights that lead to a complete overturning of views, in which the entire framework of viewing inherently and dualistically is resolved through a realization (i.e. anatta, shunyata), then no matter how you try to rest in NDNCIDIMOP, PCE, there remains a desync between view and experience. You may end up using dualistic terms to express non-dual experience, or you may still have a tendency to sink back to a base, a ground, etc. Without those insights, you can have many PCEs and still remain deluded and fail to experience true liberation. The insights may sound theoretical, but I assure you it is not - it is an experiential seeing of a fact about reality. ….. 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 no from the transience itself but from the perspective of a dualistic bystander (an illusion). Neti Neti is alien to Buddhism because it does not reject form to find an ultimate reality. That would be Advaita. But in your framework, everything about emptiness and phenomena will be dissociated as neti neti . The sutras and masters keep telling you, this and that are not other than Buddha-nature. They don't say dissociate from this and that to find Buddha-nature. This is not what Shurangama mean. When false notion of arising and ceasing vanish, all appearances are the unity of luminosity and emptiness, or the 'bright substance of wonderful enlightenment' as Shurangama says. Will paste something about Mahaparinirvana Sutra in the next post. What Nagarjuna is saying here is that, since no Tathagata can be established in OR outside the five skandhas *to begin with*, it doesn't even make sense to talk about its existence or non-existence. There is no Tathagata. This is an experiential realization, not a speculation...

I am, of course, speaking from direct experience. But I do not consider myself a 'great master' because I do not teach. Secondly, it is better to have some humility (though I have said I am neither humble nor proud) - I think no true master will call themselves a master anyway, its usually the students that call their master a master. Of course, this I am aware of. I understand D.O., and I understand Clear Light, but my understanding of Clear Light has changed when I advanced from the I AM phase to non-dual (and further) phases. I don't disagree. And this is what I do not agree with, and the sutras don't agree with, and what the Mahamudra masters don't agree with you. They do not agree that clear light is something that 'exists' apart from empty phenomena. First of all why 'Undivided'? Why not just say light? There is a reason there. Undivided means there is no subject-object. The Light is not some objective thing that I as a subjective being is looking at - if that were the case, it would have been divided light. Seeing/realizing the Light means BEING the Light. This is the realization that I AM - the undivided light. BUT... when you don't get stuck in that phase of insight and investigate further, you realize that when seeing, when hearing, in the seeing is just the sight, hearing is just the sound without any separate hearer. Then you realize I AM is no more I AM than a transient sound or sight or thought, everything shares the same taste of luminosity/awareness, and of non-duality. Why? Because the non-duality of subject-object applies to everything - hearing cannot be divided in terms of a hearer/heard, seeing cannot be divided in terms of seeing/seen. Mind is not just the I AM. Everything IS Mind, I AM is no more I AM than a sight, a sound, a thought. When you see this, you realize there is no such thing as Divided Light vs Undivided Light because EVERYTHING is fundamentally undivided light - there never was subject-object division, and everything is the bright luminosity of mind.

Non-dualism is a word that can have vast number of meanings. It seems I don't follow the understanding advanced by most people here. To me, non-duality have two valid meanings: no subject-object duality, and no 'existence' or 'non-existence' (being or non-being). Non-dual of 'right and wrong, light and dark' etc presumably talking about state unaffected by judgemental concepts is not what I understand (or experience) as enlightenment.

There is not even a because. Emptiness is true whether I see it or not. Anatta is true, is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. Similarly, dependent origination is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. Impermanence is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. Luminosity is already the essence of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. But I just so happen to see it, i.e. realize, as a result of my own contemplation.

Real means substantially existing. There is no substantially real city. Imagination means imagination. Conventionally truth: the apple you see is red. Ultimate truth: whatever dependently originates is empty of any substance, so there is no apple, no redness of apple, no red apple. This is the only truth. Whatever conventional truth said is thus ultimately false (there is actually no red apple). This applies to everything because d.o./emptiness is the nature of all phenomenon. I did contemplate but it is not what you think of as contemplation. It is not an intellectual analysis ala Madhyamaka style, but more like 'vipassanic' contemplation as I already explained. Explained.

How I came to anatta realization is not through intellectual analysis or inference like Madhyamaka reasoning. Mine is a very experiential form of investigation - vipassanic, you can say. As I already said earlier: By the way Bahiya Sutta is 'vipassana stuff' and 'vipassana stuff' is not intellectual analysis. I wonder if you practiced Vipassana. For example: you believe there is a solid thing called 'body', then you deconstruct it by investigating on bare sensate level, and discover there are only disjoint sensations without a real 'body'. This can lead to what Dogen calls 'mind-body drop off'. This is vipassana. The Bahiya sutta of investigating 'self' and breaking it down to the six senses - in seeing just the seen, no you in terms of that - is also high level vipassana stuff. I can also add: from I AM to non-dual, I did some kind of investigation that challenges boundaries, inside and outside, subject and object and realized there is no boundaries or division in one's awareness or experience. I mentioned Bahiya Sutta a lot because this is the Sutta which I contemplated on, that got me awakened to anatta. I have a lot to owe to that text.