xabir2005

You are missing what I said completely. Statement 2 (a self is non-existent) is not rejected because it is redundant, but because there is no existent self that can serve as a basis for that self to go into non-existence. In other words, if no existent is established, no non-existent can be established either. If there is a self, then naturally the four extremes must apply because there is an entity to exist, not exist, and so on. If no self can be established to begin with, then naturally the four extremes don't apply. Conventionally, you are here looking out there at the beautiful tree, but, if conventional truth is seen through and dropped, there is simply the "suchness of seen" without establishing a cognizer or something cognized (a tree), in the seeing just the seen, this is directness. I don't assume. I realized, and that is the whole point. And it is more like 'no self could be established' - it is a rejection of existents but not a postulating of a position of non-existence with regards to an existent. I never said anything about reduncy - I said positions cannot be established - even of non-existence - when the existent cannot be established to begin with. Therefore as Namdrol said, this is about a non-asserting negation that leaves no positions established at all. It is difficult for me to 'prove to you' that your dream is a dream until you investigate for yourself. For whatever 'proof' I present, will be seen from the dream (as in delusional) framework. In any case, the only proof is through yogic realization. You can never show objective evidence of things like rebirth (well maybe a bit, but limited), karma (definitely not), much less things like anatta or emptiness. All these can only be verified through yogic realization and experience. Just because you haven't realized it doesn't mean it isn't true. Illusion and delusion are different. I say - everything is illusory, full stop. But everything is delusional (conventional truth = false cognition) except ultimate truth. In other words everything is illusory but not everything is delusional. When you realize always already, there never was a self, then you see immediately that the view of self has been delusional from the beginning. Yup. Same for rebirth and karma. Buddha is telling you, this is what I see, see it for yourself. He didn't say 'this is what I see and only I can see it'. Nor does he say 'This is what I see and I shall show objective, scientific evidence for you' (impossible). He says, I see this, so practice and you can see it too (via yogic realization and experience).

Gap Between Thoughts, Thought Between Gaps Posted by: An Eternal Now Based on some conversations earlier this year and last year by Thusness/PasserBy which I have slightly edited: First experience the Isness of the gap between 2 moments of thought, then the Isness of the thought between 2 moments of gap. ~ Thusness/PasserBy When we discriminate between awareness from thoughts, awareness appears as the 'space' behind and between thoughts. And because of discriminating awareness and content thinking, the behind background reality is preferred over content, so background awareness appears as 'awakening' -- but it is really only treating a particular speck of dust as mirror and thus unable to see all as mirror... and so instead of being 'awakening' it is actually being 'lost'. That experience is just a dimension of Presence... but due to deeply rooted habitual tendencies to grasp dualistically, one tightly clings to the 'background subject'. That is, Presence is mistaken as a true Subject or True Self behind all objects, as some kind of unchanging background. Or it becomes the Eternal Witness perceiving (dispassionately) and untouched by all impermanent objects coming and going (where in reality the knowingness cannot be separated from the flow of phenomenality). (See Stage One of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment) But it is not the entirety of Presence -- the aspect of non-dual, Anatta (no-self), Emptiness and Dependent Origination are not included. Because of this, it is difficult to see that the five aggregates (the 'heaps' of experiences that are designated as 'self': forms, feelings, perceptions, volition and consciousness) are Buddha-Nature. When we talk about naked awareness it is not a state where not even a single thought arise. When it is taught about the gap between 2 moments of thought, it is to first have an experience of the nakedness of awareness. To touch just that aspect of awareness. When we extend the gaps, our thoughts become less and clarity becomes more obvious. However it will come to a time that no matter what is done, how much effort is being invested, how long, the other aggregates do not subside. This then is the crucial moment whether one can break through into non-duality (of subject and object). Awareness is a seamless experience that is non-dual in nature. In this seamless experience, there is no boundary whatsoever, no experiencer experiencing experience; whatever arises is experience, is awareness -- as the sound of birds chirping, as words appearing on the screen, as the thoughts itself. There is no separate hearer, seer, watcher, observer, thinker. Everything is shining, self-felt, self-luminous, without a center. It is always just spontaneous arising and ceasing. There is no center, agent, boundary, inside or outside... merely a seamless whole experience. Whether perception or no perception, whether momentum or no momentum, whether there are thoughts or no thoughts, it doesn't matter. That is the arising of the non-dual wisdom, with the understanding that the transience are the Presence. Then no thoughts and thoughts are thoroughly understood. When no thoughts and thoughts are clearly understood, it becomes Gap-less. That is true effortlessness and is the pathless path without entry and exit. Going before the arising of thoughts and perception and have a glimpse of that luminous nature is simply just a glimpse. If a practitioner mistakes it as the entirety of Buddha Nature by maintaining the mirror bright and attempt to go after that particular state, it will eventually proof futile. If we see only the realm of no-thought, then the gap between two moments will eventually becomes an obstruction. Then the practice becomes the thought moment between two moments of gaps. To experience that luminous empty essence of that thought. It is in essence clarity, awareness itself, and is empty. The waves and the ocean are one and the same. All waves are One Taste. Experiencing Isness as an ocean and shunning away thoughts and manifestation is equally lost, the further insight (insight into non-duality) is the insight into everything as self-luminous awareness or Mind. smile.gif However, start by practicing the gap between 2 moments of thought and expand it but with the right understanding of no-self/non-duality. Then when the luminosity shines, it will gradually understand because it knows what blocks. When it try all its best to do away the transients and yet the transients persist, one will have to wait for the right condition to come. Such as having someone to point out or some verses that serves as a condition for awakening. So first experience the Isness of the gap between 2 moments of thought, then the Isness of the thought between 2 moments of gap. ............. Lama Surya Das: http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/dtalk-95may22.html I think this five skandha scheme is a very interesting one, in the sense that it can begin to raise some very interesting questions and help us dig deeper, rather than just having a vague, amorphous kind of understanding. We are individual. We are each responsible for ourselves and our karma and our relations. Our individuality is comprised of these five aggregates or skandhas. We can work with that. It is actually an expression of the Buddha-nature. Now, doesn't anybody want to say, "I didn't hear anything about Buddha-nature in the five skandhas. Where's the Buddha-nature? Who made that up?" That's the right question. What Buddha-nature? I never said anything about it. Who made that up? What enlightenment? What nirvana? Who made all that stuff up? Is it in us or elsewhere? How to get from "here" to "there"? We're all looking for something to hang our hopes on, but when we really get down to the present moment, to our own experience, to clear seeing, we come to what Buddha said: "In hearing there is only hearing; no one hearing and nothing heard." There is just that moment, that hearing. You might think, "Oh, a beautiful bird." How do you know it's a bird? It might be a tape recorder. It might be bicycle brakes squeaking. In the first moment, there is just hearing, then we get busy, our minds and concepts get involved. The Buddha went through all the five senses. "In seeing there is just seeing; no one seeing and nothing seen." And so on, with tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking. Thoughts without a thinker. In thinking there is just thinking. There is just that momentary process. There is no thinker. The notion of an inner thinker is just a thought. We imagine that there is somebody thinking. It's like the Wizard of Oz. They thought there was this glorious wizard, but it was just a little man back there behind the screen, behind the veil. That's how it is with the ego. We think there's a great big monkey inside working the five windows, the five senses. Or maybe five monkeys, one for each sense; a whole chattering monkey house, which it sometimes feels like. But is there really a concrete individual or permanent soul inside at all? It seems more like that the lights are on, but no one is home! ............. From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen (a great and deep zen master) Question Ten: Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages. "Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?" What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs? Answer 10: You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma. According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy. But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it. I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma. Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not? You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking. Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature. In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.

The 5 Skandhas, as the Buddha says in Shurangama Sutra, and what countless other sutras and the Mahamudra masters are saying - the aggregates are fundamentally Buddha-nature. Do not think that that there is a problem in the five aggregates. There is no problem with the aggregates, the 'problem' lies only in the illusion that there is a self, and that the aggregates have substantial existence and therefore real arising, abiding and subsiding (as the Buddha rejected in Shurangama Sutra). The 5 aggregates when experienced without the agent (watcher, thinker, doer, etc) is a completely new dimension. They are the Buddha Nature. However, when experienced with a sense/illusion of self, whatever arises (all the aggregates and 18 dhatus) appears to be problematic. In truth there are no problems whatsoever, only the wrong understanding that self exist. 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." . . "You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb it according to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words." What I mean is just the moment of recognition or realization of beingness. You do not see it in terms of moments, as I did not, but after anatta, mind is seen as momentary mind moments, not an unchanging entity. There are much more than you think, unfortunately you are too blinded by your experience of I AM and unable to understand (and experience, and realize) nondual, anatta, and d.o. If you are open to further contemplation and investigation, I'm sure one day you will have a lot to concur with me and the great masters of today (not saying I'm a great master anyway).

The problem isn't just with conceptual ego. Letting go of the conceptual self is just the first step. When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless (or rather, non-conceptual) moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence. In other words: Very often it is understood that beingness is in the experience of "I AM", even without the words and label of "I AM", the 'pure sense of existence', the presence still IS. It is a state of resting in Beingness. But in Buddhism, it is also possible to experience everything, every moment the unmanifested. The key also lies in 'You' but it is to "see" that there is no 'You' instead. It is to 'see' that there is never any do-er standing in the midst of phenomenal arising. There is just mere happening due to emptiness nature, never an 'I' doing anything. When the 'I' subsides, symbols, labels and the entire layer of conceptual realm goes with it. What is left without a 'doer' is a mere happening. And seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling and not only that, everything appears as purely spontaneous manifestation. A whole Presence of the manifold. With this in mind, Mahamudra, Shurangama Sutra, and basically all the sutras can be understood.

The point of Nagarjuna is same as the point of Buddha: you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life We can conventionally talk about Buddha as having wisdom, freedom and happiness, but these attributes are also completely empty, Buddha is also completely empty

Originally it was not my intention to reply something Simple Jack should be replying, nonetheless I'll add in a few quotes, and add that Simple Jack of course is one with deep *non-conceptual* meditation realizations, he is not speaking from concepts but his own direct insight and experience. Frankly whatever you realized is just the I AM, and there is no need for a long sutra like Shurangama to explain dependent origination, emptiness, and so on if it is just about I AM. Whatever it wrote must be understood in context. Since very early times, commentators described texts as being "nitartha" or "neyartha". The former are "fully drawn out", and require no further exegesis. The latter are "to be drawn out", and require further exegesis or explanation. This shows that they realized that some teachings are pretty much literal, and others are not. The only question then, is which sutras are which - and that's where most disagree. ~~ Venerable Huifeng "Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral characteristics, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. They are what is called ‘illusory falseness.’ But their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. 3:1 ”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. 3:2 ”Who would have thought that production, extinction, coming, and going are fundamentally the everlasting, wonderful light of the Treasury of the Thus Come One, 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, there is nothing that can be obtained. 3:3 ~ Shurangama Sutra Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear; Refrain from both positive and negative projection - leave appearances alone: The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra. ~ Tilopa The meditator may say, "It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference." If so, ask: "Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?" If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days. On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction: "When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya. "Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves. ... Let the meditator look. He may say, "There is no difference. It is an intangible, aware emptiness." If so, then ask: "Is it an aware emptiness after the perceived image has disappeared? Or, is the image an aware emptiness by means of cultivating the aware emptiness? Or, is the perceived image itself an aware emptiness?" If the answer comes that it is one of the first two cases, the meditator has not thoroughly investigated the above and should therefore once more be sent to meditate and resolve this. If he does experience that the vividly perceived visual image itself -- unidentifiable in any way other than as a mere presence of unconfined perception -- is an aware emptiness, the master should then give this pointing-out instruction: "When you vividly perceive a mountain or a house, no matter how this perception appears, it does not need to disappear or be stopped. Rather, while this perception is experienced, it is itself an intangible, empty awareness. This is called seeing the identity of perception." "Previously you cleared up uncertainties when you looked into the identity of a perception and resolved that perceptions are mind. Accordingly, the perception is not outside and the mind is not inside. It is merely, and nothing other than, this empty and aware mind that appears as a perception. It is exactly like the example of a dream-object and the dreaming mind. "From the very moment a perception occurs, it is a naturally freed and intangible perceiving emptiness. This perceiving yet intangible and naked state of empty perception is called seeing the natural face of innate perception or perception dawning as dharmakaya. ~ Dakpo Tashi Namgyal Rinpoche 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. ~ Third Karmapa ....Although one recognizes the cognitive lucidity or the lucidity of awareness within emptiness, there are different ways that this might be recognized. For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish. The word naked is used a great deal at this point in the text. And the word naked here has a very specific and important meaning because it is used to distinguish between understanding and experience, that is to say, understanding and recognition. it is very easy to confuse one's understanding for an experience or a recognition. One might understand something about the mind and therefore think that one had recognized it directly. Here, the use of the term "naked" means "direct;" that is to say, something that is experienced nakedly or directly in the sense that the experience is free from the overlay of concepts. Whereas normally we have the attitude that thought is something we must get rid of, in this case it is made clear that it is important not to get rid of thought, but to recognize its nature, and indeed, not only the nature of thought but the nature of stillness must be recognized. In particular, with regard to thought, as long as we do not recognize its nature, of course thought poses a threat to meditation and becomes an impediment. But once the nature of thought has been correctly recognized, thought itself becomes the meditative state and therefore it is often said that "the root of meditation is recognizing the nature of thought." There lived in the eighteenth century a great Gelugpa teacher named Changkya Rolpe Dorje, who from his early youth displayed the signs of being an extraordinary person. He became particularly learned and also very realized, and at one point he composed a song called 'Recognizing Mother.' 'Mother' in his song is the word he uses to refer to dharmata or the nature of one's mind. This song was so extraordinary that a commentary was written about it by Khenchen Mipam Rinpoche. In this song, Changkya Rolpe Dorje makes a very clear distinction between recognizing and not recognizing the nature of one's mind. In one part of the song he says, "Nowadays we scholars of the Gelugpa tradition, in discarding these appearances of the mind as the basis for the realization of emptiness and of the basis for the negation of true existence, and in searching for something beyond this to refute, something beyond this to negate in order to realize emptiness, have left our old mother behind; in other words, we have missed the point of emptiness." Changkya Rolpe Dorje gives another image for this mistake that we tend to make. he says that we are like a small child who is sitting in his mother's lap but forgetting where he is, looks for his mother everywhere; looks above, below, left and right and is unable to see his mother and becomes quite agitated. Along comes the child's older brother, and the image the older brother represents is both the understanding of interdependence and the recognition of the nature of thought. The older brother reminds the child by saying, "Your mother is right here, you are in her lap." In the same way, the nature of our mind or emptiness is with us all the time, we tend to look for it indirectly; we look for it somewhere outside ourselves, somewhere far away. And yet we do not need to look far away if we simply view the nature of thought as it is."... ~ Mahamudra teacher Thrangu Rinpoche

Forgot to add the last paragraph, which is more important

It's kind of funny if I look back. It seems, due to our different framework and understanding at different stages of the path, our interest is different. If you ask the 2006 me to read the suttas, I'll read a few pages and stop. Seriously, can't read further.. haha But - if you ask me to read Eckhart Tolle, wow those are pretty awesome stuff for me, I get into deep state of presence and everything he wrote seems so appealing. Fast forward to 2011... if you ask me to listen to an Eckhart Tolle tape, I'll doze off or something. Can't read or watch further. (This is just true, I used to suscribe the expensive Eckhart TV and get very excited about his teachings up until the I AM phase of insight and they used to be very interesting until I got into non-dual and anatta and all the Eckhart stuff doesn't resonate or interest me that much anymore, and I just doze off when he starts talking. haha. oh of course I soon canceled the subscription, cos its paid every 6 months) Now if you ask me to read the suttas, I can't stop reading. When I bought 'In the Buddha's Words' which are like 400+ pages of suttas, I can't stop reading until I finished reading them. I finished reading in a few days. Can't wait to read Middle Length - almost got it several weeks ago but it was out of stock at that time. But I got other books to read first, so will get to it soon. Even the suttas' repetitions are exciting because there is just this recognition and resonance with what is spoken - as Eckhart Tolle's repetitions WERE exciting to me, but now not really, and my interest now goes into the suttas and sutras and the teachings of great masters of Buddhism (Dogen just quoted above is one of them but not everyone understands him, there are some other Zen masters which are great, and also many Vajrayana masters like Dakpo Tashi Namgyal who are just great) So, this is partly why I wrote: "Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it. "After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on."

No, tathagata does not point to anything inherent. It is just an empty label. Like the word 'weather' does not point to something you can pin down, just a conventional label for the clouds, the rain, the wind, etc... but there is no real 'the weather'. Buddha: ..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord."... Nagarjuna: “The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other than the aggregates. The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them. The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates. What Tathagata is there?”

You don't have to tell me what Dependent Origination is. I speak from direct knowledge and experience, not from concepts, but I have read many sutras about it. I am also quite familiar with the tenets of Shentong/other-emptiness (and do not agree with it, see this article: http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx ). Dependent Origination is not the same as the dissociation that you are thinking of. If you think that the Absolute is something apart from dependent origination and phenomena, you have treated D.O. as a form of dissociation. This is not the Buddha's intention. Frankly, there is no need at all for Buddha's teachings and for dependent origination, if you treat D.O. as dissociation. Just Advaita stuff, Ramana Maharshi stuff suffices. Why bother talking about D.O.? Just talk about I AM is enough.

All you need is false view of reality to make a contrast. There is no need for something truly real to make a contrast (there isn't any). Illusion simply means appearance, but without any substance or reality or tangibility to it. For example you see a mirage on the horizon - to an untrained person it may seem to represent something objective out there, like a city, but actually its just an illusory vision without a real city out there. The "imagination that there is a real city" itself can contrast with the illusoriness of the mirage. Except when I didn't say "everyone on this island is a liar" but "everyone on this island is a liar except me". In other words, all truths (i.e. conventional truths) are ultimately false, the only truth is Ultimate Truth. Nagarjuna: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?" The stream of river can realize there is no thing apart from the stream of river. I am not trying to find the definition of something objective (nor is there a subjective person to observe something objective), because precisely the point here is to see through the illusion of a Seer, that is seeing Something. There is no seer, and no something being seen. When you investigate seeing and realize that in seeing there is just the seen without a seer, and furthermore the seen is entirely dependently originated and empty and illusory, your job is done. However, highly intellectual, Madhyamaka style analysis is not required. Bahiya got liberated by just a short concise teaching by Buddha. There are some with very dull intellect (like this monk Chunda who can't remember anything the Buddha said) who got liberated too. With all the right conditions, in one moment of seeing, you can awaken, it is not a very intellectually demanding thing. Many Zen masters awakened upon hearing a sound or seeing something, Thusness too. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness also will lead to Arhatship in less than 7 years of practice. All that analysis is done in Buddhism is done for seeing through and rejecting views, done for letting go, not for grasping to new views like the raft analogy. Sentient beings are the ones in trance world, since they believe in the delusion of self. 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. Yeah, and see it for yourself! :lol: Awakening all depends on each individual, and what I say or what others say doesn't matter. Engaging in 1000 pages of debate isn't going to get any nearer to true resolution. "Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

The point is that emptiness negates view of existents without establishing a position of its own (such as non-existence). I never said he needed to negate anything other than the view of self. Because if you negate the view of self, automatically you negate the non-existence of self, both, and neither. Why? Non-existence of self here means a self that exists and then go into non-existence. Since no self can be established (to exist) to begin with, its non-existence, both and neither is also automatically negates. Therefore all that is required is to negate view of self. Plant has no ignorance and potential to suffer and be reborn according to Buddhism. Trees however can be inhabited by spirits, but that is another matter altogether, and does not apply to all trees (only some). Plants do not have buddha-nature (potential to awaken): they only have dharma nature (the all-pervasive nature of emptiness), so they cannot be awakened. However they do not have ignorance or false sense of self - because they are incapable of self-view. So they are neither ignorant nor awakened. Only sentient beings are ignorant and have the potential to be awakened, only sentient beings have Buddha-Nature (defined here as the potential to attain Buddhahood). As for whether they have awareness of any sort, some teachers say they have, but we have to be careful here and take Shurangama Sutra's warning into account and not fall into error: (44) Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has already ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity. Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding. This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness. We don't celebrate Christmas here well at least my family doesn't It's just an analogy. Another analogy is this: you started learning English. When people say "The Weather is hot", "The Weather is good today", you thought there is a real thing called 'The Weather'. You thought it is a 'real' thing, something with tangible substance or existence. Then you realise on day 'oh, there is no The Weather as some existent thing, it is just a label for the heat, the rain, the wind, etc'. The same applies to 'self', 'awareness', and so on Precisely as I said above. Wrong - is not does not apply, I do not say "is or is not, is not" - rather "is or is not don't apply, full stop". "Is not" (non-existence) requires something existing to begin with that could become non-existent, and in this case, the four extremes have no real existence to begin with, and so is not or is do not apply to them. Lets make this simpler: is in my definition means existence, is not means non-existence. To say 'is' (exists) or 'is not' (is non-existent) requires a base, an existent entity to begin with. For example, before I die, the commoner might say I exist, but after death they say I cease to exist so I am non-existent. The basis for existence or non existence here is the 'self'. If there is no 'self' that can be established in or apart from the five aggregates to begin with, the existence or non-existence of self cannot be established. Is or is not cannot be established. You see, you do not need to 'introduce the idea of is or is not' - the idea of 'is or is not' already 'exists' for sentient beings, and precisely because sentient beings are deluded by notions of existence and non-existence pertaining to a self, that the self-view should be negated and seen through by awakening. If they are not deluded (like Buddhas who are already awakened, or like plants which have no self-view), there is no need for negation. In fact all they have to do is negate the idea of an existent self - because as explained earlier, just negating existence itself already automatically negate the other 3 extremes. So there is no endless loop there. In one moment of awakening, all false notions are negated - awakening is non-inferrential, it is not a step by step negating of something, rather in just one moment all is seen. As Namdrol already said: Madhyamaka simply negates views of existents without establishing a position of its own, such as non-existence [is not]. Something real means there is a real self, inherent, independent, separate, agenthood (perceiver, controller, etc), etc A view of something real means like projecting there to be a real self where there actually isn't - merely delusioned to believe in it. In other words, purely imaginary without basis. It is as imaginary as the belief that moon is made of green cheese. This is not a belief, this is a realization, and I have already explained how I came to that realization.

Tathagata is just a convention, not something inherently existing, as I told vmarco in the quote by Buddha.

No, my understanding of Dependent Origination is not the same as yours, do take some time to read Thusness's article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/04/emptiness-as-viewless-view.html Actually whatever I said is based on what Buddha and Nagarjuna said* so I did not make anything up. I do not follow Jonang and Shentong - those are no different from Advaita style eternalism and do not express true Madhyamaka. As Loppon Namdrol once debated with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche on this issue, Tsultrim Rinpoche admitted in the end that Advaita is no different from Shentong except for the emphasis in Buddhahood (lacking in Advaita). With your current experience, understanding and framework, you will not be able to understand what I mean, but when you go through the further stages of the Thusness seven stages of enlightenment you will be able to understand - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html Because I went through the phases of I AM and substantialist non-dual, those Jonang/Shentong stuff (I was especially interested in Advaita and neo-Advaita then - I'm sure with your current understanding you'll love Ramana Maharshi) would have resonated with me earlier last year, but since my Anatta insight in Oct '10, that is no longer the case. With your current experience, I would advise on paying particular attention to the four aspects of I AM (impersonality, degree of luminosity, seeing through the need to abide and dropping it, and effortlessness) and then investigating on non-dual (investigating and challenging all views of inside and outside, boundaries, subject and object... plus with the practice of intensity of luminosity must shift from focusing on the background space into the foreground sensations, in other words the sights and sounds and everything until you realise the one taste of luminosity in everything - until eventually you will come to the realization Shurangama Sutra said). * Nagarjuna: Becoming and Nirvana -- neither of these is existent. The complete understanding of becoming may be called Nirvana. As cessation is imputed in the extinction of originated entities, the Holy Ones consider cessation to be like a magical creation. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html Buddha: ..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord."... And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above: As Chandrakirti states: "A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts, Nor non-other. It also does not possess them. It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it. It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape. [The self and the aggregates are] similar." And Padmasambhava states: "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging. As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent. The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny." And Nagarjuna states: “The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other than the aggregates. The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them. The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates. What Tathagata is there?” As Loppon Namdrol explains, there is no such thing as Rangtong or Shentong in true Madhyamaka: (Loppon Namdrol) Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]: If there something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty; as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty? And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]: Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established, the conditioned is not established; since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned be established?

No, I'm just talking about the experience of it.. you can use any words you like. Words mean nothing to me, because all conventions are ultimately without substance, they do not point to something real, but that is all we can use to communicate. By the way I never denied dependent origination - manifestation arise due to dependent origination and thus are empty. Arya Nagarjuna: 38. When eye and form assume their right relation, Appearances appear without a blur. Since these neither arise nor cease, They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise. 39. When sound and ear assume their right relation, A consciousness free of thought occurs. These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics, But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually. 40. Dependent upon the nose and an odor, one smells. And as with the example of form there is neither arising nor cessation, But in dependence upon the nose-consciousness’s experience, The dharmadhatu is thought to be smell. 41. The tongue’s nature is emptiness. The sphere of taste is voidness as well. These are in essence the dharmadhatu And are not the causes of the taste consciousness. 42. The pure body’s essence, The characteristics of the object touched, The tactile consciousness free of conditions— These are called the dharmadhatu. 43. The phenomena that appear to the mental consciousness, the chief of them all, Are conceptualized and then superimposed. When this activity is abandoned, phenomena’s lack of self-essence is known. Knowing this, meditate on the dharmadhatu. 44. And so is all that is seen or heard or smelled, Tasted, touched, and imagined, When yogis [and yoginis]* understand these in this manner, All their wonderful qualities are brought to consummation. 45. Perception’s doors in eyes and ears and nose, In tongue and body and the mental gate— All these six are utterly pure. These consciousnesses’ purity itself is suchness’ defining characteristic.

Precisely it negates itself too - emptiness is empty. If emptiness is inherently existing, something is wrong there. Buddha: "And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." .... "Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir." ...... "The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." - Namdrol You don't need something real to cognize illusion. The whole point is that there is absolutely nothing real at all. But you do need the idea of something real (the delusion of it) in order to negate it. You see, you can only negate santa claus if there is belief in santa claus to begin with, it wouldn't make sense to tell African kids that santa claus isn't real - they don't even know there is Christmas. Similarly emptiness is an antidote, a raft, for sentient beings to abandon false views of inherent existence. It works for us because no unawakened sentient being is free from false view and attachment to self. So when I said 'it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality.', it simply means you must have self view first in order to negate self view, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. A Buddha doesn't need to negate self view (because a Buddha has already long awakened from self view). A plant doesn't need to negate self view (because it doesn't have self view to begin with). Only sentient beings need it. So since sentient beings already have false view of substantiality, it makes perfect sense to talk about the absence of it. Do note that you do not need something real, because there isn't, to contrast with something illusory. You just need the view, idea, of a self of something real, for the antidote to work. Sentient beings ALREADY have false view of self, thats why talking about anatta and emptiness is going to liberate them, if they investigate and discover it for themselves. You realize cognition is empty when you realize that cognition is simply a stream of knowing activities without knower (in seeing just the seen). Here, subject-view is denied. Then a further insight reveals those activities to be dependently originated, empty and illusory as well - without a substance or core that is locatable anywhere. I think what you mean is that you need something outside cognition to contrast illusoriness with (something real?) but you are totally missing what I meant. You don't need to look outside cognition and there is nothing real at all, you just need to investige that cognition and realize there is no cognizer, just a stream of cognition, in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen, and that is ultimately illusory. Trance? Absorption? Nothing of that sort... I do not need to practice to attain a state of trance or absorption. Those are altered states where effort is applied to alter the state of consciousness, whereas for me no effort is applied... It is just these plain ordinary sights and sounds... the sensate world showing itself directly moment to moment and thats all there is, or not even that bcos 'there is' would be to establish something. The best I can say is just 'suchness of seeing, hearing, without establishing a cognizer or something cognized' or 'in seeing just these shapes, colours, forms'. I'm telling you, it is an illusion. It is completely empty and illusory. Now I am not denying self-luminosity of manifestation. I am however rejecting your view that everything is one awareness. There is no such thing as 'one awareness', in the same way that there is no such thing as 'one weather' - it is really just a label. There is no awareness apart from those diverse manifestation, each moment of manifestation completely different without any substance or metaphysical essence somehow linking them up. For example: hearing is different from seeing is different from tasting - they are not all 'one awareness' because everything arise due to different conditions. Just like there is no river apart from flowing and no wind apart from blowing, there is no knowing without an object of knowing. To know is to know something. Knowing dependently originates. Thich Nhat Hanh: "When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'." "..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...." "In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one." When in delusion, you perceive conventional as truths, when awakened, you only perceive wisdom, the ultimate (emptiness) or in other words simply suchness undeluded by mental establishments of a self or object that is inherent. So when in delusion, you think everything is One Awareness, when awakened, there is just the sights, scenes, taste, etc, suchness, but without reifying a subjective cognizer, or a one substance manifesting as the many, or the manifold as having inherent existence - they are utterly illusory. And I am telling you there is no such thing as The Awareness apart from sense experience. Even the I AM is part of the six dependently originated awarenesses - it is non-conceptual thought. Your idea that Awareness has some substance or ultimacy to it is a fallacy that with right view and right investigation, you will be able to see through it. Thats because you don't understand my realization.

From Thusness Stage 1 to Stage 7, all are about NDNCDIMOP. It is just a matter of degree of effortlessness and liberation. Directness does not mean liberation. Even in Stage 1, there is direct experience, but only pertaining to one type of manifestation, and due to views of duality and inherency, there will still be grasping.

When in seeing, there is just the experience of shapes, colours, forms, without a sense of a seer, (likewise for hearing: just the sound vibrations, no hearer), for all six senses... that is NDNCDIMOP. To someone without insight of anatta they may say something like PCE is the experience where 'I' cease perceiving and perceiving (and thinking and doing) takes place of itself, to someone who realize anatta it is seen that there never was an 'I' to cease, perceiving has always taken place of itself in itself (means in suchness, I don't imply there is ultimately 'something in itself') without a seer, feeler, doer, thinker, according to conditions. However it should also be noted that the experience of non-doership or spontaneity may not imply nondual or anatta insight. For example when I was at the I AM phase I also experienced spontaneous activities and there is no sense of a doership, however nonetheless the sense of an agent or ultimate perceiver is still present - but it is merely witnessing the spontaneous happenings of manifestation. So non-doership is not the same as no-agent or anatta.

Yes our latent knowledge affects our moment to moment behaviour, for example if we see snake we recognise danger and try to flee. (though it can be possible to get rid of the sense of self and fear, and let action be completely spontaneous) However you will notice that your action is more spontaneous and thoughtless if it were experienced unexpectedly. Yes there is no 'the sun'. I never said direct experience of 'the sun' except in a figure-of-speech way. There is no 'the physical universe' unlike what AF people think. By the way in PCE or Anatta experience you are experiencing luminosity intensely as the details and textures of the moment, such as "texture, temperature, shape, movement" - but there is no labelling of them as such, there is simply the direct experiencing. This is why the Buddha taught us to practice being aware of the solidity/softness, warmth/coolness etc of breathing sensation. After anatta you'll understand the whole purpose of teaching the four foundations of mindfulness. Anatta is not collapsing the manifold into oneness, but experiencing (and more than that: realizing) awareness as the diverse manifestations, the textures of forms, but without establishing a self or an object of cognition. In seeing, always just the shapes, colours and forms, vivid yet illusory and empty, nothing graspable.

The view of an existent self can apply to 1) the subjective self 2) the self of dharmas/phenomena so basically everything is covered therein. The Buddha did not speak about Buddha-nature at all in the Pali Suttas - Tathagatagarbha is a late teaching maybe 1000 years after Buddha's passing. Anyway, all the Buddhist traditions except some late Chinese works and the Tibetan Shentong/Jonang school (once banned by a previous Dalai Lama) whose views become similar to Advaita, actually hold that Buddha-Nature is empty - in other words the four fold negation applies to 'Buddha-nature' as well. In particular, the Vajrayana tradition and the teachings of Dzogchen and Mahamudra holds that Buddha-nature to be simply the union of luminosity and emptiness, in other words Buddha-Nature is also utterly empty and unestablished, without any unchanging self or identity. It is not the case that Pali suttas did not talk about luminosity, however it was not singled out and being given a name, but the Buddha did talk about the mind being luminous even in the pali suttas.

The Buddha applied fourfold negation to the view of existent self. The principle of dependent origination has it that manifestation arises due to supporting condition, ceases due to the cessation of supporting conditions. But it is precisely because of dependent arising that everything is empty of an inherent/independent essence, and thus there is no true arising and cessation. (because to speak of a real existence, a real arising and ceasing, requires the view of an 'entity', a 'self', an 'existent') When what is dependently arisen, has no substance and true arising, its cessation also have no absolute reality. What is dependently arisen is empty, and being empty and non-arising, cannot be said to have a real cessation, cessation being spoken merely conventionally. That is why I said Nirvana is spoken conventionally, it is not an ultimate reality. The truth of emptiness is linked with dependent origination - it is due to dependent origination that things are said to be empty. The Buddha is also known to have said: "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

All that he is saying is that there is a conventional truth called final cessation, that cessation is unconditioned, and so on. If there were no such thing as Nirvana (cessation), there can be no liberaton from samsara and rebirth. But precisely there is such a thing called Nirvana, which is unconditioned by afflictions, there is liberation from samsara. That which is spoken here is Nirvana - cessation. If there were not that dimension of Nirvana, sentient beings will be stuck in the rounds of rebirth again and again, but because there is such a thing as final cessation, there is possibility of liberation. By the way, cessation does not happen 'out of this or that' but rather 'out of a LACK of this and that', this and that means our afflictions and ignorance... it is not conditioned, cessation is unconditioned - precisely of not being conditioned by conditions (without effluents), it is without birth. Nirvana is thus not born, not conditioned, and so on. As Buddha said, There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress. - no more rebirth, no more births, neither this world nor the NEXT world... not even the highest formless heavens... ended is all suffering I have already showed you in my previous post how Buddha rejected any notion of a ground of being, so you should be the one dismissing your wrong understanding of Buddhist teachings which contradicts all the suttas - whereas with right understanding, you can understand not just one sutta (wrongly - with eternalistic view) but the entire of the canon seamlessly without contradiction. Another term for Nirvana is Unbinding. For the supported there is instability, for the unsupported there is no instability; when there is no instability there is serenity; when there is serenity there is no inclination: when there is no inclination there is no coming-and-going; when there is no coming-and-going there is no decease-and-uprising; when there is no decease-and-uprising there is neither "here" nor "beyond" nor "in between the two." Just this is the end of suffering. .... "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." — AN 3.32 .... There's no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the aggregates, no ease other than peace. Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one knowing this truth as it actually is, Unbinding is the foremost ease. Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship. Unbinding: the foremost ease. — Dhp 202-205 ..... Some are born in the human womb, evildoers in hell, those on the good course go to heaven, while those without effluent: totally unbound. — Dhp 126

You see, I didn't think I needed to answer you because I think you are familiar with non-conceptual experiences When I say PCE, NDNCDIMOP, you should already understand what it is. Sometimes the Zen master's answer is simply "you already know" or like "it's staring right in your face" - of course they don't tell this to newcomers "you already know" (or at least I think they won't, unless the master likes to see the stunned look on their faces). Or he will just hit the floor with his staff. More answers would be conceptualizing things... which may be necessary at first when that is the only way you can understand things, but as you discover the non-conceptual, non-dual etc then it is no longer the only mode of perception that you know. But I'll just give an example for this post: if I poke you with a needle, you immediately withdraw your hands without even giving it a second thought. Or if hot water is poured on your hands. If I ask you, why do you withdraw? You say, "that needle was painful, I felt pain!" If you truly believe in it, you are holding to concepts, and you are establishing a perceiver and a perceived. The experience before that, and the spontaneous action, is non-conceptual, direct, immediate. Actually even speaking can be non-conceptual and spontaneous - and that is the way of Buddha. Looking at sunset is the same. If you simply delight in the pure sensuousness and experience of it, it is non conceptual. Thats why when people just enjoy looking at a sunset or a tree or a nice scenery, it is very common at this time to experience a PCE. But PCE is not just non-conceptual experience - all attachment or clinging to a sense of identity must be in abeyance for a PCE to occur - no longer a seer seeing things, but just the experience of sight, no feeler, hearer, etc. (one can try to be non-conceptual, but still clinging to a separate witness, but in doing so they have been tricked by a subtle concept of a separate witness unknowingly due to subtle self-referencing while thinking they are totally nonconceptual) As for How - there is no How for me, because PCE has become effortless after Anatta. But before the realization, intense mindfulness can induce PCEs as a peak experience. I won't elaborate on mindfulness, you can read it here: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html