xabir2005

Not too sure what bearings all these findings have on our experience. Scientists study the universe from a materialistic point of view... Spirituality studies the science of consciousness.

Very simple. PCE, NDNCDIMOP is a "direct" experience - non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception. Even I AM is a NDNCDIMOP but relating only to non-conceptual thought, whereas the PCE of AF is NDNCDIMOP in all sense perceptions, for example. However, having NDNCDIMOP doesn't mean you realize anything... however the realization has that quality of directness, and in that moment you realize or discover something that has always been the case.

By the way, Shurangama Sutra is not spoken by the historical Buddha since it is a much latter compilation - with regards to origins of Mahayana Sutras, can refer to http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 and http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434746 I'm a Mahayana-nist so I accept these sutras - as in revealed, late sutras. However not all sutras can be understood without context, for example another late sutra which was compiled by many authors - Mahaparinirvana Sutra, can easily be mistaken as eternalism. So you must know that a lot of Mahayana Sutras speak in different styles from the historical Buddha. The Pali Canon however contains the historical Buddha's spoken words.

You do not understand the context of what is said above. Buddha is talking about Final Cessation - the title of the scripture is called Final Cessation - Parinibbana. The analogy he gave is this: when the fire stops blowing due to lack of fire fuel, the fire cannot be said to go here, there, up, down, left, right, anywhere. It is just 'ceased'. The same applies to the final cessation. Having ceased, it is not-born, not brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned. If cessation were not possible, there could not have been freedom from being reborn. Precisely because 'fire-stops-burning' is possible that there is freedom from fire so similarly, precisely because 'not-being-born, etc etc' is possible that there can be freedom from being born, etc. This is not an unchanging metaphysical substance friend, it is talking about final cessation. That is ALL the Buddha is ever talking about in his pali scriptures... in his own words, suffering, and the cessaton of suffering - nirvana. To make sure people do not misunderstand him, in another instance, he spoke against the Sankhya teaching of reifying the Unconditioned into a ground of being: (by the way this scripture happens to be the FIRST of the hundreds of scriptures in the Majjhima Nikaya, called the Root Sequence) See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html ..."He directly knows water as water... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you." That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words. Rob Burbea in Realizing the Nature of Mind: One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words. This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there. Thanissaro Bhikkhu: The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or classification school. This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha. Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate. However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening. If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123. Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes. Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse. p.s. With due respects to Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is a venerable from the Theravadin tradition of Buddhism, his comments on "the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa" is not in accord with what is taught in the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions, since in these traditions the Dharmakaya (dharma body)/Buddha Nature/Rigpa is explained as empty as well. It is however a common misunderstanding even among Buddhists.

Because since there is no apple and no cognizer, any notion of a cognizer and an apple is false. Correct cognition is cognition that does not establish an experiencer or something experienced. I never say "this is a correct way of experiencing an apple" - if I do it is just a figure of speech and not to be taken literally, because there is no apple at all, so correct cognition is cognition undeluded by the view of a cognizer and the view of an existing apple. There is just an unestablished "suchness". Even this is a figure of speech pointing at what is experientially seen, because to begin to say "There is" is already wrong. "Is" (existence) and "is not" (non-existence) don't apply. Of course I can talk about deluded and undeluded way of cognition - deluded cognition would be an experience experienced with the illusion of a cognizer and something cognized, and undeluded would be otherwise. Yes, they are deluded moments of cognition, I never said otherwise. They are deluded moments of cognition - but deluded here means cognition that is muddled with the imagination that there is a real cognizer and something cognized. Not deluded 'about itself' since there is no 'the itself', just delusion and non-delusion appearance of cognition, cognition being a mere empty appearance. Perception is simply an appearance, and I already explained how cognition/appearance does not require cognizer - I already told you it is a mere inference that has no basis other than your thought that it is required. In seeing just the seen (without something being seen) - no seer. When all labels (relative, conventional truths) are seen to be empty and baseless, that is wisdom, (baseless, empty, and furthermore liberating) otherwise there is delusion and suffering (baseless, empty, all apparent, yet felt as real and thus painful) Everything is illusory is a non-asserting negation of existents. Lastly I'll leave something awesome by Dalai Lama: Generally speaking, there are two forms of meditation on emptiness. One is the space-like meditation on emptiness, which is characterised by the total absence or negation of inherent existence. The other is called the illusion-like meditation on emptiness. The space-like meditation must come first, because without the realisation of the total absence of inherent existence, the illusion-like perception or understanding will not occur. For the illusion-like understanding of all phenomena to occur, there needs to be a composite of both the perception or appearance and the negation, so that when we perceive the world and engage with it we can view all things and events as resembling illusions. We will recognise that although things appear to us, they are devoid of objective, independent, intrinsic existence. This is how the illusion-like understanding arises. The author of the Eight Verses indicates the experiential result when he writes: 'May I, recognising all things as illusions, devoid of clinging, be released from bondage.' When we speak of cultivating the illusion-like understanding of the nature of reality, we need to bear in mind the different interpretations of the term 'illusion-like'. The non-Buddhist Indian schools also speak of the illusion-like nature of reality, and there are different interpretations within Buddhist schools. For example, the Buddhist realist schools explain the nature of reality to be illusion-like in the sense that, although we tend to perceive things as having permanence, in reality they are changing moment by moment and it is this that gives them an illusion-like character. In the context of our short text, the illusion-like nature of reality must be understood as relating to all things and events. Although we tend to perceive them as possessing some kind of intrinsic nature or existence, in reality they are all devoid of such reality. So there is a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are. It is in this sense that things and events are said to have an illusion-like nature.

Good. Now you understand why in the end Buddha says he hasn't said a single word. Emptiness is merely a non-affirming negation. It negates existents while not establishing anything including a position of non-existence. When I say cognition is illusory, I don't mean there is an existing thing called cognition, that is illusory. I mean the appearance of cognition is ultimately empty or illusory which means there is no real cognition behind the appearance of cognition - appearance means merely an empty illusion without substance. In Diamond Sutra it always say, 'A' is not 'A', therefore its 'A'. Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). What is dependently arisen has no independent existence anywhere - so are simply like mere illusion, magician's trick, or dream-like appearances that has no substance or core anywhere. Yes when explaining it is always in comparison - it is only when you have false view of substantiality that it makes sense to talk about the absence of substantiality. In meditative equipoise no comparison is needed because it is not through analysis. But to speak to you in terms of language, I can use pointers. The best pointer is to point to you that your notion of substantiality is false, is to negate that view of substantiality. When you have a realization that negates the view of substantiality, then everything becomes seen as illusory. Wrong analogy. You are comparing the absence of experience of cognizance, with the presence of experience of cognizance, and saying you cannot experience the absence of cognizance since all experiences are an experience of cognizance. I'm not rejecting the appearance of cognizance (do know that cognizance and appearance are inseparable - in seeing just seen no seer), I am rejecting the inherent existence of cognizance. So you should be comparing the view of substantiality with the lack of it, not the presence of appearance and absence of appearance. Appearance, emptiness, and luminosity are inseparable. When you realize Anatta, you do not see 'All is Awareness'. You don't deny luminosity but you realize that 'there is just the breathe, the scent, the sight' and 'Awareness' is just a label collating the diverse, scattered and disjoint manifestation - there is no one awareness linking all of them together, you do not subsume everything to be one substance but see that 'Awareness' is an empty label, in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen, just the diverse manifestation. As an analogy: there is no river apart from flowing, wind apart from blowing, weather apart from the wetting, forming and parting of clouds, wind, etc changing moment to moment - so it is not 'All is Weather' (that is mere convention) but ultimately 'there is no The Weather' just like there is no 'The Awareness'. So am I comparing 'awareness' with lack of it, or 'weather' with the lack of it, or 'river' with the lack of it? No, I am not talking about the presence (existence) or absence (non-existence) of awareness, or weather, or river. I am talking about the lack of a substantial self in any of them. No aware-ness. No weather-ness. No river-ness. Just the blowing, the flowing, the manifestation of six dependently originated cognizance. I am not comparing existence with non-existence (which would depend on the notion of an existent). The nihilistic notion of non-existence says that an existent self first exists, then becomes non-existent after death, thus rejecting the validity of karma and rebirth. But when you say there is no existent self in the first place apart from dependently originated activities, there is no basis/self to annihilate or become non-existent when you die. So the extremes of existence and non-existence, eternalism or nihilism are both rejected at once. Of course even the 'activities' are also ultimately empty and when realized the twofold emptiness becomes actualized. Why would you need to 'compare or contrast its substantiality' - when you realize seeing is just the sight and there is No 'The Awareness', you will have effectively understood the difference between false cognition and correct cognition in terms of anatta.

I disagree. This thread does not belong to Buddhist category since it is not a topic perculiar of Buddhism, and is an open discussion with people of different perspectives.

Ok

You talk about no subject and object yet say that the six senses are not the light which is precisely the division of Subject and Object. Unless you can see the 6 senses as none other than the undivided light, you will not have a direct realization of this. I was like you (having realized the Light yet dividing the six senses from the undivided light) until a realization late last year. When you can realize what Buddha said in Shurangama Sutra here you would have realized non-duality: "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 itaccording 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."

In Buddhism, an Arhant also comprehend the nature of reality - but its not Brahman, but dependent origination, and the three seals. However, this is not the Buddha's 'omniscience' - the Buddha's omniscience means he can know any thing (including Scott's hair color), what is happening in another alien universe, etc... if he wishes to know. Bodhisattvas, Arhants realized nature of reality of everything, but not omniscience in the sense of what I said above So the Buddhist understanding of omniscience is not really similar to Advaita. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/safe_direction/qualities_buddha_omniscient_deep_aw.html Maitreya’s Filigree of Realizations (mNgon-rtogs rgyan, Skt. Abhisamaya-alamkara) delineates twenty-one categories of untainted deep awareness (zag-med ye-shes sde-tshan nyer-cig) of a Buddha’s omniscient mind. Often, four of these categories are singled out when describing the qualities of a Buddha’s omniscience: the ten forces (stobs-bcu), the four (guarantees) about which he is fearless (mi-‘jigs-pa bzhi), the four perfect awarenesses of individual points (so-so yang-dag-par rig-pa bzhi), the eighteen unshared features of a Buddha (sangs-rgyas-kyi chos ma-’dres-pa bcu-brgyad).

The process is somewhat similar in that both requires contemplation, but not so similar because your conclusion is not made based on inference but by direct seeing. Analysis has its place in the process of contemplating... but the realization is non-conceptual. Because concepts cannot directly cognize ultimate truth, the most concepts can do is serve as a raft - such as a fire on the candle that when finished burning the candle, consumes itself - no more candle, no more fire. Realization of the nature of reality thus is a non conceptual realization that burns away all concepts leaving equipose of reality non-conceptually - perception of reality as it is non-conceptually. If you still rely on conceptual understanding, realization has not arisen... so thats what I mean. There is no inference at all involved - do you use inference to come to the realization of I AM, of luminosity, of non dual? No you simply see it, but it is not without a process of contemplating before it is seen. Do you say for example after you analyzed this and this (tha I am not my body and not my mind) then you infer that there is an I AM Presence... of course not, you either see it directly or not. That inferred understanding is at most a vague glimpse or experience but not the doubtless non-inferred I AM Realization - so this is how the 'conclusive conviction' arises as contrast to inference. The same goes to any other realization including anatta. Sorry to say, I do not follow your line of reasoning because this has not been my experience. My experience is that though I had an intellectual conviction of anatta and impermanence, at some point in my practice I still felt very much 'permanent', 'self', etc. Until further insights arose. That is conceptuality in itself is incapable of really shifting your way of perception until direct insight. "Hard to perceive and understand, Vacchagotta, is this Dharma, rare, excellent, beyond the sphere of logic, subtle, to be understood only by the wise..." - Buddha Logic can only serve as a raft and not to direct insight. Anyway I didn't use a lot of logic - unless you are into Madhyamaka. An understanding of things before contemplating will help as an antidote to wrong understanding (with wrong understanding one cannot even begin to look at the right direction), however it is not the same as realization. I don't know if anyone believed in santa claus in adulthood again - apparently, I have never heard of any such persons and if you can find one news article that says an adult suddenly believed in santa claus again, that makes it plausible. Until then, lets not make ridiculous statements without evidence. But whether you can personally believe in santa claus again, what I can say is that I can never, never believe in a Self again because this is not an inferential understanding but a direct unshakeable insight. As I said - ultimate truth is universal. And ultimate truth is not A personal experience, it is a discovery about the nature of ALL phenomenon as being so - without self, without substance, dependently originated. While realization is an experience, it is not merely a peak experience of something, but an experience of realizing the nature of reality. i.e. An experience is like NDNCDIMOP A discovery or realization is like the realization of anatta. How I came to the conviction is not through inferrential, but a contemplative exercise (combined with all my previous experience and insights at that moment) that resulted in a direct, non-inferential seeing.

Even if you discover luminosity, I AM or non dual, or have whatever amazing experience, you are still dealing with relative and not woken up to ultimate truth. The Dalai Lama: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/His%20Holiness%20the%20Dalai%20Lama Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind. There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state. All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

Ok just found something from Namdrol today which is well said: The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth. The word brdzun pa means "to lie" as well. .... But false perception is mthong brdzun, so what Candrakirti is clearly saying is that false/faulty/incorrect perception is relative, or totally obscuring, truth.

Thats right. Emptiness is not a conventional truth. Emptiness is ultimate truth. It does not mean emptiness is ultimately existing, it just means its a truth. This is why Emptiness is ultimate truth, not ultimate reality. Like I already said, illusoriness does not make something false. It only makes notions of non-illusory false. The truth is that of emptiness, illusoriness. No - it seems you did not grasp my explanation on the difference between illusion and delusion. Everything is illusory, but not necessarily delusional. You can never cognize a non-illusion because there is nothing not illusory - however cognition can be freed from delusion. As already explained - illusion does not mean 'incorrect'. Illusion just means there is no inherent existence or substance. Your realization of truth is also without inherent existence or substance, thus illusory. Thats why I said it is illusory but NOT delusional and therein lies the difference.

It means undeluded cognition is also illusory/empty. Yes, undeluded cognition. Illusory implies: an appearance of something, which is nonetheless without substance/substantiality, core, inherency, such as a mirage, a dream, etc. There is no such thing as an inherently existing thing called non-cognition, so non-cognition is also empty, but since non-cognition (not sure what you mean by that) is not an appearance, 'illusory' may not make sense in this context. Anyway I did not speak about non-cognition, just deluded and undeluded cognition. Don't get you. Yes. No. There is just cognition without a cognizer and something cognizing. You are falling into the error of inference again - that to see requires a seer and an object seen (have already told you earlier this is not required). If you awaken, it is like Kalaka Sutta - you do not establish a seer or sometihng seen, just suchness. Yes, and those experiences are illusory (appearing but without substance) Why not? And that experience can be tainted with delusion or not - delusion is also part of that experience.

Yeah.. Merry Christmas

I'm not sure why you compare realization with making a decision... if you take it as analogy, maybe there is some similarities (but I can't think of any at the moment) but actually realization has nothing to do with decision making because it is a non-inferred realization of the fact or nature things has always been. Decision is conceptual and inferred - you analyze this and this, and then finally you come to an inferred conclusion of things... like Madhyamaka reasonings. This is very different from realization. So of course it is going to be very different. An intellectual understanding of no-self for example, will not allow you to have NDNCDIMOP - the actual experience of it... but direct experiential realization will make NDNCDIMOP effortless because it burns away the framework you use to view reality and make NDNCDIMOP the natural state. In other words an intellectual understanding of no-self for example will not change your latent view and tendencies and your sense of self will still keep arising as a result of that latent tendencies. Intellectual understanding therefore is not very helpful in itself, except if ou yhave the right practice and contemplation and truly see things for yourself, then with the backing of intellectual understanding it is easier to realize. As an example I have said earlier, you may think "everything is impermanent" sounds very reasonable - everyone does, but it is very different from doing vipassana and truly seeing it is the case. Other people may realize luminosity, which isn't denied. But if they reify luminosity as inherent due to dualistic and inherent framework, thats false. Because the truth is the twofold emptiness. Direct experience of luminosity is not the same as realization of twofold emptiness, and it is only when one has realized anatta and shunyata and not just the luminosity aspect, that one can be considered awakened as an arya in Buddhism. Direct experience of luminosity is most often falsely reified due to delusional framework. You see, you can have any number of realization or direct experience, and still not wake up. Just like you can experience the most amazing thing in the dream and still be deluded in the dream. As long as the deluded framework is in effect, no matter what you experience or realized, will be interpreted through the deluded framework... you are not awake. You have not discovered ultimate truth. Whatever you can realize before waking up are relative truths, not ultimate truth. A realization happens in one moment, but in that moment of seeing a truth, that truth cannot be unseen anymore. For example once you realize in one moment that santa claus is fake, you can never believe in it anymore. Explained above No, no labels are needed, it is a non-conceptual realization about a fact... the nature has always been so. It is a truth about illusoriness, not a non-illusory truth. To realize this however is to be free from delusion (not illusion). The effect is permanent, the waking up is permanent. It is not that there is an unchanging thing which would contradict emptiness (it is a changing eternal as Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rinpoche says, or as I say perpetual), but from that moment on, all moments of cognition is correct undeluded cognition - if not all then at least most or much of the time. Actually as I said there can still be residual latent tendencies - but most of it are gone, like for example pouring away the jug may leave a little bit of remnant smell, but the whole lot of the contents are gone, the remnant smell is an analogy for the latent tendencies that can at certain point cause subtle contractions or afflictions and stuff like that. Nonetheless NDNCDIMOP has already become effortless and not really hindered by the remnants.

If you want to know the real story, do take some time to read the original scriptures: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html Let me summarize for you. 1) First he found a master Alara Kalama, and through him he attained what his master attained, the 7th jhana of nothingness. Unsatisfied with that attainment, seeing that it is a mere temporary absorption that does not end suffering, he left the teacher. 2) Next he found Uddaka Ramaputta who taught how to attain the 8th jhana of neither perception nor non-perception. Also unsatisfied with that attainment, seeing that it is a mere temporary absorption that does not end suffering, he left the teacher. 3) He later lived among a group of five ascetics, and did hardcore ascetism, living without much food and in extreme conditions and self-torture. Almost dying in the process, he realized this is not the way to enlightenment, so he gave it up. 4) Sitting under the bodhi tree, he suddenly recalled having entered into the 1st Jhana when he was 5 years old and thought that he should not fear the meditative joy arising from seclusion and withdrawal from senses. He thought, could this be the way to awakening? Pursuing in this direction, he attained shamatha, rose up the four jhanas and attained the three knowledges: knowledge of past lives, knowledge of karma, through that he remembered the truth of dependent origination from past life and applied it, from which he gained the knowledge of the four noble truths about suffering, cause of suffering, the end of suffering (nirvana) and the way to end suffering (the noble eightfold path). The knowledge of past lives, karma and 4 noble truths makes up the "three knowledges". While Buddha focused on the Shamatha first, it is not necessarily all have to follow the same path to awakening. But without mastery of shamatha, you may awaken and end suffering but will not attain powers such as remembering past lives and understanding the cause and effects of karma. However since Buddha has already taught us Dependent Origination, we do not need to recall past lives in order to remember the teachings taught from previous era Buddhas. I'm not sure because I'm not familiar with these kind of things so I'm not sure how helpful it is. But since Buddha and lots of awakened masters did not do such things, its safe to say that it is not 'compulsory' or 'needed' for enlightenment. Can't comment on these either since I did not do them. But I do meditation, and meditation can be linked with yoga though not exactly same. May lead to peak experiences (but not anywhere close to the awakening of Buddha or to liberation), but there are far more direct, safer ways to realization - psychedelics can lead you to transcendental experiences but then if you become dependent on them to experience something, you miss the point. All these are not necessary. There are very effective spiritual methods (and I speak from experience) that can lead to awakening. Don't talk about enlightened in any situation... first of all, are you even enlightened in one moment? If you are not yet even enlightened in one moment, how to be enlightened in all situations? But since enlightenment (realizing your true nature) is permanent, and cannot be unseen, then naturally when you are enlightened in one moment you can be enlightened in all moments. But do know that the initial realization does not mean all latent tendencies and afflictions drop off completely. They may still arise and require further purification.

No - you didn't get me even after I have repeatedly explained myself, perhaps I have not been able to convey my message clearly enough. All appearances are illusory/empty is a TRUTH... so the fact that all appearance is illusory does not mean for example, that 'correct cognition' is ultimately a false cognition (cognition of falsities), since illusoriness does not not make everything false as it is itself a truth - it only makes notions of non-illusoriness or notions of inherent existence false, makes sense? So there is false cognition (cognition of inherent self and objects) and correct cognition (cognition undeluded by false notions of self and objects). Correct cognition is illusory, and precisely because it is illusory that it is correct - because correct cognition here means undeluded by false notions of self and objects which would have contradicted its illusoriness. This is why Diamond Sutra keeps saying apparently paradoxical (but actually not paradoxical) stuff like it is precisely because there is no perfect enlightenment, that the Buddha is known to have attained perfect enlightenment. Illusoriness of something implies that inherent existence pertaining to something is false, and that its Emptiness is the Ultimate Truth, so saying 'everything is illusory' is not saying 'nothing is true' because 'illusoriness' or 'emptiness' is precisely THE truth, as a matter of fact correct cognition is the cognition of the truth of illusoriness, you get what I mean? It is realization and then authentication of the truth of the illusoriness of self and objects in every moment. And false cognition is the non-recognition of the truth of illusoriness. The view/illusion of self and objects is false (not true). The truth of emptiness of self and objects is, well, true. They are apparent, not substantial/real/inherent/independent - like a dream. By substantial and real I mean inherent and independent. No, I said its useless for a Buddha, but useful for sentient beings. A Buddha doesn't need four noble truths. He does not conceive anything at all and he needs no remedy about anything. He does not conceive conventional. p.s. in conclusion, the problem is that you don't understand the diff between peak experience and realization of anatta and emptienss. People can have peak experience where sense of self dissolves, and when their sense of self return, they go on their lives untransformed. They will not think that one mode of cognition is any truer than the other (like that you are implying) - simply because they have not realized that 'self' is an illusion to begin with, there never has been 'self' to begin with. If you have that realization, you will understand why you can either be awakened to Truth, or be trapped in delusions. If you merely have an experience, you will see it in terms of just being an experience wonderful or blissful as it may be - but nothing about realizing a truth, a Eureka realization that overturns your entire framework and view of reality resulting in a permanent transformation.

The experience of NDNCDIMOP or PCE becomes effortless and perpetual after realization of anatta, as a sideeffect. However you cannot equate experience with realization - as it is obvious most people had it, but not the realization. You are mistaking anatta to be a state and not understanding realization. As a state, all states are equally empty. However, a realization is realizing a TRUTH about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is the twofold emptiness. It has nothing to do with giving reality to a mode of cognition - it is instead, seeing through the illusion of self and objects, the framework of duality and inherency. Not semantics. It is very different... I don't know why you don't understand it. Is it true that there is no inherent self, and no inherent core to all objects? When you realize anatta, and the dependent origination/emptiness of everything, you will realize that yes, emptiness is the TRUE nature of everything. SO emptiness is TRUTH - the lack of substantiality is TRUTH and has nothing to do with substantiality. The truth I'm talking about is the LACK of substantiality... the emptiness of everything. Emptiness means lack of core, substantiality, inherent existence. That's ultimately the only truth there is... all other truths are conventional truths that ultimately are false (from the perspective of ultimate truth). Ah and this is where I differ as I follow these dictionary definitions: 2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real. 3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique. Emptiness means nothing (no self or object) has substantiality/reality/core/solidity.

Much less limitations, not no limitations. I am talking about the realization that EVERYTHING is illusory... of course the realization is also empty and illusory (and empty = illusory, so because there is nothing at all - not even nirvana - that is not empty, everything including nirvana or even if there is anything 'higher than nirvana' must be illusory), but at least now you are no longer deluded. For example, the realization that the dream is a dream occurs in the dream setting, but from then on you are no longer deluded that the dream is real. yes I talked about it in my first post - most people live their lives with self-view and sense of self, but a very vague one. They experience alienation between themselves and the world, but they do not know what that 'self' is. But even though they haven't ascertained self or no self, nonetheless they cling to a sense of self which manifest as a form of contraction and alienation and separation - they feel a me inside experiencing things outside. This is why if they experience PCE or NDNCDIMOP - nondual nonconceptual direct immediate mode of perception, suddenly there's a huge contrast - a big WOW moment - when say, seeing a tree or a sunset or something amazing in nature (usually) but it could be anything. In that moment, the sense of self dissolves and there is just the amazing clarity and aliveness of the moment, the sight, the trees, the sound, without a sense of an inside observer separate from an outside world. Not understanding the experience or rather not realizing anatta as a dharma seal or nature of reality, they may later reflect upon it and say "oh my self dissolved into nothingness for a moment" or "I became the tree for a moment" even though these statements are not exactly true (there never was a real self to begin with, only the sense, the illusion of it). Me too, everyone too (or most people I'm sure). Agree. True. No - you totally do not understand anatta at all. Anatta is not a way of experiencing life. It is discovering there is no self at all to begin with - it is an illusion to begin with. If you realize anatta, you will understand why everyone is living a lie and an illusion, and now finally you are freed from that illusion. Anatta is NOT an experience... not a PCE or a NDNCDIMOP, however PCE and NDNCDIMOP becomes effortless and even perpetual after realization of anatta. However many people have PCE and NDNCDIMOP with NO realization of anatta whatsoever - as a matter of fact PCE and NDNCDIMOP are so common than Richard thinks every person in the world has experienced it some point in their life - usually in their childhood and is forgotten, but can remember it if they look into it deeply enough (he claims that every person he has spoken to at length can remember an instance in life usually in childhood when they experienced the PCE/NDNCDIMOP). Anatta realization however, is far different from any of those experience... it is a realization that always already, there has never been a seer seeing the seen - that is a FALSE delusional framework of reality, that always already, in seeing always just the sene, seeing is JUST the experience of sight without seer... etc. You may say - realization is also an experience isn't it? My answer is yes, but it is not an experience of 'the absence of sense of self' (a common temporary peak experience), but the experience of 'realizing that there is no self - never was, never will, from the beginning!' It is the experience of 'realizing a fundamental TRUTH' by seeing through a delusion, forever, and realizing no-self and shunyata. But unfortunately, you don't understand what I'm talking about, otherwise I wouldn't have needed to repeat. It is not just a mode of cognition such as the NDNCDIMOP or non-dual non-conceptual direct immediate mode of perception - it must have realization, and merely accessing a mode of cognition say a state absent of sense of self, is not the same as realization. For example as I explained above, NDNCDIMOP is a mode of perception and is extremely common such that everyone or almost everyone has had it before, however Anatta is a (permanent) REALIZATION about a truth, and is truly rare.

:lol:

Never said anything like that. Emptiness, and non-emptiness. Truth is emptiness. False is non-emptiness (inherent existence). Cognition of reality simply means correct cognition in the authentication of true wisdom (such as the wisdom of the twofold emptiness). Cognition 'of' does not imply subject/object duality, just as 'cognition of red apple' does not imply 'cognizer' - it just means 'cognition of red apple'. Cognition of red apple can have two types: false cognition and correct cognition. False cognition cognizes a seer seeing an inherently existing red apple. Correct cognition simply cognizes suchness, as Buddha says, "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime." Just because all are empty doesn't mean there isn't a correct and false way of cognition, the prior leading to wisdom liberation, the latter leading to suffering and delusion. So our compassion goes for those in delusion and suffering as a result of that delusion. Of course even to talk about wisdom and ignorance is also to speak in conventional terms because ultimately there is no wisdom, no ignorance, no ... . So if wisdom and ignorance are conventional truths why bother talking about it? Why bother talking about conventional truths if they are ultimately not true? Firstly as I said, karma, ignorance and its effects can be observed on the conventional level. If there is no sentient beings and no suffering, why talk about saving sentient beings? Even though Buddhas only perceive wisdom/ultimate truth and not conventional, nonetheless as Namdrol says "if you suffer from delusion, then you are still beholden to the two truths. It is inescapable." As an analogy, if you suffer from delusion, you require realization. Actually emptiness is always already the case and requires nothing - realization is only relative to ignorance (trees have no ignorance and no wisdom) - but the only cure to delusion is realization and the only way to attain realization is to walk the eightfold path. Then as an awakened being you become aware of the ultimate truth and know there is no ignorance, no realization, no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end of suffering, no path to end suffering, no . So everything becomes like 'dream-talk' - even talks about four noble truths are 'dream-talk', but it is nonetheless necessary for someone still trapped in the 'dream' (as in, trapped in delusion). A buddha however don't need it anymore but to teach sentient beings he has to engage in dream talk - mere skilful means. Ultimately, as Buddha himself said, he taught nothing at all - because ultimately nothing can be said. Thats like saying - there is already no self, you don't have to get rid of self, you don't have to practice anything to be no-self, you don't have to do anything. But that doesn't work for most of us - we can't realize it so such a statement is as good as useless. But once we have a method in which we can practice to realize the truth, then that means something for us. Insofar as there is the slighest trace of delusion left, you have to engage in further practice and contemplation. So there is a place for compassion, for skillful means, for dream talk. They are all in reference to sentient beings trapped in delusion.

Ultimately no difference (all states are empty), conventionally one is a projection of thought or intention as in lucid dreaming, while waking state is not a projection of your intention - i.e. you cannot fly in the sky or change scene just by your own intention, even though waking is also dream-like and illusory doesn't mean its a dream. Of course in waking state your intention can accomplish many things - like walking to the toilet. But you can't fly to the toilet because there are many other limitations and conditions apart from intention - physical limitations, etc. Whereas, lucid dreaming does not have any such limitations and operates solely via intention and thought projection. The notion of something non-illusory is already present prior to realization - it is more like, you once thought the mirage was real and there was a real city over there, and now you realized there is no real city over there, its just a mirage, an illusion. That moment of realization is a non-conceptual seeing - it is a Eureka discovery of something amazing - the fact that everything is vividly appearing and yet not truly 'there'! Illusory simply means no core, no substance in anything. Now of course even emptiness is empty - emptiness being an Ultimate Truth but not an Ultimate Reality - emptiness being the absence of inherent existence but not the presence of some metaphysical reality or a position of non-existence - it is taught so that one can relinquish false notions or views about self and objects instead of holding to a new view or belief, and when it has done its job, you totally forget about something called 'emptiness' and just live life without any more delusions. Just luminosity without reifying anything. I never have any thoughts about 'emptiness' or 'no self' nowadays - 'emptiness' or 'no self' simply rejects existents but does not posit a position of non-existence as truth. In other words, I don't perceive a self, but I also don't perceive a no-self - just the suchness of seeing, hearing, without a sense or illusion of self or even a no-self. Make sense? Yes thats right. Have already explained very clearly - there is a difference between delusory and illusory. Wisdom is the correct cognition of reality even though ultimately empty, while ignorance is delusional even though ultimately empty. I'm not. Yeah but its all a dream. All are illusory, but the latter is NOT delusional (you recognized the dream to be dream) while the prior IS delusional (you thought the dream scene was real). I do not give reality to anything - if 'reality' (in Buddhist definition) implies something real or substantial, then both wisdom and ignorance is equally empty, illusory, and unreal. However, there is a truth: the truth is emptiness, and wisdom is the cognition or recognition or realization of that truth, while ignorance is the non realization of that truth and therefore operating under false cognition of the nature of reality (as inherently existing). So yes, one is wisdom and one is delusional even though both are empty. You may think that to say something is true and unreal is contradictory but its not - its just because you have an assumption that something true must be something real (substantial). As I said, the truth is the unreality of self and things, and untruth is the (notion of) reality of self and things. I do not give reality (as in substantiality) to modes of cognition. I am just saying, there is a truth - the truth is emptiness, and wisdom is the undeluded cognition due to realization of that truth while ignorance is deluded cognition due to ignorance of that truth, all the while both modes are utterly empty and merely conventional. No - true is true false is false. Truth is emptiness, false is all notions of inherent existence. Or in another way of explaning, true is ultimate truth, false is conventional truth (put in another way: conventional truth is ultimately not true), but conventional truth also have truths and untruths. There is two truths: conventional truth, and ultimate truth. Ultimately, there is only One Truth - not two. So conventional truth falls under 'false', however under that category of things (conventional) you can distinguish false and true - as in conventionally, rebirth and karma is true (The conventionally observed efficacy of karma and its results cannot be denied. But even karma is ultimately illusory.), and conventionally, a moon made of green cheese is false. Ultimately, the only truth is emptiness, and conventional truth is not true. As an analogy - in a dream you can say you saw this and this, those are conventional truth. Even though certain things can be said to be true and certain things false in the context of the dream, ultimately whatever can be conventionally said about the dream is false in the perspective of ultimate truth - since the dream is entirely illusory and empty to begin with, so in final analysis the only truth is emptiness.