xabir2005

Lucid dreaming. "no longer being deluded about the dream" implies first, a moment of realization that terminates a false view about reality, and secondly this realization resulting in the effortless authentication of the 'suchness of seen, heard, sensed' without falsely projecting self/seer, objects, and so on, as per what Kalaka Sutta described. This actualization is the actualization of wisdom, and when all latent tendencies are completely removed (when not even the residual smell remains after the contents of the jug was removed), such a being can be called an arhant or a buddha, and such a being only perceives wisdom in day to day living, never any ignorance, sense of self, attachments, and so on "no longer being deluded about the dream" cannot be pinned down as an entity inside the appearance, or apart from the appearance. It is simply a description about our experience - ignorance is wrong-cognition and wisdom is correct-cognition (shall explain below). Wisdom is just a convention, but ultimately empty of any inherent existence that could be pinned down or located as a reality. Similar things can be said to anything else: weather cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the everchanging clouds, rain, wind, lightning, etc... Car cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the engine, door, [other components] etc... Self cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the constantly changing five aggregation... so on and so forth. Awareness also cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the six dependently originated consciousnesses. All are just conventional truths, ultimately empty - that means ultimately there is no wisdom, no ignorance, no awareness, no self, no car, no weather, no eye, no ear, no nose, no five skandhas, no nirvana, no samsara - Form is Emptiness. But this should always be clarified: emptiness does not deny form, no-awareness does not deny luminosity, no self does not deny witnessing consciousness, no object does not deny appearance, etc. This is why 'Emptiness is Form'. Can't deny appearances - but because of empty nature you cannot pinpoint something (a wisdom, an Awareness, a car, a self, a weather, a chariot) as the appearance, or apart from the appearance Anatta means there is no one, no agent, that is ignorant, that is realized, that is behind seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. So to presume "something" is behind something is already false. Realization is something akin to recognizing the dream as illusory (not delusional). When you recognize the dream, you don't wake up from the dream, you wake up from your delusions about the dream (as containing real substantial objects and a real substantial self) and you continue dreaming lucidly, able to manipulate the illusions. Wisdom is illusory - empty but not delusional. Ignorance is both illusory and delusional. In short, it is one thing to say that the thing you see is illusory - for example you can see an illusory thing - like a mirage. But its a whole different thing to be tricked by the mirage by taking the mirage as an actual thing - like you thought there is a real city at the far end, when actually its just a mirage. Mirage is illusory, being tricked is delusion. It does make sense conventionally as I just explained above (one is with delusion one is not). Ultimately, there is no distinction because emptiness is the nature of everything - from ignorance to wisdom, from hell to Buddhas. You think that to be deluded implies 'someone' being deluded. This is just an inference, similar to thinking that to hear something it requires a hearer, or to see something requires a seer. This is false. The Buddha says, I do not say "I see", "I hear", or even "I am ignorant" or "I am deluded". He says, based on such and such supporting conditions, such and such happens. He doesn't say 'I hear, I see, I awaken' but he says with such and such conditions comes awakening, seeing, hearing, etc. Because the nature of twofold emptiness is such that there are no independent/inherent self or objects, to hold the view that there are independent self/objects are delusional. So, there is correct cognition (wisdom), and false cognition (ignorance), even though both are equally empty. That means, the conventionally observed effects of wisdom (wisdom leads to liberation, clarity, etc etc) and ignorance (ignorance leads to the 12 links, leads to suffering, clinging, etc etc) cannot be denied. But even wisdom and ignorance is ultimately illusory. As an analogy: experiencing the dream as if the dream tiger is real and the dream self is real and as a result experiencing fear and suffering, is a sign of ignorance (false cognition of the dream). Experiencing the dream with the recognition that the dream is merely a thought-projection and therefore no real tiger or self and as a result experiencing no fear at all is a sign of wisdom (correct cognition of the dream). This is just an analogy, of course lucid dreaming is not the same as the realization of emptiness as the nature of reality but a mere recognition of a dream as a dream: dream here as the state opposed to waking, not the dream-like nature of everything. You see, I think the problem with you is that to you, 'true' means 'something real, something existing, something substantial' and 'false' means 'something illusory'. To me its the opposite. 'True' means 'empty of reality, substantiality, inherent, independent existence' whereas 'false' means 'something taken as real, substantial, inherent, etc' So you're basically saying: if things are empty, if wisdom is as empty as ignorance, how can wisdom be more true (as in being the 'correct way of cognition') than ignorance? Or how can ignorance be more false than wisdom? While my answer is that precisely because the nature of reality is empty, that wisdom (correct cognition) or truth does not require substantial reality but rather points to the lack of substantiality or graspable existence... and precisely because of empty nature, that ignorance means view of inherent/substantial reality - deluded, false cognition of reality... of course even ignorance is empty but with ignorance, you don't comprehend that. Not sure what you're getting at. And yes, ordinary world is just as illusory/empty as dream world. By the way, Diamond Sutra says a Bodhisattva who believes that there is a self saving a sentient being is not a true bodhisattva since he believes in a truly existing self and a truly existing sentient being. And yet, he should give rise to the intention to save sentient beings. Why so? If all sentient beings are illusory, why save them? The answer is simple: just because all things are illusory doesn't mean people realize it, and because they don't realize it, they are asleep, and suffering as a result. Compassion arises from no one to no one - simply a spontaneous response or reaction to the situation of samsara. So just because everything is illusory doesn't mean genuine compassion cannot arise, the genuine intention to save ourselves and others (even though there is no real self or other) from suffering and delusion.

Hi Tibetan_Ice, The sutta never denies the existence of powers, but explains that powers are not a necessary requirement or characteristic of enlightenment. Many arhants have powers... many don't. For example one of Buddha's top ten arhant disciple, Mogallana (foremost in supernatural powers), was 'sanctioned' by Buddha to be the only person allowed in his sangha to display supernatural powers in order to teach people. Buddha did not allow use of supernatural powers otherwise (just think about it - Buddhism turning into a circus? Monks levitating in the sky to impress people and collect alms?) Many arhants are not known for their powers.. but some are. I don't think Sariputta showcases powers but is known for his wisdom, for example. It also showcases that some may focus on discernment rather than the cultivation of very deep states of samadhi that results in development of powers. By the power of discernment, one may be liberated. There is no doubt about the powers of Buddha. Buddha have complete mastery of powers. Omniscience is solely attained by Buddhas. Arhants are not omniscient, however they are awakened and liberated from samsara. Even Bodhisattvas on the bhumi stages are not yet omniscient, but they have undoubtedly realized the nature of mind. Do note that when Dalai Lama talks about 'enlightenment', he is almost always referring to Buddhahood. Yes, there are different levels of awakening.

It is illusory but not delusory. Know lucid dreaming? In a dream, you may suddenly turn lucid so are no longer deluded about the dream, but the dream goes on, and you can manipulate the dream, fly in the sky, make use of the illusion. Fun stuff. But if you think the dream tiger chasing after you is real, not so fun.

That's cool. So all the elements are not separate from you? When was that seen?

I see. The original source I talk about is not a source inside or pertaining to the body. It is just I AM - spirit, not body, and even at I AM level you will have recognised that Spirit/I AM is not located anywhere inside the body - at the I AM level its seen that the body arise as object to the subject and the subject is utterly free of all objects. At One Mind level, all objects are subsumed into subject such that there is no more subject/object dichotomy but a seamless undivided field of Mind. Anyway, what is your experience of Self after you broke free from the illusion that it was transfixed at the place?

Wisdom is illusory (as per Heart Sutra: no Suffering, Origin, Cessation or Path, no wisdom-knowledge, no attainment and no non-attainment). As I said, everything is illusory - Buddhahood is illusory, wisdom is illusory, but a Buddha is no longer deluded about it.

I don't mean to say that Yogacara is saying something contradictory to Theravada, just that its expression is peculiar and we should not use this framework to understand how things are understood elsewhere. As in, when Buddha talks about 'consciousness' in the pali suttas, he need not have 'ignorance/deluded cognition' in mind. My experience (not opinion) is that wisdom is simply correct cognition, not a separate perceiver of things. I often use analogies from different sources to express my thoughts - but sometimes I say it in my own words. I am not fixated with one method of delivering a message. Sometimes something that another person said strikes me as well-said, and expresses my thought well. So its worth sharing. I just hope there is more clarity in the world. If my promoting of it has offended or disturbed you for some reasons, sorry about it. Your suggestion about putting a link instead of the entire article is a good suggestion, thanks for that - I have regretted not doing it because it is problematic if I want to make changes (then I have to change it in many places). I don't know about orthodox Christians so can't comment. But I am speaking from experience and insight, not from beliefs and faith.

To me that is an assumption, to you you see it as a reality. If you wish to attain Self-Realization, Who am I? is going to lead you there as it did for me, that is why I advocate this method in my e-book. But the assumption behind the inquiry is that there is a Self, so the luminous essence of mind when discovered will be reified as Self, a purest identity, until further insights develop with the right kind of contemplations (contemplations that challenge subject/object, inside and outside, boundaries and so on can collapse everything into One Mind, then even further contemplations can lead to anatta and shunyata), right pointers and right practice (try focusing on the four aspects of I AM - impersonality, intensity of luminosity, seeing through the need to abide and dropping it, effortlessness). So you have to remain open minded, otherwise when you attaid self-realization you will stagnate in trying to abide in I AM 24/7 and not progress to further insights. Many people get stuck there their entire lifetime. This is not the way to true effortlessness and freedom. As an advice from experience, you can skip all the endless neti neti - there is endless objects of perception you can neti without end and you will never come to a conclusion or conviction of I AM. Just do self-inquiry (Who am I?) and trace back to the Source and you will realize it. Self-inquiry is the direct path. Neti is only helpful as a skilful means to drop your attachment to concepts as when necessary, then go right back to self-inquiry. You don't need to find something else to neti when your concepts have subsided - that would be extra. Just trace back to the source with self-inquiry and focus on that. p.s. if you have already attained self-realization by now then the immediate previous para may be unnecessary.

It means cognition arise as wisdom. I don't mean through wisdom as if wisdom is a separate perceiver. Eight consciousnesses completely transforms into the five wisdoms. It is not the case that the five wisdoms observe eight consciousnesses. Understand however that is just Yogacara framework, they don't talk about this distinction (wisdom vs consciousness) in Theravada.

There is no separation. But appearances can be perceived either through wisdom, or through delusion. For example in Yogacara, appearances experienced through delusions arise as 8 consciousnesses, experienced through wisdom arise as the 5 wisdoms. There is no wisdom that exists separately from perception.

This is a wrong question. People have asked Buddha who is feeling? Who is craving? Who is seeing? and so on. He answered, as I will answer, that this question is misconstrued. Since the Buddha never said 'I feel', or 'I see', the question should have been put this way: with what conditions does feeling arise? With what conditions does seeing arise? All these stuff arise due to six sense bases, due to contact, due to whatever conditions at the moment give rise to that particular experience, due to dependent origination. There is no feeler or seer. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html#ch2 Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"? Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self: "Consummate with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Would he still say 'I speak'? And would he say 'They speak to me'?" This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions. The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms: "Skillful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit: "No knots exist for one with conceit cast off; For him all knots of conceit are consumed. When the wise one has transcended the conceived He might still say 'I speak,' And he might say 'They speak to me.' Skillful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)

Hmm true... Nowadays I really avoid some of those discussions that I see as pointless - like those I had years ago(mentioned this earlier). So far Lucky7Strikes have been having some discussions that I think is valid, not really just pointless debates... so I find it ok (at the moment). If at anytime I found that the discussions have steered into non-constructive arguments, I will probably stop.

No. The 'no observer' is not an assumption based on observing nothing - you can observe nothing and still cling to a sense of observer. Like I told you before, the realization of 'no observer' or 'in seeing always just the seen' is a realization that the awareness that you took to be an observer has always been just the experience of sight, sounds, smells, taste, touch, thoughts (be it conceptual or non-conceptual). The non-conceptual thought reified into a Witness is simply another manifestation. It is a direct realization that this has always been the case - imagine figuring out those picture puzzle, before you don't, but now you see it - Eureka. It is very easy to assume or believe in something - I have done it for years, many have too. But to realize it requires investigation and contemplation... and in a moment of awakening all is seen. Before this realization, when awareness is experienced, due to dualistic framework we always take it to be an observer. We sense ourselves as an observer behind things. Awareness is taken to be some Eternal Witness of things, and things occur in the foreground while the Witness is always in the background watching. I'm afraid I don't get you. Anyway, I don't have any sense of self/Self nowadays. Just in seeing always the seen, in hearing just sounds. But latent tendencies are something that may not manifest every moment, so it could be that in some extreme conditions, contraction may arise. I don't know. It just sort of disappeared nowadays.

Hmm... and this is where I differ. You see, after enlightenment, activities go on. Talking goes on. Writing goes on. Communicating with others go on. Going out with your girlfriend, your friends, your family, goes on. Going to work goes on. Walking down the street goes on. Everything goes on. None of them stops, or can be stopped, and there isn't a single problem with any of that. None of the activities can undo your enlightenment, but instead is the expression of your enlightenment, of Buddha-nature. If activities somehow undo enlightenment, then a Bodhisattva or a Buddha will never be able to save or help countless sentient beings out of compassion. After enlightenment, there just isn't one thing: the illusion and clinging to a self/Self... and in the absence of this, there is just the intense aliveness and clarity of the moment... of this moment of activity, this moment of sights and sounds. Everything is direct, intimate and spontaneous. In sitting just sit. In talking just talk. In sleeping just sleep. In seeing just seen. I think your forum signature is very good: Before enlightenment carry water chop wood After enlightenment carry water chop wood

Why should I? And why do you think it is stupid? I think you should be open minded. Just because you haven't experienced something that I wrote, doesn't mean others haven't, or that you may not experience it some day in the future. Don't let your ego get to you.

Yes I do agree, yoga is universal and can be separated from, or need not follow, any particular framework... and it also can be adopted and implemented in any framework.

From what I've read, Patanjali is about the I AM. The I AM is free from subject/object - but it is only pertaining to the mind/non-conceptual thought realm. In that pure thoughtless beingness, there is no separation of 'me' with 'that', only I AM. This is Self-Realization. But when relating to the world of perceptions and senses and thoughts, there can still be a sense of being an ultimate witness behind those thoughts and perceptions. This is subject/object duality. Also, I am not too concerned about powers... complete mastery of powers is not at the top priority for me - liberation (from sufferings, samsara, etc) is. Powers can be attained with or without awakening.

Agree. I have to say there are a bit (only a bit) of truth to the notions that enlightened persons have psychic powers. Why? Because it so happens that majority of the highly enlightened person I personally know... have some mastery of psychic powers. They are able to read minds, know things without asking, see past lives, teach me in dreams, etc etc - really interesting stuff. But to say that this MUST apply for ALL enlightened beings is not necessarily true... All these are just side-effects of meditation practice and samadhi. It is not a must. People who master samadhi or powers may NOT be awakened... (lots of unenlightened people have powers) and those who are awakened may NOT have mastery of samadhi or powers. Not all awakened beings must have mastery of samadhi (as showcased in the conversation with Buddha below) There is a Buddhist sutta (forgive me if its inappropriate in this forum) which explains that this is not necessarily true (that all awakened beings must have powers):

Unfortunately like it or not, Buddhism deals with universal truths. Whether you see those truths, that totally depends. But just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not true. Don't worry we won't start a religious war... Buddha is not a god demanding unswerving faith (he benefits nothing out of it - its all for our own sake - he does not ask for worship) and there is no Buddhist scriptures that can act as a basis for Jihad. Buddhism has had no religious war started by its doctrines (there are wars started by Buddhists since Buddhists as any other type of persons are succeptible to afflictions, craving, anger, etc, but not religious wars). When I said universal truths, I mean truths that pertain to the nature of reality and the human condition. The four noble truths are truths pertaining to the nature of reality and the human condition. They are universal. The truths of impermanence, suffering, non-self... these are universal truths. The truth of emptiness is a universal truth. So I say Buddhadharma is universal - because dharma pertains to universal truths. The truth of suffering (birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair), cause of suffering (craving and ignorance), end of suffering (nirvana) and way to end suffering (noble eightfold path) is universal. When I say 'end suffering' I don't mean like temporarily ending a dog's craving for food by giving him dog food, I mean complete, permanent end of any mental suffering and afflictions and furthermore the end of afflictive births in the cycle of samsara. You see, if only you were to see things as Buddha see, plus you have the three knowledges that Buddha had: rebirth, karma, and 4 noble truths, then you will be able to see things in the big picture and see why taking up Dharma practice is the best thing to do. As my Taiwanese teacher who could remember innumerable past lives and have [in this life] visited realms of heaven and hell and provided clear descriptions of them (well ok if you don't believe it - but lets just presume its true for a moment since this is what the Buddha reports to be true as well) have said - if you knew your past lives, you will totally get sick and tired of all the rebirths. But most of us can't remember past lives or that much past lives anyway - so this is something that can only be taken by faith - and if you have faith in Buddha, it can be a good motivating force to practice the dharma. Of course just by the suffering of this life alone some people will find enough reasons to seek for liberation, but it is far different from seeing things from the 'big picture'. And as the Buddha himself have said, SN 15.13 PTS: S ii 187 CDB i 658 Timsa Sutta: Thirty translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 2009–2011 Now on that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagaha, in the Bamboo Grove. Then thirty monks from Pava — all wilderness dwellers, all alms-goers, all triple-robe wearers, all still with fetters — went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. Then the thought occurred to the Blessed One, "These thirty monks from Pava... are all still with fetters. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma in such a way that in this very sitting their minds, through lack of clinging, would be released from fermentations?" So he addressed the monks: "Monks." "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?" "As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the blood we have shed from having our heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans." "Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me. "This is the greater: the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans. "The blood you have shed when, being cows, you had your cow-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans. "The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans. "The blood you have shed when, arrested as thieves plundering villages, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as highway thieves, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as adulterers, you had your heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans. "Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the thirty monks from Pava — through lack of clinging — were released from fermentations. This is why I say dharma is universal. The truth of suffering is universal. And the most sensible thing after considering the big picture, is to end suffering ASAP, without delay. If you have not known the big picture, you may not have enough reasons why the Buddhist cause is the most sensible or best thing to do. And if you have not gone through the insights and experiences I had, you will not see why liberation is only possible through the twofold emptiness, which is why Buddhism is unique and perculiar. No, I mean the subjective individual experience for the person is undeniable - not absolute (as in truly substantially existing), simply undeniably appearing as mere experience - experience of unicorns is undeniable, even if it is mere delusion. The visual distortions by someone taking hallucinogenic drugs are undeniably appearing - even though completely illusory, empty. And such experiences are not universal because they are just an experience arising due to a particular set of conditions. Your dream experience at night is personal - I can't see it unless I have psychic powers. In any case, I don't share your dream experience. But your dream experience is undeniable for you (and you only). But when I say the Nature of experience, that is universal. The nature of experience is not about one experience, it is the nature of all experience, all phenomena, five aggregates - be it mind or matter. The truth of emptiness applies equally to you or me - there is no way that it only applies to me and not someone else. If they do investigation, they too will realize emptiness. There is no such thing as a person (as long as he has conditions like human life, right teaching and teacher, etc) who cannot realize emptiness because emptiness is the nature of phenomenon. Similarly there is no person in the world who can say they are 'unaware' or without any form of awareness. Luminosity is the basic essence of mind, of all experiences, and to be able to even respond or be aware of my communicating with them would already necessitate luminosity. Emptiness is likewise. The union of luminosity and emptiness is universal. It is the nature of reality. Since you are familiar with luminosity you should know that those people who aren't into spiritual will probably not know what 'awareness' or 'luminosity' is when you talk to them - at best a vague idea or concept about it but not direct knowledge or realization of it. Yet just because they don't know what awareness/luminosity is, doesn't mean its not there right? Precisely because luminosity is already present, that it can be discovered. It is not there only because of discovery (it is not merely an experience that pertains to an enlightened state - both enlightened and unenlightened have luminous minds) - it is already there, which is why it can be discovered. So anyway, if you have realized luminosity, but due to existing framework you see luminosity as inherent, independent, unchanging, Self, then luminosity becomes an object of clinging. But through investigation you realized anatta, then that clinging or reification of luminosity as a Self is removed. This investigation into the nature of reality giving rise to insight is what liberates you. The nature of reality is universal and only needs to be seen through investigation and contemplation. There is a clear progression of things: for example, A, B, C are universal truths. Lets say A is luminosity, B is anatta, C is shunyata. If you realize A, thats great because A is an undeniable fact - you can't deny luminosity or awareness right? It is a profound, transformational, blissful realization. Similarly you can't deny B or C so if you realize A, you should also realize B or C which refines your view. These are all universal truths that can and should be realized for total liberation. All our experiences are illusory. But to believe that in that illusory experience there is a real self and an object, that is delusional. When I say "one is living with illusion, one is not" I mean one is living with deluded views, one is not living in deluded views and ignorance. There is no ignorance for someone who has awakened. It doesn't mean however that they have something real and sentient beings have something illusory - even Buddhahood and Nirvana is empty and illusory. But a Buddha is no longer in ignorance about it. Not being in ignorance, a Buddha or an arhant does not cling, does not suffer. Prajnaparamita Sutra: "Subhūti said, "0 dear gods, if there were something that was more superior even than Nirvāṇa, I would still say that it is like a dream and a magical delusion. 0 dear gods, there is not the slightest difference between Nirvāṇa and dreams and magical delusions."411 I do not have metaphysical filter for life. Somehow you don't understand that theres a difference between delusion and illusory. All things are illusory - from hell to Buddhahood and Nirvana. But you can either be deluded about it, or awakened. Awakening is permanent. Once awaken you do not have more delusion. Even a simple exercise to observe the three characteristics of phenomena is a powerful investigation, well lets not talk about 3 char... just 1 will do: impermanence. Observing impermanence is a basic Buddhist meditation. Through that one may realize that all experiences are impermanent. This is not indoctrination - its something you can see - impermanence is a universal fact of all phenomena, that they are constantly arising and subsiding, they don't stay. In Vipassana terms people can start to see everything as similar to 'the vibrations of atoms' - nothing is solid. Indoctrination is to instill an unexamined concept. When it is examined and seen as it is, it is no longer indoctrination. Similarly, all investigation and exercise must be done through contemplation and observation in naked awareness. I can understand "all things are impermanent", it does make sense to me yeah, but unless I meditate, I'll never wake up to it. The theory is there, the realization and experience is lacking. So like a scientist, you can have your theory, but it must be proven or seen through tests. You need to device a reproducible test that can showcase how your theory works. This is totally not true... haha I find it amusing you would think so. I don't know how to convince you anymore if you truly think that I think I'm gifted. You just have to take my word for it... or not. Either way I am not too concerned about people's opinions about me (as I will explain). I am not interested in false humility and if I thought I was some great lama last life, I would have said it. I am not interested in false humility - if I were, I would have said something like "oh... I am not enlightened at all, I am just a lousy learner who hasn't gained anything from dharma" but I have so far been very open about my experiences with dharma (not out of pride but out of genuine sincerity to share it with others, to inspire others and perhaps provide some pointers for others). I have no memories of being a great lama last life. But I do have memories of being a student of some great lama. I must say, I am not a proud person, but I am not a humble person either. The question of pride/humility just does not arise because I simply am not concerned with self image (in fact have no clinging to self image nor any sense of self/Self whatsoever). As I told someone, I wouldn't care less if someone else thinks I'm a fraud or a fool or a madman, or that I'm enlightened, great, whatever (even though if he shows misconception of me I would probably attempt to rectify the misconception but I wouldn't really care or be attached to it). I am only interested in facts and truth, not what someone else thinks about me, or what I think about myself - their opinions are their own matters. I am also not really concerned if you believe in what I just said. I am just sharing my experience for the joy of it. (just found a sutta which describes how I would react: "38. "If for that (reason)[40] others revile, abuse, scold and insult the Perfect One, on that account, O monks, the Perfect One will not feel annoyance, nor dejection, nor displeasure in his heart. And if for that (reason) others respect, revere, honor and venerate the Perfect One, on that account the Perfect One will not feel delight, nor joy, nor elation in his heart. If for that (reason) others respect, revere, honor and venerate the Perfect One, He will think: 'It is towards this (mind-body aggregate) which was formerly[41] fully comprehended, that they perform such acts.'[42]") The whole story about my birth is just one of those 'interesting facts' and there is no explanations for it - I mean how the hell will we know what happened in between my last life and this life (until I can remember it that is). It is the least important of things yet its just one of those curious unexplainable things. Honestly, sometimes, I wonder why is it that such an ordinary person like me get to see all these and why so many other brilliant minded, sincere people can't? And the answer is not "oh because I'm special and I'm an incarnate of a special being" (which I do not think I am) but "it is truly unfortunate that the true dharma is not being propagated well enough to the masses, had it been so, it would have been like the Buddha's times where thousands or tens of thousands of his students get liberated". Not implying I could do a better job anyway... I am not skillful in teaching (and I'm not a teacher). Anyway my point in my previous post is that I probably had given rise to an aspiration to attain Buddhahood in my previous lifetime which had an impact on this birth - I'm sure lots of people have such aspirations. I don't mean to say "I'm a special Bodhisattva who chose to come here". You are making things overcomplicated perhaps due to my failure to communicate properly. Not in Buddhism, and not in my experience. In my experience, nothing transforms from one thing to another. Nothing becomes something else. And likewise there is no 'Awareness becoming this experience' (substantialist nondualism). There is just A is A, B is B, etc... In my experience and insight, firewood does not turn into ashes. And sorry I had to quote someone again because this expresses my experience very well: Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death. This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death. Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring. ~ Zen Master Dogen, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/genjo-koan-actualizing-fundamental.html Plus the Buddha teaches (and it has been my experience) that remainderless cessation is possible: "Now from the remainder-less fading and cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-and-form. From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering." By the way I should say, cessation of self-view (attained in stream entry) is not the same as the complete cessation of ignorance (attained in arhantship). As an analogy: pouring out the contents of a jug still leaves a residual smell in the jug. This is also my experience, but shall not elaborate now. This is very true and this is what I mean by latent views and tendencies.

Your happiness may be complicated, but my bliss is simple. It is simple because it does not require fulfilment of many things - in fact it does not depend on gratification of craving but rather it is a result of letting go of self, of things. The more you let go, the more bliss and liberation you feel - this is an actual, observable thing, not a theory or a hypothesis. You can actually see it for yourself - it is very very predictable, as predictable as the eight states of jhana - by entering into deeper states of jhanas, the bliss, joy, and the types of mental factors changes according to your depth of absorption and depth of tranquility. Similarly, in anatta, the experience due to letting go of self/Self is predictable. The bliss is predictable, the liberation is predictable, and all you have to do is to realize anatta and experience it. The bliss I am talking about is simple - I mean bliss, as an actual experience. Through letting go of self, and experiencing the luminosity of mind, this is very blissful. Like entering samadhi is blissful... but this is a natural samadhi. Now merely ordinary seeing, ordinary hearing is very blissful. Just like you do not need to interprete what liberation feels like - you know it when it comes, when you lift a load off your shoulders and you feel that release, this is how it feels like. You know it when you experience it. When you don't know, it means you haven't experienced it. It is not dependent on the satisfaction of craving (therefore it is not the short-lived happines of say, satisfying your urge of eating an ice cream) - rather it is the natural bliss as an actual experience due to the falling away of craving, of sense of self, of clinging. All that is quite obvious and needs no interpretation. Everyone knows what bliss is when it comes. But the bliss from anatta is pretty intense. The lack of clinging, the experience of anatta, this is blissful and everyone can know it. This kind of happiness is not dependent on gain and loss of material stuff or temporary sensual gratifications. Buddhism ends all kinds of afflictions for those who practice it. By mental afflictions, I mean stuff like anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, ignorance, etc etc. Anyone can do it - provided they have the conditions to (such as being human, meeting the right teacher, etc). A dog? Unfortunately not - Buddha's audience is primarily for humans (also some devas according to suttas). I'm afraid a dog may not understand the teachings of Buddha, so a dog is a being that does not have conditions to learn dharma. But most of us can. A dog treat temporarily satisfy the urge or desire of a dog, but does not permanently end his suffering or permanently uproot its afflictions. So of course you cannot compare this with Liberation. I'm talking about liberation, which is universally experienced to be the ending of suffering, afflictions, and also according to Buddha, the ending of samsaric births. Buddhism deals with ultimate happiness and liberation... of course also more mundane ones, as it does teach people how to cultivate merits for a better future life, or how to live the current life well and happily (Buddha gives advices on many mundane issues too). Of course, Buddhism does not deal with everything.... Buddha did not taught modern science or medicine or whatever, since his concerns are not focused on that, more on the four noble truths, more on spiritual. I believe the Buddhahood is the ultimatum of spirituality. Why do I believe? Because I have no direct knowledge of Buddhahood. I have not experienced Buddhahood. But I have faith in Buddha, partly due to confidence from my direct experience - how it completely lines up with what the Buddha taught, how deep and profound was Buddha's insights... that by inferrence surely, what the other stuff I've not seen but have been said by Buddha, must be true too. However what I do know from experience (without any need of inference) is this: as my insights progressed, there is deeper freedom experienced, deeper liberation experienced, greater effortlessness, greater clarity, lesser clinging, lesser afflictions, etc etc... greater insight into the nature of reality. Therefore this is of course a very obvious progress in my path. And I say - without anatta, emptiness, etc, you cannot achieve maximum effortlessness, maximum clarity, etc. Even in I AM due to belief in purest identity of I AM it is clung to tightly and practice aims at achieving 24/7 abidance in a purest state of presence - a form of contrivance and effort. In non-dual, though lesser effort and greater seamlessness with the manifold manifestation, still there can be subtle habit to reconfirm a source, an attempt to be nondual, etc, which are again subtler but still present effort, clinging, ignorance. And so on... so as I said, greater freedom, lesser effort, greater clarity, greater bliss, lesser clinging, lesser suffering, lesser afflictions (in their various forms)... greater results with the deepening of insight into the way things are. Which is why this is worthwhile for me. This is why while there is no strict one-for-all linear hierarchy of things, it does not mean there is no observable progress. Ultimately, all Buddhist paths that aims at liberation, i.e. the total ending of suffering, clinging, craving, etc must lead to twofold emptiness, to the qualities mentioned above. Believe me - or not, I am only stating my experience, just see for yourself.

Actually it does - since one is living with an illusion and one is not. I have direct insight and experience into some of the things Buddhism talks about, and quotations may sometimes express something in my mind very well. As an experience, it is undeniable (not as in undeniably existing, but undeniably appearing as an experience). But as a statement that the tiger exists independently with substance is utterly delusional - in the case of a unicorn, it is simply a mind image, an imagined thought, and there is no substance or actuality to them. Similarly - try finding the substance or core of a foam, a mountain-ness in a mirage, a reality behind a magician's trick, the moon-ness of the moon reflected on water, etc. No such thing at all. When you see that the entire framework of a seer seeing the seen is entirely false and as illusory as the belief in santa claus or the moon is made of green cheese (the latter analogy is more plausible since the moon can be seen by a glance), there is no question of willingness or unwillingness to change since it is no longer a matter of belief or disbelief - you simply have no possibility of believing in that illusion again, because now you SEE, not believe. You realize that 'self' is simply a mentally imagined false construct due to a false framework. Never can you be in doubt any more. Almost the same, yet not entirely or exactly the same. Thusness did not heard about Bahiya Sutta until I think more recent years - at least not when he realized anatta (I may be wrong but there is no indications that he did). He did not realize anatta through contemplating Bahiya Sutta. So while the path I took is rather similar to his, slight details may differ. Oh and I don't really cultivate Thusness Stage 3. I'm not sure what you mean. I think I only knew about RuthlessTruth after my anatta insight. Or I might have my dates wrong... but its around the time. I think ActualFreedom had an influence on me too - the emphasis on cultivating PCE may have some influence about my shift in practice. There are lots of time that despite all that Thusness tells me, my view has shaped into very dualistic and inherent sort of framework - I am starting to cling to Awareness as something independent and unchanging and 'background' because it really seems like this is my experience. But through further pointers by Thusness, reminders, and my own investigation, I was able to break through all these views and attain deeper realization. All these are not just about beliefs, but real time investigation and challenging of all my views until realization occurs and they are completely seen through. Belief by itself doesn't help - you can believe in anatta and emptiness for 30 years and not get enlightened. You can understand Thusness and get 100/100 on exams, but unless you practice and do investigation, you will never realize or awaken. Many are experts of emptiness by reasoning via Madhyamaka and yet their understanding remain intellectual or inferred. I have a number of friends who have quite a good understanding of Thusness's writings, anatta, emptiness, but they haven't realized it for some time. I too have gone through that phase. I have already placed many links in my e-book. Thusness taught me far more than what he posted in the blog, anyway. I have compiled like thousands of pages of conversations with him in chat logs. What he wrote in the blog is only a small portion of what I've learnt from him. Not that I'm saying I am a master of his thoughts or a Thusness expert... I believe there are still stuff I haven't seen or experienced. I'm still learning. It's not 'whats on the next step' - it is that so far the suttas are the clearest texts that really speak about my own realization. I am a Buddhist, not a universalist or a Christian or a Hindu for a reason. Even Buddha says Buddhism/his teachings is the best (as I quoted earlier about the lion's roar) but I don't just agree with him due to faith, but it has also been my own observations that his depth and insight and clarity is truly deep and rare. You see, I think it is a given that I am a Buddhist because I think Buddhism is best. I do not need to overemphasize this point because I think its a given and overemphasizing this is not going to make everyone happy. I'm sure there are others who think Taoism or Hinduism is best which is why they chose to be Taoists, Hindus, whatever - thats fine with me. I feel no urge to evangelise theseadays. Plus it's a bit pointless to say "I think Buddhism is best" without explaining the "why", and when the "why" is explained (and not only explained but also understood, experienced, realized) then it would not be necessary to have said "I think Buddhism is best". Those who see things to the end will decide for themselves. As Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche says, Dzogchen is not about accepting something, it's about discovering something. But your statement "I think buddhism is the best and better than all the other religions out there. It will lead you furthest in terms of human potential" does express my stance of things, even if I may not emphasize it unnecessarily (just like I don't emphasize Buddhism is best to my Christian real-life-friends, because it probably doesn't lead anywhere, and anyway I seldom talk about religion outside internet)

I do not have metaphysical beliefs pertaining to views of inherent existence of a self or of phenomena. All my beliefs deal with conventional truths and not absolutes. I forgot to mention, my mother had another dream when my sister was given birth. It involves Guan Yin (Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva) giving her a baby girl wrapped in pink towel and a red packet with $4, and when she was born she thought "it looked exactly like it was in my dream". Her birth was not requested by prayers or divination though. Interestingly, in recent years, my mother heard from a friend in our local sangha that she had almost an exactly same dream while giving birth to a boy except it is a baby boy wraped in white towel being passed to her by Avalokitesvara. My mom even thought of letting my sis meet with that guy, but no relationship worked out. That was some years ago. My sister is married now, not interested in spirituality currently though is a Buddhist by belief. Anyway who knows what those dream stuff may signify.. My dharma teacher speculates the $4 implies 'the four stages of enlightenment to Arhantship'. I have no idea what the $4 means or if it has any meaning. Such things are difficult (at least for me, who has no experience with dream interpretation) for me to understand. I should mention however that I have many prophetic dream images about events that happens the next day - it happens so often that I have become familiar with them and would instantly recognise the dream to be prophetic and inform my friend about it, and lo it happens (totally unexpected events that I saw with very high precision in dream). But discussing about this would be going off topic. But anyway it seems highly plausible I have a karmic connection with Buddhism in my past life, if not for my own memories, and some other reasons I do not want to talk about. I think 'practitioners taking birth with intention or spiration to continue their spiritual path in next life' is not that uncommon. The right view of anatta, dependent origination etc are like a fire that burns on a candle, not leaving anything, not the candle, not the fire. There is no positions or proliferation left. p.s. luminosity and manifestation is not denied, but it is also not established. three kayas inseparable. No. Waking up from a dream does not necessitate more dreaming. Yes, but by insight. Not by samadhi, not by intentional effort at getting rid of it - for example if you thought the rope was a snake, you want to tame the snake, get rid of the snake, whatever. But once you see a rope as a rope, no more effort to 'tame the snake' is needed - there is no snake.

Patanjali's framework and philosophy is Sankhya. Sankhya is a dualist school: it teaches that there are two components in reality, one is Spirit (Purusa), one is Matter (Prakriti). Spirit is pure consciousness, the witness, your true self. It teaches that Spirit and matter are two different things - cannot be mixed, like water and oil does not mix together. Advaita is a non-dual school - it teaches Consciousness is the One without Second. There is no split between spirit and matter because everything is Brahman alone. It says, "The world is illusory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the world" - and the third step is what differentiates Advaita from Sankhya. Imo you can use Sankhya framework and the Patanjali teachings to realize/experience the I AM, then later with some Advaita teachings you may collapse any Subject/Object dichotomy into Oneness. It could be a stepping stone, so not implying that the I AM is any less valuable or important, plus non-dual realization does not deny the I AM experience but just transforms the view. This guy (a Yoga teacher with personal insight and experience of what he's talking about) explains a little about this in his interview: (Richard C Miller Speaks Yoga Nidra and iRest) Anyway if you want to get some ideas about the difference between I AM and Non-Dual, read this article, at least the top one: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

?? not sure what you're asking, perhaps you can rephrase? I broke through ignorance, delusion, suffering, afflictions, .... etc etc This led to many benefits like - a permanent freedom from all delusions of pertaining to the view of an existing self or object - freedom from any sense of self, separation, alienation from the world, self-contraction - freedom from attachment to a sense of a body-mind, drop off body-mind - no more inside and outside or any kind of boundaries and weight - freedom from craving, anger, fears, sorrow, attachments, or any afflictive emotions - pure bliss and wonder and delight in the intimate and intense aliveness of every moment's experience due to effortless and perpetual NDNCDIMOP: non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception of reality - deep sense of wakefulness, clarity and aliveness - sleep need reduced by up to half, wakefulness and alertness increased very much - thought activity decreases, discursive thoughts lessens tremendously, replaced by NDNCDIMOP - thoughts that do arise self-releases without trace

Yes. Buddhism sees this from the perspective of ending suffering, clinging, craving, afflictions or in more positive terms the highest and eternal bliss (buddha: nibbana is the highest bliss), greater wisdom, clarity, etc. While this may seem to be a good goal for most people (almost nobody wants suffering and almost everyone wants to be happy) you may be right that not everyone may agree to such a goal. Some people may want suffering - I don't know. To these people, I have nothing to say - Buddhism may not resonate with them. Buddhism also sees this in terms of truth, insight, realization - what it teaches are truths that can be seen and realized. Of course, some may choose to remain ignorant, but from the perspective of dharma, ignorance is no good since ignorance leads to suffering. (12 links) I am aware of things said about Andrew Cohen, but Ken Wilber? Not too sure. KW has described himself as more of a 'pandit' (scholar) than a 'guru' (spiritual teacher or master) despite his spiritual experiences and insights. Some people even sees him as a philosopher. But I don't really like commercializing teachers - KW seems a bit too commercialized.