xabir2005

yes as explained. Yes I do speak from direct realization of it. stage 3 is an absorption into nothingness where even sense perception is shut. Actually this is the only stage I haven't experienced mainly because I don't have that much time to practice samadhi. So I can only speak from what thusness said. But stage 3 and 2 is definitely not the same (I have direct experience and insight into stage 2 before), being that stage 2 is the experience of impersonality, where the construct of personality is removed so it appears that everything shares the same source, all animate and inanimate things come from this source of source, some universal essence or god which we see to be our more fundamental underlying essence. In this phase we experience ourselves as a divine expression of one life as if we are being lived by a higher power, there is no personal controller or doership.

Haha the reason why I had to use phone is because I'm stuck in my camp now and my phone is my only source of internet on weekdays (I only get to go home on weekends), and I have one more year to go. All Singaporean males must serve a mandatory two year military service. Personally I use the term insight and realization interchangeably, insight not being of inferred or conceptual understanding but a direct realization of something. Yes, there is a difference between feeling/experience, and a permanent realization. Be it I AM, non dual, anatta, etc. Usually one has glimpses of experience or feeling, then through one's contemplation, a permanent realization arises. Realization will inevitably result in certain forms of experience that corresponds to that particular insight, whereas experience alone does not necessarily entail a realization. Hence realization is more important and has vaster implications and transformation in life, as it is a permanent quantum shift of perception in view, not just as a passing state. Regarding timelessness: timelessness is experienced even at stage one, but the timelessness of stage one is experienced when abiding as the self, the background source. It is seen that there is a timelesss unchanging source beyond all transient phenomena. In stage five however, timelessness is experienced in and as all transient phenomena. Without a self that links, each phenomena is complete, whole, and disjoint as it is. Means if I walk from A to Z, there is no self at the center that links the process, that actually walked from A to Z. Rather, A is simply A, complete and whole as it is, B is B, C is C, Z is Z. If each transient manifestation is experienced as complete and whole as it is, without establishing an unchanging self in which movement in relation to that unchanging self could be established, transience is experienced as without movement, without coming from or going to. Even after nondual there could still initially be a sense of "an eternal now" as if all there is is Here/Now, but even this is an illusion and this is seen clearly for me only at the beginning this year. There is no self, and there is no Here/Now either. There are simply manifestation that dependently originates, that is disjoint, whole and complete as it is. Seeing through all these notions of self, here or now etc, there is nothing at all to cling to. Everything self-manifests according to dependent origination, and self-releases upon inception. This is a deeper freedom and liberation than the previous phases of insights and experience. Here is something relevant from thusness in another forum: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/107490;jsessionid=7240B143BE5063F91914E49C921E255A Author: ByPasser I think realization and development will eventually reach the same destination. A practitioner that experience the “Self” will initially treat 1.The “Source as the Light of Everything”. then 2. He/she will eventually move to the experience that the “Light is really the Everything”. In the first case, the Light will appear to be still and the transience appears to be moving. Collapsing of space and time will only be experienced when one resides in Self. However if the mind continues to see the 'Light' as separated from the 'Everything' , then realization will appear to be apart from development. In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point. However what has a yogi overcome when moving from case 1 to 2 and what exactly is the cause of separation in the first place? I think realizing this cause is of utmost importance for solving the paradox of realization and development.

Here is another article by thusness also very much in his own words about his own insights: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

to realize buddhist enlightenment is to realize d.o. (If it is not d.o, it is not buddhist enlightenment.), so it comes as no surprise, but his explanation and description is really pretty much his own. So much so that he has been called by someone who just got banned here, as a "new age pseudobuddhist" for his untraditional way of expressing his experience. It is very obvious to me, having personal insight myself plus having conversed with him for years, that obviously he knows and experiences what he is talking about.

The Buddha, and basically all authentic Buddhist teachers, are fond of guiding practitioners to the highest degree of awareness. I would think he is not genuine, or have ulterior motives, if he does not have such intentions to lead their students all the way. Only some selfish master who wants to hide something from his student so he could retain his position, instead of giving away all that he knows, would do that sort of thing. As for Thusness, he speaks from true experience. How do I know? Because I've gone through the same stages as him and documented them in my ejournal: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html It is silly to think of ulterior motives - what can it possibly be for someone not getting any personal benefit out of this?

Yes it is not difficult or uncommon for one to attain some level of insight on his own. But to progress further one requires right views and often right guidance, by progress I mean like http://awakeningtore...experience.html

There is a lot that buddhism shares in common to other religions and paths. The four brahma viharas are part of it as you mentioned. But four brahma viharas alone cannot lead to liberation, though they can lead to development of jhanas and rebirth in a higher realm such as the celestial or deva/brahma realms. The only peculiar thing about buddhism is the practice of insight meditation and the stress on developing right view (I.e. Anatta, dependent origination/emptiness)

Not giving them much importance doesn't mean its not there. If an alcoholic or drug addict doesn't bother about his habit, thinking "it shouldn't be a problem" (in fact that is exactly what all drug addicts think until their issue really gets out of hand), the habit can only grow until it tips over. Maybe a little kind of inference might help: if lets say we are able to remain unafflicted throughout waking and dream, even in the worse scenarios like nightmares, etc, then naturally I should have no problem with the bardo states. If there is any amount of attachment, or afflictions, in dreams, in sickness, in pain, or whatever, then naturally I can't overcome afflictions at the time of death. Because death, as my Taiwanese teacher (through experience) have said, is a much more painful process. It's all based on the scriptures. I have no experience of afterlife, sorry. Thats right. Yes he died four times this life. Four NDEs (he sees the white light and all that). He remained totally awake and unafflicted. He said death is a very painful process. But obviously, if he can do it, so can we.

It may seem trivial to you, but you can't overcome birth and death if you don't overcome afflictions, as rebirth is based on afflictions. You don't overcome suffering if you don't overcome afflictions. Therefore it is of vital importance to someone seeking to overcome birth and death. If you don't think overcoming birth and death is important, then I have nothing to say. Yama and Mara are bodhisattvas who test practitioners and help sentient beings to their liberation. They don't hand out trophies or certificates. But Buddha had to pass Mara's test first before enlightenment. My Taiwanese teacher had the same encounter.

Oh of course, you can be reborn as a deva and enjoy all you like, but that is not the same as overcoming all afflictions and attachments and the cycle of birth and death. Thats why dharma is not just for a result of this life. Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person. The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on. The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom. ~ Loppon Namdrol To see whether you have transformed, just see if are you overcoming your afflictions in daily life? Or are you completely overcome by them? He never said before, so I can't answer you. If he had I don't think he would tell it to me, and if he had told it to me I don't think I would be 'allowed' to disclose this info. Lord yama* told him in his meditation that he wasn't liberated yet many many years ago (at that time he didn't even know who 'lord yama' is, he heard this name in meditation and found out who that is later), but now I'm not sure as his practice has progressed tremendously since and at one point he told me, self-liberation has become effortless. *In Buddhism the two beings that are often confused with the Christian concept of the devil, Yama and Mara, are also Bodhisattvas. Lord Yama's job is to make sure beings receive the appropriate karmic retribution in the appropriate hell realm. The hell realms as described in Buddhism are not so different from those visualized by Dante in The Inferno. Lord Yama is the Bodhisattva assigned by the Buddhas to rule the ghosts and hell realms, but he must not be thought of as the King of the Ghosts, because he is a Bodhisattva and ghosts are ordinary beings. He resides in the Suyama Heaven, the third heaven of the Desire World. He is also considered a dharma protector and as one of the “Eight Guardians of the Law.” This is why Lord Yama is often shown holding the "wheel of life" with its six realms of existence and the twelve links of dependent origination. Mara, the tempter who is also called the Evil One, has the job of testing living beings to make sure they are progressing on the path. He and his demon followers are emanations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who test those engaged in self-cultivation. He appears in the texts both as a real being (i.e. as a deity who is the King of Demons of the Paranirmita Heaven, the sixth and highest heaven in the desire realm) and as a symbol of everything that hinders the arising of wholesome roots and progress on the path of enlightenment. This includes the internal difficulties encountered by the practitioner. There are four kinds known as the Four Maras: 1) skandha-mara or incorrect view of self; 2) klesha-mara or being overpowered by negative emotions; 3) matyu-mara or death that interrupts the spiritual practice; and 4) devaputra-mara or becoming stuck in the bliss that comes from meditation. Seeing these fearsome beings as bodhisattvas who are really responsible for helping us on our evolutionary path puts the so called "devil" in a very different light.

Nice. The Buddha's teachings is precisely for letting go of the 'doctrine of self', i.e. the doctrine of inherent existence, the view of the extremes. And it is only through applying Buddha's teachings in this way that we can hope to gain liberation. It does not posit something to cling to, definitely not 'emptiness'. Buddha: "Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir." Namdrol: "In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

Interesting predictions.

Don't worry, he's still reading it, he just told me to do a public apology for 'slandering him here', though I'm not aware of doing that.

Pause all thoughts now. Notice that in the absence of conceptualization, nevertheless, there is undeniably a vivid, clear, pure presence, knowing, an energetic vitality and livingness. Notice that in the absence of conceptualization, nevertheless, there is vivid awareness of mind and all sense perceptions. This vivid clear knowing, presence, intelligence, is termed luminous clarity. It is termed luminous not because it is bright in a visual sense, but bright as luminous clarity is illuminating in all experiences. There is the natural limpidity and clarity of a mirror to reflect everything as it is. Since luminous clarity is present prior to concepts - it is simply the natural, uncontrived essence of mind, beyond fabrication. Even in the midst of concepts, luminosity is not lost, but for beginners you can start to get a sense of this by settling your mind to investigate your essence, like settling the pond to reveal whats in it - not that ripples actually make it disappear though. No, luminosity cannot be equated with emptiness, but luminosity is empty of any inherent, independent existence. Therefore luminosity and emptiness are inseparable. With regards to emptiness, do read http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Actually it is my personal understanding, elucidated well by others, so why not quote others.

------------------

Yes, and change is one of the three fundamental truths about all conditioned phenomena (along with dissatisfactoriness - due to change, and non-self). Buddhists call this the three characteristics of phenomena or the three dharma seals. You need to go beyond conceptual delusion in order to see these truths in action through mindful awareness. I don't exactly agree with you on 'everything is delusion' but would state rather, 'everything is like an illusion'. My personal understanding is in line with this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

Prior to labeling, there is just pure sense perception unfiltered by concepts. But with non-conceptual appearances as basis, and ignorance as basis, we project our own assertions on them, and primarily the assertion of existents and nonexistents which causes grasping and suffering. When you practice mindful awareness (see http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html ), you go prior concepts and begin to experience truth beyond filtered experiences or delusions. Then through practicing insight investigation or vipassana/vipashyana, realization of the twofold emptinesses can arise, which liberates your worldview of the existents of self and phenomena, ending all reification, attachments and suffering.

Namdrol's reply to alwayson today is gold, basically reitering the exact same things I told him which he refused to listen because of his utter ignorance and unreasonable prejudice against Thusness. http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=5261 loled at "You mean even the physical? :jawdrop: " like, didn't I already said? " There are two levels of realizing emptiness, the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena (that includes all material and mental phenomena)." Precisely and unfortunately, alwayson doesn't understand this, so he doesn't see the accuracy of Thusness's stages (in particular, stage 5 and 6).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/view.htm First let me explain that I am trained in this as a Gelug. Obviously there is some interpretation. The lineages have some differing views on Madhyamika as it is so important. Some think the views differ greatly, some don't. I belong to the latter. I encourage with all my heart that persons who are stimulated and feel benefited by this series to study more. Tsongkhapa felt that the cause of being bound to samsara was a deeply rooted habit that grasped to the concept of inherent existence. To exist inherently means to have a basis independent of imputation. Tsongkhapa argued in essence, that all the tenet systems below prasangika asserted such a basis either explicitly (i.e. they said so and one can find it stated as such) or implicitly (it may be hard to find the passage and there is a question about it but such a conclusion might be drawn from other things). In the case of Vaibhasika and Sautrantika it was the dharmas. In Yogacara, it was paratantra and parinispanna or mind. The Madhyamikas argued that there was no such basis ultimately at all. The Svatantrikas, however, because they used syllogisms instead of consequences implicitly asserted a type of independence on the conventional level known as svalaksana or inherent characteristic. This is extremely subtle. The argument is that if a syllogism is used, there is an assumption that the two parties will see the first mode the property of a subject in the same way, implying some sort of independent existence. Seeing the property in the same way demands recognizing that the property has at minimum some sort of characteristic which is independent of the imputing mind. The use of a consequence does not do this, but merely takes the assumption of the opponent as a basis as opposed to making an assumption oneself. Therefore the Prasangika do not have the fault of asserting iherent existence/characteristic even conventionally. Other scholars in Tibet hold that Tsongkhapa's differentiation is incorrect since the Sautrantikas do not assert svalaksana ultimately and only use it conventionally as a means to lead persons to the truth and do not hold it as a view. They further argue that the Indians did not view the Svatantrikas and Prasangikas in the way Tsongkhapa did and rather seemed to agree that the difference was pedagogical. They say svatantra is for converting non-buddhists, prasanga for converting buddhists. Tsongkhapa's point though, however the intent or history of the issue, was that even grasping at something this subtle had to be done away with. Tsongkhapa agreed with Chandra that inherent existence didn't exist even conventionally. In the conventional world people just use words and agree on things in an unanalytic way. I say I am Jamyang. I don't say I am inherent Jamyang. By negating inherent existence, one allows convention and there is no incompatibility between samsara and nirvana, between form and emptiness. Once inherent existence is negated then what is left is just dependent arising. Then everything is pure. The negation of inherent existence is intended as an arrow to shoot the root cause of defilement. It cuts out the core of that which is grasped. things appear then as mirage, a reflection, a plantain tree, a bubble etc. a play of stainless mind and wind. Sarva Mangalam Precious Bodhicitta, where it is not arisen, may it arise. Where is has arisen, may it not decline but grow ever fuller. By the merit of this presentation, may all beings obtain the state of Vajradhara. May the dharma take solid root in the West and may no obstacles arise to its practice and flourishing. p.s. Yogācāra in Tibet Yogācāra was transmitted to Tibet by Śāntarakṣita and later by Atiśa; it was thereafter integral to Tibetan Buddhism although the prevailing Geluk-dominated view held that it was less definitive than Mādhyamaka. Yogācāra terminology (but not view) is used by the Nyingmapa and its zenith, Dzogchen. Yogācāra also became central to East Asian Buddhism. The teachings of Yogācāra became the Chinese Wei Shi school of Buddhism. Current debates among Tibetan schools between the shentong (empty of other) and rangtong (empty of self) views appear similar to earlier debates between Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka, but the issues and distinctions have evolved further. Though the later Tibetan views could be said to have evolved from the earlier Indian positions, the distinctions between the views became increasingly subtle, especially after Yogācāra incorporated the Mādhyamika view of the ultimate. Ju Mipham, the 19th century rime movement commenter, wrote in his commentary on Śāntarakṣita's synthesis, that the ultimate view in both schools is the same and each path also leads to the same ultimate state of abiding.[9]

Good article. Thanks.

No. Gelugpas are holders that all phenomena have two truths: relative and ultimate. Relative truth is that things exist, but as mere imputation. Their ultimate truth is that all phenomena D.Os and are thus empty, therefore cannot be said to exist, not-exist, etc. But it definitely has nothing to do with 'all appearances are labels'. It is that 'the relative truth of things are mere imputations'. And anyway as far as I know, only the Gelugs admit the two truths, while the other traditions (correct me if I'm wrong) says that relative truth is not true and therefore there is only one truth, so it wouldn't be right even to say that 'things exist, but relatively'. ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/ ) Namdrol: Relative truth is not true. But even Nāgārjuna rejects the two truths: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?" The ultimate truth of appearance goes beyond any conventional imputation, since imputation asserts existents, nonexistents, etc, whereas in reality phenomena are in nature free of the four extremes.

And here's another instant classic: You either accept xabir's guru, Thusness, as Longchenpa Or you don't

Conventional truths are mere imputations. Since conventional truths are not true, i.e. they are empty, therefore, appearances (sense cognitions) are in nature beyond imputations. Tell that to Namdrol. Enochian wrote:Doesn't appearance = thoughtform? Namdrol: No, an appearance is a sense cognition.