xabir2005

As a matter of fact, I am not stuck in the intellect, I have true realization and experience that transcends all concepts and positions.... And I also gone through what you went through before. Thusness wrote this to me because of what I was going through - the disease of non-conceptuality (even after an initial insight into anatta), on 31 October 2010: Hi Geis, I 'fear' commenting about other's forum because AEN will create havoc in that forum after that...lol. Jokes aside but I think it is still too early to say that insight of anatta has arisen. There seem to be a mixing up and a lack of clarity of the following experiences that resulted from contemplating on the topic of no-self: 1. Resting in non-conceptuality 2. Resting as an ultimate Subject or 3. Resting as mere ‘flow of phenomenality In case 1 practitioners see ‘The seen is neither subjective nor objective.... it just IS....’ In terms of experience, practitioners will feel Universe, Life. However this is not anatta but rather the result of stripping off (deconstructing) identity and personality. When this mode of non-conceptual perception is taken to be ultimate, the terms “What is”, “Isness”, “Thusness” are often taken to mean simply resting in non-conceptuality and not adding to or subtracting anything from the ‘raw manifestation’. There is a site effect to such an experience. Although in non-conceptuality, non-dual is most vivid and clear, practitioners may wrongly conclude that ‘concepts’ are the problem because the presence of ‘concepts’ divides and prevent the non-dual experience. This seems logical and reasonable only to a mind that is deeply root in a subject/object dichotomy. Very quickly ‘non-conceptuality’ becomes an object of practice. The process of objectification is the result of the tendency in action perpetually repeating itself taking different forms like an endless loop. This can continue to the extent that a practitioner can even ‘fear’ to establish concepts without knowing it. They are immobilized by trying to prevent the formation of views and concepts. When we see ‘suffering just IS’, we must be very careful not to fall into the ‘disease’ of non-conceptuality. In Case 2 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization, understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of ‘No-Self based on Self’. For Case 3 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed. This is different from 'deconstructing of identity and personality' which is related to non-conceptuality but 'actual' seeing of the non-existence of agent in transient phenomena. Here practitioners will not only feel universe as in case 1 but there is also an immediate experience of our birth right freedom because the agent is gone. It is important to notice that practitioners here do not mistake freedom as ‘no right or wrong and remaining in a state of primordial purity’ ; they are not immobilized by non-conceptuality but is able to clearly see the ‘arising and passing’ of phenomena as liberating as there is no permanent agent there to ‘hinder’ the seeing. That is, practitioner not only realize ‘what experience is’ but also begin to understand the ‘nature’ of experience. To mature case 3 realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination. In my opinion, the blog that hosts the articles on “Who am I” and “Quietening the Inner Chatter” provide more in depth insights on non-duality, Anatta and Emptiness. The author demonstrates very deep calirty of ‘what experience is’ and the ‘nature (impermanent, empty and dependent originates according to supporting conditions)’ of experience. Just my 2 cents. :-) ----------- P.s. I just realized this post is so good and actually summarizes the problems of people in this forum. Either Case 1 or Case 2.

12 links is reversible and transcendable, no doubt. D.O. does not only apply where there is ignorance. It can apply in general ways too - for an arhant whose ignorance is ceased, nevertheless, his experience arise due to past karma (dependent origination), his sense awareness arises dependent on sense objects and organs, etc.

In the same way that drumbeats are not determined by air, drum, etc, but is a manifestation due to the meeting of conditions, so too is will not determined in the sense of self-made or other-made, but is a conditioned arising. There is no independent free will.

There is a continuity of a process, not the continuity of an entity. We can't. We can only have a present memory.

Empty is not an assertion about reality (emptiness is not real: emptiness too is empty). It is simply a denial of existents, it is not an assertion, you need to read this: "The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." This is why the 'realization of emptiness' is the realization that frees one from all views. Dependent is relative... it is not absolute. I never said dependent arising is real. I said dependent arising is *empty* just as Nagarjuna said. Appearances are empty of inherent existence, it is not that their reality is something called emptiness. No. You are still not understanding the implications of views, and how realization of no-inherency dissolves view of 'is and is not' - non-conceptual experience alone cannot dissolve such views which runs latent in the psyche, affecting how we view and cling to things moment to moment, causing suffering. A view is not just a manifest concept - it is a position and belief deeply held in one's psyche which runs and affects our life in subtle and gross ways.

Conventional individuality... not inherent individuality...

more causes and conditions...

There is nothing whatsoever that does not arise dependently, and thus there is nothing whatsoever that is not empty.

I already said 'is' and 'is not' don't apply... Dependent arising is relative truth, upon investigation, what is relative is empty and non-arising.

12 links of D.O.

There is only moment to moment experience, that ultimately, is empty and non-arising. There is nothing linking experience, and yet it is not the case that experience has a real arising and cessation. So there is no lines, and no continuity of an entity as well. Whatever dependently originates is empty of arising, abidance and cessation since there is literally no-thing 'there' to arise, abide, subside, etc.... just mere appearances... no coming, staying, going, no where to be found, like a magical apparition.

But it's not something 'out there' that's controlling you, it's intimate, much closer, it's your actions and intentions and effort, etc, that makes what your life is, furthermore nothing is 'set in stones'.

I do not establish dependent arising... There is a total de-establishment of all constructs.

I am not talking about the effects. I am saying that in the immersion of I AM presence, there is no body-consciousness. Remaining in that state is Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Ramana: Holding on to the supreme state is samadhi. .... Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikatpa, is sahaja [the natural state]. What is body-consciousness? It is the insentient body plus consciousness. Both of these must lie in another consciousness which is absolute and unaffected and which remains as it always is, with or without the body-consciousness. What does it then matter whether the body-consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme.

Not the same. But D.O. seen in real-time, non-conceptually, is Maha - everything is like the universe doing this and everything is seamlessly interconnected (everything is the total exertion of the universe), and furthermore everything reveals itself to be dream-like, ungraspable, as an experience.... not as a concept to be held on to. There are just shapes and colours and ... but there is nothing solid or inherent to them.

Prior to concepts. No.

In Mahamudra there is pointing out of Mind, Thoughts and Sense-Perceptions. When non-dual insight occurs, you have that same non-dual Presence taste in and as all thoughts and perceptions (rather than have thoughts and perceptions occur 'within a background of presence' which is dualistic). Thrangu Rinpoche, "For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish."

Pure sensate experience is not concept. Pure Mind in its quiescence (aka 'I AM Presence') is not a concept. Verbalization, logical thinking, pondering, etc, are conceptual thoughts. Engaging in intellect, symbols, etc. A concept is an abstract symbolic idea.

on causes and conditions, which makes them unestablished and empty of independent, inherent existence. What is relative is ultimately empty.

Nope, conditions are not 'made from conditions' - instead, with the meeting of conditions, an instance of manifestation arises. The sound of drum-beats are not made by the air, not made by ears, not made by drums, etc - they are not self-made, not other-made, but with the meeting of conditions, sound of drumbeat manifest, and is empty of independent existence. A chain of rolling on does not mean it is determined or made by an object nor a subject, in fact because everything is depenendently originated, nothing is created from something and nothing can be established. Visudhimagga: Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language, when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the result. No doer of the deeds is found, No one who ever reaps their fruits; Empty phenomena roll on: This only is the correct view. And while the deeds and their results Roll on and on, conditioned all, There is no first beginning found, Just as it is with seed and tree. ... No god, no Brahma, can be called The maker of this wheel of life: Empty phenomena roll on, Dependent on conditions all. ........ p.s. I just remembered something Daniel wrote to someone 2 years ago who forwarded it to me, which I think is good: I am a pragmatist, so I think that concept that help people are key. Tbe Buddha addressed this topic, and I agree with his answer. He said that when training in Morality assume free will, as it helps. Thus, you presume that you can make healthy choices about how to speak and act and think, and so you proceed with the notion that you are in control and can make yourself and your world better. When doing Insight practices, you do the complete opposite as much as possible. You assume that sensations arise on their own in a causal, natural way and as much as possible you try to see that aspect of things. That said, until concentration, mindfulness, and continuity of practice are strong, one makes a lot of effort to see things as they are and stay with the natural arising and vanishing of sensations. From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.

There is a difference. Actual freedom asserts that consciousness arise from matter, whereas I do not assert so - simply that matter is one of the conditions... A previous moment of consciousness is also one of the conditions. As such, consciousness can survive physical death via mental and karmic conditions.

There is no such thing as having a glimpse from a physical state. I AM is nothing physical. It is Pure Mind itself in its quiescence, therefore it can only be discovered by 'tracing the radiance/movement to its origins'. There is no difference in realization, the only difference is that Ramana became a renunciant and trained samadhi day and night. He achieved the ability to remain and enter into deep samadhi.

This is Nagarjuna's view and the view of Prajnaparamita, not special to Dzogchen. Causes and conditions are empty and unestablished because what is dependently originated is empty.

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness." ~ Nalakalapiyo Sutta Fatalism is 'other-made', free will is 'self-made', which are false views... it is not the case that a previous action or external condition 'made this'... nor is this action made by itself or an agent... It is that, with the meeting of conditions comes an action. The conditions too are not determined from some distant past or 'other-made', nor are 'self-made'. There is no origin or agent, objective or subjective, self-made or other-made. Coming from nowhere, abiding nowhere and going nowhere... dependently originated and thus empty and unestablished.