xabir2005

Consciousness manifest dependent on sense objects and sense organs. (nama-rupa, aka mind and matter) But consciousness, being manifestation, is simply just the experience of 'just seen, just heard, just tasted'. Just seen is visual consciousness, just heard is auditory consciousness, just taste is gustatory consciousness, etc...

In I AM, there is no body, conceptual thoughts, etc. There is just that I AM.

Mental factors and conditions. There is no independent consciousness... consciousness is also a dependently originated process... there is no consciousness not dependent on something being conscious-ed of. Having said so it is obviously still not the case that everything depends only on physical conditions. Past influences and process are equally unestablished as subjective participation... since whatever dependently originates are ultimately empty, and cannot be said to have originated from somewhere, or even that it has arisen, or have abidance or have cessation. "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 I only know that from the perspective of interconnectedness, everything is self-originated, as I said to simple jack: Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated. What's your experience with it? - http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3225985453951330898&postID=6800570015725565876 If something has not been set into place by a previous action, then it is not fate. Latent tendencies do not make anger fated (as I explained why), and 'the tendency to not get angry' may not be a tendency but an immediate action and practice to counteract an existing tendency like anger. In other words, you may be 'going against the flow of your conditionings' through your practice. If it were the case that only existing latent tendencies will result in actions, then no action can be done to remedy existing latent tendencies. Fate establishes a real objective agent that determines an outcome. Free will establish a real subjective agent that determines an outcome. I do not establish anything. What dependently originates is empty and neither arise, have origins, have abidance or have cessation. Present action is conditioned by a previous action - ultimately there is no real present action - both past, present and future mind is ungraspable and empty as Diamond Sutra states.

Yes, I am aware about the utterly still and present Pure Presence.

Yes... I thoroughly agree with what is being said there. Dependent Origination is a very subtle and profound truth... in fact it is one of the most profound and fundamental teachings of the Buddha that underpins all his other teachings - including and not limited to the four noble truths, the teachings of emptiness, and so on. The thorough realization of dependent origination is what results in liberation. Lastly, even though it is not good to be attached to anything including lineages and teachers, nevertheless, pure lineage is important as I have quoted from the Dalai Lama - and a teacher who is the embodiment of the pure lineage, and who can transmit the dharma. In a sense all teachings are expedients like a raft - for the purpose of abandoning our delusions and attachments and not for the purpose of clinging on (to the raft) - and yet without the raft, we cannot obtain the perfect awakening of Buddhahood. This is not only the case for Vajrayana... even in Zen, the 1st Ch'an Patriarch Bodhidharma says, http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/THE%20ZEN%20TEACHINGS%20OF%20BODHIDHARMA.htm "To find a Buddha all you have to do is see your nature. Your nature is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the person who’s free: free of plans, free of cares. If you don’t see your nature and run around all day looking somewhere else, you’ll never find a buddha. The truth is there’s nothing to find. But to reach such an understanding you need a teacher and you need to struggle to make yourself understand. Life and death are important. Don’t suffer them in vain. There’s no advantage in deceiving yourself. Even if you have mountains of jewels and as many servants as there are grains of sand along the Ganges, you see them when your eyes are open. But what about when your eyes are shut? You should realize then that everything you see is like a dream or illusion. If you don’t find a teacher soon, you’ll live this life in vain. It’s true, you have the buddha-nature. But the help of a teacher you’ll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher’s help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn’t need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you’re so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you’ll understand." A true lineage has time-tested techniques, experience, teachings, of countless yogis through thousands of years... therefore, never underestimate the importance of true lineage.

Not part of it - of course, and you never see me shoving emptiness into people unless they are truly interested or are inquiring into it. I never talked about anatta or shunyata to vmarco, for instance. I only talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... However, I did state that there are further insights about anatta and shunyata (without elaboration) and that it is best he find a Mahamudra teacher, since he is interested in Mahamudra and seems to be a sincere and genuine practitioner.

No.... 'I do not exist' or 'you do not exist' is a position - all positions are views and clingings. The insight of anatta is not 'I do not exist'... it is 'in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard' - there is a realization of agentlessness and as such an existent self is not established, nor is the non-existence of self being established... no you and no 'no you'... just pure, unreified, suchness of experiencing as described in Kalaka Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.

Did you see me elaborate anatta to vmarco? Did you see me talk about anatta to vmarco in my previous posts? The most I talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... I only talk about anatta and shunyata to people who inquire about it... I took the vows years back at my local dharma center.

There is no 'I' to exist, not-exist, etc, and no 'non-existence of self' that can be asserted. 'Xabir' is a convention for conglomerate of aggregates with no actual independent essence to be found...

I know you advocated neti-neti... What I am saying is that anatta is not just a matter of neti neti. I am glad you are open to what I am suggesting... I was careful not to interrupt your postings too much as I thought you would reject immediately what I said... Anyway if you have accepted the Bodhisattva vows, which I am glad for you (as I myself did too), you should be very interested in attaining complete enlightenment for the sake of liberating all sentient beings. A true Bodhisattva, much more a Buddha, has thoroughly realized the twofold emptinesses... which means he has traversed through all those stages that Thusness and I spoke about. Not trying to suggest you should start chasing after experiences or realizations... just keep an open mind and continue your investigation and practice and in time things will reveal... Vajrahridaya suggested finding a teacher which I think is a great idea. p.s. I just flipped the Dalai Lama's book "Lighting the Way" I'm currently reading to the bookmarked page (where I stopped - and I can say since I started practicing, countless synchronicities like this just happens), and here's a passage the I think is relevant not only to you but to the thread as well: "...Having said this, when traversing the path to enlightenment we do need to rely on our teachers as spiritual guides. In fact, it is essential that we find an authentic, qualified teacher if we are to develop a good understanding of the spiritual practices essentiial for leading us to full awakening. there is a Tibetan saying: 'The source of pure water must be traceable to pure snow mountains.' In the same way, It is very important to ensure that the practices we follow are authentic and are traceable through an authentic lineage of transmission. These days there is a tendency to take bits from here and there and come up with one's own mixture. This may be fine, but if you are following a particular spiritual tradition, in our case Tibetan Buddhism, it is important to ensure the authentic source and purity of the lineage, and that your teacher is an embodiment of that pure lineage.' Since you live in Austin, Texas, you should seriously check out this center: http://www.vajravidyaaustin.org/ Their Mahamudra Master, Thrangu Rinpoche, (who is also assigned by Dalai Lama to be the tutor of the Kagyu lineage holder 17th Karmapa) is a truly enlightened master who have deep thorough realizations. I and Thusness have read his Mahamudra books and found his wisdom to be truly deep. You can have full confidence in his teachings...

The clear light that vmarco realized and experienced is also not unchanging as he thought (even though it does appear completely still and quiescent - it is nevertheless falsely reified into an unchanging entity/background/self/identity): Dalai Lama, "The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the ‘clear light’ (abhasvara, ‘od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, ‘dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered ‘permanent’ in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted…" Shurangama Sutra, " (33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views. First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent." ...... Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence." And I understand (from my own experience) from the I AM realization and experience, all these can be hard to swallow or comprehend.. that is why it is best to go step by step, from I AM into impersonality, then non-dual, then anatta.

What Ramana Maharshi realized is the mind's luminosity in its state of quiescence. It is pure presence prior to concepts. But this is being falsely reified into a true self. It is also the relative nature of mind, in contrast to the ultimate nature of mind: Dalai Lama: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/07/happiness-karma-and-mind.html Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind. There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state. All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

No, I have not, and apparently you haven't re-read this: "knowing is always with an object... Even if that object is formless mental luminosity. In realizing anatta it is seen that seeing is always just the seen, knowing is always just the known. I have told lucky not long ago: "sorry I know you are probably too tired for discussion but I still have to clarify something. The realization of anatta arises from direct experiential insight and not an inference. It is not an inferred conclusion due to not being able to locate the whereabouts of an agent or perceiver. Similarly the emptiness of objects is not just about being unable to locate where phenomena is, it is the direct realization of dependent origination and the corelessness of all phenomena. Anatta realization is also not inferred conclusion from peak experiences of no-mind which you had. It is the irrefutable seeing that "seeing is just the seen", that the actuality of what "seeing" is is simply the stream, the process of seeing without seer. It is not "I cannot locate where the seer is, therefore I conclude there is no seer", but rather, there is the direct realization that there is no seer, no core to mind, and waking up to the nature of seeing. It is a waking up, like suddenly you realize what you call "wind" is just the entire blowing activity, so too is the luminosity, presence, awareness simply a term collating the self-luminous stream or process. There is no inference involved, and in fact you clearly see that an unchanging mind is infact totally inferred just like an unchanging windness of blowing is inferred out of the "view of inherency"... it is either you realize this or not. If you realize this you can never unsee it... No inference at all. Luminosity cannot be denied, it is only the view of duality, and the view of inherency that must be seen through. " "

I actually realized what Ramana Maharshi said on 9th February 2010, as described in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html . There are more insights though. P.s. I said over and over this is not about 'you don't exist' so I'm not going to repeat.

Though you have realized I AM, you have not realized anatta and shunyata... therefore at present your views are no different from that of Advaita Vedanta*. *Hindu teacher Ramana Maharshi: 1 . Who am I ? The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense-organs, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning's, I am not. 2. If I am none of these, then who am I? After negating all of the above-mentioned as 'not this', 'not this', that Awareness which alone remains - that I am. 3. What is the nature of Awareness? The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss I completely understand and gone through what you realized and experienced... however there are further insights and not to mistaken Mahaparinirvana Sutra as belonging to that of Hindu eternalism.* The further stages of insights are summarized by Thusness in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html *Loppon Namdrol: 'Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya.' .... Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following: That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”. Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues: "Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’. Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’." So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about: "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists? Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”. The Bhagavan replied: “Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha. Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?" Thus, the Lanka says: All yaanas are included in five dharmas, three natures, eight consciousnesses, and two selflessnesses It does not add anything about a true self and so on. If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states: Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified. Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves. Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect. And: Although tathaagatagarbha possesses seven consciousnesses; always engaged with dualistic apprehensions [it] will evolve with thorough understanding. If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state: "`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha. `Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya. And: `Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings. Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned. Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here: "Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’. So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states "Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion. Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings. When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.

regarding 'unborn' - there are different ways it can be understood, see my article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html

No... you cannot perceive emptiness independent of phenomena, as emptiness too is empty of independent existence, and as a matter of fact you cannot 'perceive emptiness'*. And emptiness is not 'being' - http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html How Is Emptiness Nondual? The most common connotation of "nonduality" is "oneness" or "singularity." Many teachings state that everything is actually awareness; those teachings are nondual in the "oneness" sense in which there are no two things. But there is another sense of "nonduality." Instead of nonduality as "oneness," it's nonduality as "free from dualistic extremes." This entails freedom from the pairs of metaphysical dualisms such as essentialism/nihilism, existence/non-existence, reification/annihilation, presence/absence, or intrinsicality/voidness, etc. These pairs are dualisms in this sense: if you experience things in the world in terms of one side of the pair, you will experience things in the world in terms of the other side as well. If some things seem like they truly exist, then other things will seem like they truly don't exist. You will experience your own self to truly exist, and fear that one day you will truly not exist. Emptiness teachings show how none of these pairs make sense, and free you from experiencing yourself and the world in terms of these opposites. Emptiness teachings are nondual in this sense. For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about." Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free. .... Emptiness Itself is Empty Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18. Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty. It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists: Emptiness is not a substance Emptiness is not a substratum or background Emptiness is not light Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness Emptiness is not the Absolute Emptiness does not exist on its own Objects do not consist of emptiness Objects do not arise from emptiness Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I" Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind Back to top -------------- As for not being able to 'perceive emptiness': You will never see emptiness in meditation directly for emptiness is a not a thing that can be seen. ..... When you don't find anything, that not-finding is finding emptiness. When you don't see anything, that not-seeing is seeing emptiness. - Loppon Namdrol

If I sit here waiting for fate to feed me and my family, I and my family will starve to death. There needs intention, will, zeal, effort, hard work, etc etc... which consists of various mental and physical constituents/arisings/thoughts/actions. Even though these too are ultimately empty - conventionally, subjective participation is necessary... our lives (and more) are in our hands. Buddha gave another example: if you think everything is determined by past actions, then the actions of the killer was also determined by past karmas and therefore cannot be changed. But this is not the case, therefore right practice and action is necessary to change our lives.* The Buddha further rejected the views that actions are caused by a God - if that were the case, murder, rape, etc would be caused by God, and he also rejected the view that actions are causeless - if that were the case, murder, rape, etc would have no causes and conditions. Therefore one can see that every action has causes and conditions, but it is not the case that it is fated or determined from the past since that would negate the possibility of change through effort at right practice. i.e. Right practice in the present can result in wholesome and liberating action. There is free action, there is retribution, but I see no agent that passes out of one set of momentary elements into another one, except the [connection] of those elements. --The Buddha2 Relative and ultimate isn't two... what appears relatively is just like an illusion - also it is not the case that the appearance of intention has a real agent - it is just a dependently originated appearance without agent and without core, empty. “From recollection there is interest; from interest consideration; from consideration willful effort; from willful effort vital energy; and from that, action. So what does the self do here?” ~ Vasubandhu A machine cannot have conscious decisions or thoughts because a machine does not have consciousness, therefore it is purely mechanical interaction. Consciousness isn't mechanical... it is a different class of phenomenon altogether. It is not determined by the physical, however the physical stuff are part of the conditions for consciousness - i.e. our sense organs, our DNA, etc, affect our states of consciousness. However it is not the case that DNAs cause a killer to kill or a person to become an Arhant. That would be too naive - there is the whole mental side, mental influences, imprints, cultivation, etc etc... so many factore. For example, by training yourself in loving kindness... anger can be transformed. Therefore anger is not an inherent characteristic of a person, it is not determined from the past, it is not fated or fixed, and therefore they can be purified, transformed, or liberated. Hence we cannot say that anger is determined by some external influences or determined by past action. They are 'learnt' in one's consciousness and can therefore can be 'dropped'. Certainly there is this tendency due to one's conditioning to get angry when certain things happen - yet this tendency is not 'fated to play out' because there is always the potential to be purified, transformed, or liberated, by counter-acting forces, by the practice of purification or transformation, or in more advanced level (like dzogchen, mahamudra) these poisons are spontaneously self-liberated. If one thinks there is no way these can be purified, transformed, or liberated, then it is like what Buddha warned - "When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.'" Whereas if we accept that even though there are past influences, imprints, and conditionings, that continue to pop up in one's mind, these thoughts may not be followed, they can be discerned through awareness, and appropriately acted upon or rejected (via purification, or transformation, or self-liberation) then in this case, there is development, there is transcendence, there is the possibility to overcome one's conditions. Therefore it is not so much of past actions, but what is acted upon in the present that is more essential. Having said so much, it is not the case that there is an agent that is controlling actions... intentions, actions, and so on are also dependent on various factors - sometimes positive, sometimes negative, nevertheless: “From recollection there is interest; from interest consideration; from consideration willful effort; from willful effort vital energy; and from that, action. So what does the self do here?” ~ Vasubandhu As you can see 'action' depends on 'vital energy' which depends on 'willful effort' depends on 'interest consideration' which depends on 'recollection', and a host of mental factors. So it is a process that plays out... but you cannot discount the subjective participation (conventionally called so) part of action and intention-making, as Vasubandhu described. In other words, you cannot say karma or past influences makes you fated to be a killer because... it can be changed, through present right discernment, consideration, effort, action, etc. In short, there is no free will if free will is defined as an independently existing controller controlling things: but there can be free action in the sense that action which arises out of immediate wisdom and awareness free from the chains of one's latent tendencies, therefore we are not fated by our past actions to commit crimes, etc. There can be freedom from unwholesome latent tendencies through wisdom, and yet even wisdom and awareness isn't established. Ultimately, free will in the sense of ultimate agency is not established but neither is it determinism. Free will and determinism don't really apply - actions aren't determined by past actions, nor are actions determined by an independent agent. Actions manifest dependent upon a host of different factors, but are not determined from a past action.

You forgot to include mental factors. This includes will, intentions and actions. It includes subjective participation even though there is ultimately no subject or object. There are things that are beyond the immediate influence of will or intention. (E.g. You can't stop global warming just by your own individual will even though your efforts may count too) but there are far many things which can... From immediate things like standing up, to a longer goal like getting a degree or whatever you wish to accomplish in life and for others, for example. I never said there is no will and intention. What I deny however is a self, an agent, doer, controller. Also - intentions do not arise without conditions, like imprints, influences, a previous moment of thought etc - but they are not predetermined by some internal or external forces. Nothing is fixed or fated when everything is action and reaction, therefore right active participation is necessary. And no, bodhisattva and arhat does not differ in terms of anatta. Both bodhisattva and arhat realizes anatta or the emptiness of self/subject and no longer harbour any self-views. The only difference lies in Bodhisattvas realizing the secondfold emptiness which is the emptiness of objects due to dependent origination. In Diamond sutra, you see over and over again the Buddha giving examples of how bodhisattvas, even though having given rise to the intention to save countless beings, yet if they hold on to self-view, on to the notion of giver, given and gift, on to the notion that there is someone saving someone else, etc etc... Such holders of self-views are not true bodhisattvas.

I agree totally. That's why I told thuscomeone views are subtle and aren't just gross conceptualizations. They are positions and beliefs deeply held in their psyche, affecting how we view things in everyday lives, and these views fundamentally come down to 'is' and 'is not' and is the source of all grasping, cravings and sufferings. The implications of view in life is an esssential insight in itself... And you also see that views can only be dissolved via the realization of twofold emptinesses.

"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." - namdrol

In buddha's teachings, doubt is one of the three lower fetters (along with self-view and attachment to rites and rituals) that are being abandoned at the first stage of awakening (stream entry) on the path to arhantship. And I can see why because doubt represents confusion and ignorance to the nature of reality. When realization of anatta arises, naturally the first three fetters will be permanently dissolved. Why? It is no longer possible to hold the position or belief in a self once you see that a self within or apart from the five aggregates is untenable, that experiencing is simply the stream, process, activities of knowing without knower, or doer. These aggregates simply dependently originate without an agent or origin. Attachment to rites and rituals vanish because now you see the meaninglessness of rituals as only true insight can liberate a person, not vane rituals that simply keeps a person trapped in their religious conditioning, leading nowhere. The insight of anatta also dissolves doubt because you now clearly realize the selflessness and agentlessness in reality, so no longer hold speculative beliefs nor have doubts about views - you simply see that all self-views, eternalistic or nihilistic simply do not apply. So now I am doubtless - not in the sense that I hold onto a conceptual certainty, but rather my doubtlessness is simply the lack of doubts as well as conceptual certainty. This is because I hold unto no positions at all... There is just the naked, unreified, doubtless and undeniable experiencing in which I no longer establish a seer or something being seen. This is not to say doubts are not useful at first. Far from it - doubts are useful and in some ways even essential, until they have served its purpose and dissolves on its own accord due to great realization. In zen, it is said great faith, great doubt, and great determination are the essential keys to great realization. This means not only faith in the teachings of the awakened one which is also quite important but more importantly, faith in one's ability to attain the same awakening as countless others have. Secondly, great doubt represents the relentless desire to inquire and know the truth about one's being - inquiries like 'who am I?' Or ruthless truth's kind or inquiry (which is not the same but I digress) or other forms of investigation be it zen koan practice or mahamudra style vipashyana investigation. Great doubt, great inquiry and investigation shall result in great realization. Finally, great determination - never give up, great desire to know the truth. With these three key factors, there is no way you won't be enlightened soon. P.s. "I am liberated" is not true ultimately (there is no I) but for conventional purposes, "I am liberated" is just as fine as saying "I am walking" or "I had lunch today". Also, rt's definition of liberation is different as rt's liberation is simply the dissolving of self-view or the three lower fetters, but Buddha's definition of liberation is the total liberation from all sufferings, afflictions, and the ten fetters. Btw the Buddha himself proclaimed loudly that he was the rightly self-awakened one.

to truly realize and effortlessly experience the suchness of seeing, hearing, etc... One has to realize the twofold emptinesses which ends the establishment of subject and object... Leaving naked unreified experiencing, as kalaka sutta explains. Otherwise our experience will continue to be tainted by false projections and clingings, so we will never be able to "see things as they are"...

there is nothing beyond the middle way. To state there is something beyond middle way is to fall into extremes. As Namdrol said: "Even Norbu Rinpoche asserts that in his rdzog chen skor dris len that Dzogchen view does not go beyond Madhyamaka in terms of formal statements of the view, citing Sakya Pandita to the effect that if there would something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme, and so on." I and Thusness don't like the mountain, no mountain then mountain stages. It could be used in terms of prajnaparamita dialectics: because A is not A, therefore A is A, in which case that would be fine. But more often than not, the three stages is interpreted from a substantialist nondual perspective. Since the three steps is vague and can lend itself to a variety of interpretations. There is no clarity about what insights it is talking about. The second step may not be buddhist emptiness, but the I AM stage understanding: "the world is illusory, brahman alone is real" and the third stage could be substantial nondual understanding: "brahman is the world". If one has direct insight of emptiness, naturally one sees mountain as without mountain-essence, while vividly appearing. This is the unity of appearance and emptiness. One will also not fall into extremes of non-existence or existence.

as explained above, I do not have positions and do not assert non-existence. You have never heard me say "you don't exist" but "there is no you to exist or not exist and also "there is no you but also no 'no you'" since I negate existents without asserting the non-existence of existents. You also need to re read this: " knowing is always with an object... Even if that object is formless mental luminosity. In realizing anatta it is seen that seeing is always just the seen, knowing is always just the known. I have told lucky not long ago: "sorry I know you are probably too tired for discussion but I still have to clarify something. The realization of anatta arises from direct experiential insight and not an inference. It is not an inferred conclusion due to not being able to locate the whereabouts of an agent or perceiver. Similarly the emptiness of objects is not just about being unable to locate where phenomena is, it is the direct realization of dependent origination and the corelessness of all phenomena. Anatta realization is also not inferred conclusion from peak experiences of no-mind which you had. It is the irrefutable seeing that "seeing is just the seen", that the actuality of what "seeing" is is simply the stream, the process of seeing without seer. It is not "I cannot locate where the seer is, therefore I conclude there is no seer", but rather, there is the direct realization that there is no seer, no core to mind, and waking up to the nature of seeing. It is a waking up, like suddenly you realize what you call "wind" is just the entire blowing activity, so too is the luminosity, presence, awareness simply a term collating the self-luminous stream or process. There is no inference involved, and in fact you clearly see that an unchanging mind is infact totally inferred just like an unchanging windness of blowing is inferred out of the "view of inherency"... it is either you realize this or not. If you realize this you can never unsee it... No inference at all. Luminosity cannot be denied, it is only the view of duality, and the view of inherency that must be seen through. " "