xabir2005

Yes. Everything arises dependent on various causes and conditions... This process of dependent origination rolls on without a beginning to be found.

Hmm... But anatta is not an experience, but what is already always the case, in seeing always just the seen, no seer, in hearing always just the heard, no hearer... So it is not the case that it is the experience of dissolving self, such experiences are temporary and common but not the same as realization.

as I have said many times... There is no you to exist or not exist. Denying existence does not mean I assert non-existence. Since there is no self-entity, existence and non-existence cannot be asserted. Therefore I deny all assertions without asserting non-existence to be truth, as said earlier: "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." In other words there is no you but no 'no you' or 'you do not exist' - it is a denial of existents without asserting non-existence.... So in seeing there is just the seen, in hearing just the heard, no you and no "no you" - just the suchness of seeing, hearing, etc.

No.. Liberation from views and clingings are not extreme. Asserting "is" and "is not", clinging to such views, is extreme. And "the true nature of reality" I.e. Emptiness is not a "thing" to be seen. Namdrol: 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.

I have no positions. If there is an 'I' and some object which I 'know', then I have fallen into the extremes. Therefore as my taiwanese teacher says, this is about seeing there is no-thing to see and realizing there is no-thing to obtain.

we can't have mutual recognition unless there is utter clarity that what we are talking about is the same.

actually asserting mind as the sole reality that has inherent existence is precisely the position of lucky. He is a non-dual substantialist. And no, it is not that he mistakes me for being on the emptiness-no-form extreme, but he is against what I said regarding the emptiness of mind and anatta.

I did not say it is the best for everyone since what is best is simply what one is inclined to and have a capacity for. E.g. Thusness told me that my mom suits doing kundalini practice more than self-inquiry due to her experiences and inclinations. Self-inquiry is not for everyone, but as R.M. says, is a direct and infallible path to self-realization, and one which he says, "To all deep-thinking minds, the enquiry about the "I" and its nature has an irresistible fascination." (Ramana Maharshi, MG, 72.) So if you are so inclined, self inquiry is best for you.

I do not meant to imply disagreement, just a clarification.

I said earlier how there is no knowing without a known... Hence a non objective and truely existing seeing is baseless. Just found something from namdrol while reading dharmawheel just now: Seeing isn't a charateristic, it is an action. N adinatha wrote: "Seeing and knowing continuous and effortless." Seeing without an object to see? Such seeing is useless as well as impossible. Apart from what has been seen and what has not been seen, there is no present seeing. N ....... adinatha wrote: "Not eye faculty seeing. "Seeing," as in "I know, I see." For example, how do we "see" space? Is space an object? When there's no seeing, how do you know?" The same thing applies "Apart from what has been known and what has not been known, there is no present knowing". The mental faculty is not exempt from this. Once you take a position such as you have i.e. "I know that I know", you are dogmeat. N ..... It is part of the dialectic, something known depends on something which has not been known. What Nagarjunga is pointing out is that there is no "knowing". His dialectic serves to negate all present tense as well as infinitive verbal forms i.e. Apart from what has been perceived and not been perceived, there is no perception, etc. M ......

state implies a particular state of experience Emptiness is not a state, it is the nature of all states or experience. Lucky and I have fundamental disagreements with regards to the nature of mind: whereas he establishes mind to have inherent existence, I do not.

I do not have a point of view. Existence and non-existence are points of views. The 'I Am conceit' as buddha calls it is the most fundamental pov that leads to rebirth and suffering. To be freed from such extremes is to be free from views and positions. I have stated in the past many times, there is no you but also no "no you" - just in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard. (With regards to anatta insight) I negate without asserting non-existence, so I am not a nihilist and do not have a point of view. Today I just found something well said so I'm going to quote them because it expresses what I said earlier with clarity. "If I had a position, I would be at fault, Since I alone have no position, I alone am without fault" -- Vigrahavyavartani. "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

no, there is no you to destroy

no... No independent/inherent existence is just the way things are, it is the nature of reality. Just like you do not call "impermanence" a "state"... It is simply the way things are so... Constantly fading... Vanishing without a trace. Emptiness is the nature of reality and not a state. The realization of the nature of reality is called the arising of prajna wisdom.

it is not "almost"... It IS a unity. While appearing, it is empty of inherent existence... While empty, appearances are diverse. Appearance-emptiness, like an illusion, like a dream, like a magician's trick.

That is true - there is no "more" direct path because all direct paths are equal, as it leads the practitioner straight to truth. It is a straight path and direct pointer to truth. When the person is ripe, self inquiry only need to be asked once... And self realization is attained - such as ramana maharshi, eckhart tolle, etc. Others take a little longer (like me, still less than two years)

if you go look around you'll clearly see there is a distinction and difference between direct path and gradual path practices.

you can write a thesis on luminosity and impermanence - but to talk about it as a theory, philosophy, or logic is quite besides the point - better to lead the reader to an experiential seeing of these truths rather than have them form conceptual models about them. Some understanding is necessary but not to get too heavily conceptualized or theoretical imo. My anatta inquiry is bahiya sutta inquiry... I didn't practice searching for a self, rather by investigating whether "in seeing there is just the seen", I realized directly "in seeing just the seen", "seeing is the seen" without agent, beyond a logical comprehension of it. The Buddha thought upon his enlightenment, "This Dhamma which I have realized is indeed profound, difficult to perceive, difficult to comprehend, tranquil, exalted, not within the sphere of logic, subtle, and is to be understood by the wise. These beings are attached to material pleasures. This causally connected 'Dependent Arising' is a subject which is difficult to comprehend. And this Nibbāna -- the cessation of the conditioned, the abandoning of all passions, the destruction of craving, the non-attachment, and the cessation -- is also a matter not easily comprehensible. If I too were to teach this Dhamma, the others would not understand me. That will be wearisome to me, that will be tiresome to me." Shunyata, anatta, non dual, etc aren't realized by logic. The I AM realization too is beyond logic. The selfinquiry process is simply "turning the mind inwards to realize the source" and not an intellectual analysis about being. The truth simply cannot be touched by concepts. If thoughts are any useful there, it should be a thought about the limits, inaccuracy and uselessness of thoughts in approaching truth (hence leading to the abandoning of those conceptual reasonings in favour of direct experiential investigation). The neti neti process is an example of useful thoughts, but even that is secondary to the true purpose of selfinquiry - neti neti is not enough to attain selfrealization, which can only be attained when one traces the radiance to the source, to that pure luminosity or undeniable fact of presence-awareness prior to concepts. I agree framework must come with honest investigation which I did, otherwise no matter whether I have faith in that framework, I will simply not see it and its implications in experience. In other words no realization, no quantum shift in perception will occur. Many people studied teachings about anatta and emptiness and may be well versed in nagarjuna but doesn't mean they realized. I agree bahiya sutta is about arhatship. This is because bahiya sutta teaches firstfold emptines aka anatta, whereas the mahayana prajnaparamita sutras (along with the rare instances of pali canon like phena sutta) emphasizes not only anatta but more about the secondfold emptiness. However, secondfold emptiness does not deny firstfold but is merely a progression. Secondfold emptiness is not a recourse back into inherent existence, mind or self of the hindu eternalistic view... It is a progression that includes and further expands on the original insight of anatta. Whereas anatta is the emptiness of self in a person, the second is the emptiness of self in all phenomena. Mahayana does not deny anatta (there is a lot about it - see diamond sutra etc) but simply points to a subtler aspect of emptiness relating to all phenomena. Buddha, Nagarjuna, Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc all do not establish anything including the inherent existence of mind. I have not read all sutras indepth (some are hundreds of pages long) but I have a general idea what they are about.

haha But notice I didn't say there aren't other similarly effective and fast direct path methods. That would be kind of naïve. I simply said this is one of them... Direct paths are any form of direct inquiry that leads to experiential realization. There are gradual paths emphasizing development of experience foremost before realization happens. An example of direct path is selfinquiry, or thusness's anatta verses and ruthlesstruth inquiry. An example of gradual path is actualism and vipassana in general. Maybe I should add a clarification when I bookout from camp.

sometimes texts provide reasoning too and sometimes they support my reasoning. If a discussion calls for reasoning I will try to explain in my own words too but sometimes what is necessary is simply relentless inquiry into emptiness or anatta - just as rt always ignore the nonsense people spout and ruthlessly ask them to investigate no self. You can't reason yourself into truth... But of course when possible I will try to explain what this is about, and then it is up to the person to investigate it for themselves and truth will reveal on its own accord. The Buddha didn't give a lot of reasonings or he did but are limited cos truth can't be approached intellectually. I can give a simple analysis like chandrakirti sevenfold reasonings but it is limited how logic can comprehend something that is direct and upfront so to speak, just as I don't think it makes sense to write a logical thesis on "the logic/philosophy of luminosity" or "the logic of impermanence" from an insight perspective, since these are simply truths to be discovered through non conceptual insight instead of logical reasoning. When you realize I AM, this isn't a realization derived from the use of logic - it is not an inferred truth, but a basic fact being realized to be so. Same for non dual, anatta, etc. So someone uneducated and intellectually dull may very well realize emptiness without reading the philosophy of nagarjuna (and I must admit I never read much of those) by following the pithy pointers of mahamudra or dzogchen teachers. So the Buddha instead asked people to contemplate and observe anatta in meditation such as vipassana. Also in bahiya sutta, he simply gave a short teaching on anatta after which bahiya immediately got liberated, and he was praised, "Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound." The variety of Buddhist texts point to twofold emptiness so what I picked and the countless other scriptural texts, most I have never read before, wouldn't disagree. I just don't have time to read the long sutras... Yet. I only read short texts and excerpts from others. Also, having a framework is fine - there will be times where your understanding disagrees with a framework as your framework of duality and inherency is still intact (regardless if you knew about anatta, d.o. Etc intellectually) - even though I had a general understanding of anatta I still held on to an unchanging awareness for eight months from the point of realizing I AM, before I realized Anatta, after which the insights deepened and d.o. And emptiness became experientially clear. All these insights came rather quickly because I had been trained in the view of the twofold emptiness and d.o since years ago (without which I would probably still be stuck at I AM level of understanding right now)... So I kept investigating accordingly (such as bahiya sutta, mahamudra pointing outs etc) along with the right view. Then at some point, when there is true realization and experience the framework may have served its purpose and like a raft is cast aside at the other shore - but also not to leave the raft too early in favour of "non conceptual experiences", otherwise you will not see the subtler truths about emptiness. First have right view, then experience and investigate and see for yourself... Imo this is best

I speak what I realized... Well it was not always the case, of course I used to speak by knowledge years back. Actually this is a good practice because in buddhism, establishing right view is actually helpful and important for realization. That is why in those days years back, thusness often tell me to write summaries of what I learnt - I think it is helpful as I was able to sort through what I know, and increase my clarity about them. That is why learning and explaining is important and meritorious as I quoted earlier. I don't think it is wrong to quote and why does quoting mean resorting to authority? It could simply be that it was well put, and secondly it will be good for those who do not know buddhist texts to get some knowledge about them. If you notice I also quote the urls of the quotes usually so they can read indepth if they are interested. Anyway i did explain in my own words, sometimes, sometimes not, most ofte I did offer some explanation as well as some quotes from others.

causes and conditions are also empty and unestablished. So I do not say causes and conditions and the process have reality - they are utterly unestablished and have no reality. The difference is lucky says "there is no reality other than mind" which means mind has reality. I say, and like third karmapa said, even mind is empty without reality, but being empty its manifestations are infinite and unceasing and its essence is luminous clarity. Emptiness, luminosity and manifestation are inseperable. Also, determinism and free will are extremes that depend on subject object dichotomy to which I do not admit. One is self being controlled by objects, the other is objects controlled by self. But for arguments sake, even objects controlling objects do not make sense - objects merely serve as condition, and not control, arisings. There is no control, but there are influences and imprints and actions which are very important on our part - in other words we cannot leave things to fate and do nothing, and because there is no such thing as fate but only action and reaction, so conventionally we are the masters of our life through our actions, even though actions too arise not without conditions and there is no doer or controller of actions and thoughts (there are the manifestations of will and intention tho).

accruing merits never occured to my mind, even though I know their importance by experience. For example I had a pure intention for others to know the subtle emptiness teachings of nagarjuna which I shared an article in the forum, and because of that the realization of emptiness just happened... When I was reading some articles from the same blog. There are other instances where merits and pure intention were followed by certain realizations and experiences. But when I do things, I do not do for the purpose of getting merits. I do it for the intention of helping others. And I don't see why I should stop quoting. Some quotes express my personal realization well - no problems quoting them. Of course they must agree with my personal realization else I wouldn't have quoted them. And of course I did explain what my realization is, many times in this forum and all over my ebook.