xabir2005

you are still running on the assumption that there is an actual world out there with inherent existence, just that its not knowable. Having cognized dependent origination and emptiness, I do not hold on to the view of an inherent self or inherent object... Much less one that is unknowable. All that is perceived is vividly known or experienced - but utterly unestablished. Therefore I am utterly free from all beliefs and views of a true existent, and propositions of "is" and "is not". Just as Buddha taught in the Kalaka Sutta: On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Saketa at Kalaka's park. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata[1] it has not been established.[2] "If I were to say, 'I don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, 'I both know and don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be just the same. If I were to say, 'I neither know nor don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a fault in me. "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "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. "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such — among the self-fettered — wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."

I have actually answered you. Your question presumes there is an independent "me" that can be pinned down as a reality or truth, and as Buddha said, if a "me" cannot be pinned down as a (independent, unchanging, truly existent with core) reality or truth, how can existence, non-existence, both or neither be applicable. "Me", "self" is therefore a convention for an ungraspable process of the five aggregates. To say "weather does not right in terms of conventional truth, but ultimately no weather-ness entity is there (to exist, not-exist, etc). Same goes for self.

http://awakeningtore...ung%20Dorje?m=0 third karmapa: All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever. Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut. Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self. By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence. May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut. .......... http://dharmawheel.n...w=unread#unread What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness. - namdrol

no, as the Buddha said, since a self-entity cannot be pinned down in or apart from the five aggregates, you cannot posit the existence or non-existence of a self-entity. The extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither only applies to an independent entity. If there is no self-ness in or outside the five skandhas, such propositions cannot be established. Also: http://www.accesstoi...eel414.html#ch2 WOULD AN ARAHANT SAY "I" OR "MINE"? Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self: "Consummate with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Would he still say 'I speak'? And would he say 'They speak to me'?" This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions. The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms: "Skillful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit: "No knots exist for one with conceit cast off; For him all knots of conceit are consumed. When the wise one has transcended the conceived He might still say 'I speak,' And he might say 'They speak to me.' Skillful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)

GIH view is closer to Hinduism. It is ok to say all is mind, if you understand mind is to activities as "wind" is to blowing activities. Mere conventions, nothing inherent. Mind is merely mindstream, the process itself rolls and knows without knower, mind is not an inherent subject or seer.

I never experienced anything like that. I think he probably haven't realized anatta yet. He could be going through what spirituality calls the dark night of the soul. http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram's%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/740E1DCD-75A5-4859-8530-13214BE1BA33.html

I agree wisdom must be complemented with compassion which is very important. However I disagree that nazis and killers have wisdom. They had intelligence, cleverness, which is a whole different thing from wisdom. With wisdom you will not be able to use intelligence to do harm unto yourself and others. Also when the realization and experience of no self is developed to the max, you will overcome the mental afflictions of craving, anger/aversion and ignorance. You will be rendered incapable of even being angry or fall under the chains of craving, much less commit crimes out of these afflictions.

they actually mean the same thing

I am free from beliefs. I understand how suffering arise: they arise due to delusion of inherent existence (unchanging, independent, truly existent), which leads to grasping, craving, aversion, attachments. My realization is of a direct experiential seeing of the nature of reality, the luminous and empty nature of phenomena occuring via dependent origination. D.O. Is indeed an observable fact... What what dependently originates is empty, so all appearances are empty of a graspable and locatable core or essence since phenomena arises due to dependent origination. This too is observable and realizable in direct experience and has nothing to do with beliefs. I mean sure, you can believe in it like I believed it for years - until true realization arises and then it no longer remains as a belief... All beliefs, views and clingings about reality dissolves.

conventions of self are not denied. What is denied is an independent agent or self-entity or essence.

all experiences are secondary to true realization. You can have experiences without insight. But insight is what liberates, not mere experiences. Insight (into the twofold emptiness) liberates you from false views (view of inherency) that leads to grasping and suffering When true realization arises, it can never be unseen again. Realization is permanent. And the fetter of self view, sakkaya ditthi, is permanently dissolved upon realization as taught by buddha.

I have already answered you. The link you gave me, http://www.hinduwebs...hism/anatta.asp Pretty much says it. Self is a mere convention predicated on the everchanging five aggregates, but there is no real agent or soul. (Just like weather, wind, etc is a convention for a conglomerate of everchanging dependently originated activities but no real weather essence is there.) Yet I always still use the word I, why? Because I am using conventions now even though I am aware of the nature of reality.

Dependent origination does not deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena and therefore are empty of any intrinsic characteristics or core. This is the realization of corelessness via the realization of dependent origination. Self-doubt is not liberation. The liberation from all doubts, beliefs and views through experiential realization of the twofold emptiness is what liberation is. And yes, I am not the same as others in one way: I am no longer deluded about inherent existence. And I have no problems with being different - if all my friends take drugs that doesn't mean I should, I don't want to be part of a group just because that condition is pervasive. If you think being deluded into inherent existence and therefore suffer is being normal and "part of the group" and those who are free of it by realizing the twofold emptinesses are "assholes", I'd rather be an asshole by being the free minority. (Oh and I don't see why we are assholes since we actually deeply care about liberating others from delusion and suffering - it is not like we are some elite uncaring group) I do not wish to be the majority of the world who are still suffering and in delusion. And this is what Buddha sets out to teach from the beginning - suffering and end of suffering. P.s. The appearance of thinking isn't denied, but since thinking dependently originates they are ultimately empty. This is the inseperability of the two truths, relative and ultimate. Therefore there is no contradictions whatsoever in my statements. ................. The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra When Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara was practicing the profound Prajna Paramita, he illuminated the Five Skandhas and saw that they are all empty, and he crossed beyond all suffering and difficulty. Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So too are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness. Shariputra, all Dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced, not destroyed, not defiled, not pure; and they neither increase nor diminish. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or Dharmas; no field of the eyes up to and including no field of mind consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, and no Way, and no understanding and no attaining. Because nothing is attained, the Bodhisattva through reliance on Prajna Paramita is unimpeded in his mind. Because there is no impediment, he is not afraid, and he leaves distorted dream-thinking far behind. Ultimately Nirvana! All Buddhas of the three periods of time attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi through reliance on Prajna Paramita. Therefore know that Prajna Paramita is a Great Spiritual Mantra, a Great Bright Mantra, a Supreme Mantra, an Unequalled Mantra. It can remove all suffering; it is genuine and not false. That is why the Mantra of Prajna Paramita was spoken. Recite it like this: Gaté Gaté Paragaté Parasamgaté Bodhi Svaha! End of The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra

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. "

yes. Not a passing meditation experience

To get a sense of this see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

Actually you didn't know... When you realize Anatta, or even Shunyata, you don't transcend physical reality. And when you realize Anatta... all experience becomes intensely wonderful, incredible, awesome, luminous, alive, blissful, delightful, thrilling, intense, that everything ordinary - roses, trees, becomes a magical fairy-tale-like wonderland. One becomes very very sensuous, and 'trips' on life effortlessly. All these because there is no 'self' separate from what is perceived... there is total intimacy there. There is literally total intimacy with everything - no distance! And I can assure you, that no matter how you try to 'smell the roses' you will never truly experience and see what I do... unless that illusion of self is removed. Yes, you can experience being alive and smell the roses with that illusion of self, but this is really at a totally different level... Now you don't see the mountain, you are the mountain, you dont feel the wind, you are the wind, and even that is not right! There is just wind blowing, that alone is... and is incredibly alive and wonderful with total intimacy. In Shunyata, one wonders at the incredible magicality of the universe - apparent and yet not there... yet so luminous and vivid and yet ungraspable, unlocatable and empty - like a magic show, like a dream. This is very blissful and wonderful to a whole new level. When I debate with people I don't often mention these things and experiences... so perhaps I sound a little empty, but I assure you the direct realization and experience is truly wonderful. And I can tell you that realization is the most incredible thing in life and you will never want to live life in your old ways... You will never want to trade your realization for ANYTHING else... this is way better than even being reborn in heaven (if you believe in heaven).

The 'Why' part has been explained in many posts, which you can refer back. There is no intellectual conclusions. There is however, freedom from self-view. This is freedom. I simply speak from realization.... however I do provide reasonings in multiple occasions on how it might be analyzed so that at least it can be intellectually comprehended and accepted (but don't stop there of course). As above. And luminous. Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable. Appearance and emptiness is inseparable. The inseparability is what the masters used postive terms like 'Buddha-nature' and so on. That's because you presume there is a self behind reflection... the contemplation on Bahiya Sutta (in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard) will lead to the realization that the process itself rolls and knows without knower. However I still think it is good to start from self-inquiry and realize I AM first, then progress to non-dual, and then anatta and shunyata, as per what I documented in my e-book and e-journal: http://awakeningtore...e-journal.html. It is not contradictory to Anatta, they are complementary insights.

The true nature of things is that they have no nature. No independent existence with its characteristics. (Like I explained the red flower example) Dependent origination is for all to see, therefore I am not an authority. I can report factually that there is no longer a self-view, a belief in self. Just like I can report factually that there is no belief here, that santa claus is real. I believe you can report the latter for yourself too. Yes I have no beliefs with regards to self. Just as I have no beliefs with regards to santa claus. And I have truly seen how there is no independent self, that in seeing is just the seen, in hearing is just the heard, etc. http://awakeningtore...lf-inquiry.html What the Reasonings Do Not Refute – Conventional Existence If things do not exist truly or inherently, do they exist at all? Or do they totally and utterly lack existence? The Buddha is quoted as saying, "What the world accepts, I accept. What the world does not accept, I do not accept." In the Middle Way teachings, it is said that things do exist conventionally. The conventional existence of the cup is the everyday ability of the cup to hold tea, to be washed and dried, and to shatter if dropped. The cup is a mere nominality or imputation or "say-so," asserted by the mind dependent upon certain pieces and parts. This conventional cup serves the purpose of a cup even though if it were analyzed with the Sevenfold Reasoning, it would not be found. The fact that it would be unfindable under this analysis is not significant, since nothing could withstand that analysis. The purpose of the Sevenfold Reasoning is not to negate every possible thing that can be negated; rather, it is to negate inherent existence – the conception of which causes suffering. The Sevenfold Reasoning is not applied to refute the conventional, everyday existence of things, such as the teacup, the self that goes to the grocery store, or the Yankees who won the 2000 Subway Series. There are three main reasons for not refuting conventional existence. One is that conventional existence, according to Middle Way Buddhism, is not the cause of suffering. Therefore, there is no necessity to refute it. Two, not refuting conventional existence allows Buddhism to be able to "speak with the world" by accepting what the world accepts. (Back to top) Three, not refuting conventional existence provides a way for Buddhism to present the Four Noble Truths and the eight-fold path to the end of suffering. Even though the Buddhist teachings are vast and profound teachings, they are still conventional existents. By not refuting conventional existence while indeed refuting inherent existence, Buddhism itself can tread the Middle Way between the extremes of existence. If conventional existence were refuted along with inherent existence, the Buddhist path would not be possible since nothing would be said to exist. Refuting conventional existence would err on the side of nihilism. Retaining conventional existence avoids this extreme. On the other hand, if inherent existence were not refuted, then too the Buddhist path would not be possible. Inherently existent things are independent of everything and therefore causeless, untouchable and eternal. If things existed inherently, they would be forever frozen in place, and no change or progress along the Buddhist path would be possible. Suffering entities would forever remain suffering entities. For Buddhism not to refute inherent existence would err on the side of eternalism. Avoiding both extremes is the Middle Way.

You have your belief systems. I have my direct realizations that ends all self beliefs, and is itself not a belief. You can never convince me to believe in a self because there is no way I am going to believe in it again, period... I have realized anatta and that illusion of self has ended. Buddha calls it dissolving the fetter of self-view, sakkaya-ditthi... once that is dissolved, it is permanent.

It has to be directly seen and realized. This is not a belief. Like you're in a dream of monsters, I ask you to investigate whether the monster is real and suddenly you wake up. Free from the dream... without adding another one.

Unfindability of an essence or independent entity, in what is dependently originated. The extremes of existence and non-existence can only be predicated upon an existent, locatable, independent entity. This is not the permanent freedom from views that realization of emptiness results in。 This is not true.

No, my whole point is that there is no 'actual thing'. Since things are empty, there is no thing-ness of things. Purely luminous simply means the lucid, alive, vivid, clear, intelligent, knowing, revealing/illuminating quality of experience or mind No such things as "actual reality" there is no such thing as a "self" or "inherent existence" Only five aggregates, processes, dependent origination and hence empty. In investigating the five skandhas no self could be found inside or outside, just like no weather-ness of the weather process can be found. Further, what is relatively dependent arisen is ultimately empty. You have to see this very clearly. Once you let go of inherent existence, you are liberated. No, it has to be a realization - no agent, no self, and the emptiness of phenomena via dependent origination. This realization basically ends all views. It also ends the view that there is an "actual world out there". Like I explained, I do not trade one belief over another. The realization of emptiness ends all views. Emptiness， being the nature of everything, can only be realized.

No... the thinker is the thought... more accurately, there is just the thought. But conventionally, this thought, this mind-stream, is different from that mind-stream. But that does not mean there are 'selves'. There are different mindstreams conventionally, but mindstream does not have a thinker. Just like there are different bodies, but it does not mean there is a soul apart from the body, which apparently you seem to agree earlier. Because I have woken up from a delusion without asserting something else. If I had established or asserted a new reality, it could be very well I have entered a new delusion, but I have not. I merely free myself from the views of 'is' or 'is not', but I do not assert a new reality (a new dream). I do not say Emptiness is real. Even emptiness is empty. Saying there is "no thinker" does not mean that there is a "no thinker". There is no "thinker", but also no "no thinker". I do not cling to views of existence, non-existence, emptiness, self, or no-self. The teaching of anatta and dependent origination and emptiness is like a fire that burns the stick, and in the end it disappears along with the stick, leaving.... nothing more or short of total freedom. Yet everything is still clearly vividly perceived - just nothing to cling to! When you have realized this, the teachings of emptiness by Buddha become completely clear to you... there will be no doubts. I am free from beliefs. The biggest and fundamental belief is 'is' and 'is not', of which I am freed. Because I do not hold on to views and beliefs. Nagarjuna says in Vigrahavyavartani (v. 29): . | I have no pratijna (= proposition, position) to defend. . ~ [Vg. 29. ~ If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error; ~ But I do not make a proposition; therefore I am not in error.] . .............. A view is a fundamental belief one holds about reality. For example, "everything exists" (sarva asti) .... The root of both these mistaken positions is "is" and "is not" -- for example "I exist now, and I will continue to exist after death" or "I exist now but when I die I will cease to exist". ~ Loppon Namdrol At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana: "Form is similar to a foam, Feeling is like water bubbles, Ideation is equivalent with a mirage, Formations are similar with a banana tree, Consciousness is like an illusion." ... "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. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views." ~ Loppon Namdrol

Actually, the fact that emptiness is how the world actually is, is simply a figure of speech. What I mean is: since everything dependently originates and is empty of an independent essence, 'is' and 'is not' does not apply to a 'world'. We cannot establish a world apart from those dependently originated, luminous and empty activities. Since everything dependently originates, there is no actual independently existing solid world. For example, if we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence. I do not assert an independent or unchanging reality in or outside the senses. The senses are purely luminous - shining vividly as pure clarity, and yet is empty of any locatable independent existence. It's apparent existence is completely relative to all its causes and conditions... and therefore are utterly unestablished. No that is not emptiness. Emptiness simply means the lack of findable, independent, unchanging existence. Delusion is the mistake of asserting that there is an independent reality - a self, and a world independent in and of itself. I did not say right belief liberates. I said, a direct experiential realization, a quantum shift of perception is what liberates. Believing this is useless, or maybe of some help as it points to the right direction but the pointer is not the seeing itself - i.e. I had believed this for years until I realized it by my own contemplation and direct seeing. This can help let go of some attachments, but it does not liberate you from that view of self and world as inherent, independent graspable realities. Realization is essential for liberation. It also does not liberate you from the dualistic view of subject and object. Letting go is a good practice, but it is not enough to liberate us from the views of inherency. Deeply rooted is the view that grasp at self and things... it cannot be suppressed by practices. It can only be uprooted via realization, deep experiential seeing. Actually I am not defining existence. I am saying 'existence' does not apply at all, so there is literally nothing to be grasped, and this frees you from grasping and suffering. You cannot find a real existence anywhere. And since no entity can be found, you cannot assert the non-existence of that entity either. The four extremes are transcended in the moment of realization.