xabir2005

Me too. I don't follow sutras blindly. Fortunately shurangama sutra has rejected the notion of an unchanging mind giving rise to change as an externalist doctrine which it is. All appearances are mind, but mind is empty. This is basically what 3rd karmapa said.

what is convention has no (inherent) reality you basically think, objects cannot see, only subject can see. I basically say, there is no subject or object, because the seen is the seeing and the seeing is the seen, just like wind is the blowing and the blowing is wind instead of "wind behind blowing", so it is flat. What this translates to is that d.o. Is self-evident in what is seen. You directly see how the stick, hitting, air, hitter, is interconnected with this sound. Without reifying whatever I said conventionally as objective things (like I said, total relativity breaks down entity-view). Actually you don't need to know the past to see in direct experience what d.o. Is in its immediacy. But you also should not deny the past and even past lives. That would necessitate recalling and even past life remembering, yes. you are just assuming that the example does not hold whereas in actuality it does, if you have truly contemplated and realized anatta. And you are assuming aliveness to be a subject behind investigation. Mind is not a thing nor is mind a subject, mind is an ungraspable process and "there is" and "is not" does not apply as there is no mind-ness of mind anywhere, just like there is no wind-ness of wind, river-ness of river, car-ness of car or weather-ness of weather... Or a windness behind blowing, riverness behind flowing, awareness behind awaring, mindness behind knowing, seer behind seeing, hearer behind knowing. Even though there is no mindness I have not denied unreified, luminous and spontaneous experience - an ungraspable mindstream. A self-luninous ungraspable process of eighteen dhatus is all there is, and not even that "is" as it is utterly d.o., empty, unlocatable and ungraspable. Definitely no "one mind" or "brahman" of hinduism. P.s. You are the one steering to extremes by subsuming objects into a subjective one-mind. Whereas I do not assert the reality of subject or object.

like I said, there is no objectification at all. If you say there is no river apart from flowing, no wind apart from blowing, no awareness apart from the process of knowing, how is it objectification? It is only reification when you say there is an entity river somewhere behind the flowing, a 'wind' behind blowing, a 'hearer' behind hearing, etc. Anatta leaves you with non-conceptual unreified experiencing. your statement does not make sense. Just because there is investigation means there is investigator? That is your inference and assumption. There is just seeing without seer. Investigating without investigator. Observing without observer. there is no reasoning involved. This is not analytical meditation. This is direct experiential contemplation that leads to a direct experiential realization and not just an intellectual conviction.

don't flatter yourself. You are only "better" than the true lineages in your arrogance.

I do not rely on beliefs. I have realized and directly seen this to be so (seeing is just seen, hearing is just heard). "Is" does not apply to awareness or subject. I do not mean there is something heard, but it is just the self-evident clarity of appearances that the label "awareness" refer to, like the word "weather", but there is no subjective self or inherency to "awareness". in seeing just the seen, means there is no seer, whereas "seen" too is simply a convention for self-luminous unlocatable d.o. And empty appearance/display like weather. To say "there is just a display" does not imply the display must be inherently there, it could simply a tv show, a dream, etc but that there is no agent seeing the display is true. First we realize "weather" is an empty name, doesn't refer to some permanent independent entity apart from that process of clouds, rain, lightning etc, then the next step we realize clouds, rain, lightning etc is also just as empty and ungraspable as "weather". Step one does not contradict step two, its like 1) there is no weather 2) weather is just a convention for appearances 3) appearances are empty Step 2 does not reify phenomena, step 3 does not reify subject. They are absolutely consistent and complements each other.

investigation does not require investigator In seeing there is just the seen, in hearing there is just the heard. Seeing is, no seer. Hearing is, no hearer. Seeing is the seen, hearing is the heard. Deeds are done, no doer. anatta does not require reification of objects, however anatta alone does not remove reification of objects. Anatta is that awareness is an empty convention like weather, collating a ungraspable self-luminous process of the six consciousness that dependently originates, and not a subjective self or agent. There is no agent, perceiver. Shunyata is that even that process is unlocatable and empty. contemplating the non-locality of things leads to emptiness of object To realize anatta you have to contemplate what I said above ala bahiya sutta style.

basically you say, you cannot know the existence of insentient objects because only mind is real. Basically I say and the Buddha say, you cannot know the existence of insentient objects and sentient subjects because both object and self is empty. I do not subsume things into mind. I state that both self/awareness/mind, and all objects are empty. Self, awareness, mind, objects, sentient, insentient, all empty conventions. All luminous empty illusionlike appearances that dependent originates and thus are without arising, cessation, origin, abidance and subsidence.

This debate is very much like a debate between shentong and prasangika madhyamika, with lucky7strikes and goldisheavy representing the shentong view of emptiness

why not? D.o-ed experience is still experience, d-o.ed knowing is still knowing. Just not inherent.

Just want to clarify because I get a hunch my statements will be completely misconstrued. No mind does not deny mind but denies any inherency about mind. No awareness does not deny awareness but denies any inherency about awareness. Just like no weather does not deny weather but denies anything inherent about weather.

Like I said many posts before, contemplating on the unfindability of objects lead to the realization of the emptiness of object. But if you cling to the notion of a subject (mind, awareness), you should contemplate on anatta first until the emptiness of subject is realized.

mindstreams are conventionally personal/individual. I do not posit universal essence. Ultimately, there isn't even an 'awareness' (of any kind) much less a 'universal awareness'. You need to contemplate on anatta like I suggested to you in my previous post. Then you see that awareness is like the word 'weather', it collates an everchanging stream of the six consciousnesses yet there is nothing inherent about it - there is no 'one mind' or any sorts. Even six consciousness are ultimately unestablished like weather. Luminous appearance-play is not denied, like weather, but 'weather', 'awareness' are really an enpty convention for a process (that is unique for each mindstream) and ultimately since the process is utterly unlocatable and ungraspable, "is" or "is not" doesn't even apply there.

I mean you cannot find where experience and mind is located. This much you should know if you read Shurangama Sutra.

1) you don't need to know the entire universe to experience relativity just like you don't need to know the entire universe to experience, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no-self. It is simply a fact of immediate experience that can be experienced and discovered. 2) What appears yet is without substance, location, origin and destination, of course that's like magic, and how wonderful that is 3) Sentient and nonsentient causes are conventionally said to be so

On the ultimate level all events in samsara and nirvana never come into being, and so have no separate existence. On the relative plane they are illusory figments of mind, so again they have no separate existence. They are unoriginated events appearing in a plethora of magical illusion, which is like the reflection of the moon in water, possessing an inherent acausal dynamic. Since this essentially insubstantial magical illusion also never comes into being, ultimate and relative are identical and their identity is the one cause. Thus intuitive realization of [total presence] arises [with attainment of the unity of the two truths].- Padmasambhava - Man ngag lta ba'i phreng ba - Sonam just posted this in dharmawheel and I felt this is relevant and well-said.

There's a very good talk about anatta and no mind recently uploaded by Kenneth Folk: http://kennethfolkdharma.com/2011/06/journalistic-self-enquiry-the-who-what-when-where-why-and-how-of-selfing/

No substance whatsoever. Mind and matter are only conventions like the word 'weather' imputed upon a conglomerate of ungraspable/insubstantial phenomena. Consciousness does not only arise from itself. There is no one consciousness splitting into subjective experience. There are 6 (or 8) consciousness that dependently originates. You are implying there is a One Mind. This is substantial non-duality. Precisely. When you realize emptiness, you realize nothing is shared. You realize there is no mind, and no matter. All are just baseless appearances like a dream. Dogs see black flower. We see red rose. Quantum glasses (if such are invented) lets you see 99.999% void. You think matter is real and there are some characteristics to it, and that these characteristics are shared/universal. But matter is empty of intrinsic characteristics and utterly unestablished. We conventionally label matter as phenomena/appearances having the characteristics of solidity, liquidity, heat and motion (four elements) yet no substance whatsoever can be found. In reality the reason why we experience matter similarly is because humans have 'shared' (rather similar) karma, but this does not apply when we compare ourselves to other kinds of sentient beings. Mind and matter are mere conventions of appearances, ultimately non-arising. Rizenfenix (son who transcribed his father who is an old realized yogi probably a monk) says this best: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search?q=rizenfenix Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it. Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way. That’s not to 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. I think you experienced no-mind but you have not realized anatta. You are implying there is One Mind expressing itself in multiplicity. This is substantial non-dualism. You need to contemplate this: In seeing always only the seen/seeing is the seen In hearing always only the heard/hearing is the heard Then you will break substance-view of consciousness and realize anatta.

Nowhere, unestablished. You should ask the Buddha. I do not even know the next moment, much less 'the universe'. Elements actually arise from ignorance, not awareness. Therefore 'all-creating king' of Dzogchen is actually ignorance, not some Advaita ground of being. I'm not a Dzogchenpa, here's what Dzogchenpa Namdrol says: The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara. All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real. In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real. In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins. ....... In Dzogchen, mind and matter exist because of avidya. When there is no more avidyā,for you there is niether mind nor matter. I don't even know the next moment, much less the entirety of the universe. Speaking of something I have no experience of (omniscience), I can only refer you to someone more learned and experienced (Namdrol): Everything is a condition for everything but itself. Since the Buddhas have realized the nature of reality which pervades everything, theoretically, there are no limits to what a Buddha can know. If something can be known by a consciousness, it can be known by a Buddha . The subject of the omniscience of a Buddha is quite complicated. There is not even an atom, much less a universal process. Maha experience does not reify causes and condition, it does not mean there is a substantial objective universe causing this subjective experience. Experientially there is just an interconnected functioning, but it does not establish causes and conditions. It does not establish 'mind' and 'matter' as separate entities even though conventionally they can be named that way. It does not establish 'The Universe' - such a thing cannot be found, even though poetically it can be expressed this way: The universe is eating this apple, hearing the music. It is like... there is change, but there is no changing things, and in fact the realization of total-change should break down the notion that there is 'changing things' (since that implies there is unchanged entities undergoing change, which means not total-change), and similarly total-relativity should break down the notion that there is 'relative things' (since that implies there are unconditioned entities interacting with other entities and therefore not total-relativity). Experience is relativity and interconnectedness but there is no 'interconnected things'. In short, the realization and experience of interconnectedness actually breaks down the ideation of entities, and therefore breaks down the notion of causality. Realization of relativity un-establishes substantial relativity in the same way that the realization of change un-establishes movement. Maha is that experience of total-relativity just like no-mind is that experience of total-change. The clinging onto entities and self prevents these experience, or more precisely, maha and no-mind is the natural state of 'existence', yet clinging onto 'is', 'is not' of self and objects obscure the experiential seeing of what is. Whatever dependently originates, appears luminously yet is like an illusion, looks there but isn't, and therefore, is only an ungraspable and unlocatable relative functioning incomprehensible in terms of notions of is, is not, arising, abidance, and subsidance.

Typing cannot be found. There is just appearance, which is not denied, but nothing can be asserted: including laptop, including typing. Everything is like an illusion, like a dream. Like a dream of typing, conventionally said to be so... yet it isn't really real. Find out where does the thought come from, where the thought is, where the thought goes to. Find the core or essence of that thought. You will see that it is magical appearance, like a magic show - appearing, yet not truly there or anywhere, without a place of origin, abidance, and subsidance. You will realize that there is no essence or substance or thingness of that appearance, that there is no-thing coming into being and no-thing to cease. There is nothing locatable about fire. It is utterly unlocatable and ungraspable. There is no fireness of a fire... therefore there is nothing undergoing arising, abiding and disappearance... just self-releasing traceless appearance.

What is relative, is not true, i.e. not inherently so. This is ultimate truth. I never said relative realm 'looks different' from ultimate truth... There is only one truth, non-arising. Since what dependently originates cannot be found to have an essence anywhere, whatever appears is an empty-appearance without arising and ceasing. Emptiness cannot be understood apart from form*, and form is by nature empty. *the unfindability of weather as an independent locatable entity, is the nature of weather

What is relative, is ultimately empty, while empty, does not deny appearances. Emptiness and appearances are inseparable. You can dream many different unicorns, each with different colours. Are they ultimately different or same? Everything is dream-like.

As I told Simple Jack: "The deluded mind is what projects inherent nature to the aggregates and the interacting conditions. 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." And because I am going to have my driving lessons now and I'm a lazy hearer, I'm going to quote David Loy: "...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe. "...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..." "...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."

Ultimately there is no (inherently existing) causes and conditions that can be established, precisely because everything is dependently originated and empty. So ultimately speaking, there are no differences, nor sameness.

Also dependently originated. Due to imprints, influences, thought processes, etc. I do not believe in free will and I do not believe in determinism since these necessarily imply a dualistic split and each pole having control over the other.

No. There is a saying, but I can't remember the exact words, Buddha knows convention but is aware of the nature (emptiness). Means Buddha knows this is called apple, this person is called John and 'my' name is Shakyamuni. Even though ultimately everything/everyone is empty of self.