xabir2005

The absence of inherent existence, aka emptiness, is twofold. Emptiness of self and emptiness of objects. When you realize emptiness of self, you realize that there is no subject, no eye, that is behind the seeing. You realize this: seeing IS the seen, in seeing only the seen, in hearing only the heard. The process is self-luminous, knowing is simply what is known. That an agent is simply an inferred existence due to ignorance of anatta, while in actuality the process itself is the knowing. So at this point, it is like what Thich Nhat Hanh says: Sunshine and Green Leaves "When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'." "..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...." "In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one." At this point, you not only experience, but realize, there is no eye and ears, like in the 9th oxherding picture: http://www.sanbo-zen.org/cow_e.html What could be superior to becoming blind and deaf in this very moment? Come to think of it now, why didn't I become like a blind and deaf person right away? "Blind and deaf" here means a state of mind where there is nothing to see and nothing to hear. When you see, there's only the seeing, and the subject that sees doesn't exist. When you hear, there's only the hearing, and the subject that hears doesn't exist. The objects which are seen or heard are, just as they are, without substance. But understanding the logic of this will not do. When this is realized as a fact, you become like a "blind and deaf" person. When we realize first fold emptiness, we realize that 'mind', 'awareness' is empty of a self. It is not a subject. It is a stream of happening. But after this, there is also the second emptiness to penetrate - the emptiness of objects. This is about realizing the ungraspability, unlocatability, of whatever dependently originates - therefore whatever appears are like an illusion. But if you jump to the 2nd emptiness without going through the 1st emptiness, you will still cling to an inherently existing mind.

Can mind/experience be located somewhere? Or is it just an intangible aware-emptiness? This is the way to see that mind has no inherent existence.

Thanks for the sharing As RT would say, "that's a confirmed"

Yes, mind too is dependently arisen. There is nothing ultimate, permanent, or independent about mind. "All is mind" simply means all experiences are mental perceptions/experiences, like a dream, you can see, hear, things that seems real (especially in lucid dreams), but it is entirely mind. Waking life is not really different. I don't mean "false concepts and discriminations"... I mean mind, and the nature of mind which is luminous and empty.

Agent is simply a mental conceiving of an inherent self. Such an inherent self cannot be found and is a conjured illusion, much like santa claus. Santa claus, being an illusion, is not real to begin with, so it would not make sense to speak of the presence or absence of santa claus, or the presence or absence of agents. An agent, perceiver, or controller of things was never real to begin with - there is simply perceiving, and doing, and it has nothing to do with the illusion of a perceiver or controller, or rather that illusion of a perceiver or controller has no relevance or control of how reality functions. An illusory seer cannot see, an illusory controller doesn't act - perceiving simply happens as a self-luminous act of cognizance, doing simply happens. Do you see this? But if you say the absence and presence of ignorance (mental conceiving of santa clauses, agents, inherent existence) dependently originates, then yes of course. But not a real self, per se.

Yes, indeed, everything is just mind/perception which is like an illusion - insubstantial, unlocatable, ungraspable. But... I would like to quote Thrangu Rinpoche here: "The Dzogchen and Mahamudra instructions tell us that we must recognize and then train in seeing that throughout their inception, duration and disappearance every perception and every mental image is an empty cognizance. Both practice systems consider it very important to train in acknowledging that the perceived is the light of dharmakaya, in other words, that we recognize the nature that is innate to every perception. At first glance, this appears to correspond to the view of the Mind-Only school, which asserts that whatever you experience is only mind. it is an interesting perspective, but one to which the Middle Way school raises objections. For instance, in his Ornament of the Middle Way, the eminent Indian scholar Shantarakshita says that though it is fine to declare that whatever we experience is mind only, we still need to question whether it is reasonable to claim that the mind itself ultimately exists. In other words, the Mind-Only point of view is good in the sense of establishing that perceptions are mind, but we still need to question whether mind itself has ultimate substance. It is very important and useful to train in all perceptions being the light of dharmakaya." In Buddhism, everything is not established, rigpa is not established, mind is not established... therefore we do not subsume things into an ultimate source/mind - everything is mind, and it is this luminous mind/perception that is insubstantial, like an illusion.

It has been my experience that a lot of people will dismiss what I say and also Thusness's 7 stages as nonsense, purely out of lack of experience and ignorance. But when they realize what we realize, they will come to appreciate the precision of what we say...

Their teachings, advices and maps (they call it four yogas) are great imo. Get these books and take their advice seriously... Dakpo Tashi Namgyal: Clarifying the Natural State: A Principal Guidance Manual for Mahamudra Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche: Crystal Clear: Practical Advice for Mahamudra Meditators Essentials of Mahamudra: Looking Directly at the Mind

Thanks, will check it out when I hit my local Buddhist bookstore.

thuscomeone, have you read Mahamudra teachings?

If insights of anatta and emptiness is present, the master will very clearly present it. Like my link I showed you. It will not be vague. Whatever expressed so far only show substantial non-dual realization.

Not the same. Your stage nine is saying everything is expressing an inherent essence/Awareness. Means everything is the same Awareness. Sound is Awareness expressing itself as sound, Sight is Awareness expressing itself as sight, etc. This is substantial non-duality, like Ken Wilber's description in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

If you have truly realized anatta, then cherish your realization because you have surpassed most masters in terms of insights. But don't be proud.

You are not seeing what it says. You are caught up in words but not understanding what it's pointing at. Just because it says 'shunyata' means it is shunyata? "In this picture there is no subject and no object; the man and the ox have both disappeared. But there is also no idea of negating the existence of the man or the ox. All opposites dissolve into the ground of being." In other words? Subject and object subsumed into inherent oneness. Substantial non-duality. To me, no-mind is like PCE. There is just the multiplicity. There is no more referencing back to a Self or a substantial Oneness. Yet.... It may simply be an experience, without the realization. When realization arises, no-mind is effortless and natural and implicitly so. For example, someone at substantial non-dual may at times have no-mind experience, where they forget the source and what's left is just the world. Yet because they have not had realization, they did not overcome their view of inherency, so they will keep referencing back. The realization is that 'in seeing always just the seen, in hearing always just the heard'... effectively awareness is just a label for the self-luminous process, there is no agent and no inherent source. And you might not see dependent arising in no-mind. Actualism never talked about dependent arising but 'no mind' is everywhere in their teachings.

You are way too concerned about maps. I have studied various maps myself, but in most occasions I am disappointed by their lack of certain insights. Do you think the insights of anatta or shunyata is even presented in the map you just posted? It is only substantial non-dual. Most Zen masters, if they even get to non-dual, stops here (there are of course, exceptions). I prefer you to read this commentary about the ten ox-herding pictures, at least the commentary of Stage 9 is very clear about Anatta: http://www.sanbo-zen.org/cow_e.html However I have to state, the original text (contrast to the commentary which does show insight) of the 10 herding doesn't show Anatta insight. It is about the realization of I AM, then training, practicing, and refining the experience until one stabilizes in No-Mind experience. If you didn't know, No-Mind experience is not the same as realization of Anatta. It can simply be a peak experience. Anatta is a permanent realization, not just an experience.

And... this does not contradict what I quoted in my blog article. Shurangama Sutra is talking about a beginningless luminous mind. It does not make eternalist assertions* of mind. Shurangama Sutra also argued against the non-Buddhist view that mind is permanent while arisings are impermanent: "(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." Shurangama Sutra does not deny mind and its luminosity, but denies the permanence and inherent existence of mind. ----------------- * http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged. * http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light 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… ~ HHDL

I have not attained annutarasamyaksambodhi, neither do I think any such being exists today, so I cannot verify someone's Buddhahood.

Mind and matter are interdependent relatively... non-arising, like an illusion, ultimately.

they are not really stages as there is no fixed linear steps to it, just revelations when certain revelations when certain veils are lifted. For example I had the experience of impersonality a few months after the realization of I AMness. Some had it before any realizations, some christians experience it while praying and submitting themselves to God. It felt like I was being lived by a higher power, that the source is living and expressing me and everything and everyone, so it appears that there is a common source and there is no personal doers living life or more precisely the person is being lived. The personal self construct dissolves but the capital S Self construct still remains. But even after anatta, the absence of agent is realized, thusness still asked me to practice letting go of personality, that is why it doesn't mean impersonality is a lesser stage. When the sense of a seperate dualistic experiencer is removed either as an experience or as a realization, what reveals is total seamlessness and intimacy with everything being experienced. Everything reveals itself as luminous presence, consciousness, occurring at zero distance. Though dualistic self is released, there is still the sense of a nondualistic self. The big Self is finally relinquished at anatta. There is nothing inherent about consciousness. There is no agent, not even a perceiver being one with the perceived. So these are the different degrees of the self/Self bond in short.

To be free from suffering in the dream of being chase by tigers, even though it is simply a dream, you need to wake up. When you wake up, you realized you attained nothing. But it does free you from suffering, even though suffering too is part of the dream and hence not real in the sense everything in the dream is just like an illusion. If you don't know reality is empty and dream like, you are bonded by it.

I call it anatta for a reason, and not no self. No self can imply impersonality, can imply non-duality, can imply anatta. They are different stages of experience... Different realizations or experiences rather and yet each has to do with a certain aspect of 'no self'. Anatta refers to no inherent self, not just the no self of impersonality or non-duality. I call it anatta rather than 'no inherent self' as its shorter. Anyway, any doctrine of self leads to clinging and suffering. That is why I generally am not interested in what someone thinks the 'self' is.

What's wrong with dismissive statements? I'm not saying the site is without merits, but certainly it has nothing indicative of the insights I mentioned. Anyway what has what I said got to do with Thusness? I am saying it because it is very obvious to me, based on experience, that whatever said does not indicate insight of either anatta or I AMness.

I am saying there is nothing indicative of an understanding or realization of anatta by the author. Neither is there an indication he or she understood the I AMness realization otherwise he would value the insight more instead of simply putting the notion down (he would not throw the baby out with the bathwater).

that site has no idea what the realization of anatta is like. For example anatta is not nihilism, those realizing anatta do not neglect personal affairs, has nothing to do with getting rid of 'regular self', and also understands continuity in terms of continuity of process instead of total discontinuity. In other words our traits are being reborn and sustained as a process and do not imply a soul, therefore no contradictions.

this self is still mere conventions, as the texts have often stated, even enlightenment, nirvana, buddhahood is dream-like and insubstantial and in fact there is no wisdom, no attainment, no buddhahood in the ultimate sense