xabir2005

Lol

When insight of anatta arises, everything already comes full circle (doesn't mean final insight tho). Before that, whatever you do including trying to accept things, neti the views etc, all attempts and actions at pacifying suffering are still part of the loop. If you are still in the nightmare of dream monsters then all attempts to alleviate the suffering by acceptance, transformation, purification, whatever you want to do about it... Wouldn't work and is more unnecessary actions. Once the dream monster is seen to be baseless (seen, not thought) then nothing needs to be done. For example the insight of anatta means in thinking just thought, in seeing just seen. Means thoughts of monster, just a thought. Thoughts of self, just a thought. A manifestation. If there is in thinking just thought, then the sense of self is also just a thought, a manifestation then by definition it cannot be a real entity. In that case whatever arises is simply as it is and nothing needs to be done about them. There is no need to push away thoughts of self or anything at all in search of "freedom" when they are no longer taken to have a solid basis. Only when anatta is not realized, self is taken to have basis, that there is this whole attempt to "get rid of ego", "seek for freedom", etc. Usually these people have various degrees of transcendental experiences, but the realization of anatta has not arisen. After anatta, all these simply become meaningless. So what does freedom look like? Birds are singing, grass is green, thoughts about myself, thoughts about monsters and santa claus. Everything is amazing as it is. This is certainly a freedom that transcends notions and attachment of freedom, it certainly includes ignorance and enlightenment (three poisons itself is liberation). This certainly is ordinary mind. P.s. I think Master Seung Sahn 360 degrees is substantial nonduality, not anatta.

if there is a Being being untouched by the world, that is not even anatta much less shunyata (emptiness). Your description does not indicate an experience or insight into shunyata.

I mentioned in my previous post, wrong view is liberation, not the eradication of it. Three poisons is liberation, not the eradication of it. What is three poisons? Craving, aversion and ignorance. Realizing and seeing ignorance for what it is, ignorance reveals to be self-liberating. No need to purify, transform, or do anything to it. Thoughts of self is just as fine as thoughts of no-self.

To the one who thinks I am paroting thusness (which I don't recall doing in this thread): even Buddha cannot shake me from my realization, even if Buddha tells me "what you realized is wrong", ill be like, ok that's weird, even the Buddha is wrong sometimes (hypothetical situation as I'm sure it won't happen). Much less thusness. This is an ejournal documenting my experiences and realizations: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html But think whatever you want man. I have no intentions to be seen as "an enlightened person" that sometimes come along with weird projections and expectations. None of my real life friends would suspect I have some "realisations" unless I tell them so. I am just an ordinary person with a peculiar interest in dharma. To thuscomeone: I honestly have no thoughts of anatta, self, no self, or emptiness in daily life unless I am posting in forums for the sake of pointing things out. I have more important things to do and think in daily life. But when something is dropped, when you wake up, you can never see things the same again.

Going out of context again. Sure, I prefer to eat ice cream than eat shit. That is not what is in question here. Thuscomeone thinks I prefer the thought "there is no self" than "there is self". I say those thoughts are completely irrelevant. Once you wake up from a dream, you can never again believe in the dream monster, so whether thoughts of the monster arise again is completely irrelevant - I can keep thinking "self, self, self" or "monster, santa claus, rabbits with horns" without a problem - I simply can never ever believe that it is anything more than an empty label. More precisely, it is not that I "believe it is an empty label", there is no beliefs involved, rather it is a freedom from beliefs, fabrications, illusions. The thought "self" or "monster" is as ok or irrelevant (irrelevant as in having no real actual basis or relevance to reality) as the thought "no monster" or "no self". I live life without any regards to thoughts of "self", "no self", "baseless" etc. But this arises due to realization. Otherwise it is like what lucky said, merely creating another view of "no view", neti neti-ing away but still stuck in the loop. This is not true freedom. When realization arises, there is no need to reject views or neti them away, they simply become irrelevant. Thoughts of "self" is as self-liberating as thoughts of "no-self". This is true freedom that does not reject anything but sees it for what it is. The view and practice leads to the realization, which then renders the view irrelevant (the raft itself is dropped). But this is not done by neti-ing away the view, it simply happens when the raft serves its purpose - it dissolves everything including itself. Vimalakirti Sutra says wrong views are liberation not the eradication of views, three poisons are liberation not the eradication of poisons. What does that mean? Consider what I said above and you'll see.

Nope - I did not say I prefer one thought to another. I said, I see those thoughts to be baseless and illusory, therefore there is no basis for them to be clung to - what basis is there to cling to the notion of santa claus, or even whether he exists or not? Likewise for rabbits with horns, self, inherent existence, etc. Good night. I will be booking in back to camp tonight, enjoy your discussion with Lucky7Strikes and others.

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.] Same for me. I never established (propose) an inherent existence anywhere: whether it be things, awareness, self, or even no-self and emptiness. Therefore I have nothing to defend. But that doesn't mean I can't refute - all proposed/established positions can be refuted, as the Buddha himself had refuted the sixty something false views himself.

--------------

What do you mean by truth? If truth means there is inherent existence, then no self is not a truth. No self simply means self is not a truth (a pinnable reality). It ("no self") in itself is not an inherent existence. Even emptiness is empty. But: if someone were to assert that self is truth, I will certainly argue against it - as the Buddha himself have argued against the thicket of views.

Neither - I am simply explaining what I meant by not prefering any thoughts in response to your question. I am not responding to prove you wrong (well you haven't made an assertion for me to refute yet).

I am simply respondong to your question: "Do you prefer one thought to another thought? i.e. "there is no self" to "there is a self" And explaining why I do not prefer either thought (they are baseless and unnecessary) But to someone who hasn't realized, then "there is no self" should be investigated, realized, and then the view of an inherent self will be dropped.

You still don't get it. When you wake up from a dream of monsters, you just get on with life without ever believing in a real monster. You simply do not even give a second thought about monsters again! Why the hell would you want to keep thinking about whether there is monster or not? That's already seen through and dropped, you just move on. Ditto to notions of 'self'.

Let me try again: When you wake up from a dream of monsters, do you need to argue whether it exists? No. You see it is an illusion. Full stop. Only when you are sleep you try to argue. Of course I am being honest - no such illusion of self ever arose again. When you wake up from a dream of monsters, you do not want the thought "there is no monster" to be permanent. You just go on with your daily life, without the illusion and the suffering. That's all.

You are conceptualizing things without understanding what it means. "you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life" does not depend on "you can pin down the tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life" just like "you can't find santa claus" does not depend on "you can find santa claus" Of course! The thought "you can't find santa claus" only arise in response to the fabricated notion that "there is a santa claus" - which is why I have said, the teaching "you can't find santa claus" is a view, a raft, a pointer, for someone to wake up from the notion of a real santa claus, wake up and see that it is just fabricated like visions of flower in empty sky, and in the end there is not even a clinging to the thought "there is no santa claus" as notions of existence, non-existence, cannot apply to fabricated concept with no actual reality. You can't find santa claus, you can't find rabbits with horns - that is true - but it does not need to be clung to.

There is no self means there is no actual self, that self is mere fabrication. So no, I would not say that there is no self means there is a self. No self ("you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life") points out the fabricated nature of self, just like 'no santa claus' points out the fabricated nature of santa claus, without implying there is a real santa claus that could exist or become non-existent. In other words: when the unfindability of something is realized, there is no more basis for the establishment of an entity in order for the four extremes to work. No, once you realize the construct of self is an illusion, you do not need to cling to any thoughts of self or no-self. You do not need any thought to be permanent. Just as I have said so many times: once you wake up from a nightmare of dream monsters, you will not ever again suffer from the delusion of dream monsters, nor do you need to constantly remind yourself that there is no dream monster, nor do you need to make any thoughts about it permanent. The need to remind yourself, do something about the dream monster, get rid of it, attempt to remember that there is no dream monster, or whatever, can only occur when you are asleep. When you wake up, all those actions are ridiculous and baseless and unnecessary. In other words: what matters is whether the realization has occur or not. It's either you wake up, or not. If you do not, then you'll do all kinds of things about the dream monster (attempt to get rid of it, try to wake up from it, try to remember it is a dream, whatever - all of which presumes some reality to the monster) - when you realize no dream monster can be found or pinned down as an actual truth, you're free from needing to do anything with regards to an unreal fabrication. I never needed to remember or make permanent the thought 'there is no self' (except to point out something to others) ever once since realization of anatta occured. There is just a thoughtless sensate delight of just intimate (no distance/separation) seeing, just hearing, without any self-referencing.

The non-existence and existence of self predicates an inherently, independently existing self-entity to be found, that could come into existence, cease, be, or not be, etc. In other words: if realization of anatta arises, that there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard, just the five skandhas in which no self can be pinned down or located within or apart from the five skandhas, then thoughts of the existence or non-existence (or both and neither) of a self is found to be baseless. In Buddha's words: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"" And no, I do not completely agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article as his article failed to elucidate the realization of anatta. Seeing things as not-self does not imply the realization that you can't pin down a self as a truth or reality, that there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard. Like I said, I do not cling to any thoughts about anatta. 'I' woke up from a dream, a fabrication, that has no reality at all apart as a mental fabrication, a dream - to even say it exists or not exists would be ridiculous.

Yeah sure, to point out something to others, I have to use thoughts. No problem with thoughts at all. I just don't cling to it. For example, to someone imagining there is santa claus, I point out there is no such thing, it is mere imagination. But in real life I do not constantly remind myself there is no santa claus, that would be ridiculous. As a pointer - as a view - it is important to know, until realization occurs, then the view itself has served its purpose and can be discarded. Therefore: the view 'no self can be found' is a pointer, a view, that serves to discard the self-view, but the view itself is not meant to be clung to. In relation to anatta: there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just sounds, so the scenery sees, the sound hears, without delusion of a hearer, seer, etc. I also do not need to remind myself 'there is no hearer, no seer' like a mantra. It is something natural and effortlessly authenticated without reference to conceptual reminders.

"The self is unfindable" - "In seeing there is just the seen, no seer" - is not a thought, but a direct realization that ends all reification of self. There is no self to cling, and no no-self to cling. There is in seeing just the seen, which is not a thought. A seer is a thought-construct, like a thought construct of santa claus. It has as much reality as rabbits with horns. It is imagined, fabricated. 'There is no santa claus' is also a thought, but once you see that santa claus is false, you do not cling to the thought 'there is no santa claus'. To cling to the thought 'there is no santa claus' implies you are still uncertain whether there is santa claus or not, and you want to cling to a familiar thought to remind yourself. No such problems exist when realization occurs. When you wake up from a nightmare, you do not need to remind yourself that there is no dream-monster to comfort yourself. You simply woke up (from delusion, from fabrication, from imagination), period. That is why right view is needed, with right contemplation and investigation, and when realization occurs, the view (that there is no santa claus, no rabbits with horns, no self/agent, for example) itself naturally dissolves. It should not be done prematurely. No, I do not attempt to bring up a thought of 'no self'.

The unfindability of self is not itself a thing. I do not cling to the thought "there is no such self to be found".

Yes. A background as in a self persisting throughout experience. No such self can be found to exist.

First of all, emptiness is not a view, second, it is not a state but the true nature of all selves and phenomena, third, it is not a background. You really need to read this: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html 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