xabir2005

The Buddhist Sutra of Mindfulness speaks about the meditation on the corpse: meditate on the decomposition of the body, how the body bloats and turns violet, how it is eaten by worms until only bits of blood and flesh still cling to the bones, meditate up to the point where only white bones remain, which in turn are slowly worn away and turn into dust. Meditate like that, knowing that your own body will undergo the same process. Meditate on the corpse until you are calm and at peace, until your mind and heart are light and tranquil and a smile appears on your face. Thus, by overcoming revulsion and fear, life will be seen as infinitely precious, every second of it worth living. ~ Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh

'I' don't sleep for my 'self', I sleep for my body-mind, eat for my body-mind, except that there is no 'my' body-mind - just this particular functioning body-mind without an 'I' or 'my'. That said, it's ok to talk about self in the conventional sense, and for convenience. Just that there is no inherent self. An enlightened person knows conventions, but is also aware of reality. This is why he is aware there is no self and yet respond to names. 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.

You're saying: ok there is no permanent car thing, but by the collection of car parts (engine, door, wheel, etc etc) there is a car. But if car is merely a designation for the parts coming together to perform a function, is there an inherent car thing apart or inside the collection or is there simply a conglomerate of parts working interdependently to perform a function with no core and essence anywhere locatable? Please read through this well written article carefully: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-kind-of-self-inquiry.html The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Phenomena: 1. The car is not inherently the same as its parts. 2. The car is not inherently different from its parts. 3. The car is not inherently dependent upon its parts. 4. The car is not inherently the substratum upon which its parts depend. 5. The car is not inherently the possessor of its parts. 6. The car is not inherently the mere collection of its parts. 7. The car is not inherently the shape of its parts. The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Persons: .... Excerpt: 6. The self is not inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind. Perhaps the self is inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind. The falsity of this one is a little harder to realize. Our sense of inherent existence of the self seems to put a little distance between the parts and the self. We seem to conceive of a bit of a gap between appropriator and appropriated, between agent and action, between "my" and "body/mind." In this alternative, all there is, is the body/mind. Why even talk about the self? There would be no need to have something called "the self" which is exactly the parts of the body/mind. Agent and action would be one. Self and body/mind would be one. The self would be redundant, and unfindable. Also, in the Middle Way schools of Buddhism that employ the Sevenfold Reasoning, it is said that the conventional self is not the parts themselves, but is posited on the basis of the parts. Based on apprehending those particular parts, a designated self is said to exist conventionally. It is not the parts, but is based on the parts. The appropriator and appropriated are slightly and subtlely different. There is room to make sense of "my life," "my actions." A self redundant with the parts cannot exist inherently. By the way if you think 'self-awareness' is necessary for proper functioning in life then I can assure you that it is redundant, it is an illusion, and it only causes suffering. 'I' (conventionally speaking) still act, perceive, live an ordinary life, even without the illusion of a self, agent, doer, perceiver.

Such distinctions are false and illusory, though not seen through, even after transcendental glimpses of Presence (which under the influence of dualistic tendencies/view will in fact solidify the sense of a Witness apart from the witnessed) such as Thusness Stage 1. Although such distinctions are made in the earlier phase of one's practice in order to have a glimpse of non-conceptual Presence, they are dropped after non-dual insight arises. In reality, there is no distinctions, there is no duality. As J Krishnamurti says, "the observer is the observed". Which is to say, there is no observer and observed. This is only realized in Thusness Stage 4 and 5. As Buddha teaches (which I and many have realized directly), in seeing just the seen, no seer. In hearing just the heard, no hearer. In thinking just thoughts, no watcher or thinker. Dzogchen Master Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche: "...In reality, the calm state is the essential condition of mind, while the wave of thought is the mind's natural clarity in function; just as there is no distinction whatever between the sun and its rays, or a stream and its ripples, so there is no distinction between the mind and thought..." "...all that is necessary is to maintain pure presence of mind, without falling into the dualistic situation of there being an observing subject perceiving an observed object..." Thrangu Rinpoche: "Although one recognizes the cognitive lucidity or the lucidity of awareness within emptiness, there are different ways that this might be recognized. For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish..." (continue reading this at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/nature-of-thought.html ) 14th century Mahamudra Master, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal: "When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya. "Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves. (continue reading this at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/11/few-excerpts-from-clarifying-natural.html ) Also see my older articles such as: Gap Between Thoughts, Thought Between Gaps

I think you can put it that way too.

Even the Buddha for you info suffered from sickness and pain, including very terrible headaches, and having to die from food poisoning. Enlightenment does not offer you relief from past karmas' ripening: it only prevents you from creating new ones and new cycles of birth and death. One pointed/calm-abiding/shamatha meditation doesn't reveal the natural state: you need a contemplative practice to discover your natural state, which involves investigation and direct looking. This is called vipashyana or insight meditation/insight practice, which can be practiced both in sitting and in activities. Insight doesn't separate stillness and activities, since realization means insight into the nature and essence of all experiences. Nobody said enlightenment is a must and life indeed goes on without enlightenment - but enlightenment does help a few things, like end all sufferings and afflictions, and eventually end the uncontrolled cycle of birth and death (though I am aware not everyone believes that rebirth exists). Also, it is not about 'categorizing people into numbers', but the fact is there are different kinds of insight which are very experiential in nature - it is not about ideologies or concepts or theories.

This is still the dualistic I AM phase of experience... See Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

Btw, I don't see awareness as 'looking out of my eyes'. From the perspective of others, I have an appearance, I have eyes, ears, nose, etc.... From the first person perspective, I do not have an appearance, I do not have eyes, I do not have ears, nose, etc... unless I look in the mirror, but what I see in the mirror is a reflected appearance and not 'what I look out of'. If I look at what I am looking out of, I find no appearances, no eyes, ears, mouth, face, etc... But most importantly, I also do not find a great void, a background mirror, a seer behind things. In the absence of a body, I find everything in the universe... self-felt, self-revealed. There is no Awareness looking out of my eyes at something... There is simply the universe being revealed by its self-luminosity without a looker and being looked, without an inside and outside. When this is seen, mind-body drops, no traces of a self or a distance between subject and object remains (you literally feel like you are the sun and the trees instead of 'looking at' the sun and trees) - but neither is there a 'subject' that is 'one with objects' - there is simply no subject and object, period... yet self-luminous manifestation rolls on without an agent. "To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever." ~ Zen Master Dogen p.s. Adyashanti's earlier works are talking about the I AM/Eternal Witness phase of experience and realization and are dualistic, only his recent works are about Non Dual - but it is substantial non-dualism (aka Thusness Stage 4)

Just chanced upon an old article in my blog - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/05/isness-of-thought-between-two-moments.html Dzogchen Master Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche: http://www.fudomouth.net/thinktank/now_nnawareness.htm Even if those who begin to practice this find it difficult to continue in this state for more than an instant, there is no need to worry about it. Without wishing for the state to continue for a long time and without fearing the lack of it altogether, all that is necessary is to maintain pure presence of mind, without falling into the dualistic situation of there being an observing subject perceiving an observed object. If the mind, even though one maintains simple presence, does not remain in this calm state, but always tends to follow waves of thoughts about the past or future, or becomes distracted by the aggregates of the senses such as sight, hearing, etc., then one should try to understand that the wave of thought itself is as insubstantial as the wind. If one tries to catch the wind, one does not succeed; similarly if one tries to block the wave of thought, it cannot be cut off. So for this reason one should not try to block thought, much less try to renounce it as something considered negative. In reality, the calm state is the essential condition of mind, while the wave of thought is the mind's natural clarity in function; just as there is no distinction whatever between the sun and its rays, or a stream and its ripples, so there is no distinction between the mind and thought. If one considers the calm state as something positive to be attained, and the wave of thought as something negative to be abandoned, and one remains thus caught up in the duality of accepting and rejecting, there is no way of overcoming the ordinary state of mind.

Not exactly... what you are describing are experiences and states and samadhis. These are transient. What Thusness is describing is realizations into the fact, nature, of existence. Stage 1 is the realization of the undeniability and certainty of pure beingness and existence. It feels like you have touched the core of your being and realized your true identity as that pure being or I AMness. Stage 2 is the realization of the impersonality of Awareness, which then appears to be a universal source of everything and everyone. Stage 3 is more of an experience though - it is dissolving the self into a state of oblivion and spontaneity. Stage 4 is the realization of non-duality of subject and object. Stage 5 is the realization of Anatta (Buddhist's No-Self, No-Agent) Stage 6 is the realization of Emptiness and Dependent Origination Stage 7 is the realization that non-duality, anatta, emptiness, luminosity is 'always and already so' as the nature and essence of all experience. This stage isn't actually really separated from stage 4, 5, 6, but rather is added to stress the point of 'spontaneous perfection' - that these are the nature of experience to be realized as being already and always so, not a state to be achieved or sustained. I.e. you don't try to achieve 'a state of no-self' which would be illusory because all along there is no self to begin with.

The view of 'existence' is wrong. It is not that his insight is wrong, but that although non-dual is realised, non-inherency is not yet realised. His insight is non-dual, but substantialist non-dual.

There are things that he said which is wrong. Things like, you become lazy after enlightenment (this is because he is at an early phase and fails to experience the rapture and energy due to the karmic propensities still obscuring them). Also, other things - there is karma, just no doer. There is rebirth, just no soul. He also fails to realize dependent origination and the emptiness of objects, that is why he says things like 'The reality is, the body exists, the thoughts exist, the memories exist, and that is consciousness, and that is all.' He is at the Stage 4 level of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment. U=C points out to the fact that there is just what is observed that that is self-luminous, self-felt, without an observer. This is correct. But there is no inherently and permanently existing Consciousness. There is only consciousness arising dependent on conditions. By reifying consciousness, he errs towards eternalism, not nihilism.

There is no ultimate... there is only luminous, vivid, but empty expressions.

There is no higher bliss than the complete end of suffering.

Buddha was talking about the state of cessation (nirvana). He is not eluding an absolute ground of being (which in fact he has rejected explicitly in other suttas).

If you had those insights yourself, then you will be able to recognise it when someone else explains their experience. I don't know about Andrew, but Ken Wilber has very genuine experiential description that don't leave much room for doubt that he has genuine non-dual realisation. However, it is not yet the insight of emptiness.

Ken Wilber thinks that Buddha has only reached the Formless I AM of Thusness Stage 1 ( Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment ) and mistaken it to be Emptiness. What he doesn't understand is that Emptiness in Buddhism is not formlessness, but the truth of dependent origination which negates independent existence. Buddha never taught the formlessness of I AM - he only teaches dependent origination. And then the next mistake is that Ken Wilber thinks that Nagarjuna teaches Non Dual of Thusness Stage 4. Nagarjuna's teaching is focused on Thusness Stage 6, Emptiness. In reality, Buddha has reached Stage 5 and 6 (Anatta and Emptiness) realization while Ken Wilber obviously hasn't. Non Dual is already implicit in Anatta and Buddha's teachings all along, without reifying an ultimate consciousness that is non-dual with phenomena. All along Dharmas, phenomena, stream, alone IS - without an agent, all phenomena are implicitly non-dual. No substantial 'Awareness' is needed. No awareness. This is the depth of Buddha's insight, which the 'pandits' and 'gurus' have not seen. Anyway, both Andrew and Ken are skewed towards Advaita and can only understand Stage 1 to 4. Ken Wilber is definitely at Stage 4 experientially - as for Andrew I think he is too. They fail to grasp Stage 5 and 6.

Yes.. By comprehending causes and conditions, even causality collapses and is 'unestablished'... http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy10.htm The irony of Nagarjuna's approach to pratitya-samutpada is that its use of causation refutes causation: having deconstructed the self-existence or being of things (including us) into their conditions and interdependence, causality itself then disappears, because without anything to cause/be effected, the world will not be experienced in terms of cause and effect. Once causality has been used to refute the apparent self-existence of objective things, the lack of things to relate-together refutes causality. If things originate (change, cease to exist, etc.), there are no self-existing things; but if there are no things, then there is nothing to originate and therefore no origination... ... In Derridean terms, the important thing about causality is that it is the equivalent of textual differance in the world of things. If differance is the ineluctability of textual causal relationships, causality is the differance of the "objective" world. Nagarjuna's use of interdependence to refute the self-existence of things is equivalent to what Derrida does for textual meaning, as we have seen. But Nagarjuna's second and reverse move is one that Derrida doesn't make: the absence of any self-existing objects refutes causality/differance. The aporias of causality are well known; Nagarjuna's version points to the contradiction neces-sary for a cause-and-effect relationship: the effect can be neither the same as the cause nor different from it. If the effect is the same as the cause, nothing has been caused; if it is different, then any cause should be able to cause any effect. [18] Therefore pratitya-samutpada is not a doctrine of "dependent origination" but an account of "non- dependent non-origination." It describes, not the interaction of realities, but the sequence and juxtaposition of "appearances" -- or what could be called appearances if there were some non-appearance to be contrasted with. Origination, duration and cessation are "like an illusion, a dream, or an imaginary city in the sky." (MMK VII:34) What is perhaps the most famous of all Mahayana scriptures, the Diamond Sutra, concludes with the statement that "all phenomena are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble and a shadow, like dew and lightning." As soon as we abolish the "real" world, "appearance" becomes the only reality, and we discover a world scattered in pieces, covered with explosions; a world freed from the ties of gravity (i.e., from relationship with a foundation); a world made of moving and light surfaces where the incessant shifting of masks is named laughter, dance, game. [19]

Do read this well-written article: The Mahāyāna Deconstruction of Time by David Loy http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26578.htm

No, the 'Perfect One' is simply a name, an attribute (one of the ten) to Shakyamuni Buddha, who has attained the 'complete and unexcelled awakening'. It is not referring to some ultimate Oneness of sorts. There is no cosmic mind. There are unique mindstreams, but there is no 'I' or a self inherent in any mindstreams. Nor is there some unified self or oneness underlying all mindstreams.

The causes and conditions can be comprehended... but they cannot be established as inherent. For example, the Buddha comprehended very precisely the 12 links of interdependent origination. (with ignorance as condition, karmic formation arose, etc etc...) He also said thus, The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away. Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine. - Majjhima Nikaya, 72 However, 'understood' here is not conceptual knowledge which as you pointed out is uncertain. 'Understood' is to see exactly how and with what conditions things arose through clear, observant mindful awareness of things. Only with Buddha's depth of insight can we see with precision the exact interrelation of the 12 links of interdependent origination. Btw, if you have ever wondered what directly caused Buddha's awakening... it was his contemplation on interdependent origination and the four noble truths: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it was actually present, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' Regarding non-establishment: There is nothing that can be established in actual experience.... like what we call 'universe' is really 'universing'... what we call 'tree' is really 'treeing'... what we call 'wind' is really just the experience 'blowing'... a flow that cannot be pinned down or grasped or established in any way. As you said, everything is letting go every moment... there is just thoughts after thoughts, impressions, sensations, sounds, breathe, etc. We can't establish 'something' that is ever-evolving, 'streaming', dependently originated and non-substantial as being this or that, existing or non-existing, etc. Our experience must not only transform to non dual, it must transform (not really transform as this is already the case, but rather a 'shift' of perception, an insight) to a non-substantial stream of experience. There is nothing that can be established in actual experience.... like what we call 'universe' is really 'universing'... what we call 'tree' is really 'treeing'... what we call 'wind' is really just the experience 'blowing'... a flow that cannot be pinned down or grasped or established in any way, its manifestation being dependent on various supporting conditions. You said well about there being no movement and no space, only impressions... in actuality, only ever this arising without movement. What dependently originates is empty of inherent existence and hence have no movement, no origin, no location (and no space), no 'coming from', 'going to', etc. When supporting conditions are present, 'it' (whatever 'it' is) appears and when the conditions cease, 'it' ceases. Apparition-like appearance that appears out of no where and goes no where (but is sustained by conditions), has no movement and is unborn. The insight of non-dual, as well as anatta, no-agent, and dependent origination leads to a transformation of view and perception of reality... no longer are we seeing an 'Awareness' perceiving 'things' and thus fabricate a world of a subjective agent and an objective universe... we see that all there is is a constant stream-ing of experiences that is empty and dependent on supporting factors.

'No I' does not deny consciousness 'No phenomena' does not deny phenomena 'No realization' does not deny realization It denies that anything can be established, it does not deny actual experience.

Wrong way, right way, are all empty, realizing this is wisdom. "Good sons, all hindrances are none other than ultimate enlightenment. Whether you attain mindfulness or lose mindfulness, there is no non-liberation. Establishing the Dharma and refuting the Dharma are both called nirvana; wisdom and folly are equally prajna; the method that is perfected by bodhisattvas and false teachers is the same bodhi; ignorance and suchness are not different realms; morality, concentration and wisdom, as well as desire, hatred and ignorance are all divine practices; sentient beings and lands share the same dharma nature; hell and heaven are both the Pure Land; those having Buddha-nature and those not having it equally accomplish the Buddha's enlightenment. All defilements are ultimately liberation. The reality-realms's ocean-like wisdom completely illumines all marks to be just like empty space. This is called 'the Tathāgata's accordance with the nature of enlightenment.' " ~ The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment

It is true only in the relative sense.