xabir2005

While we are on this topic... I would like to point out a really good article. Called Quietening the Inner Chatter It deals with this topic very well. In it, it says: (a short excerpt, refer to link for whole article) ...So when approaching meditation we do the same "I want to stop these thoughts that are driving me nuts", so we sit down but we can't get the thoughts to stop. Why is this? It's because life does not work like this. Just look at the clouds, can more wind make the clouds go away? No, its just makes more clouds. This isn't a metaphor, I'm talking directly and literally about the very nature that drives the existence of things like wind and clouds and rain are the same forces that drive our minds and thoughts and pain. To break through the clouds the sun has to come out. Why is this? Let us go back to the house building metaphor for the answer. The Laws behind Inner Chatter Going back to our house building metaphor the answer isn't to move into another house, the answer is to deconstruct the current house we live in .... completely. We need to stop building and let the current house get old and collapse. If we stop building and improving on a house what happens? It slowly cracks, the wood rots, it gets weathered, things fall off and eventually it falls down. So, asking again, why is this? This is very important and the heart of this entire article. It is because the conditions that support the survival of the house are removed, so eventually it dies. All things in life are exactly like this. Clouds require a certain condition. Certain moisture content in the air and certain temperature creates the conditions for them to exist. When the sun comes out the conditions that supports the existence of the clouds passes and so too do the clouds. When a flower doesn't get enough water, or gets too much sun, or gets uprooted from the soil it too dies. It's conditions cease, so it ceases. If our body doesn't get food or water eventually it will die. Look around you, everything, absolutely everything you can see or experience or think are exactly like this and all exist due to the dependent conditions that support their existence. There is not a single thing in the universe that does not obey this law. Not one! I'm not asking you to believe me, investigate yourself, look around. Is there anything you can find that doesn't obey this law? Your mind and thoughts are exactly the same. They require a certain conditions to exist and certain conditions to keep them going. The cycle of inner chatter requires certain conditions too. Through repeating the same process we just perpetuate their existence and in fact make them stronger. This is why when we approach meditation and want to stop the inner chatter it doesn't work. We don't realise, by approaching it in this way, that we are just running the same old patterns that creates and supports the very existence of the inner chatter. The other thing to consider, like the momentum of the heavy freight train, is that it's going to take time to stop. If you're 20, 30, or 40 years old how many years have you been supporting the inner chatter? You can't just sit down to try meditation and expect it to stop right away. Again, life just doesn't work like this. we want it to be. In doing this we ignore and don't respect these laws that all things are bound by, and in doing so we create conditions that support the perpetuation of inner noise. The process is so obvious, so inherent in our nature, that we simply just don't notice it. In reality you could say it's so obvious that in growing up with it since a baby we don't notice the obviousness of it any more. But all it requires is us to look around and observe the way everything works. You can see it right there in everything. So in Part 1 I explained how inner chatter is a problem and what the effects are like. In Part 2 we talked how that problem functions and in Part 3 I'll discuss what we can do to quieten the inner chatter, how that healing process works, a common trap to look our for and how to apply this. Check back tomorrow for Part 3... So as you can see, D.O. replaces the notion of a 'controller'. If you try to suppress thoughts, it will not make them go away - it makes things worse and let those thoughts remain in the subconscious and later strike back harder. There's another article.. an older one, by my friend Longchen, a few years ago: Are we suppose to get rid of unwholesome thoughts? This article is related to a common misconception with regards to spiritual practice. Many spiritual teachings say that one must get rid of unwholesome stuffs in one's life. So does that include getting rid of unwholesome thoughts that one is having? Are we suppose to get rid of unwholesome thoughts? Before we can answer this question, we must first ask..."Can the self or 'I' get rid of thoughts that are deemed as unwholesome?" The answer to the latter question is a NO. As already mentioned and explained here, the sense of self or 'I' is not the doer of action. As much as this 'sense of self' desires, it simply has no power over the arising and ceasing of thoughts. Thoughts, are for most part, related to the functioning of memory. Because of that, thoughts and memory cannot be removed by will. So, if thoughts cannot be stopped from arising using volition, are we powerless with regards to its influences. No. While thoughts cannot be stopped, the attachment or aversion to them can be diminished with training. Both attachments and aversions are types of grasping. So to be precise, during spiritual practice, we are not supposed to try to stop unwholesome thoughts from arising. This will prove to be ineffective and all we get will be more frustrations. What we can do, is to let go of the grasping to the thoughts. There is an energetic difference between the two. About this letting go, it is really a gentle process and cannot be forced. Excessive forcing re-enforces the arising of 'sense of self' and ineffective grasping kicks into action again. Often, the thoughts that arised are in conditioned response to what is being perceived by the senses. The speed of the arisal of the thought often is very fast. Because there is a perception, which is followed rapidly by the conditioned thought, the conditioned reaction(grasping) to the thought often is almost immediate. The rapid change that occur within this short span of duration is what makes 'recognising' the grasping from the perception and thoughts difficult. OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises. For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading. These articles are parts of a series of spiritual realisation articles . You can't do away with something that never was. Just look and see in direct experience no agent can be found. It is not a matter of whether you want to 'go there'... It is a matter of what is true. There is no you. Look and see if that is true. Don't blindly believe in dogmas - especially the primary dogma/unexamined belief of a 'self'. And I can assure you there is nothing to be fearful about, instead you will feel an immense liberation and weight being lifted. 'You' will feel boundless, free, blissful when it is realised there is no 'you'. Experiences arise. Sounds are heard. Scenery seen. Only after that experience do you think "I saw that sight" "I heard that sound". There is this reference to an 'I' that did that. But in that actual seeing, hearing, was there an 'I' responsible for that? No. It was an after-thought of the actual experience, it was an inference. And can the thought 'I hear' hear? Can the thought 'I see' see? Obviously not. The actual seeing is without 'I' - 'I' is merely an inferred reference point as an after-thought of an arising experience. There is ever just this process of seeing, hearing, thinking, etc, that is the sights, sounds, thoughts... arising and subsiding moment by moment according to interdependent origination. And 'I' is that all along - an inferred thing. Never actual. Never found. Never located. Because it never is. But this arising sound, sight, thought, is what is actual and is simply arising as this process according to dependent origination... without an agency. When insight of Anatta arises, one enters the stream and is assured a straight path to Nirvana without ever the chance of falling back into the lower realms. And the Buddha has even said that if you have the right view (without experiential realization), that alone ensures you will attain stream entry in this very life. If you love yourself... consider this a worthy contemplation of the highest kind.

I never said that there is an independent thought. I said thoughts interdependently originate without agency/controller. It is the entire universe, including latent tendencies, including a previous moment of intention and so on... that serves as a condition for this arising thought. But there is no controller or thinker apart from this process of thinking. Inter-dependent origination completely does away the need for an Agent, be it an internal self, or an external God. There is only this process, no 'I'.

Actually the koan "When the many are reduced to the one, to what shall the one be reduced?" is pointing to multiplicity. As Richard Herman wrote before: Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness. "All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...." There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness. That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.

As Vajrahridaya says - even dualistic concepts (like 'me' and 'you') are non-dual. When this is seen, all thoughts arise and subside according to conditions, but the contents are no longer believed or held tightly. It is like seeing the word 'weather' for what it is - nothing substantial, it is not pointing to something inherently existing. Yet we are free to use the word 'weather' for convenience. How can you control your next thought when you cannot even know what your next thought will be? There is just this arising intention, of say, 'I think this needs to be done'. Followed by the subsequent thoughts 'I should...' blah blah blah. Thought arisings... they are interconnected but each thought is simply arising without a thinker and serves as a supporting condition for the next thought. Concentration is simply a focused thought arising... also without a thinker. Concentration itself is an arising mental phenomenon. It is thought after thought... but no controller or thinker can be found. There is just this arising universe without an agent. And it is the entire experiential universe interacting in interdependence... no agent could be found controlling things.

Sky is blue, grass is green.

It is not possible if one simply have glimpses or experiences of non-duality without the arising of insights, because all experiences are by nature transient. It is not uncommon - many people in fact do have such peak experiences (perhaps when viewing a beautiful sunset, or a mesmerizing scenery - for me the first non-dual peak experience was with a tree - it was so mesmerizing that it completely absorbed away my self-contraction), but few have the realization. However, it is different when one realizes that the nature of reality is already non-dual by nature. It is not about sustaining an experience or a state... it is about having a quantum shift in perception, a realization of the way things truly are. There is a vast difference between temporarily experiencing a non-dual state, and realizing the nature of reality as non-dual. That is - in thinking, always just thoughts, no thinker - always already so. (it is not about 'dissolving the thinker' or 'merging with thoughts') In seeing, only just scenery, no seer - always already so. (it is not about 'dissolving the seer' or 'merging with scenery') In hearing, only just sounds, no hearer - always already so. (it is not about 'dissolving the hearer' or 'merging with sounds') In action, only just doing/action, no doer/controller - always been so. Just spontaneous happening one after another. (it is not about 'dissolving the doer' or 'merging with action') It is a fact of reality, which can only be 'realized'. There is no 'viewing non-duality' - there is just pure viewing without viewer, and the view is simply the arising phenomena - thoughts, sounds, scenery, etc... whatever is arising moment to moment. There is no separate object called 'non-duality' other than This... da da da on the keyboard, words appearing on screen. If there is something separate from this arising manifestation called 'non-duality', it could not qualify as 'non-duality'. This is the nature of reality. When you say 'I hear bird singing', in actuality there is no 'I' hearing the 'bird'... there is just the sound of chirping without hearer. The scenery... the heart beating... the sensation of wind... the thoughts arising. All happening without a self or agent. Yes, even thoughts arise without 'I'... even if thoughts refer to a sense of 'I', the 'I' is baseless: it is not referring to an actual entity, even if it was believed to be so. After enlightenment, you continue to use words like 'I' and 'mine' as mere conventions. It is no longer believed to be referring to an actual entity. Further, thoughts of 'I' are also happening without a thinker/experiencer/agent. Much like the word 'weather' does not actually refer to an inherently existing entity located somewhere... the label 'I' is merely a convention, a convenient label on the conglomerate of everchanging weatherly patterns - rain, lightning, clouds, wind, etc. Also, on another note: you think that thoughts and action imply an "I", but this is not so. Have you ever known what your next moment of thought will be? No, you will never, and can never know what the next moment of thought will be. It simply appears spontaneously as a new, complete thought without a thinker/doer. Same applies to all actions, intentions, and so on. They arise with supporting conditions - the entire interconnected universe (including our latent tendencies, intentions, and so on) working together for this moment of arising to appear. (Dependent Origination) There is no agency (controller, doer, experiencer, perceiver, etc)

Something I wrote at on the difference between the I AM insight and Non Dual insight: (note: this is not the complete list of insights in the spiritual, for a more complete one please refer to http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ) http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/one-taste.html One Taste Posted by: An Eternal Now Note: You can also see my complete journal of self-discoveries at http://www.box.net/shared/3verpiao63 In the gap between two thoughts, turning the light of knowing within, we touch our innermost essence, the pure sense of presence-existence-knowing. It is certain, still, complete, non-dual, formless. There is no doubts about it. It's utterly still in that direct authentication... this gives rise to an impression of being the Eternal Witness beyond and observing transient thoughts and phenomena. It becomes a pure identity, a center and core behind all experiences. But further contemplation will lead to the seeing that all forms and transient phenomena and manifestation are equally certain, still, complete, non-dual. It is just as intimately 'you' as the pure sense of existence and being, and yet there is no 'you' there at all - just the mountains, the scenery, the wind, the sky, the bird chirping. In the absence of an identity, you are whatever arises. In place of the absence of a separate self is the presence of the entire world standing/shining on its own (without a separate perceiver) in its brilliant luminosity, purity, magical-ness, aliveness, blissfullness, centrelessness, infinitude and borderlessness and stillness (not a dead stillness but stillness of the transience). We realize that all phenomena and experiences have the same taste as the initial glimpse of pure awareness as pure presence-existence or I AM. That experience, it's certainty, non-duality, completeness and perfection, etc... are all equal characteristics of all experience and manifestation and forms. All forms and formless states are of one taste. Prior to this deeper seeing, there is the tendency to cling to a center, a formless background observer, a space-like awareness that is behind and contains all passing thoughts, feelings, sensations. There is a tendency to cling to that formless I AM as our purest identity. Why? When all thoughts subside, we experience the formless pure sense of presence, and with its certainty, completeness, intimacy/non-duality, it is easy to take that as our purest identity. It's non-duality implies there is no separation between 'you' and 'that'. There is absolutely no distance, only pure intimacy. But later, we see that this applies not only to Presence experienced in the formless state, but as all manifestations. Yes, there is just the sun, the mountain, the river, all are without distance because there is no 'you' at the center separate from 'that'... The framework of a subject operating in an objective world of space and time collapses into a pure intimacy and nakedness of experiencing. This seeing leads to lessening the tendency to cling to a 'purest state of presence' or a formless background. There is also no more tendency to dissociate yourself from manifestation, for whatever manifest is pure consciousness itself. Well... almost. Cos the tendencies are deep and they will resurface - the fear and tendency to cling to and re-confirm a 'familiar state of presence', the fear of letting go a previous experience of pure consciousness (which leads to overlooking This arising non-dual experience), the fear of letting go of the self/Self and simply let hearing be hearing without hearer, let seeing be seeing without seer, let the universe reveal itself freshly in each moment as a complete pure consciousness 'event' of itself. And if all manifestation is equally pure, pristine and complete, why the need to cling to a purest identity? You are not just the formless presence/knower/consciousness... you are all forms, you are the universe univers-ing, you are whatever is arising moment to moment as a complete non-dual experience in itself... There is no background awareness and foreground phenomena happening in awareness... there is simply foreground pure consciousness always, be it the pure existence experienced in a formless mode (e.g. I AM, aka the 'thought realm' as Thusness puts it), or in all forms... the making of a non-dual experience into a background is simply trying to capture and reify a moment of pure consciousness.

We can get an initial glimpse of Presence, which is important, by inquiring 'who am I', 'what is it', in the gap between two thoughts. From my experience... after the initial glimpse of Pure Presence... the realization of Being... the tendency is to rest in the background space. Awareness is seen as the background space, silence, in which thoughts manifest and subside from/within. Now, I no longer see a background silence and foreground experience... only this arising experience, without an experiencer. Be it silence or noise... just that is Presence. There is only foreground Presence in differing conditions, including the initial formless Presence/Beingness realized through self-inquiry, yet there is no ultimate identity - no background - even formless Beingness is a foreground experience like everything else. Presence is no longer just the gap between two thoughts, but also the thought between two gaps. No longer a tendency to sink back to a source, a background.

Personally, I practiced doing self-inquiry, asking 'Who am I' - asking this in a thoughtless state led me to the I AM realization, which is an important insight, a certainty of Being arises. Self-inquiry is the direct path to self-realization. I have written my experiences and you can find instructions on how to practice self-inquiry in my journal at http://www.box.net/shared/3verpiao63 However, there are further realizations. As I wrote in my own journal, how I progressed from I AM to the various aspects of I AM, then non dual, and anatta. I consider myself very early in the path (practiced self inquiry for the previous two years, realized I AM then progressed to non dual and anatta all within this year) and still have much to improve on in terms of the clarity of insight and stabilization. You can also refer to Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment, who I personally consider my teacher and who is much more experienced than me. p.s. just realized Taomeow said '"Where do you want to go? Getting your thoughts to disappear is step one, and "watching" them serves only this purpose and no other. What's the next step? To notice what, or who, emerges when your thoughts disappear. Have you noticed?"' Yes, this is it, the practice of self-inquiry - what remains when all conceptual thoughts subside? What is it? Who am I?

I would put it differently. Sati and samatha are different. Anapanasati does not equal anapana samatha, even though in Vajrayana there is little emphasis on the use of anapanasati as an object for developing insights (and therefore it is mostly practiced as a shamatha technique). Also, I would say mindfulness/sati is actually more important in Vipassana than Samatha, since it is mindfulness of the nakedness of reality and its nature/characteristics. Anapanasati can be practiced in both ways - as a samatha method or a vipassana method. As a vipassana method it can yield penetrating insights that lead to liberation.

Nobody said you have to reincarnate 8 times as a monk to attain enlightenment. Buddha said from the beginning by practicing the four foundations of mindfulness, you attain liberation in as little as 7 days, at most 7 years. (if you put in effort of course)

I don't think, based on what you said, that there is a contradiction. Buddha said, Nirvana is the greatest bliss. So he taught the path to the greatest bliss, which is Nirvana. Buddha also said, Desire is the cause of suffering. He also explained that desire is broken up into the desire to get something, the desire to get rid of something (aka resistance, aversion), and the desire to become something. Through his practice, realization and insights into the nature of reality allows us to break through all clinging to self-hood, solidity, permanency, inherency, and let go of all grasping, desires, aversion/resistance, etc etc.

Vajra, you're great at quoting too haha... The books I've read are very limited. Anyway here's a great talk: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/210/talk/9547/ It's about the union of luminosity and emptiness/D.O. and anatta.

Sounds good Thanks for your blessings.

Not jhana. The 4th nana is A&P. Nana means insight knowledge. Jhana means absorption. It is different. However, 4th nana corresponds with 2nd Vipassana Jhana. 2nd Insight absorption. However, usually Jhana is used to mean Samatha jhanas, pure concentration absorptions. Samatha jhanas on its own accord does not lead to liberation. As for how stable are nanas, nanas are usually unstable. As Daniel M. Ingram puts it: There is a lot of confusion on the differences between concentration practices and insight practices. This may be caused in part by the “Mushroom Factor,” or may be due in part to other factors, such as concentration practice being easier than insight practices and distinctly more pleasant most of the time. Concentration practices (samatha or samadhi practices) are meditation on a concept, an aggregate of many transient sensations, whereas insight practice is meditation on the many transient sensations just as they are. When doing concentration practices, one purposefully tries to fix or freeze the mind in a specific state, called an “absorption,” “jhana” or “dyana.” While reality cannot be frozen in this way, the illusion of solidity and stability certainly can be cultivated, and this is concentration practice. Insight practices are designed to penetrate the Three Illusions of permanence, satisfactoriness and separate self so as to attain freedom. (N.B., the illusion of satisfactoriness has to do with the false sense that continuing to mentally create the illusion of a separate, permanent self will be satisfactory or helpful, and is not referring to some oppressive and fun-denying angst trip). Insight practices (various types of vipassana, dzogchen, zazen, etc.) lead to the progressive stages of the progress of insight. Insight practices tend to be difficult and somewhat disconcerting, as they are designed to deconstruct our deluded and much cherished views of the world and ourselves, though they can sometimes be outrageously blissful for frustratingly short periods. A&P usually comes with a visual experience of bright lights. I see. Though it could be A&P related... I think this may not necessarily be ordinary A&Ps induced through Vipassana practices. This reminds me of a recent post by Longchen or Simpo, who is also another highly enlightened moderator in my Buddhist forum apart from Thusness. He wrote that at the earlier stage, one can think that he/she can be recieving information, blessing etc from a higher source that is beyond himself/herself. We may also use visualisation to imagine a Light that will descend upon our body.. blessing and illuminating us. We will think that we are recieving information from some outside higher sources. During those times, i had visions of a source light illuminating me... On hindsight, those are interpreted visions... not direct experiences. He also wrote: ...real' I AM Presence' stage will reveal much about the non-local/all-pervading aspect of reality.... unlike a pseudo experience of visualising/imagining a light that overlight us. Sometimes, the I AM stage may also reveal the luminous/light aspect as well. But for my case, the luminousity aspect was experienced later. IMO, it depends on how that stage was experienced. IMO, Luminousity is experienced due to the deconstruction of perception. IMO, Non-locality is experienced due to the total suspension of mental formation/thoughts. Non-dual will reveal the insight that all along the self does not exist in a concrete manner. It will first be experienced as if experiences are 'flat'... ha ha... i dunno how to describe. In non-dual, there is a gradual maturing process (consisting of distinctive stage of insights)... where the self aspect gets better understood. In the early stage, we may try to dissolve or get rid of the self. In the later state, we begin to realise that the getting rid act is also a sense of self. Later on stage, there is an 'immediate' realisation...which i dunno how to describe and best experienced for oneself. Will like to add that although 'letting go' is not the actual non-duality experience, it is an important part of practice. Slowly and gradually, the practice of letting go helps in creating gaps for the insights to occur. From these posts, one derives two different experiences: 1) The experience brought about by visualizing a divine light spreading over us, intuiting a higher source beyond us. Notice that there is still a separation: a small self, and a larger soul/God beyond... still subtly dualistic. 2) The direct 'I AM' experience and realization. The directness of perception gives rise to a pure self-felt certainty of existence and being. A non-dual sense of being - there is no 'me' experiencing 'that' - just I AM, still, doubtless, unmoving, self-shining presence-awareness. At this stage, one can also experience intense luminosity - the intensity of clarity, presence, awareness as the background sense of beingness as well as in all sense perceptions. An intensity of aliveness, intelligence, clarity, vitality. One may also experience an all-pervasiveness, as if Awareness or Presence is not located anywhere and pervades all spaces. This, as Simpo says, is the 'real I AM Presence'/'direct experience' in contrast to the 'pseudo experience of visualising/imagining a light that overlight us'/'interpreted visions'. This is also the luminosity I'm talking about, it is the true, direct, non-conceptual realization of pure presence. If I hazard a guess, I think you may have experienced the number 1) experience, as well as certain aspects of the I AM Presence like the vitality and intelligence aspect of the I AM experience. However, not sure if you have had the 'I AM realization'. The "I AM realization" is the doubtless certainty of beingness and existence, the pure presence, as one's undeniable true essence. There is no subject-object division there at all. There is no 'I' here and 'God' over there. "You" are not "experiencing God", you ARE God. There is just This, pure-consciousness-existence, and through this direct realization, one will have an inner conviction of one's luminosity by having touched one's innermost essence. The difference between the I AM experience and the I AM realization is mentioned in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html No, luminosity is not jhana state. Luminosity is simply the essence of mind/experience. All experiences are luminous in essence and empty in nature. Luminosity and emptiness are not talking about the same thing, they are different 'aspects', but they are also inseparable. One is vivid brilliant awareness, one is it's ungraspability, unlocatability, D.O. nature. As Thusness replied Gozen: 24. RE: The mind and the watcher Apr 7 2009, 5:46 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 7 2009, 5:57 PM EDT Gozen: "I AM: Paradoxically, one feels at the same time that one is both essentially untouched by all phenomena and yet intimately at one with them. As the Upanishad says "Thou are That." 1.a. Body and Mind as Constructs: Another way to look at this is to observe that all compound things -- including one's own body and mind -- are **objects to awareness.** That is to say, from the "fundamental" point of view of primordial awareness, or True Self, even body and mind are **not self.**" Thusness: Ha Gozen, I re-read the post and saw **not self**, I supposed u r referring to anatta then I have to disagree...:-). However I agree with what that u said from the Vedanta (True Self) standpoint. But going into it can make it appears unnecessary complex. As a summary, I see anatta as understanding the **transience** as Awareness by realizing that there is no observer apart from the observed. Effectively it is referring to the experience of in seeing, only scenery, no seer. In hearing, only sound, no hearer. The experience is quite similar to “Thou are That” except that there is no sinking back to a Source as it is deemed unnecessary. Full comfort is found in resting completely as the transience without even the slightest need to refer back to a source. For the source has always been the manifestation due to its emptiness nature. All along there is no dust alighting on the Mirror; the dust has always been the Mirror. We fail to recognize the dust as the Mirror when we are attached to a particular speck of dust and call it the ”Mirror”; When a particular speck of dust becomes special, then all other pristine happening that are self-mirroring suddenly appears dusty. Anything further, we will have to take it private again. :-) Glad you enjoyed the blog. I probably wouldn't have time to update much for the next two years, as I will be enlisting into mandatory army on Tuesday.

It's great you're having some insights on the essential Buddhist teachings of E&DO As for your question on resources on the union of luminosity and emptiness, here are some links that came up in my mind at the moment (I'm sure there are many other goods ones): http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/11/few-excerpts-from-clarifying-natural.html http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/tada.html http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/stainlessness.html http://www.wwzc.org/Jinmyo_osho/HereisNotaDirection.html It depends on what it means by 'Light'. Theistic people may claim 'I have seen the light!' and think it is God, etc, but it is not, it is the A&P event, which I will elaborate more below. 'Theistic' can mean you believe you are an individual self, and there is a larger being you call God, yet there retains a sense of duality between 'me' and 'God'. This is a dualistic understanding, and those who experience A&P may retain such a dualistic understanding of God. They may think that 'they' have 'seen God' as something apart from themselves. Then there are mystics who experience union, or rather they experience the fundamental unity void of subject-object division. In Hindu Advaita Vedanta it is known as the Atman that is one and indivisible with Brahman. Or, Thou Art That! (Tat Tvam Asi). This is the beginning of realizing one's true luminous essence. But at this level, the anatta, emptiness and D.O. nature is not yet discovered. That is why for these practitioners they will need to go through a series of further insights as stated in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment Back to lights. There is the experience of visions of bright lights, that is what I call A&P. As I wrote to Lucky7Strikes recently: I wrote this to longchen two months ago: I agree that real Presence has nothing to do with a visual sense of luminous light. I in fact have experience of very luminous (visual) lights and a resulting sense of unity years ago, however I categorize them as 'A&P' experiences according to Daniel Ingram's map, but this is not the I AM Presence. My understanding of luminosity is that the sense of a bright vivid Awareness that is shining and illuminating all experience. This is different from a visual luminosity, but rather it seems that Presence is radiating everywhere and illuminating everything (nothing visual), very intensely. If that vivid luminosity is strong, even normal things like eating, walking, will feel so 'intense' that you will start smiling and there may even be tears. Just pure delight in Awareness. Longchen replied 'I understand the luminousity as you have described. ' Also more recently I found some quotations by Dalai Lama which I think is very apt: These two features - luminosity, or clarity, and knowing, or cognizance - have come to characterise 'the mental' in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist thought. Clarity here refers to the ability of mental states to reveal or reflect. Knowing, by contrast, refers to mental states' faculty to perceive or apprehend what appears. All phenomena possessed of these qualities count as mental. These features are difficult to conceptualise, but then we are dealing with phenomena that are subjective and internal rather than material objects that may be measured in spatio-temporal terms. Perhaps it is because of these difficulties - the limits of language in dealing with the subjective - that many of the early Buddhist texts explain the nature of consciousness in terms of metaphors such as light or a flowing river. As the primary feature of light is to illuminate, so consciousness is said to illuminate its objects. Just as in light there is no categorical distinction between the illumination and that which illuminates, so in consciousness there is no real difference between the process of knowing or cognition and that which knows or cognizes. In consciousness, as in light, there is a quality of illumination. ~ His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "The Universe in a Single Atom" So if someone say they experienced bright lights and think they saw God, that is not the luminosity I'm talking about, rather that is what Thusness and Daniel M. Ingram calls 4th Nana, A&P (Arising and Passing). Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:On pages 32-35 Longchenpa presents the vision. Here everything is experienced in pure and total presence - the universal creativity. Being distracted from this pure and total presence is to be caught up in what buddhists call samsara. Yet, if we investigate the discrete phenomena of experience that we are caught up in, these discrete things lose their credibility and become dreamlike. Longchenpa advises us to pursue this matter until an inner light arises. He urges us to continue by investigating external reality, suggesting we will only find our experience of it. The actuality of experiencing is ephemeral and unlimited yet always full of energy, and the various experiences are merely the play, the dance of this energy. This is not to say that everything is a mental state; rather, everything is ecstatic pristine awareness and its various reflections, masks, and disguises. The reader is encouraged to compare this light with the bankruptcy of mere ideas and concepts. Even the idea that everything is just a mental state is itself only an idea.

Becoming a spirit has nothing to do with Buddhism. Ghosts belong to the 3 lower realms in Buddhism and we by all means want to avoid such a rebirth. Buddhism aims to quit the cycle of rebirth. We do not want a shen type of body either, because such an existence is still trapped in samsara.

Not possible. Even a Sotapanna (1st stage) is assured of not falling into the 3 lower realms.

Claims such as these are simply stating facts and experiences as they are, they are not made in an attempt to postulate Buddhism as being special from other religions, since practitioners from other religions also remember past lives - thus remembering past lives is nothing special. Buddha did talk about his dharma as being special and different from other religions and being the sole way to liberation, and yet remembering past lives was definitely not part of what he said was different. (Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.]. The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [bB]) Many modern day masters also remembered uncountable past lives. It's not just the Buddha. I personally know and met people, friends and teachers who can remember lots of their past lives.

Asanga was born in the region of Purusapura, Peshawar, the present Kashmir in the 4th century. His birth had been predicted by Buddha Shakyamuni, who announced that about 9 hundred years after his parinirvana, the venerable Asanga would appear in this world to protect the teachings of the Mahayana. His younger brother was no other than Vasubandhu. Their mother, Prasannasila, from Brahmin caste and a former nun had made the vow to give birth to two sons whom she would rear to help spread and strengthen the teachings of the Buddha, particularly the Abhidharma, which had been in a period of decline after the destruction of a great part of the library of Nalanda university by a devastating fire. Asanga took monastic vows, studied the tripitaka of the Theravada and the Mahayana, and pursued his search for a definite understanding of ultimate reality by entering the path of the tantras. During an initiation, at the moment of tossing a flower on a mandala indicating the karmic link between the deity and the initiatee, Asanga's flower fell on the field of Buddha Maitreya. Consequently, Asanga decided to meditate on Buddha Maitreya. He journeyed to the mountain called Riwo Tchakang, at the Indian Tibetan border, and sat down to meditate in seclusion. After three years without result, he felt very depressed and left his cave. On his way he saw a pigeon leaving its nest through a small hole in the rocks. Noticing how that hole had been worn smooth by the feathers of generations of pigeons, Asanga was inspired to more diligence and returned to his practice. After three more years of fruitless meditation, he again felt like giving up. On his way to town he met a man who was rubbing an iron bar with a smooth cloth. Upon asking the man what he was doing, he was told that he was making a needle! So much diligence for such a small worldly aim encouraged Asanga to return to his retreat place once more. After 12 years of meditation, he still had not met Maitreya. Desperate and discouraged, he again left his retreat place and on the way to the next town, he passed a sick old dog on the side of the street. The dog's hind part was paralyzed and eaten by worms. Although the animal tried to attack him, Asanga only felt overwhelming compassion. He thought of removing the worms, but realized that he would squeeze them to death with his fingers. Therefore he decided to remove them with his tongue. He knelt down, closed his eyes, unable to bear the sight of the dog's wounded flesh, lowered his head and - touched the dusty ground. He opened his eyes and saw Maitreya in front of him. Asanga, surprised, asked him why he hadn't appeared earlier. Maitreya answered: « I have been with you since the very beginning, but your mind was not open enough to see me. Now, because of your great genuine compassion, your karmic obscurations have been purified, and you are able to see me. » They left in order to introduce Maitreya to the town's people. But none was able to see Maitreya, only an old woman perceived one of Maitreya's feet. And so Asanga understood what it meant to be veiled by mental obscurations. Without great compassion and understanding, karmic obscurations could not be dispelled. Asanga's perception was now purified, and he experienced the pure dimension of Tushita, the dwelling place of Maitreya. There he received from Maitreya the « Five Great Treatises of Maitreya. » Returning with them to our world, he taught them widely.

Even though the Buddha had infinite past lives, he only accessed 91 aeons of them. Which is already uncountable.

Strange, cos in other interviews he talked about having access to his past life memories of a previous dalai lama.

I wrote this to longchen two months ago: I agree that real Presence has nothing to do with a visual sense of luminous light. I in fact have experience of very luminous (visual) lights and a resulting sense of unity years ago, however I categorize them as 'A&P' experiences according to Daniel Ingram's map, but this is not the I AM Presence. My understanding of luminosity is that the sense of a bright vivid Awareness that is shining and illuminating all experience. This is different from a visual luminosity, but rather it seems that Presence is radiating everywhere and illuminating everything (nothing visual), very intensely. If that vivid luminosity is strong, even normal things like eating, walking, will feel so 'intense' that you will start smiling and there may even be tears. Just pure delight in Awareness. Longchen replied 'I understand the luminousity as you have described. ' Also more recently I found some quotations by Dalai Lama which I think is very apt: These two features - luminosity, or clarity, and knowing, or cognizance - have come to characterise 'the mental' in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist thought. Clarity here refers to the ability of mental states to reveal or reflect. Knowing, by contrast, refers to mental states' faculty to perceive or apprehend what appears. All phenomena possessed of these qualities count as mental. These features are difficult to conceptualise, but then we are dealing with phenomena that are subjective and internal rather than material objects that may be measured in spatio-temporal terms. Perhaps it is because of these difficulties - the limits of language in dealing with the subjective - that many of the early Buddhist texts explain the nature of consciousness in terms of metaphors such as light or a flowing river. As the primary feature of light is to illuminate, so consciousness is said to illuminate its objects. Just as in light there is no categorical distinction between the illumination and that which illuminates, so in consciousness there is no real difference between the process of knowing or cognition and that which knows or cognizes. In consciousness, as in light, there is a quality of illumination. ~ His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "The Universe in a Single Atom" This is what Thusness and Daniel M. Ingram calls 4th Nana, A&P (Arising and Passing). This is what Thusness called 'intensity of luminosity', what Daniel and other Actualism guys calls 'PCE' (Pure Consciousness Experience). And yes, luminosity refers to this the clarity of experience here. Sorry... I don't know about the Maha experience.

Pretty good explanation on emptiness and cessation. What do you understand about the vivid luminosity? Thusness said, Also do not get overwhelmed by the vivid luminous brilliance that manifests as the background source or foreground phenomena, let go of all; much like lamas building a sand mandala that is so vivid, colorful and beautiful, is destroyed immediately after it is completed. It is not just about the 'brilliant luminosity', it is also about the 'Gone'; therefore vividly present and instantly gone This sounds related to this para, what do you see?

I found a piece of quote that is quite similar and related. Yet I do not know how to put into words their relation and difference. So my question is.. what is the relation between Thusness's post, Tilopa's quote, and Kiloby's quote? Hence disassociation immediately puts us into a position of dualism and that is why I disagree with Rob. If insight of anatta arises, there is no center, no base, no agent; there is only phenomena dependently originating and practitioners must from this very experience of vivid arising and dissolving instantly arise another important insight -- that this vivid shimmering that dependently originate is naturally pure and self-liberating. ~ Thusness