xabir2005

I see, thanks for sharing, it's wonderful how you are quick to come so far and very willing to let go of deeply held beliefs

Hi I got a few questions for you. Does your experience become vividly clear and transparent? Has such mode of perception become seamless and effortless now or are you at a noting level? How long have you been experiencing this way? Also do you have a link for your kunlun practice?

Often, a teacher is useful in the path and leads you a step forward. But at the same time, total faith in a teacher often prevents/limits progress. Thusness had to break Longchen/Simpo's (who was at the I AM stage at that time) faith in a particular teacher for him to progress to Anatta and Emptiness realization. Even though Thusness and Longchen never met, Longchen was able to put aside his belief and investigate for himself... this is how he gained a higher level of realization and now has experiential insight of anatta and D.O./emptiness. Thusness also had to break my faith in a particular teacher some years ago for me to have a better understanding of the maps - he later admitted that he was in fact, trying to 'break' my faith. (well, he didn't really 'break' my faith so to speak, but lift the veils so that I can see how the insights progress and not be blinded by faith on what a particular teacher says) *update: see bottom of post* I was dis-illusioned by the 'grandeur' of guru types on a high pedestal, so to speak. They are simply ordinary beings like us who have some insights and realizations, that's all, we too can gain these insights ourselves. Furthermore being a guru by no means mean they are perfect beings, or have perfect enlightenment - there is always room for improvement. Nevertheless they may have valuable insights to share or learn from. I do not believe in a 'perfect guru', but I simply learn what I can from those teachers and even ordinary forummers and practitioners, I still have teachers, but I don't have blind faith. This is why I like Dharma Overground: In general our basic principles and attitudes favor: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest * pragmatism over dogmatism: what works is key, with works generally meaning the stages of insight, the stages of enlightenment, jhanas, etc. * diligent practice over blind faith: this place is about doing it and understanding for yourself rather than believing someone else and not testing those beliefs out * openness regarding what the techniques may lead to and how these contrast or align with the traditional models * person responsibility: you take responsibility for the choices you make and what you say and claim * a lack of taboos surrounding talking about attainments * the assumption that the various aspects of meditative development can be mastered in this life * the spirit of mutual, supportive adventurers on the path rather than rigid student-teacher relationships * and the notion that the collective wisdom of a group of strong practitioners at various stages and from various traditions and backgrounds is often better than following one guru-type.

Not memorized, but recited in groups, so the oral transmission is pure. There were also Buddhist councils (meeting of hundreds of monks) to make sure they were getting it right. The Pali canon suttas are orally transmitted before written down and goes right back to the Buddha's times. In other words, they were the original words of the Buddha. The Mahayana sutras are another matter however, as many suggest they were literary (written works) rather than orally transmitted. Nevertheless even though they are not the spoken words of the empirical, historical appearance of Buddha, they are still spoken from enlightened wisdom.

If you mean the notion that there is no rebirth, then that is non-Buddhist and have no place in a Buddhist forum - it is not something related to Tibetan Buddhism.

They have realized the nature of mind and consciousness. You do not for example, realize how to get rich through spiritual awakening. You don't realize how to play a piano through spiritual awakening. You don't realize .... (etc etc) Spiritual awakening is a very specific type of realization. It is the awakening to the ultimate nature of consciousness and mind with the possibility to end all suffering, afflictions, craving, attachments, etc. It is a worthwhile pursuit. No, enlightenment means you realize the nature of mind, but the 'freedom of suffering' is the result of that enlightenment. Actually lower level enlightenment produce certain level of freedom but not necessarily complete end of suffering - for that, you need very high level of enlightenment, the equivalent of the Arhant level of enlightenment. The Dalai Lama replied that much depends on how you define craving.In Buddhist teachings, desire is not the same as craving. For instance, Buddha had a desire to alleviate the world's suffering, which was not a bad desire to have. Cravings, however, for drugs, food, wealth, power, recognition or even other people, are a falsification, a misinterpretation of reality. Such cravings lead to less understanding of self and keep the person locked in a cycle of suffering. "It's based on ignorance," the Dalai Lama explained. Here's an excerpt on harmful/dualistic 'desire' (the kind that is resolved through enlightenment) from Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha by Daniel M. Ingram, available for free download at http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.shtml Truth Number Two: “Desire” The Second Noble Truth is that the cause of suffering is desire, also rendered as craving or attachment. We want things to be other than they are because we perceive the world through the odd logic of the process of ego, through the illusion of the split of the perceiver and the perceived. We might say, “Of course we want things to be great and not unpleasant! What do you expect?” The problem isn't actually quite in the desire for things to be good and not be bad in the way that we might think; it is, in fact, just a bit subtler than that. This is a really slippery business, and many people can get all into craving for non-craving and desiring non-attachment. This can be useful if it is done wisely and it is actually all we have to work with. If common sense is ignored, however, desiring non-attachment may produce neurotic, self-righteous, repressed ascetics instead of balanced, kind meditators. A tour of any monastery or spiritual community will likely expose you to clear examples of both sides of this delicate balance. So, don't make too much of a problem out of the fact that it seems that one must desire something in order to seek it. This paradox will resolve itself if we are able to experience reality in this moment clearly. “Craving,” “attachment,” and “desire” are some of the most dangerous words that can be used to describe something that is actually much more fundamental than these seem to indicate. The Buddha did talk about these conventional forms of suffering, but he also talked about the fundamental suffering that comes from some deep longing for a refuge that involves a separate or permanent self. We imagine that such a self will be a refuge, and so we desire such a self, we try to make certain sensations into such a self, we cling to the fundamental notion that such a self can exist as a stable entity and that this will somehow help. The side effects of this manifest in all sorts of addictions to mind states and emotions that are not helpful, but these are side effects and not the root that cause of suffering that the Buddha was pointing to. As stated earlier, a helpful concept here is compassion, a heart aspect of the practice and reality related to kindness. You see, wherever there is desire there is suffering, and wherever there is suffering there is compassion, the desire for the end of suffering. You can actually experience this. So obviously there is some really close relationship between suffering, desire and compassion. This is heavy but good stuff and worth investigating. We might conceive of this as compassion having gotten caught in a loop, the loop of the illusion of duality. This is sort of like a dog’s tail chasing itself. Pain and pleasure, suffering and satisfaction always seem to be “over there.” Thus, when pleasant sensations arise, there is a constant, compassionate, deluded attempt to get over there to the other side of the imagined split. This is fundamental attraction. You would think that we would just stop imagining there is a split, but somehow that is not what happens. We keep perpetuating the sense of a split even as we try to bridge it, and so we suffer. When unpleasant sensations arise, there is an attempt to get away from over there, to widen the imagined split. This will never work, because it doesn’t actually exist, but the way we hold our minds as we try to get away from that side is painful. When boring or unpleasant sensations arise, there is the attempt to tune out all together and forget the whole thing, to try to pretend that the sensations on the other side of the split are not there. This is fundamental ignorance and it perpetuates the process, as it is by ignoring aspects of our sensate reality that the illusion of a split is created in the first place. These strict definitions of fundamental attraction, aversion and ignorance are very important, particularly for when I discuss the various models of the stages of enlightenment. Given the illusion, it seems that somehow these mental reactions will help in a way that will be permanent. Remember that the only thing that will fundamentally help is to understand the Three Characteristics to the degree that makes the difference, and the Three Characteristics are manifesting right here. Remember how it was stated above that suffering motivates everything we do? We could also say that everything we do is motivated by compassion, which is part of the fundamentally empty nature of reality. That doesn’t mean that everything we do is skillful; that is a whole different issue. Compassion is a very good thing, especially when it involves one's self and all beings. It is sort of the flip side of the Second Noble Truth. The whole problem is that “misdirected” compassion, compassion that is filtered through the process of ego and its related habits, can produce enormous suffering and often does. It is easy to think of many examples of people searching for happiness in the strangest of places and by doing the strangest of things. Just pick up any newspaper. The take-home message is to search for happiness where you are actually likely to find it. We might say that compassion is the ultimate aspect of desire, or think of compassion and desire on a continuum. The more wisdom or understanding of interconnectedness there is behind our intentions and actions, the more they reflect compassion and the more the results will turn out well. The more greed, hatred and delusion or lack of understanding of interconnectedness there is behind our intentions and actions, the more they reflect desire and the more suffering there will likely be. This is sometimes referred to as the “Law of Karma,” where karma is a word that has to do with our intentions and actions. Some people can get all caught up in specifics of this that cannot possibly be known, like speculating that if we kill a bug we will come back as a bug and be squished. Don't. Cause and effect, also called interdependence, is just too imponderably complex. Just use this general concept to look honestly at what you want, why, and precisely how you know this. Examine what the consequences of what you do and think might be for yourself and everyone, and then take responsibility for those consequences. It's a tall order and an important practice to engage in, but don't get too obsessive about it. Remember the simplicity of the first training, training in kindness, generosity, honesty and clarity, and gain balance and wisdom from the other two trainings as you go. Sometimes looking into suffering and desire can be overwhelming. Life can sometimes be extremely hard. In these moments, try looking into the heart side of the equation, compassion and kindness. Connect with the part of your heart that just wishes the suffering would end and feel that deeply, especially as it manifests in the body. Just this can be profound practice. There are also lots of other good techniques for cultivating a spaciousness of heart that can bear anything, such as formal loving-kindness practices (see Sharon Salzburg’s excellent Loving-kindness, The Revolutionary Art of Happiness). Finding them and practicing them can make the spiritual path much more bearable and pleasant, and this can make it more likely that we will be able to persevere, gain deep insights, be able to integrate them into our lives, and use them to benefit others. The take-home message is to take the desire to be happy and free of suffering and use its energy to do skillful things that can actually make this happen, rather than getting caught in old unexamined patterns of searching for happiness where you know you will not find it. The Three Trainings are skillful and can inform the whole of our life. By following them we may come to the end of many forms of suffering and be in a much better position to help others do the same. Supreme Master Ching Hai learnt her method and teaching from the Sikkhism tradition. Just that she became new age and tries to relate all religions as if they are one. Supreme Master Ching Hai is at Thusness Stage 1 and 2 enlightenment. It is very clear from her writings that she realized the I AM. Maybe, but many of them are sincere. I can see that Master Ching Hai is quite sincere, even though I do not follow her teachings. She is not a con artist. Also, I've read that she doesn't charge money for teachings and initiations. But you have to be a vegetarian and you have to be able to meditate hours (yes, hours, thats how intense their practice regime is) each day to receive initiation. No, enlightenment and spiritual powers are different things. You are having misconceptions what enlightenment entails. As I just wrote in this forum recently, No, Siddhis usually comes as a result of training in Shamatha and is not directly linked to self-realization - I have many enlightened (and some unenlightened) friends, and even my mom, who have siddhis. Shamatha means you are training in deep concentration that you can enter into the 8 samatha jhanas, which are blissful altered states of consciousness. I have experiences of entering jhanas in the past, but I no longer train in this area, and this is not my area of expertise. According to Daniel M. Ingram, he manifests siddhis when he reach the 4th Jhana, as accordance to the standard Buddhist texts. You may be interested to listen to this interview with Daniel who spoke about his experience with the powers: Buddhist Geeks episode 61: Buddhist Magic: What is Possible with the Powers? Nevertheless, Thusness did make mentions that siddhis can manifest due to a very deep level of clarity/enlightenment, but I have not experienced this so far (see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/different-degrees-of-non-duality.html ) As for my mom, Thusness said her chakras (never asked which) are open that's why she has some powers.

That would depend on which stage of enlightenment. From the perspective of Buddhism's emptiness realization (Thusness Stage 6), physical reality are not an illusion, but like an illusion. Everything we experience are not an illusion but like an illusion... why? Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rinpoche explains, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html ...So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?” is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana. First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance... What does Buddhist Emptiness means? It clearly does not mean that everything is an illusion. Also, in Buddhism, emptiness is *not* nothingness. It is not some formless void that is the background/substratum of all things (that would be the I AM realization/experience, but it should not be confused with Shunyata). What is emptiness (shunyata)? Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). Whatever you see, hear, etc, do not exist 'in and of itself' but are 'interdependently originated'. Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence. This is not the same as nothing or nihilism - as Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Nagarjuna: Whatever is dependently co-arisen, That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18) Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist. Therefore a nonempty thing Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19) __________________ A more detailed explanation on Emptiness can be found at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/nondual-emptiness-teachings.html Then you may ask, what about the other levels of enlightenment before Stage 6, do they treat 'physical reality' as unreal? Their views/realization/experience are as such: "The world is illusory, Brahman alone is Real" - one realizes the True Self behind everything which is Thusness Stage 1 and 2, then "Brahman IS the World" - Stage 4 - experience is realized to be Non-Dual (not divided between subject and object/perceiver and perceived) and one sees the Real, the Noumenon in all Phenomena. Here's what someone from Stage 4 describes it: After the jungle, there is an intensely odd and very beau-tiful quality to the experience of life. In one sense I can only describe everything, all experience, as having a certain emptiness. This is the sense in which everything used to matter, to be vital and important, and is now seen as unreal, empty, not important, an illusion. Once it is seen that the beyond-brilliance of Sat Chit Ananda is all that is, the dream continues as a kind of shadow. Yet, at the same moment that all of what appears in the dream is experi-enced as empty, it is also seen as more deeply beautiful and perfect than ever imagined, precisely because it is not other than Sat Chit Ananda, than all that is. Everything that does not matter, that is empty illusion, is at the same time itself the beyond-brilliance, the perfect beauty. Somehow there is a balance; these two apparently opposite aspects do not cancel each other out but complement each other. This makes no 'sense,' yet it is how it is. There is one tradition within Advaita which says that maya, the manifestation of the physical universe, is over-laid or superimposed on Sat Chit Ananda. I'm no scholar of these things, and can only attempt to describe what is seen here; and the Understanding here is that there is no question of one thing superimposed on another. Maya, the manifestation, the physical universe, is precisely Sat Chit Ananda, is not other than it, does not exist on its own as something separate to be overlaid on top of something else. This is the whole point! There is no maya! The only reason it appears to have its own reality and is commonly taken to be real in itself is because of a misperceiving, a mistaken perception which sees the appearance and not What Is. This is the meaning of Huang Po's comment that "no distinction should be made between the Absolute and the sentient world." No distinction! There is only One. There is not ever in any sense two. All perception of distinction and separation, all perception of duality, and all perception of what is known as physical reality, is mind-created illu-sion. When a teacher points at the physical world and says, "All this is maya," what is being said is that what you are seeing is illusion; what all this is is All That Is, pure Being Consciousness Bliss Outpouring; it is your perception of it as a physical world that is maya, illusion. Stage 5 is 'The World is Actual' without reifying a permanent and independent Brahman. What is seen through is a permanent, independent Self apart from the momentary sensate reality... one sees the Actual AS the Process and not some substratum or container or background. Of this, Richard (AF) writes from his Stage 5 experience: [Richard]: ‘To be living as the senses is to live a clear and clean awareness – apperception – a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. *Because there is no ‘I’ as a thinker (a little person inside one’s head) or a ‘me’ as a feeler (a little person in one’s heart)* ...’. [emphasis added]. Again the reason why I provide the full version is because to be living *as* the senses (as a flesh and blood body only) is a vast cry from a remaining, and non-detached observer, having *become* the sensations (as in having identified with and/or having arrogated them). Notice that the denial and rejection of the Manifest becomes increasingly less from Stage 4 onwards. Not that Stage 1 to 3 people rejects manifest, just that they cannot see what they realize in the manifest - to them the True Self is an Unmanifest Source or a Source prior to Manifestation, and everything as an illusory projection of that Source. He was awakened (to be precise he said he was awakened, not 'enlightened' which is a western invention) to the Truth of Anatta (no-self), Emptiness, the nature of reality and consciousness, and thousands of his students while he was alive was able to achieve liberation and enlightenment through his teaching... and even today many are achieving enlightenment through Buddha's teachings, which shows that Buddhism is a very effective system and teaching. Not only did he set forth a system, countless people since Buddha's days have been attaining enlightenment through following his system of practice. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas seek not only to end one's own suffering, but the suffering of all others as well. Arhants and Pratyekabuddhas do not. Therefore in Buddhism there are different goals and classes of enlightened beings. The Theravadin school of Buddhism emphasizes attaining Arhantship, while the Mahayana and Vajrayana school of Buddhism emphasizes attaining Buddhahood. Buddhism is not a form of repression. It leads to realization, which leads to complete letting go of clinging from the world, and the complete end of suffering. Repression means suffering still arise, but then you force them out of existence. This is not the case for a liberated person in Buddhism: suffering, craving, attachments no longer arise to begin with that they could ever be repressed. The cause of suffering is removed from its root, rather than repressing its manifestation. And yes, an Arhant has overcome all mental suffering while he is alive but not physical pain - as long as you have a body you will have some level of physical discomfort. However an Arhant is no longer reborn in Samsara, so he no longer has to undergo physical discomforts as well, after death. You are mistaking the non-duality that I am talking about. The non-duality of spiritual enlightenment is the realization into no subject-object division, no perceiver-perceived division, like Thusness Stage 4, or Steven Norquist's article, in the first page of this thread. If you read Stage 4 and Steven Norquist's article carefully, you will understand what non-duality means. Relatively speaking, there is male and female - this is not the area I am concerning myself with (I am not arguing against conventional truths). Here is an article written by a highly enlightened friend 'Simpo/Longchen' about 2 years ago: The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality This article is related to a common misconception with regards to the Transcendental experience of Nonduality. Within the spiritual circle, the term Non-duality is a very misunderstood or misinterpreted term. It must be understood that the term has more than one meaning and its perceived meaning largely depends on a person's stage of spiritual awareness. More often than not, a lower stage understanding of the term is misconstrued as the Transcendental experience of Nonduality or non-dualism. This confusion is largely compounded by so-called new age spiritual materials. The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct. Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity. No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping. 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 .

The Theravadin Maha-parinibbana Sutta, you mean? Well, he was still not an Arhant then - he only becomes an Arhant 3 weeks after Buddha's passing. Anyway, different schools arose due to many reasons, not just one.

Hi again... Ananda missing Buddha's teaching, I presume, you're refering to Shurangama Sutra which is again a latter day Mahayana Sutra (in fact written at a date even latter than Mahaparinirvana Sutra). In fact, it was the last Mahayana Sutra, having appeared some time 1000 years after Buddha's passing. Again I'm not saying Shurangama Sutra is invalid or an unauthentic Mahayana scripture - in fact I love Shurangama Sutra very much and find a lot of wisdom in it. Nevertheless... since it is a Mahayana Sutra, it is not a historical event, but a Sambhogakaya vision of an latter day enlightened master. However this is not the point of my reply... rather, I would like to point out that Ananda was accepted by everyone to only have achieved the level of Sotapanna at the time of Buddha's life, and as such, will be prone to misunderstanding Buddha's teaching while he was living. Which means throughout the life of the Buddha, he was only at the first out of four stage of enlightenment. He did not have a full understanding of Dharma then. In the scripture it is said that only Arhants are incapable of misinterpreting what the Buddha was talking about. And precisely for this reason, Ananda was not admitted into the First Buddhist Council in the beginning. The First Buddhist Council consists of 500 monks, *who are all arhants*. To join the council, the criteria is that you MUST be an arhant, otherwise you might bring in distorted understandings into the council. It was a council set up to recite, discuss, and confirm the teachings of the Buddha as they have heard, so that the teachings can be preserved and passed down to the latter generations. Ananda was was left out at the time of the first council of Buddha's own disciples at first, because he wasn't an arhat. He was Buddha's attendant. He heard every word that Buddha taught, and memorized them all, but he didn't meditate much because he was too busy. Some time after Buddha's death, there was a meeting of all the arhats, but since Ananda wasn't an arhat he couldn't go. So he kept meditating, trying at the last minute to become enlightened, and it got to be midnight, 2, 3 o'clock in the morning of the first council of Buddhist arhats, but still he couldn't make it, even though he was the repository of all of Buddha's words. All the other arhats wanted him to go, but he couldn't since he wasn't an arhat. Finally, just before it was time to wake up, Ananda just gave up and was very disappointed he didn't attain Arhantship. Then he got enlightened, because he saw things as they were. It was the end of the struggle. No more trying to become an arhat, and he became an arhat. How did he became an arhant? Ananda was pondering over a question similar to what Buddha had taught Bahiya in Bahiya Sutta that ‘in hearing, just the heard’. Ananda struggled hard to penetrate the profound teaching of Buddha, the meaning of Anatta. He finally realized the truth of anatta thereby freeing himself from artificial struggle. There is no Ananda to attain Arhatship. ‘In hearing, it is truly only just sound, no hearer’. Always so regardless of one’s depth of understanding, anatta remains a dharma seal, effortlessly so! Now, Ananda having become enlightened, was no longer able to misinterprete the Buddha's teachings and message. This is how he was let in to join the First Buddhist Council, and he was able to recite all the Buddha's teachings from beginning to end.

It is not as confusing as you thought. However, we should not underestimate the subtlety of spirituality... Enlightenment is not a one-final-event thing... there are different 'levels' of realizations.

Hi TianShi, Enlightenment as a word does not exist in Buddhism. The equivalent word the Buddha always used is 'Awakening', and I prefer this term because it is more accurate and meaningful experientially. There can be no liberation without awakening, without realizing the true nature of reality/mind/consciousness. Buddhism's awakening is all about waking up from our dream/delusions into the true nature of our consciousness... it is not an intellectual enlightenment, or any theoretical type of understanding. However I use 'enlightenment' more often because most forummers here come from a western background.

A spiritually enlightened being does not deny or escape from the physical... Spiritual enlightenment and the material are not opposing stuff. It's just that they are two different sciences. Like art and mathematics are two different but non-contradictory subject. Once you familiarize yourself with the maps and what enlightenment is about, you will find that it is actually very easy to find out not only whether he is enlightened, but what level of enlightenment he is in... Experiential realization is very different from 'being clever'. You will be able to tell who is just 'being clever', and who is speaking from experience... it is vastly different, I assure you. But yes, we cannot 'know' for certain someone elses experience but with the right maps we can almost know with total accuracy what the other person is experiencing based on his own description of his experience. In fact you can name any enlightened teacher, and if I happen to know him/her, I will definitely be able to tell you what stage he/she is at. That is how clear the map is... It is that universal. Kundalini experiences are not the same as enlightenment... But enlightenment is just as 'testable' as Kundalini - that's why Thusness stages applies universally, people all over the world are experiencing the same realization, experience, enlightenment. Everyone can also follow the practices stated and gain the same results. Anyway, if you're talking about external observance, here's something you'll be interested in, it shows how different meditative states show up in different brain waves, and I think this is the closest you can get to 'testing someone's enlightenment' but even that is not a fool proof way, simply because you may enter those states without realization (but very unlikely to have stable experiences without realization). Here's the link to "Ken Wilber Stops His Brain Waves": Oh btw, Ken Wilber is at Thusness Stage 4/Non Dual level of Realization. Only in brain waves as far as I know. Exactly, enlightenment is reproducible by anyone, and there are time tested techniques that result in predictable realization. It is a science. It is not a belief. It is an experiential realization. Enlightened beings have realizaton of the nature of consciousness/mind. You may be surprised that Quantum Physics is only beginning to have basic understandings of what the mystics and contemplatives realized since ages ago. Nevertheless, I prefer to treat science and spirituality as two different things - for pragmatic, practical purposes. Like rather than studying the link between mathematics and art... why not just study each on its own, it will be more practical. I have already given you a rather concrete definition of (spiritual) enlightenment... According to Buddha, it is the freedom from all sufferings, ignorance, the delusion of being a separate self existing in a concrete universe, suffering, attachments/clinging, freedom from craving/anger/etc.

No... D.O. is not about fatalism. Because you are forgetting the part about 'intention' and 'imprints'. Your imprints and intentions play a part in interdependent origination... so you need to take an active role in life otherwise nothing gets done.

Natural progression means nothing is inherent (inherent means fixed, static, entity). I am not exactly sure I understand what you are trying to point out.

It has to do with how the realizations sink into the deepest depth of consciousness and transforms our subconscious propensities. So there is a process of deepening enlightenment. And this process will remove the manifestation of being 'asshole' from a much deeper root cause... from our deeper dispositions and fetters. How to attain enlightenment? Many kinds of practices... Vipassana... Zen... Dzogchen, Mahamudra... these are just some examples from the Buddhist tradition. There are many other practices that can make us a better person even without becoming enlightened. Which are all fine and useful, but they do not remove the gross manifestation from the root - which means it doesn't truly end craving, anger, ignorance, from its source... Like, even having a good parent will make his children be less of an asshole. But that doesn't mean the child has removed his suffering, craving, anger, ignorance. He just behaves better... Nevertheless Buddhist practice is in fact very helpful and practical even for those who are not enlightened. For example, we teach loving kindness to heal those with hatred, we teach equanimity, compassion, joy, etc. All these are good qualities and creates good karma though they don't exactly result in enlightenment. Then there is mindfulness practice... mindfulness practice allows us to observe our mind moment to moment so that we are not lost in our thoughts and habits, we are aware of our habits as they arise so we have better control of ourselves - rather than always acting out unconsciously. However on a deeper level... mindfulness practice is to allow us to observe reality as it so that we can realize the nature of reality and attain enlightenment. Anyway this is just an example... I am still an asshole sometimes. This is a good article explaining Mindfulness practice: http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/G/Gunaratana/MindfulnessIPE/chapter13.html

Yeah, my answers about Mahaparinirvana Sutra is already there. Anyway the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra is a late Mahayana development. Like 700 years after Buddha's passing. These teachings do not even appear in the Pali suttas (the original teaching of Buddha), nor early Mahayana (which focus on prajnaparamita teachings). I am not however saying that Mahaparinirvana Sutra is invalid - it just has to be properly understood with a strong foundation of understanding from the previous Buddhist teachings, and many don't.

It is a natural progression in one's direct experience. Imagine being a complete asshole changing into a fetter-less Arhant. Now, that's real change, not just a construct. It's like saying why differentiate an alcoholic from a non-alcoholic, isn't that more constructs? Well, but it's a useful one to tell you where you are. Nevertheless... focus more on the Realization, rather than character development. The fetters naturally drop off into the practice and it is not via trying to modify one's behavior. (though I'm not stopping anyone from trying to improve their behavior and attempt to be nice... just that behavior modification does not lead to enlightenment)

You are right. Realization is not enough, because even if you realize Anatta like Stage 5, you may not have overcome the deeper disposition/fetters/defilements/afflictions. Osho, who was at Stage 4, was full of scandals. U.G.Krishnamurti who was like Stage 5 was always angry and shouting, etc. In my understanding: if you reach Thusness Stage 5, you become a Sotapanna (first out of four stages of enlightenment towards Arhantship in traditional Buddhism) A sotapanna has removed the three lower fetters - he no longer doubts the Buddha's teachings especially on Anatta since he has direct realization. He no longer believes in a Self. He no longer attaches himself to useless and meaningless rituals. These are the three fetters he removed. But he has not cut off lust and anger. A once returner has reduced lust and anger. A non returner has removed lust and anger, thus removing the five lower fetters. An arhant has removed the 5 last fetter. As such, as you become closer more and more towards Arhantship, you become more and more impossible to be an asshole. For those who follow Daniel M. Ingram's definition of four paths: I understand his map which has little regard for the traditional ten fetter model, but I do not agree with it as it does not agree with traditional teachings and what I understand from Thusness. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_%28Buddhism%29

I also said 'nature of mind'... the nature of consciousness. Honestly, science may apparently know quite a lot about the material world... but any honest scientist will tell you that the understanding of consciousness in science is really at a very primitive level. When I talk about enlightenment, I am talking about discovering the nature of consciousness. That is, your own direct experience... having direct insight and realization about your own direct experience. It is a non-conceptual realization, it does not come through theories and inferences. Well actually all kinds of people around the world are having the same kinds of insights. Because even though realization is subjective (if you mean directly realized in one's own experience), these realizations concerns some basic facts of everybody's existence... these facts are the same for everyone. That's why if you investigate, you will realize and experience the exact same things. 1) If you are asking 'how can I know if I am enlightened?' Then my answer is, you will no longer have doubts or uncertainties about the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness/mind. You will discover its essence and nature. 2) If you are asking 'how do I know if *someone else* is enlightened?' Then my answer is, familiarize yourself with maps of enlightenment (such as the one I showed you) so that you can discern for yourself. For me, I can tell exactly which stage any author is coming from in terms of enlightenment. For example right now, I can tell you who is at Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, Stage 4, Stage 5, Stage 6, Stage 7. I can list a few names even right now... but would rather not. Thusness's stages are universal and applies everywhere, that's why I like it. There are also other maps as well, but not as universal as his. Have they realized their true nature? If they say they have, what is it that they have realized? (and this part makes the difference between Thusness Stage 1 to 7).

No, what I said and what Buddha said about the four views are not contradictory at all. The Buddha is saying that if a self cannot be located even in this very life, how can the self become non-existing after death? He is saying that a Form Self, or a Formless Self, an Essence of Tathagata cannot be pinned down as a Truth or Reality (see sutta), even in this life, so how can there be a persisting Self continuing after death, or how can the Self suddenly cease after death? When I say cessation, I do not mean cessation of a 'self' (there is no self even now, what is there to cease?), I am saying the cessation of the 12 links, the cessation of the cycle of rebirth. Hence what I am talking about, is the cessation of the 12 links. It is utter cessation - literal meaning of parinirvana. Since you quoted about the four false views, I should quote the entire sutta so that the context of the sutta can be understood: SN 22.86 PTS: S iii 116 CDB i 936 Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 2004–2010 Alternate translation: Walshe This sutta is identical to SN 44.2. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali, in the Great Wood, at the Hall of the Gabled Pavilion. At that time Ven. Anuradha was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians went to Ven. Anuradha and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Anuradha, "Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] 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." When this was said, Ven. Anuradha said to the wandering sectarians, "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." When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to Ven. Anuradha, "This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced." So the wandering sectarians, addressing Ven. Anuradha as they would a newcomer or a fool, got up from their seats and left. Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to Ven. Anuradha: "If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?" Then Ven. Anuradha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now I was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians came and... said to me, 'Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] 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.' "When this was said, I said to them, '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.' "When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, 'This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.' So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left. "Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me: 'If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, and no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?'" "What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is consciousness constant or inconstant? "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?" "No, lord." "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'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

Here's another way Thusness talks about this many years ago:When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence. This also explains why I told Dwai 'a consciousness' and not 'THE consciousness'.

You are totally misunderstanding Buddhist emptiness if you think that emptiness and fullness are talking about different things. As Heart Sutra, states, Form IS Emptiness, and Emptiness IS Form. Apart from Form, there is no emptiness to speak. As I wrote: I find Alex's presentation of Emptiness/Shunyata as 'nothingness' or 'void' to be confusing. In Buddhism, emptiness is *not* nothingness. It is not some formless void that is the background/substratum of all things (that would be the I AM realization/experience, sometimes eluded to/talked about in Zen texts, but it should not be confused with Shunyata). What is emptiness (shunyata)? Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). Whatever you see, hear, etc, do not exist 'in and of itself' but are 'interdependently originated'. Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence. This is not the same as nothing or nihilism - as Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Nagarjuna: Whatever is dependently co-arisen, That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18) Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist. Therefore a nonempty thing Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19) __________________