xabir2005

Hearing has no origin, nor is hearing inherently existing with substance, nor is hearing spontaneously arising without conditions. All these false views are relinquished through the insight into Emptiness/Interdependent Origination. You are thinking that seeing and hearing comes from senses organs or from objects, but that is due to a strong and unknowing conviction deep in us that the way of seeing things inherently is 'absolute' and the only way of viewing things... but in truth, it is just a 'convenient' mode of thought. It is nothing absolute. As a result of our 'inherent/dualistic' mode of viewing things, you are thinking that D.O. implies things having origin, and causality as having 'hierarchy', or one thing leading to/becoming another... rather than seeing manifestation, seeing, hearing, as unconditioned and whole yet interdependent. The entire universe is coming together for this manifestation, and this manifestation has no origin as such, because it is something fresh: a complete-end-in-itself. For example: the previous thought does not become the current thought, each thought is a complete-whole of itself. Similarly, each manifestation is interdependently originated and yet has no origin and is a complete-whole of itself... If you pinch your leg, and you ask 'where did the pain come from?' in actuality you can't find a 'where' - pain is just present, vivid, but with no origin! It is a complete and whole experience in and of itself... even though it is interdependent with the hand pinching and body part being pinched... but the pain is something fresh and complete and whole of itself. You're thinking that everything you experience have a 'coming from' and a 'going to'... whereas in reality there is no coming and and going, whatever manifestation is unconditioned, complete and whole - for example if I move my hand from there to here, we think that our hand is 'inherently existing' as an entity that came from 'there' to 'here' and is 'going elsewhere' - where in actual experience it is just This Experience (e.g. visual experience of 'hand') that interdependently originated, yet is whole, complete and unconditioned without coming and going, origin, movement, etc: it is not in fact moving (there is no 'it' to move), but teleporting, from Here, to Here, to Here, as Bashar explains in his teleportation video in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/11/non-locality-and-teleportation.html I will paste three quotes for you to ponder... and they are very important to the understanding of D.O. What we experience from moment to moment can be explained better in terms of D.O. than 'inherently existing entities mode of perception'. Mahasi Sayadaw: "...Before a drum is beaten, its sound does not exist in the drum itself, the drumstick, or anywhere in between. Even though a sound occurs when the drum is beat, the sound does not originate from the drum or the drumstick. The physical phenomena of drum and drumstick are not transformed into a sound nor does the sound originate from anywhere in between drum and drumstick. In dependence on the drum, the drumstick, and the hitting of the drum, the sound is a completely new phenomenon each time the drum is hit. The drum and the stick are different from the sound. In the same way, before you see something or someone, seeing does not exist in the eye, in the visible form, or anywhere in between. The seeing that takes place neither originates in the eye nor in the visible form. The seeing consciousness neither originates in the eye nor in the visible forms, which are physical phenomena. It also does not originate from anywhere in between. Seeing is actually a new phenomenon that arises due to the combination of the eye, the visible form, light, and your attention. Thus, the eye and the visible form are different from the seeing. The same is true for the other senses..." - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/06/magical-illusion-of-self.html David Loy: "...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe. "...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..." "...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."" Zen Master Dogen: "Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death. This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death. Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring." - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/genjo-koan-actualizing-fundamental.html What that dependently originates is empty, unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise and does not cease

Yes... 'luminous' as well. The senses, dhatus and skandhas, the Transience itself IS the non-dual vividness, presence and awareness, the "bright substance of wonderful enlightenment". ..."Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral phenomena, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. Who would have thought that production and extinction, coming and going are fundamentally the eternal wonderful light of the Tathagata, the unmoving, all-pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of True Suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, one will never find them."... ~ Shurangama Sutra

Ok.

Here's an experiential account from someone who realized Anatta and ascended the Thusness stages from 1 to 5 in the same order (though he did not know that Buddha realized anatta too, funny, and started his own 'religion' which he calls 'beyond religion' and 'beyond spiritual enlightenment' which is understandable because this is exactly what Buddha did in the past 2500 years ago, by claiming exclusivity in realization and doctrine from all other religions due to the Anatta doctrine, except that Buddha was truly the first and not AF - but I have already written a 23 page document to counter his lack of understanding at http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms ) His teaching is now very popular in the Dharma Overground forum, practiced even by the forum founder Daniel M. Ingram. http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/abriefpersonalhistory.htm Actual Freedom – Articles A Brief Personal History (click on link)

No, Anatta is not a neti neti process because the neti neti process assumes a Self behind all the not-self. The neti-neti approach is contradictory to the Anatta teaching. For example the Buddha specifically said that you cannot find the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas. This means, as explained earlier, the so called 'self' actually cannot be found or located just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently existing - it is merely a convention for a process of self-luminous but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'weather'/'self' can be found within nor apart from them. Excerpts from Buddha's teachings http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html ..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord."... And all the great Buddhist masters from the past said the same things: As Chandrakirti states: "A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts, Nor non-other. It also does not possess them. It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it. It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape. [The self and the aggregates are] similar." And Padmasambhava states: "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging. As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent. The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny." And Nagarjuna states: “The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other than the aggregates. The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them. The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates. What Tathagata is there?” That process of neti neti is still part of the practice of self inquiry, and self inquiry leads to the realization of I AM, but the neti neti part is still part of the inquiry prior to realization - prior to Thusness Stage 1. The neti neti part itself is not realization, but is part of the process leading to the realization of I AM, but not the realization of Anatta (Anatta would require a different type of contemplation practice, particularly Vipassana). But the realization of Anatta (Stage 5) is a direct realization and does not come from negating. No. First of all, in realizing anatta, you don't 'think it is the multiplicity'. Rather, the multiplicity affirms itself without thinking. Sound hears, scenery sees, there is no seer or hearer, etc. It is deconstructing the One Mind by realizing that it is the process... just like realizing the word 'Weather' is simply a convention but does not mean something independent unchanging or inherent/located somewhere in or apart from the process of weatherly phenomena. So as Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh said: Sunshine and Green Leaves "When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'." "..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...." "In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

Hi, thanks for sharing... true to some extent, though the body still can get into bad shape/bad health/sickness if you don't take proactive steps to take care of it.

Yes, except that it is not a mental analysis... it is a direct realization as I wrote above. The mental analysis part is merely for those unenlightened to have a rough understanding... you have to practice a direct mode of observing reality, like Vipassana, to realise the truth in your experience.

Anatta is also a direct realization To break down One Single Consciousness is trans-rational. It is a transrational realization. Only when we explain it that it seems rational. In the same way that 'One Consciousness' is a transrational realization, and only when we explain it that it appears like a rational theory - but it is a transrational realization. Anatta is neither silly, irrational, or rational: it is trans-rational. You have to realize/experience it to 'know' it (and it is not a form of dualistic knowledge). As my highly enlightened forum friend Richard from NewBuddhist* (never mentioned him before - he has also gone through the various phases of experience) wrote, 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. *update: this is not Actual Freedom Richard but another Richard.

Well written post, I agree with almost all of your points. What I want to note though... is that regarding the True Self teachings in the latter Mahayana development (the Tathagathagarbha doctrine) can very easily lead people to the conclusion that Buddhism preaches the Hindu Atman doctrine. But, as I explained (quoting from a few scriptural based sources), this is not what is meant - see for example my post in http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/13153-there-is-such-a-self/page__view__findpost__p__168181 and http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/13153-there-is-such-a-self/page__view__findpost__p__168182

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) __________________

Isn't it kinda obvious actually? If a guru tells you that self-realization makes your body healthy, he is bullshitting and I will stay far far away from him. That's like saying "attain self-realization and you'll earn a billion bucks".

Ok. That was not the point of this discussion anyway. But I should also note that D.O. does not contradict the earlier realizations, it is simply a complementary and additional insight that clears away any subtle views and reifications... but the previous experience, the luminosity and clarity is not denied. I wrote about this in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/11/keep-experience-refine-view.html No not noticeably for this body - I think if you're talking about physique: exercising, working out at gym, having a healthy diet is more important than self-realization. I am becoming healthier nowadays, but that's because I am changing my lifestyle and training myself up as I am going to be enlisted into the army soon (mandatory 2 year military service in Singapore). That said, Thusness, who had a much deeper enlightenment than me, talked about very noticeable bodily changes as the direct impact of realization of non-duality (thusness stage 4-5). For example I wrote based on what he said in my blog: Hi, No, Thusness is not a vegetarian. Many enlightened Tibetan and Theravada masters are also not vegetarians. Thusness has been a businessman for many years and it is hard for him to avoid meat and business entertainment. However, he did speak about benefits of vegetarianism. He told me years ago that diet is important and at one stage one will want to be vegetarian, however he still ate meat due to some circumstances. Vegetarianism will help a lot and his meditative experience told him he had to, and that fasting too is important. A lot of people do not know this. There is a bodily transformation, a crystal clear feeling, especially during/after the stabilization of non-duality in all three phases (waking, dreaming, deep-sleep). Thusness speculates that this is the cause of 'sariras' ( http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/366959#post_9218519 ) or the crystal like relics that Buddha and awakened disciples left after their parinirvana. Deep sleep (a natural non-dual samadhi) becomes crucial, however the need for sleep will also be reduced to lower than 4 hours per day. And anyway, vegetarianism is particularly emphasized in the Chinese Mahayana texts (e.g. Lankavatara Sutra, Mahaparinirvana Sutra, etc), because of the practice of Great Compassion in the Bodhisattva path. Therefore it is highly recommended. But I would not go to say that you must be a vegetarian to have those experiences stated. There is no such requirements to realise the nature of mind. No, but my mom can and she isn't enlightened. Not noticeably. 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. Yes, there is pain and pleasure and more serenity. Pain and pleasure are simply sensations and feelings and thoughts passing through the sky/opening of presence-awareness. The sky does not obstruct the movement of clouds, the clouds do not in actual fact obscure the bright sky. If you do not identify with them (you no longer believe that the feelings and thoughts are 'me' or 'mine'), they are just more stuff passing along in the environment just fine, there is a fundamental equanimity in the face of all kinds of sensations, feelings and thoughts (that is all that ever happens in your life). Those sensations, feelings and thoughts that pass by are not a problem - they only become a problem when we bring a 'separate me' into the picture and suffer as a result. I have experience of energy even before self-realization. As for self-realization, when you are self-realized, there is intense palpable Presence/Clarity/Awareness and the sense of presence also comes with a sense of vitality, aliveness, energy. The intensity varies for me - I don't experience the same intensity throughout the day, but it is not because it is not there - the intensity of presence and aliveness is always Here and Now and ever available - just that if my focus or dwelling goes more towards the conceptual, then the intensity is not so apparent. As for what is different from the 'state of awareness' and 'realization', the difference is that there is some kind of Realization involved. It is the utter certainty that you have touched and realized the core of your Being, your true identity, who you truly are. And that is not a 'state' that comes and goes. It is what you are - the irrefutable, undeniable fact of Being and Existence. There can be no doubts or uncertainties about it. It is the inescapable ground of Being and Knowing wherein all experiences manifests and subsides, but itself does not come and go. You no longer have doubts about who you truly are, or notions that you can ever 'lose' your own Being (it is who you are!), or become separate from it, as it is not a 'state' but a 'fact' of reality. You realise you never was a person or self separate from Reality/Being at any moment, that you Are that Reality only. And you 'know' this not through inference/deduction or any indirect or conceptual approach - but through direct authentication/realization of Being as a result of self-inquiry and direct looking ('seeing with naked awareness' as they call it). The knowing/realizing of who you are IS the BEING of who you are, and that is why Eckhart Tolle calls this 'feeling-realization' which I think could also be called 'being-realization' - both of the terms suggesting the direct-ness and non-conceptuality of this realization. This is not a form of subject-object knowledge: you do not know that you are as an object (that would imply a knower and a known), but the fact shines so obviously and vividly: YOU ARE! YOU are the Self-Shining, Self-Knowing Being-Awareness that Knows Itself by Itself. As I wrote previously, In actual experience, once you touch that 'certainty of being' that I mentioned, there is no observer and observed distinction. There is just a non-dual sense of Existence, Being, Presence, Knowing, without a sense of 'me' being separated from 'that'. You Are That Knowing which is certain that You Are! The distinction between knower, knowing, and known dissolve into That. You Are That! Direct, gapless, certain, still, non-conceptual. The moment you seek to 'know' or 're-confirm' it as a form of 'knowledge', you have already set up a distance/separation from IT. The only way you can realize this is to engage in the experiential investigation of self-inquiry (Who am I?) coupled with direct-ness of non-conceptual perception that gives rise to the realization and sense of certainty of who You are. Self-Inquiry or koans can lead to this realization. I had many recognitions and experience of Awareness prior to Self-Realization, but Self-Realization is different because precisely it is the 'Realization of Self'. Yes but I call these flashes of brilliance the A&P events and it is not directly linked to self-realization. As I wrote to my highly enlightened friend (Longchen/Simpo): Hi.. thanks for the sharing. 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. I think you may have a different experience of 'luminosity' though... the luminosity due to the deconstruction of perception was mentioned by my Master but I have not experienced yet (he said your body and mind and the surrounding environment totally disappears leaving only the light of your nature) The all pervading and non-local aspect is another aspect of the I AM as you described.. so far in my experience it is only vividly experienced in a state of no thought, I do not think I can sustain a non-local, diffuse or oceanic experience in daily life (yet). I think it has to do with how in daily life, we usually fixate/get attached to a sense of a body. However there is the insight that Awareness is not in any way personal, or localized anywhere, and this insight helps us see and let go of the clinging to a locality residing inside the body. Rather than existing somewhere (like, in a body), even the body and the mind are equally seen as objects in the field of perception along with the stuff in the environment, all happening in a non-local field of Awareness rather than outside of Awareness. The non-dual part is still eluding me... even though I had short glimpses. Again, thanks for sharing. I am still in the process of 'letting go'. Both. It flows spontaneously, but sometimes I remember a sutta that was very relevant to the topic that has a way of putting it in words very succinctly. Yes, according to my friends there is indeed an energetic component to awakening. Both Thusness and Longchen described that an 'energy release' occurs as a lot of energy is fed into grasping onto conceptual thoughts or self. I think only time will make this relation become more apparent for me.

Haha that's funny... I don't think he is 'scaring' people. It is true that if you did bad deeds in this life, you get bad consequences in next life, karma and rebirth are facts that can be proven through meditation. Not only did Buddha remember his past lives and karma, many of my friends and teachers (who I know personally and are still alive) can remember their past lives and karma. It is not just belief, Buddha was speaking from experience. Buddha probably spoke more on 'merits' 'karma' to lay persons because not all lay persons are focused on attaining liberation (probably in those times most of them who are truly interested in liberation and enlightenment are highly likely to have renounced as a monk - though not always the case). The next best thing to enlightenment would be to have a good enough rebirth in the next life to continue cultivation/dharma practice. By the way... you can think about the merits this way. If you donate to charity, it may help someone have a meal or two, but if you 'donate dharma' (teach the teachings to someone else), you may plant a seed in him that will one day sprout into full enlightenment and Buddhahood... and be of benefit to countless sentient beings. In this way, he is ensuring the liberation and enlightenment of countless sentient beings... rather than just a meal for a poor and needy (of course this does not mean donating to poor and needy are unimportant). By giving a meal you ensure that a person is free from hunger for a day... by teaching the dharma, you may in fact be freeing sentient beings from the beginningless cycle of birth and death in samsara.. freedom from all sufferings. Buddha: "The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts."

I'm sure Dwai will agree with you as he always seem to misunderstand Buddhist Emptiness to be "True Self" when it is actually two different things. It would be helpful if you familiarize yourself with Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment (which I think you did) - Emptiness is Stage 5 and 6 (emptiness of self, emptiness of dharmas, respectively) As Dr Greg Goode (who is not only highly knowledgeable but highly enlightened/experienced - do read his well-written article to have a better understanding of Buddhist Empiness) who is a philosopher and spiritual teacher from an Advaita background and yet was unbiased in his learning of Buddhist Emptiness, says: Nondual Emptiness (excerpts) ...For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about." Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.... ........ Emptiness Itself is Empty Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18. Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty. It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists: * Emptiness is not a substance * Emptiness is not a substratum or background * Emptiness is not light * Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness * Emptiness is not the Absolute * Emptiness does not exist on its own * Objects do not consist of emptiness * Objects do not arise from emptiness * Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I" * Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind * Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind Back to top ------------- p.s. this also reminded me of what Bernadette Roberts (a highly experienced Catholic contemplative) said: "That everyone has different experiences and perspectives is not a problem; rather, the problem is that when we interpret an experience outside its own paradigm, context, and stated definitions, that experience becomes lost altogether. It becomes lost because we have redefined the terms according to a totally different paradigm or perspective and thereby made it over into an experience it never was in the first place. When we force an experience into an alien paradigm, that experience becomes subsumed, interpreted away, unrecognizable, confused, or made totally indistinguishable. Thus when we impose alien definitions on the original terms of an experience, that experience becomes lost to the journey, and eventually it becomes lost to the literature as well. To keep this from happening it is necessary to draw clear lines and to make sharp, exacting distinctions. The purpose of doing so is not to criticize other paradigms, but to allow a different paradigm or perspective to stand in its own right, to have its own space in order to contribute what it can to our knowledge of man and his journey to the divine. Distinguishing what is true or false, essential or superficial in our experience is not a matter to be taken lightly. We cannot simply define our terms and then sit back and expect perfect agreement across the board. Our spiritual-psychological journey does not work this way. We are not uniform robots with the same experiences, same definitions, same perspectives, or same anything."

Buddhism may not be the simplest thing to understand... but the deeper you go you'll find that the teaching is actually very consistent. As for the merits... I think you might be referring to Diamond Sutra: http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_text/page13.html "Subhuti, if a good and faithful person, whether male or female, has, for the sake of compassion and charity, been sacrificing their life for generation upon generation, for as many generations as the grains of sands in 3,000 universes; and another follower has been studying and observing even a single section of this Sutra and explains it to others, that person's blessings and merit would be far greater."

Hi, nothing much really.. I'm still just a learner...

You question is not so simple to answer... But what you need to understand is that enlightenment is not just a 'one type final realization' thingy - many people thought enlightenment is 'one and final' and are confused. I suggest you read my friend's Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment He is far more experienced than me and I have learnt a lot from him... I consider him my teacher as well. When I said he attained self-realization when 17, I am refering to the first stage. He is now 42. p.s. if you're asking about Buddhism, the classical texts in Buddhism states that to attain even the first stage of Bodhisattva enlightenment (there are 10 bhumis), you have to realize the Emptiness of Self (Anatta) and the Emptiness of Dharmas - which are corresponded to Thusness Stage 5 and Thusness Stage 6 respectively. Whereas, a Buddhist Arhant is thought by some to have only realized Emptiness of Self but not Emptiness of Dharmas, but this is debatable and I digress. Anyway, hope it gives you some perspective on what insights are necessary to be classified as a Buddhist Arya...

Hmm... I would not go as far as to say 'predictable'. But perfect, yes. Nothing is predetermined. But nothing is controlled. Intentions and imprints manifest, influence actions, which results in consequences. At no moment is there a doer or a recipient of karma/consequences.

Good point...

Thanks for sharing.. you just reminded me of something. Are you the one I shared the article 'The Provisional Acceptance of the Witness' article with months ago? Posts disappears in TheTaoBums... just got reminded I better save my posts somewhere in case I want to reference to them in future.

So it was Self that performed the evil act? Or did the act just happened? Did the Self will the act into existence? Did the Self will what you see and hear into existence or did it just happened? Can you choose to not have unwholesome or painful thoughts or did it just happen? Why did you will it into existence in the first place if there was a controller/thinker of thought? Finally: can you even know what your next moment of thought will be, or did it just spontaneously appear? All these just proves that there is no doer or controller involved... so the question of there being a self that is the doer and recipient of karma, and that the doer and recipient is the 'same self' in order to be 'fair' is baseless not only in Buddhism but also in Advaita. Even in Advaita, there is no doer or recipients of deeds/effects. There is just selfless actions and consequences rolling on without a doer/recipient. Ashtavakra said: Righteousness and unrighteousness, pleasure and pain are purely of the mind and are no concern of yours. You are neither the doer nor the reaper of the consequences, so you are always free. 1.6 ... Since you have been bitten by the black snake, the opinion about yourself that "I am the doer," drink the antidote of faith in the fact that "I am not the doer," and be happy. 1.8 Rizenfenix (excerpt from above): ...since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together. One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one….. No, Steven Norquist is an eternalist.

It is the same as what Dwai talks about.