xabir2005

How do you live without talking and communicating and using conceptual representations/labels/symbols? In fact: it is not necessary to not use them! Enlightened beings continue to use seemingly separative symbols, representations, labels. They still talk about "I", "you", "him", etc. They still use labels. But they are just not deluded into thinking they reference something inherent. Hence the problem does not lie in symbols, but in our knot of perception that takes what we perceive to exist in a separative and inherent way. This can only be removed by insight meditation that allows us to give rise to the insights into the nature of reality. As long as they continue to cling to a sense of self (unavoidable until enlightenment), there is suffering! If everyone is enlightened then yes, no one will suffer. But this is not realistically possible. Yes. It is not the domain of arts, mathematics, science, language, etc to teach people how to liberate and realise the nature of reality. I do hope that will be possible too

The bliss of insight stages/nanas are temporary. However the bliss of Nirvana after having attained high stage of enlightenment is continuous and is called by Buddha as the 'highest bliss'. If you attained full enlightenment, you will experience the seven factors of enlightenment continuously, in which 'joy or rapture' is one of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Enlightenment Bodhisattvas and Buddhas choose to return even after enlightenment but they are not bound up by uncontrolled rebirth. Normal arhants do not have vows to save other sentient beings, so they just enter nirvana without remainder. Yes. The 'XYZ' which happens to be the eightfold path is found worked by countless people who have done it. It is not just 'decided'. The absence of ego (a sense of separate self) is bliss. If you have experienced the dissolution of ego, you will know. It is blissful. But it is probably not the joy you had in mind. Regardless of samatha (concentration) or vipassana (insight) practices, true blissful absorptive experiences are the result of dissolution of self and subject-object split. For insight practitioners, this blissful absorptive experience takes a form of clarity-absorption which is mentioned in one of the Thusness posts in my friend Longchen’s forum ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/different-degrees-of-non-duality.html ) I cannot think of any other ways. Language is one of the important and fundamental ways we relate to each others. I use the term 'convention' to specifically refer to 'naming conventions', to mean the labels, the conceptual representation we imposed on something perceived so that we can recognise it. For example a baby sees his mother, brother, but he cannot recognise it until he learns how to label what he or she sees, i.e. that is "mom". In everyday life we cannot escape using conceptual representations or symbols. It is only when we take our conceptual representation to represent something 'inherently existing' that causes problems, just like we take the conceptual presentation called 'weather' and misperceive it to refer to some locatable 'thing' or 'entity', not realising that 'weather' is really only a label, there is only just a stream of weather patterns changing moment to moment according to conditions without something graspable, locatable, or permanent and self-existing. It is a necessary process to teach a person how to orientate in the world conceptually. But through this process he hardens the view of 'selves' and 'entities' as existing separately and inherently. It is inevitable but a necessary process. In fact even if you did not teach this way, for example a dog or a monkey who has no language or symbols in the way we humans use them, does not mean they are enlightened. Even though they may experience less sense of separation (not none), doesn't mean they have no ignorance, or are enlightened to the nature of reality. Having the realisation of the nature of reality is something altogether different. It totally untangles the knot of perception that makes us perceive a 'self' at the centerpoint that is observing and controlling 'objects out there', and it makes us see that the conventions and labels do not refer to something inherently existing.

Greg Goode, "Standing As Awareness": How are objects a block? Q: You've written that the notion that physical objects are external is a block to nondual inquiry. Can you say more about that? A: Using objects in everyday activities does not block your inquiry. You can actually put on your clothes in the morning or drink a cup of coffee and do inquiry at the same time. But it is a block to take these objects literally as external, independent, solid chunks of reality separated from yourself. If you regard objects as separate, then you regard yourself as separate. This sense of separation is based on these unwarranted object-beliefs, and gains a false sense of proof from kinesthetic experiences and the feelings of bodily muscular contractions. In truth, however, the body is not separate. It is unlimited and infinitely light, as awareness. The body is not in space, it is infinitely more subtle than space. It is awareness itself. But we tend to think in spatial, physicalist terms, and use these terms widely. The spatial concept of physical separation that serves as the paradigm for all our notions of separation and difference. We tend to experience "difference" as spatial. This makes us think of two aspects existing on opposite sides of unbridgeable spatial gaps. Examples include feeling cut off from reality (it's out there, we're in here), feeling cut off from other people, feeling separated from our goals and the objects of our desires, and feeling ourselves to be divided - heart from mind, mind from body, conscious from subconscious, worldly from spiritual, etc. We almost feel as though these things occupy different places. And all of these feelings make us experience ourselves as all alone, vulnerable, and perishable. Q: But isn't this the way things really are? A: No. You never experience spatial externality or independence. Instead, you merely accept a story about it. This can be demonstrated. Try this: Shut your eyes. Take a deep breath .... now let it out. Now try to just listen .... air-conditioning-sounds .... car sounds .... building creaking-sounds. There is no car, no building appearing as such. In fact, the sound is your only evidence of anything like an "air-conditioner" or a "car." In this moment, outside the sound, you don't have access to an air-conditioner or car. But where is the sound itself located? The sound is not on the outside or inside. It's not on the left, right, north or south. There is no dividing line between the sound and you. Of course there might be a storyline that follows the sound, a storyline that says that the car is physically located "outside." But notice that this "outside" is not evident in the sound itself. This is the same for all the senses. Try this with vision. Place two similar coffee cups on your desk. Now, attend to the visual evidence alone. Two cylindrical patches of white, with brown between them .... No line between the colors and you .... No evidence in the colors of being "out there" .... There is no evidence of ourself being an observer "in here." Nevertheless, based on these colors and their change over time, we conclude that there are objects external to us. We accept a story that these objects are separated from us. But there's no support for this story in the visual evidence itself. Q: OK, so are you saying there are no desks or people? A: Not independent from you there aren't. It just doesn't make sense to think of things as existing apart from experience. Think about the way you experience a cup. It is not apart from seeing or touching or thinking. Seeing, hearing, touching and thinking are never present without awareness within which they arise. It's all awareness all the time. And awareness is the nature of you. You never experience an unexperienced cup. You might think you do experience a cup that is in itself an unexperienced object. That is what classical Western science has taught. Heisenberg began to show how experience itself conditions the supposed object of experience. Experience is always in the makeup of anything experienced. There's never experience of something existing apart from experience. So this whole notion of independent existence can be dropped as incoherent and productive of feelings of separation. Q: So, what's left? A: Experience, which is always whole and non-separate. And when it doesn’t seem like there's anything other than experience, then it won't seem like there's a real thing called experience either. Existence/nonexistence, being and non-being will stop making sense and will drop away, no longer serving as partitions. You'll never feel cut off from the world again. Q: Well, I sure seem to experience this chair, this pencil, this cup of coffee. What is it like not to have no experience of these things? A: Free, light, weightless, uncrowded, unburdened, sweet and peacefully present. Q: Like really connected.... A: Ah! No, I don't mean like Dustin Hoffman demonstrated with his white towel in I Heart Huckabees -- "Everything's connected!" It's closer than that, much closer. There's neither a feeling of connection or disconnection with the chair and pencil. It's all present, here, now. There's not an impression of the pencil as something on the other side of some spatial relation. Q: No spatial relations. How is that possible in the physical world? I hear you ride a bike. How do you explain that? A: In fact, I ride a bike with no gears and no brakes, on city streets. It's called a track bike. The lightness I'm speaking of actually makes the track bike easier to ride than it would have been, even on city streets. By the way, there are many others who ride the same kind of brakeless bikes. I've spoken with many of them over the years. Even though they have no interest in these spiritual kinds of inquiries, they often report the same lightness, the sense that everything is hooked in together with the rider. Everything moves and flows together in a way that is light and free and connected. Q: This just doesn't make sense to me. How light is it if you get hit by a bus!? A: Same! I've had accidents, I've been hit by cars, other cyclists and skaters. I've crashed and had bleeding injuries. I've had sprains, damage to the ligaments, and was once not able to ride for 6 months. This is all lightness itself, having zero weight and zero external existence, just like ideas. Injury, damage to the body, pain - they're all lightness. Q: So it's all in the mind then? A: No, because without an outside, how can there be an inside? It's more that there's no border. Q: How can someone come to experience this? A: By coming to see that all experience is whole as it is, and not disconnected from you. Experience doesn't indicate objects outside of experience, so there's no gap. One key to this is not to associate unpleasantness or pain with disconnection. Allow these to be as they are without making symbols or metaphors out of them.

I see. I think you are tampered with by other spirits.

Each person has their own individual mindstream, which continues from moment to moment, and lifetime to lifetime. There is no collective higher soul in Buddhism.

There is no such thing as higher or lower self. You reap the results of your own deeds, not others.

Poor translation. The original text is: 善哉善哉，一切有情众生皆具如来智慧德相，只因妄想执著不能证得。若离妄想执著，即成佛道。 An accurate literal word-by-word translation done by me (and you can ask any Chinese guy to confirm) would be "Wonders of wonders, all sentient beings are endowed with the wisdom, virtues and embellishments (the 32 major marks and 80 minor marks) of the Tathagatas, but they cannot attain them simply because of deluded thinking and attachments. If they depart from deluded thinking and attachments, they shall accomplish the Buddha Way." This is from Avatamsaka Sutra. Btw this is the same as Mahaparinirvana Sutra saying, "That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”." and "Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’. Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

Then our forum shows different timing. You have to point by post number.

Actually this is saying the same thing as the article by David Loy posted by TS. Except that it tries to include Judaism into the picture. In fact he even quoted from David Loy in that article. My 'criticism' of David Loy's article applies to his as well.

Mahaparinirvana Sutra: That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened (Buddhas) at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”. (Namdrol) Another translation: - Good son, there are three ways of having: first, to have in the future, Secondly, to have at present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All sentient beings will have in future ages the most perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature. All sentient beings have at present bonds of defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two marks and eighty noble characteristics of the Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds leading to the elimination of defilements and so can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha191.htm Interestingly, modern Buddhologists are not alone in their puzzle about the question of whether the 'tathagatagarbha' represents a kind of Upanishadic 'atman'. Bodhisattva 'Mahamati' in the 'Lankavatarasutra' raised a question concerning this issue. He said to the Buddha: - Now the Blessed one makes mention of the 'tathagatagarbha' in the sutras, and it is described by you as by nature bright and pure, as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being like a gem of great value ... it is described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious and unchangeable. Is not this 'tathagatagarbha' taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers (tirthikas)? (12). In this passage, the Buddha clearly identified the 'tathagatagarbha' with emptiness, markless, 'tathata', etc., meaning that the 'tathagatagarbha' is without any substantial entity. Then the question arises: -- if the 'tathagatagarbha' is empty by nature , why the Buddhas teach a 'tathagatagarbha' possessing all positive attributes, such as eternal (nitya), self ('atman'), bliss (sukha) and pure (subha)? The Buddha goes on to answer this question: - The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore , 'Mahamati', in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.(13) --------------------- http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm Buddha's Refutes the Notion that Tathagatagarbha is the Upanishadic Atman, or that the Buddhist Nirvana is the same as Upanishadic Moksha, from the Lankavatara Sutra Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathagatahood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination. We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, auspicious. It is not this which is born of the Womb of Tathagatahood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers? The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, imperishable. It there, or is there not a difference? The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What i teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathagatahood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of egolessness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. The religious teaching of the Tathagatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rob, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathagatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold egolessness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realisation of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosphers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightement. All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathagata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman. later [buddha] They ("philosophers") imagine that Nirvana consists (of) ... the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; (...) ... clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening, and they consider Nirvana to consist in the fact that there is no awakening.

Your post shows as 9.35am. What about 10:30am?

I don't remember putting down shamatha jhana. I remember putting shamatha jhanas into perspective: that they serve only as a foundation for insight practice, but in itself does not lead to enlightenment.

There is no denial that Buddha attained mastery of shamatha jhanas. Daniel M. Ingram, too, talked about his mastery of shamatha jhanas, his dabbling with psychic powers, etc. However, shamatha jhanas do not *in itself* lead to enlightenment. If you practice shamatha jhana everyday till you become a jhana bliss junkie, you're no closer to enlightenment, unless you start practicing Vipassana as well.

The Buddha cultivated for 3 aeons before attaining Buddhahood (You do not need to wait so long however, if you follow his instructions: you can attain liberation in this life, either as an arhant, or as a bodhisattva.), as Buddhahood takes much longer to attain than Bodhisattvahood or Arhatship. This is not the first life he practiced. Also, before his enlightenment, after he cultivated fruitlessly for 6 long years through the wrong practices (ascetism, or entering trance states or mastering the 7th and 8th samatha jhanas which did not lead to enlightenment, etc) and wrong views, he remembered the 'long forgotten truth' of Dependent Origination (which he learnt from his past lives from other Buddhas), and through contemplating in that he gained enlightenment. Therefore to learn the right view, and the right practices, is very important. You don't want to waste your time like Buddha wasting time in the first six years and not finding the end of suffering, enlightenment, liberation (if, that is what you are seeking). My advice: go for time tested techniques and teachings and learn from those who have done it, practice what they taught, and you will gain enlightenment as well. Of course this does not mean becoming scholar of all their written teachings, it just means learning enough to support our own practice. You are experiencing A&Ps, aka Arising and Passing Away event, aka 4th nana, aka 2nd Vipassana Jhana. I had many of those as wells, sometimes meditating, sometimes even in lucid dreams, and maybe other times as well. It is not enlightenment or nirvana, though it has fooled some into thinking so: A&Ps are also known as 'pseudonirvana'. What follows A&Ps like thunder follows lightning is the Dark Nights, dukkha nanas, which can cause suffering and problems. The advice would be to practice as much as possible, go on retreats if possible, and get Stream Entry. Then you overcome the problems or they do not become such a big deal. I highly recommend reading Daniel M. Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of Buddha, written by a Mahasi Sayadaw lineage teacher who has done it, attained Arhatship (full liberation and enlightenment in Hinayana path), and detailed the stages of the path and how to cross each territory, the instructions, great advices, etc. One of the most practical dharma books ever. Link to book: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.shtml About A&Ps: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/faq.shtml Q: I had this amazing experience (involving lights, visions, powers, energy, Kundalini, vibrations, meditating while dreaming, vortices, powerful bliss, spontaneus movements, deep releases, sexual feelings, profound "emptiness", non-duality, unity, cosmic consciousness, etc.) and now I: a) think I may be enlightened, can't find anyone to talk with about it, c) don't know what to make of it, d) my teachers wouldn't tell me what happened, e) am now on a spiritual quest and excited about practice, f) am depressed and freaked out, g) am not sure what to do, h) am confused, etc. A: The vast majority of experiences that really blow peoples minds and cause big changes are something the Theravada calls the Arising and Passing Away (A&P) Event, aka the 4th ñana, aka Knowledge of Deep Insight into the Arising and Passing of Phenomena, aka Udayabbayanupassana in Pali, aka "The Wave" in massage terms, aka awakening the Kundalini in Hindu terms, aka the fourth stage of the first path of the Tibetan 5-path system, aka pseudo-nirvana in Jack Kornfield's clan's terms. In fact, if you are looking around at sites such as this one and a committed spiritual quester, the chances are quite good that at some point you have crossed the A&P. It is marked generally by some combination of profound openings, energetic phenomena, lights/visions, powerful dreams, bliss, rapture, and the like. I describe it in detail in my book, and have written a short essay about it with some of my experiences of it so as to try to add a real-world touch to the theory. It is a life changing and important experience that may repeat again and again. It can occur off retreat and even without meditation training. With each occurrence, it is followed almost invariably by something called The Dark Night, aka the Knowledges of Suffering, aka the Dukkha Ñanas, and other names, which I also describe in my book. This can cause all sorts of complexities. Many people are quite surprised that they could possibly have had a "real", traditional meditation experience. As the A&P contains key features but many of the specifics can vary widely, people may feel it does not perfectly align with stock descriptions and thus be confused. Most meditation teachers at this unfornate juncture in history will not tell people what has happened to them (assuming they even know what it was), and also will not warn them of what happens next, meaning the Dark Night. Thus, my advice is: read my book! This stuff is all in there. If something blew your mind: 98% chance it was the A&P, but look around at the other criteria, and read the warnings and advice. In general terms: go on more retreats, practice more, follow instructions carefully, and get stream entry as soon as possible. In the meantime, be nice to people when you can and try to avoid screwing up your life if possible.

Self: an inherently existing (hence not empty), actual nature. Buddha-nature: not an actual nature, but a potential to be Buddha

You misunderstood 'immortal potency'. What it means is, as Loppon Namdrol said, Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues: "Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’. Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’." The evidence that humans do not need to believe in a soul is the existence of Buddhism. Or if you like an alternative: Actual Freedom by Richard, which I think is the closest so far to Buddhism in that it does not teach or require a soul, but still there are elements like dependent origination that is still lacking there.

This is not about product differentiation at all. You have to read what I quoted carefully. Buddha Nature is just a skillful means to lead someone grasping at a true self to realise the twofold emptinesses. It is not an actual existing nature/Self. The nature of Buddha (the nature of us) is empty [of inherent Self/existence], even while the essence is luminous. There is no True Self.

Firstly, Buddha-Nature is not accepted by original Buddhism/Theravada Buddhism as it is a latter development of Mahayana (late Mahayana in fact). Secondly, Buddha-Nature is not the Self of non-Buddhists. Loppon Namdrol:

No not really. Even if there is just One Thing, and this One Thing did not need to depend on any conditions, that is independence for me. Independence from anything and any conditions sounds independence.

Rebirth is scientifically proven, just look at Dr Ian Stevensons and many other scientists' research on this. This is because karma and rebirth was not a metaphysical speculation of his, this was his very experience. He remembered countless past lives on the day of his enlightenment. It is one of the 3 knowledges he gained: 1. The knowledge that the Buddha recollects His past lives, 2. the knowledge capable of seeing the decease and rebirth of beings, and 3. the knowledge capable of eradicating defilements. I have friends who remembered their past lives through meditation as well. So it is not just Buddha. I agree with the first sentence especially. Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. This however, cannot apply to Buddhism. Why? Because Buddhism does not believe in a split between Spirit and Matter. In Buddhism there is no transcendental Spirit, just the dhammas. Liberation is in seeing the nature of dhammas, thus ending clinging. It is not dualistic in the sense of Subject Object duality. Liberation in Buddhism is not to find a 'transcendental spirit', liberation means the end of (mental) suffering. No more ignorance, no more dualistic clinging, no more suffering.

While we're at the topic.. I just want to add that those who find the "outside in" or Advaita approach appealing should get the book "Standing As Awareness: The Direct Path" by Greg Goode. I just read the first 34 pages of the book today, it is a truly good guide for the practitioner to investigate. One of the clearest and most practical Advaita books I've read yet. I actually bought the e-book years ago, but just got the hardcopy because the newly published edition included an additional 3 chapters at the front. The 3 chapters definitely made it worth the purchase. Wrote a longer review at http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/391975

The difference between Advaita and Buddhism is not that of existence vs non-existence, being vs non-being, but rather - being vs becoming. There is nothing permanent, independent, ultimate, about knowing. Instead we appreciate impermanence, no-self, dependent origination. We appreciate knowing as a verb. This is not a denial of luminosity, this is about seeing the union of luminosity and emptiness (factoring in no-self, impermanence and dependent origination).

To add on to AlwaysOn, this would not be possible *even if* Advaita were to exist during Buddha's times (and fact is that Advaita only came up over thousand years after Buddha's times). This is because Buddhism had a totally different paradigm that does not teach an ultimate reality like that of Brahman. It is a major paradigm shift between Buddhism and other all other religions including Hinduism that teaches Brahman or a God, which is the central theme of all other religions. See Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta