xabir2005

Hi alwayson, Nice seeing you around, didn't know you had an account here

Reality is 'what is'. It is the first basis of experience. It is what is present even before conceptualization steps in. In mystical religions they may refer to the first basis as 'Consciousness/Awareness'. In the original Pali teachings of Buddha, the first basis is actually our sensate reality. However they are actually in the end not two different things when we realise that consciousness is by nature non-dual and non-inherent. But of course none of these words actually tell us what Consciousness/Sensate Reality actually is, yet if we look ourselves directly it is as clear as day. Anyway as we experience reality without concepts or intermediary, a sense of unshakeable confidence arises because we are touching something undoubtable - reality itself. And that is non-dual, there is no sense of being separate from the reality we experienced. There is just that. Any sense of separation is again conceptual mental construct, and with that around we will not be able to experience the 'unshakeable confidence' as a result of direct perception. When we practice, we aim to experience this directly, whether you are practicing Vipassana, or Self-Inquiry, or any direct and attentive bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they are. However I have also mentioned before that a non-dual non-conceptual direct meditative experience is being reified into a metaphysical essence without even us noticing it. Ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state. Hence, a teacher is necessary to point out the right view, otherwise we will reify our meditative experience and get stuck on a false view. We may start to reify consciousness as something permanent, independent, as an ultimate source. Hence, in Buddhism, the path (naked awareness of everything as it is) alone cannot lead to fruition (liberation), having right view (Emptiness) is necessary and crucial. That is, only through having the right view with the right practices (path) then fruition of liberation can arise. In a practical world, there is no way we can avoid dirtying our hands and remain free from conceptualization; we have to face 'thinking'. It seems that whenever thinking steps in, the 'sense of self' surfaces and division is again experienced. The ‘background’, the ‘ultimate source’ will arise and there is no way of getting rid of this split for this is the nature of dualism. Every time we recall or think there will always be a division; the background, the source will surface. And as long as our fundamental way of analyzing and thinking rest on a subject-object paradigm, there will always be a mismatched between non-dual experience and the 'views' for a non-dualist - a de-synchronization between views and meditative experience. That is, a practitioner will find great difficulties when trying to express the experience based on a subject/object dichotomy. It can be quite frustrating and the practitioner may get himself confused during the process. He may say things like "I am You", "You are Me", or "everything is inseparable from Awareness" - not knowing that he has again fallen into the Subject/Object framework to express a non-dual experience. In Buddhism there is a complete system of thought to orientate ourselves non-dually and non-inherently, that is, the viewless-view of Emptiness. It is a raft but it is the antidote for the conventional mind to orientate itself in a non-dual and non-local context. It also led to the amazing insight that ‘duality’ is really the result of seeing and taking things ‘inherently’. And hence Thusness says: In the practice of non-conceptuality, the firm establishment of right view is not a problem. In the practice of thoughtlessness, thought is not a problem. In the practice of selflessness, self is not a problem. It is not uncommon to find practitioners totally giving up this attempt to synchronize "views" and experience and conclude that it is an absolute futile endeavor to do that. They prefer to rest fully in naked awareness. By doing so, the practitioner will miss something valuable -- the insight of the importance of "non inherent existence". In fact, dualistic view is merely a subset of seeing things 'inherently'. Further understanding will also reveal that the bad habit of 'searching' is the result of seeing things 'inherently'. Our inability to sustain a non-dual experience is also the result of it. The formation of a 'center' that we are so unwilling to give up is merely a natural phenomenon of our deeply held 'inherent' views. When the view and experience are harmonized, the practitioner can then progress further. He rest neither in concepts nor non-conceptuality. He frees himself from erroneous views like "I am You and You are me". He sees “Everything as Awareness” (not everything inseparable from Awareness - there is no 'inseparability' when there is No Subject to be in union with objects) but that is because in the world of Empty Luminosity, the practitioner is not bounded in a subject/object or object/attributes paradigm. “Awareness as Everything” should never be understood from a dualistic perspective. The seen, sound are the non-dual luminous experience; but direct experience of non-dual luminosity is not suffcient. Though perfectly clear and vividly present as in non-dual experience, the 'seen' is radically different from the 'sound' -- this is its emptiness nature. This viewless view must be fused into our non-dual insight. When views are firmly established and non-dual experience thoroughly authenticated, a practitioner will see everything as Awareness without conflict in both views and experiences. Not bounded within an inherent and dualistic paradigm, he will not be confused. When the real cause and the empty nature of our pristine awareness are understood, this ‘Emptiness’ view too must be discarded. But not before insight arises. Only after the 'raft' has served its purpose, it is discarded.

Yes what we think of as a solid personality are also just more thoughts and concepts that arise and subside from moment to moment dependent on conditions, it is nothing solid. If we perceive what we call as ego grasping as simply more thoughts which is impermanent by nature, then we are observing its reality. If we are however totally identified with the perspective of being the ego as a solid 'me', then that is being lost. Perhaps you can share about the profit and fame part. Insight.

On the four extremes, someone just coincidentally posted a relevant discourse the Buddha taught into my Buddhist forum. Someone posted: Can i have a summary ? So I did a short one:

I don't think this translation is good. Actually a better translation would be: Why? If those living beings' minds cling to appearances, that would be attachment to a self, others, living beings and a life. If they cling to appearances of dharmas, that would be attachment to a self, others, living beings and a life. Why? If they cling to the appearances of non-dharmas, that would be attachment to a self, others, living beings and a life. Therefore, you should not cling to dharmas; you should not cling to non-dharmas. Because of this principle the Thus Come One always says, 'Bhikshus, you should all know that the Dharma I speak is like a raft. You must let go of dharmas. Even more so let go of non-dharmas.'" Dharma Master Lok To says: Because the idea of the existent is set up by that of the non-existent, and the notion of the non-existent is made manifest by that of the existent. However, if originally the existent is not postulated, then the non-existent has nowhere from which to arise. Truthfully, the Real Supramundane is neither existent nor non-existent. This is the Dharma of True Activity. The Diamond Sutra says: "If one grasps the concept of Dharma, that is attachment to the false notion of an ego and a personality. In contrast, if one grasps at the concept of non-Dharma, that also is attachment to the false notion of an ego and a personality. Therefore, one should not hold either the notion of Dharma or of non-Dharma." This is really holding the True Dharma. If one can understand this doctrine and the Dharma of non-duality, then he is truly liberated. In other words: If you grasp that a self is non-existent, that is still implying there is an entity called 'self' in the first place that is 'non-existent'. Since self cannot be located in the first place like 'weather' is not an entity found anywhere in reference to the patterns of wind blowing, clouds, rain, etc - it would make no sense to say that an entity called 'self' could exist, and then become non-existent, etc. The notions of existence, non-existence, etc. only make sense in reference to an entity with solidity, inherent existence, characteristics, etc. Emptiness means empty of the four extremes of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence. So what is denied here is the four extremes: existence, non-existence, both and neither. However what is true is that there is no inherent existence anywhere to be found. If with reference to phenomenal appearance, no solidity, inherency, characteristics, etc could be located, then the 4 extremes are immediately transcended. Hence it is true that all phenomenal appearance are devoid of intrinsic qualities. Heart Sutra: "Shariputra, all dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced, not destroyed, not defiled, not pure, and they neither increase nor decrease." Existence, non-existence, etc. are all reification. However you cannot reify non-inherency of self since nothing is established in this case. p.s. I am Chinese and I know the original text from which it was translated.

I see what you mean. What you said is true but pointing out the differences between non-duality, non-conceptuality and emptiness is important. There maybe better, simple and more direct way but at present, I am still unable to find a short cut. However there is no such intentions here to engage in 'battles' but I'm not sure if it may appear that way to some people..

There is often the perspective that spirituality should remain simple, that it's about cultivating simple mindedly, being detached, stilling mind, etc. Though developing stillness or samadhi is important, by itself it does not result in liberating insights. As Thusness puts it to one of the forummers in my Buddhist forum: I see it otherwise. Dharma is deep and profound. Even if we were to search the entire globe, still it is hard to find one that can be completely detached. Try as we may, ‘attachment’ continues to arise. The reason being detachment is not a matter of ‘will’, it is a matter of prajna wisdom and only in Buddhism this is pointed out and for this I am grateful to Buddha. Although it is not right to spout high views, it is also important not to over simplify matters. In my view, if our mind is filled with ‘dualistic and inherent thoughts’, even with utmost sincerity and honesty in practice, there is still no true ‘detachment’. I often see a reluctance to grapple with issues related to developing insights/wisdom. Of course such discussions should not be discussed for purely intellectual purposes, but should relate to our direct experience -- emptiness/dependent origination is not just a concept but can be directly realised. But if we are inclined to be too simplistic and disregard the view, then insights also cannot develope, or rather one might be able to have some insights but will be unable to give rise to the insight of emptiness/"non-inherent existence". Understanding the teachings of emptiness is an important antidote to our deeply rooted inherent/dualistic tendencies, and will not be up-rooted by simply being 'naked in awareness' or in 'stillness' (but may be temporarily suppressed). Insight however is what liberates. Understanding is not the insight, but it is important firsthand to establish the view. Then through investigating directly our experience, insight can arise. I like what meditation teacher Rob Burbea says about this in Realizing the Nature of Mind: ...Last thing I want to say, I’m aware talking about these stuff, that it lands in very different places for very different reasons for people. And it could seem, I hope it didn’t, but it could seem that all these is almost an hour's worth of quibbling, an hour's worth of sort of petty wrangling about some kind of intellectual something or rather it might seem that way. But one of the things I want to say is, it’s very easy in the Dharma after a long time of practice, to sort of hear this kind of talk and say, “well, I don’t want to quibble. Does it really matter? It’s all good, you say this, you say that, he says that, it’s all good. Let’s all be friends, and we can all be happy together.” And that kind of attitude again is very popular. I think it’s quite popular in the west. I think contrary to the self-image that we have, we actually don’t like debating with each other and wrangling out these points, we actually don’t like it. We prefer this kind of “it’s all good”, but there’s something that happens if I don’t grapple with these questions. When people in the Dharma look at me from the outside, and if my attitude is you know, “all this is the mind getting into complications and arguing”, if that’s what I say and it’s like I’m not gonna get into that, what it’s gonna look like, what it can look like from the outside is, “there’s someone really peaceful and wise and not engaging in da da da…” But if I’m not grappling with these questions, although it might look like there’s some peace and freedom here, I don’t think that the deeper level of freedom will be arrived at. Like I said, I think it’s almost inevitable that at points in the unfolding of insights there’s going to be agitation. There’s going to be difficulty, there’s going to be frustration, there’s going to be confusion, there’s going to be a wrestling with these things. That deep freedom won’t be discovered unless we grapple with these stuff at some point in our practice whenever that is. And I hope it doesn’t sound intellectual tonight, it might have, I hope it didn’t. And that’s really not the point. What I really wanted to unfold is something we can see in practice through developing practice in the right ways. There’s not one way of going about this but there’s ways that will unfold this. And what one sees is that different levels of freedom, unmistakably different levels of freedom open up in one’s experience. Different levels of freedom and release. And going through that, one sees, one understands this building process. Oh, goodness me, this whole structure of reality, what seemed to be a self, and a world and things, and time, and awareness, everything in space, everything I took for granted, is actually built. And I’ve understood that because I’ve gone through it and kind of unbuild it, and unbind it. And then one realizes almost in hind sight that one was either consciously or unconsciously giving things – the things of this world, subtle things and gross things, giving them an inherent existence, seeing them as possessing inherent existence. Ascribing to them an inherent existence. Usually we unwittingly do that. So a good rule of thumb, (you know we talk about the emptiness of this, the emptiness of that, and the emptiness of all things and blah blah blah) to actually safely assume that you are giving something an inherent existence – in other words not seeing it’s empty, unless you’re really deliberately seeing it's empty. In other words the default mode the mind gives inherent existence to things all the time, and that’s what the Buddha called delusion, the fundamental level of delusion. The thing I really want to emphasize is the possibility of practice to actually discover this in a real way, a way that can be brought into the life and have an enormous impact in our sense of freedom in life. That’s possible and developable for us in this room as practitioners. It’s just a matter of finding the way for that unbuilding, that unpacking, that seeing of emptiness to happen. That is possible, there’s no reason why it cannot be or shouldn’t be. If we care deeply, as I said if we don’t really want to grapple with it, it’s not like it’s like it’s suddenly gonna be known to us at a heart level. So it’s something really possible for us as practitioners.

And what light is is another issue, if you investigate light, you will probably be able to say things about it but what we observe about light is also dependently originated and empty, and depends on the way you investigate it. There is nothing inherent to light as well. I like the explanation of rizenfenix, a very experienced yogi whose explanation on this matter is very similar to Thusness's: Emptiness and the Middle Way An object is seen by a hundred different people like a hundred reflections in a hundred mirrors. But is it the same object? As a first approximation, it’s the same object, but one that can be perceived in completely different ways by different beings. Only one who has attained enlightenment recognizes the object’s ultimate nature – that it appears, but is devoid of any intrinsic existence – as the direct contemplation of absolute truth transcends any intellectual concept, any duality between subject and object. Buddhism’s position is that of the ‘Middle Way: the world isn’t a projection of our minds, but it isn’t totally independent of our minds, either – because it makes no sense to speak of a particular, fixed reality independent of any concept, mental process, or observer. Rather there is interdependence. In this manner, Buddhism avoids falling into either nihilism or eternalism. Phenomena arise through a process of interdependent causes and conditions, but nothing exists in itself or by itself. Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it. Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way. That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.

It will be a mistake to think that a practitioner has not directly experienced non-conceptuality. It is more appropriate to see from the angle that those practitioners that are discussing this have quite thorough experience of non-conceptuality, and for Lucky he has had direct experience and insight into the luminous nature. They are saying the subtle tendencies continue to have influence over a practitioner that has matured his non-conceptual experience. As I wrote in my previous post, ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state.

Let's examine this a bit. The vision of colours, shapes, (not that they are in any way inherent) cannot be denied. For example if we hear a sound, and then perceive it as an object out there separate from us as a separate observer, the sound being an object that exists 'objectively in the world' at a distance so the speak, then that is the result of mental constructs. The subject-object and inherency construct is so deeply embedded in our consciousness that we will not be able to know how to let go of it, or even that it is affecting us in so many ways every moment of our lives, until insight into the nature of reality arises. However in direct non-conceptual perception, a separate observer, nor a thing observed cannot be found. If we deconstruct the deep held mental constructs of subject, object, distance, etc, the experience will be that "these coloured shapes present themselves in all its simplicity, without any such complications as near or far, this or that, mine or not mine, seen-by-me or merely given. All twoness -- all duality of subject and object -- has vanished: it is no longer read into a situation which has no room for it" But mental constructs go deeper than subject-object duality. For if you experience non-duality, you still may be attached to inherency. For example, in the non-conceptual, direct and non-dual experience of "redness of a flower", the "redness" is vividly clear. Yet there is also a belief that 'redness' is real, true, inherent. Doesn't it? 'Redness' is similar to 'self'. Both 'redness' and 'self' are equally certain, doubtless and vividly clear from a direct, non-conceptual, non-dual mode of perception, yet they are empty, like the explanation I gave previously regarding the red flower: Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena. As you've seen, there is no ‘The Flowerness’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). ‘'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This is the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attributelessness of our nature. So anyway, a practitioner may have a non-dual, non-conceptual experience yet still have an inherent view. The experience however cannot be denied though. As the Buddha puts it: ..."Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime... The experience of seeing, sensing, hearing, all are not denied. What is denied is a cognizer and an object cognized. What is denied is selfhood. What is denied is things existing inherently. However it would be too much to say that aggregates are denied... with regards to the experience of aggregates, selfhood is clearly denied to exist in or apart from aggregates, and the aggregates are further emptied (heart sutra), but that does not mean they are non-existent in experience. Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Anyway, you're right, there is seeing/perceptions, but there is no seer and no world seen. p.s. You are right and a practitioner must clearly understand how the entire experience is shaped and also the implications if such dualistic and inherent perception is gone. Mental constructs is part of experience affecting us almost every moment of our unawakened lives, blinding us, like a spell. However it is possible to experience life without the filtering of mental constructs or concepts. That is direct experience. Eventually though we will be able to perceive directly both non-conceptual and conceptual thoughts as of equal nature and essence, and there is no binding quality to them. Also, there are other aspects of mental constructs I have not discussed, for example seeing a tree unlike hearing a sound or 'redness of flower' involves other aspects related to the 'spatial or inherent' aspect of mental constructs, hence having direct and non-dual experience of 'sound' does not imply that one will also have direct and non-dual experience of viewing a 'tree'. Yes. Free will and determinism are deeply held mental constructs with relation to a self, and once seen as 'void', there won't be attachment to such concepts. For conventional purposes we continue to speak and act as if there is free will, but our experience will be ongoing authentication with reality, there will be very little thoughts and thoughts that arise will not bind. One knows conventions but perceives reality.

In that case, rest in objectless Self.

Very good. Indeed luminosity can only be 'touched' directly without analysis and inference and anything secondary. It is just this direct naked perception of innate aliveness and knowing. However after recognising the luminosity in the gap between thoughts, we can too examine the luminosity and emptiness of thoughts and speech, which means to directly recognise the nature of thoughts 'nakedly' and 'directly'. Then we will see that as Thusness puts it in the past, To know the pathless, see words and wordlessness as one. Non-conceptuality is just the beginning, it is far from the totality of our marvelous nature's manifestation. Use words and engage in speeches, dirty your hands and walk on! We will also understand what Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra is conveying with the excerpt: Then the venerable Sariputra said to the goddess, "Goddess, how long have you been in this house?" The goddess replied, "I have been here as long as the elder has been in liberation." Sariputra said, "Then, have you been in this house for quite some time?" The goddess said, "Has the elder been in liberation for quite some time?" At that, the elder Sariputra fell silent. The goddess continued, "Elder, you are 'foremost of the wise!' Why do you not speak? Now, when it is your turn, you do not answer the question." Sariputra: Since liberation is inexpressible, goddess, I do not know what to say. Goddess: All the syllables pronounced by the elder have the nature of liberation. Why? Liberation is neither internal nor external, nor can it be apprehended apart from them. Likewise, syllables are neither internal nor external, nor can they be apprehended anywhere else. Therefore, reverend Sariputra, do not point to liberation by abandoning speech! Why? The holy liberation is the equality of all things! Sariputra: Goddess, is not liberation the freedom from desire, hatred, and folly? Goddess: "Liberation is freedom from desire, hatred, and folly" that is the teaching of the excessively proud. But those free of pride are taught that the very nature of desire, hatred, and folly is itself liberation. Here's an excerpt that Thusness was impressed with and told me that it is conveying the same message he was telling me after I wrote my experience in 'certainty of being'.

When I said emptiness, I don't mean non-existence. In fact this is what I am trying to convey to Lucky7Strike: No I does not mean no Witnessing Consciousness, No Phenomena does not mean there is no Phenomena. As Heart Sutra says so clearly, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. The experience of Form cannot be denied. What is denied is that forms are permanent, self-existing/independent, etc. p.s. manifest reality and people are interdependent/dependently originated, none of them have independent existence. But I'm not saying they are non-existent. Also, each person has individual mindstreams, but even their individual mindstreams are interdependent/dependently originated and as such 'empty' (not non-existent).

Can't exactly fault what you said here, as it is true that both subject and object are equally empty. However I would also add that 'No I' does not deny Witnessing consciousness, and 'No Phenomena' does not deny Phenomena. (not that Witnessing Consciousness and Phenomena are two different poles, anyway) The teaching of 'No I', 'No Phenomena' is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs, it does not deny the experience of 'witnessing consciousness'/'phenomena'/'aggregates'. When you experience what is called Witnessing Consciousness, commonly reified as the Eternal Witness or I AM, the experience itself is undeniable. You cannot deny that the Witnessing is present. There is an undeniable certainty of being beyond all mental constructs. Those who experience it, which I think you did, will not be able to deny it. Even as a Buddhist, I cannot deny this (and Buddha too have not denied this), as I too have witnessed with undeniable certainty, or rather a natural certainty and confidence and trust is present in the fundamental sense of being. That is why dwai is so adamant that beyond all mental constructs there is something undeniably present which he clearly experienced. As regards to this, Thusness also wrote to me in Mind and Self-Liberation: I think it is better to approach this way: Non-conceptual thought VS conceptual thought instead of Awareness VS Thoughts. If you see it is “Awareness Vs Thoughts”, then it is dualistic and inherent view. If you see it as non-conceptual thought, then eventually you will realize both non-conceptual and conceptual thoughst share the same luminous essence and empty nature. Non-conceptual thought is non-verbal and direct. It appears still and with the tendency to reify it is often mistaken as ‘Unchanging Witness’. Therefore in your experience of the “I AMness”, I advise you to understand this experience from the perspective of “direct and non-conceptual aspect of perception” and how by being “direct and non-conceptual” creates that sort of ‘certain, unshakable and undeniable’ confidence. That is, if a practitioner is fully authenticated from moment to moment the arising and passing phenomena, the practitioner will always have this sensation of ‘certain and unshaken’ confidence. In that same post, he also described the relationship between mental constructs and the different levels of insight. So if regards to 'arising and passing phenomena' there is the sensation of certain and unshakable confidence just as one previously had with the I AM experience or in other words seeing all experience as having One Taste, and as such the aggregates cannot be denied, what is it we are denying? It is the mental constructs that we impose on this. Very subtle mental constructs, which is to subjectify and objectify our experience. To reify something into something solid, permanent, independent, ultimate, etc. Similarly the Buddha never denied the aggregates. He just denied the selfhood and the inherency of those aggregates. The problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature of phenomena and 'I'. This is to be contemplated on. The 3rd Karmapa said: Through the examination of external objects we see the mind, not the objects. Through the examination of the mind we see its empty essence, but not the mind. Through the examination of both, attachment to duality disappears by itself. May the clear light, the true essence of mind, be recognized. ......... Self-manifestation, which has never existed as such, is erroneously seen as an object. Through ignorance, self-awareness is mistakenly experienced as an I. Through attachment to this duality we are caught in the conditioned world. May the root of confusion be found. Notice that clear light and awareness cannot be denied, but the constructs must be removed. Luminosity is the essence of everything, emptiness is the nature of everything, manifestation is its dynamic expression - the inseparability of dharmakaya, sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya is the nature of one's mind. Having a direct non-conceptual experience doesn't mean we have removed all subtle conceptual/mental constructs relating to subjectivity and objectivity and inherency - having right view help us 'see' how a non-dual non-conceptual direct meditative experience is being reified into a metaphysical essence without even us noticing it. Ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state. Even though we may have direct non conceptual experience of I AMness, we may not yet deconstruct the objective pole leading to non-dual experience of One Mind, and having reached One Mind we may not yet deconstruct the subjective pole leading to No Mind, and having reached No Mind we may not yet deconstruct locality and time through insight into emptiness. Yet while all mental constructs are progressively removed, the direct non-dual experience of the witnessing consciousness or the aggregates is not negated or denied. Like they say "keep the experience, refine the view". reference:

Hi Lucky, Thanks for sharing. Yes, as Jeffrey Hopkins say, "Doer and doing are mutually dependent in terms of the attainment of their entities through designation by thought." (http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=26FkjziPVfAC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq) The notion of there being an agent/"doer" and activities as "doing" are interdependent, without conceiving of 'doing something' there cannot be the notion of a 'doer', and vice versa. When one conceives of a subjective or objective pole, one naturally conceives of the opposite pole as well. They are however not reality but deeply held conceptual notions, and once one sees that these two are mutually dependent notions, one will not be able to locate a real 'doer' or 'doing', that such phenomena do not actually inherently exist, rather they are dependently imputed. Notions of 'doer' and 'doing' are simply imputations on a particular set of sensations happening. The notion of a doer is conceived/established along with the notion of a doing, and thus perceiving that both "I" (doer) and "mine" (deed) are void, one is set free of such notions of duality and inherency. In actuality there is just whatever seen, heard, activities appear, without actually a doer or done, perceiver or perceived. Aggregates, sensations appear and are simply luminous/aware in essence and empty by nature, and no self can be located within nor apart from them. There is just transient phenomena/sensations which show up vividly where they are and subside instantaneously, like 'weather' does not refer to something fixed or locatable, but to patterns, clouds, wind, changing moment to moment. No essence of weather-ness or a 'weather entity' can be located within nor apart from those phenomena, and as such 'weather' is simply a convention and imputation, but nothing inherent. The same applies to 'self' and '5 aggregates'.

I deleted my previous posts, as it is not very relevant. Anyway what you said is very true... when 'emptiness' becomes inherent as a concept to be attached too, suffering arises. So the Buddha said: "Bhikkkhus, this view, so clean and pure, if you covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? No, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, this view of yours so clean and pure, do not covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it. Do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? Yes, venerable sir." - Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta That said, we must understand that what the Buddha wants us to realize is that the view of duality and inherency is the root cause of suffering, and also how the insight of emptiness leads to liberation. And it is our duty to experiment this in our moment to moment of experience to see whether it is true, as you have practiced so far. That is: if we do truly see that views of duality and inherency is the root cause of suffering, we understand how the insight of emptiness leads to liberation. BUT if we see disassociation and non-dependence as a way of liberation, we will not understand how groundlessness through the arising of insight of emptiness leads to self-liberation. Understanding letting go via disassociation stems from a dualistic view. Like for example, trying to be an unaffected Awareness, trying to disassociate with thoughts, etc, which actually means separating subject from object (hence dualistic). Once the insight of emptiness dissolves these dualistic and inherent views, emptiness automatically leads to self-liberation. And enlightenment implies liberation and the purpose of emptiness is just that - liberation.

deleted

deleted

This is Ramana Maharshi's teaching and leads to the I AM/Witness experience. Only later does the sense of I dissolve after realising the non-local non-dual awareness. See http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/2nd+Gear

I was tempted to say "No, you are the one having false interpretation" but then was reminded of what Buddha said: Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives "Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these -- talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not -- he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue. "Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these -- 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' -- he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue." -- DN 2 Ten wholesome topics of conversation "There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects." -- AN X.69 Buddha has already demonstrated and explained in his very second discourse ever taught in the world, right after 4 noble truths, he explained how nothing can be controlled, nothing is self, nothing is mine, and there is no controller or agent. Everything is just manifestation arising and vanishing according to conditions, not me, not mine. Discourses Anattalakkhana Sutta The Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-self Thus have I heard: At one time the Blessed One was staying at the Deer Park at Isipatana, near Benares. Then he addressed the group of five monks: “Material form, monks, is not self. If material form were self, material form would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding material form, ‘Let material form be like this. Let material form not be like that.’ However, since material form is not self, material form leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding material form, ‘Let material form be like this. Let material form not be like that.’ “Feeling is not self. If feeling were self, feeling would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding feeling, ‘Let feeling be like this. Let feeling not be like that.’ However, since feeling is not self, feeling leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding feeling, ‘Let feeling be like this. Let feeling not be like that.’ “Perception is not self. If perception were self, perception would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding perception, ‘Let perception be like this. Let perception not be like that.’ However, since perception is not self, perception leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding perception, ‘Let perception be like this. Let perception not be like that.’ “Mental formations are not self. If mental formations were self, mental formations would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding mental formations, ‘Let mental formations be like this. Let mental formations not be like that.’ However, since mental formations are not self, mental formations lead to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding mental formations, ‘Let mental formations be like this. Let mental formations not be like that.’ “Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were self, consciousness would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be like this. Let my consciousness not be like that.’ However, since consciousness is not self, consciousness leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be like this. Let my consciousness not be like that.’ “What do you think, monks? “Is material form permanent or impermanent?” “impermanent, Venerable sir.” “Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?” “Unpleasant, Venerable sir.” “Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?” “No, Venerable sir.” “What do you think, monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Venerable sir.” “Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?” “Unpleasant, Venerable sir.” “Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?” “No, Venerable sir.” “What do you think, monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Venerable sir.” “Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?” “Unpleasant, Venerable sir.” “Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?” “No, Venerable sir.” “What do you think, monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Venerable sir.” “Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?” “Unpleasant, Venerable sir.” “Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?” “No, Venerable sir.” “What do you think, monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Venerable sir.” “Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?” “Unpleasant, Venerable sir.” “Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, and subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. I am this’?” “No, Venerable sir.” “Thus, monks, any material form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every material form is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’ “Any feeling whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every feeling is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’ “Any perception whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every perception is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’ “Any mental formations whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every mental formation is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’ “Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’ “Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the Noble Ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feelings, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with mental formations, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is freed. With freedom, there is the knowledge, ‘I am free.’ He knows ‘Birth has been destroyed, the holy life has been fulfilled, what should be done has been done. There is nothing further to be done here.’” That is what the Blessed One said. Delighted, the group of five monks rejoiced in what the Blessed One had said; and while this exposition was being given, the minds of the five monks were fully released from the corruptions, without any remainder. Then there were six Arahants in the world.

All paths seek to end afflictions and ignorance. The ending of afflictions and ignorance is only possible through insight into the nature of reality, and no other ways. Entering states of absorption, jhanas, cannot end afflictions, they only temporarily suppress the defilements from manifesting. Seek the origin? But there is NO origin. That is the point. When you realise Emptiness, ala Mahayana Emptiness (though it is also taught in Theravada), you realise that what dependently originates has no origin, and does not come or go. Unlike Advaita or Ramana Maharshi, we do not talk about an ultimate origin or Source. Vajrayana dissipating into mere light can be a manifestation of their accomplishment, but what is still most important is their realisation of Emptiness/Dependent Origination. Otherwise, as Loppon Namdrol (a Vajrayana teacher/scholar and practitioner of Dzogchen) say, their dissipation into light is just a mere feat of mundane Siddhis (powers) and Hindus and non-Buddhists too can and are known to accomplish that. I think, if I can remember correctly, he specifically said he does not treat the dissolving into light as anything more than a feat to inspire faith.

No, this has nothing to do with beliefs. Insight is a paradigm shift in perception that is not dependent on belief, it is a seeing, an insight. The three dharma seals are not a belief, it is about the nature of reality that is always already the case. It is not something, it is something ever present and you realise that it has already been so. You do not enter no-self, there never was self. You do not enter impermanence, there never was permanence. All existence has been disatisfactory from the beginning. You do not enter a state of emptiness, all things are already dependently originated and by nature empty. Non-dual is an aspect of anatta, and being so, you do not enter non-dual, there never was an observer apart from an observed from the beginning, all sensations are just as it is, aware as it is, without an object being cognised nor is there a cogniser to begin with. That is why Buddha said that he is free from theories, beliefs, but only speak from insight and understanding: The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away. Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine. - Majjhima Nikaya, 72 No. Identity means something permanent, independent, or separate, something which is You. But everything is not you. Nothing can be clung to. Everything is arising and vanishing on its own according to conditions in lightning speed, how can it be you? You cannot control any part of it, how can it be you? They are simply manifesting as it is without an observer and observed, there is no you in nor apart from that. That is why the five skandhas are taught so clearly in Buddhism, there is no self in nor apart from the aggregates. There is no non-dual noumenon Brahman in Buddhism either that is both transcending and including all phenomena. If there were, it could certainly be called an identity because it is permanent, independent, ultimate and is a Self. Because all there is is Self, then all phenomena are also manifestations of Self (Brahman). But what I am talking about has nothing to do with this. All sensations are awareness. There is no other thing other than sensations that is awareness.

Excerpt from http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html