xabir2005

This is a wrong analogy. First of all, a switch of identity from head to belly, is simply an experience. Just like out of body experience is just an experience. When you have a realisation, it is a realisation that does not come from conclusion, but is a very clear seeing that 'this has always been the case' and leaves no doubt, and requires no interpretation. It is just always and already so, the practitioner understands 'how' reality has always been nondual from beginning(less). The next thing is, you are still talking about switch in identity. I am talking about anatta and non-dual, where there is no identity at all. One realises there is no identity from the beginning as all sensations are simply present and aware where it is. One doesn't just 'experience a state of selflessness', rather one sees how there never was a true identity or self from the beginning, even during times when the person is still 'unenlightened' and holding false identification. The realisation and experience of true anatta and non-duality is as described by daniel and tarin: Now, the Buddha had actually said similar things, that everything is AS IT IS and nothing actually emanates from something else, like either the head or the belly or anywhere. There is only ISness of every manifestation which is aware where they are and happening on its own accord without a separate self, agent, or observer, or source. Any sensation that pretends to be an observer split up from another sensation is simply another sensation aware where they are, and everything else is also just more sensations aware where they are, happening on its own accord, without a truly existing self or agent, and nothing can be said (whether head or belly or whatever) to be me or mine, because everything simply sensations manifesting and aware where it is, so it's impossible to separate inner and outer, subject and object, observer and observed. The Buddha said:

When one experiences unity, a sort of merging of subject and object in meditation, or it could be when one hears a beautiful music or sees a sunset or a tree, suddenly there is just the experience in all its vividness and majesty without an experiencer. This is just an experience of unity, but it is not the insight into the nature of reality as non-dual. A person who experiences unity (and unity experiences are far more, far more common than a realising the nature of reality as non-dual) may say 'I and music have become one' or 'I become the music'. This is not an insight, it is merely a temporary experience, when one completely surrenders to whatever one is perceiving or doing. Like being submerged in the experience of music, or dance, or watching sunset, until the duality of subject and object temporarily dissolves. For example Michael Jackson wrote his experience: Consciousness expresses itself through creation. This world we live in is the dance of the creator. Dancers come and go in the twinkling of an eye but the dance lives on. On many an occasion when I'm dancing, I've felt touched by something sacred. In those moments, I've felt my spirit soar and become one with everything that exists. I become the stars and the moon. I become the lover and the beloved. I become the victor and the vanquished. I become the master and the slave. I become the singer and the song. I become the knower and the known.I keep on dancing and then, it is the eternal dance of creation. The creator and creation merge into one wholeness of joy.I keep on dancing and dancing...and dancing, until there is only...the dance. Even Michael Jackson experienced that temporarily while dancing, but he is not enlightened. However it is very different when one realises "All along there is no Witness witnessing anything, the manifestation alone is." -- the realisation of the nature of reality, which is Always So, is what liberates. There is no 'I' to become 'everything', all there always is, is manifestation. As Thusness said before, please read the highlighted part:

Here's another video, one by Alan Watts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiilAUMrqrk

No, awareness is not some superspace and I think Daniel Ingram explained very eloquently here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/rigpa-and-aggregates.html Rigpa and Aggregates (Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination) From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram): Dear Mark, Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant. I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context: First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful: Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world. In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations. Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present. Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality. As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom: "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." I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge. Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

No, the way I use the word phenomena is totally different from yours. I use the word phenomena to mean the experience of sounds, the experience of sights, etc, arising within one's mindstream since that is all that can be known or experienced. All there is, is mind, consciousness, phenomena, which I use synonymously. And this is the only basis we can investigate on and attain enlightenment, because that is all there is to experience. As Buddha said: SN 35.23 PTS: S iv 15 CDB ii 1140 Sabba Sutta: The All translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 2001–2010 "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

No, sound cannot be experienced by the ear. Ear cannot experience. Ear is just a condition for the arising of the various consciousness. Just like the drum cannot hear. But with the combination of the conditions of ear, drum, etc, auditory-consciousness manifest. With certain conditions, auditory consciousness manifest. With certain conditions, visual consciousness manifest. And so on. Awareness is not something that can be identical to, nor separate from, those manifestation. Awareness is not a thing, just as wind is not a thing and cannot be separated from 'blowing', it is a process. Awareness is like the quality in all manifestation in one's mindstream, like the experience of sound, sight, etc, nothing can arise without the quality of awareness.

Define phenomena. If by phenomena you mean insentience, that is clearly not what I mean. I say all sentience is phenomena and as phenomena is marked by the 3 characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-selfness. No manifestation/sentience is permanent. And being dependently originated, it is empty. Sentience does not come from somewhere. It does not 'come from'. It has no coming, no going, it just IS and is interdependent with all the factors and conditions. See Nagarjuna. The experience of sound, or sentience, itself is awareness, is a phenomena.

No. You must read what Buddha said to Sati carefully. He clearly said, there is no consciousness apart from conditions, and based on various conditions, auditory, visual, etc, consciousness may arise. There is no 'awareness' and 'sound'. There is just sound-awareness, sight-awareness, etc, which dependently originate. You cannot separate them. If you say there is awareness apart from sound, that knows sound, you fall into Sati's view which the Buddha reprimanded him for.

Awareness is sound, as in the experience of sound is awareness. I am not talking about the drum, the ear, the soundwaves, etc. For example the same soundwaves, but different animals may have different experience of sound. Same soundwave, dog hears but human may not. When I say sound, I mean the experience of sound. The experience of sound in one's individual mindstream is non-dual without subject and object duality. And the hearing/sound/awareness arise dependent with all those various conditions. It is not that there is awareness like a mirror reflecting things, rather, awareness is the arising sound, that dependently originates. There is no subject nor object, only ISness.

Awareness is not a thing. It is a process. Like a river. Just like there is no wind to speak of apart from 'blowing'. There is no awareness to speak of apart from the hearing/sound as one happening, or the seeing/scenery as one happening, which is changing ceaselessly. If awareness is not a thing, but a process like wind, how can it become something. It IS the becoming, it is not something that becomes something. How can you say that the blowing becomes the wind. The wind is the blowing and vice versa. The blowing does not merge with the wind, the wind does not merge with blowing. There never was two conceptual entity in the beginning, just one experience, which you can call wind, or whatever, the word is not the actuality.

The movement is itself a thought and thuscomeone elucidated well. As for Alaya, this is not a self but is simply a momentary consciousness and is the reason why there is continuity of consciousness. This continuity is mistaken to be a self, whereas, continuity of a process of the alaya does not actually imply an inherently existing self. *Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas. The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind.

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?" "No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness." "Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time. "Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness. "Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, when you are not sure whether something has arisen do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir." "When you are not sure why something has arisen, do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, when you are not sure that with ceasing of a certain support, that the arisen too would cease, do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir." ---- in this scripture, the Buddha clearly explained how consciousness is a manifestation based on conditions. Do you agree or disagree with it? Auditory consciousness, visual consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. So of course, consciousness is not the same as the ear, or the soundwaves, nor do they 'come from there', but when all these conditions come together, auditory consciousness manifest. And there is no conceptual distance between a 'consciousness in here, watching the sound out there', which would be duality. There is just auditory consciousness manifesting. It is non-dual because it is just manifesting in its suchness, without requiring a conceptual hearer. Even if the sense of duality creeps in, or the thought "I am hearing it", that thought "I am hearing" isn't the real act of hearing. The thought "I hear" cannot hear. The actual act of hearing is non-dual. Of course, even that thought is arising non-dually. Your view is that there is a consciousness inherently existing but cannot cognise anything or itself [which already implies duality: itself, and everything] unless there is an object, which is why subject and object relatively arise to experience, which is a false understanding of D.O., and is still seeing consciousness as inherent and not as manifestation. - I also see nothing from which awareness arises. Awareness has always been eternal, but then again you will believe that I am speaking as if it is a substratum of awareness separate from phenomena. There is never a pure subjective awareness because all these states return to a dualistic state of reflection. Awareness needs the experience of phenomena to be self-aware. - Lucky Again, correct me if I am wrong in what I said. Your view of awareness existing apart from phenomena and conditions, and yet relatively arising with phenomena is due to conceptual fabrication. You cannot separate awareness apart from phenomena except through your own conceptual analysis. Our experience has always always been non-dual. Awareness is eternal but you cannot speak of Awareness apart from the the manifesting consciousness that dependently originates as the Buddha taught to Sati. Hence Awareness is eternal in the sense like a river stream ceaselessly flowing, but there is no identity or continuity as a persisting entity, nothing locatable, graspable, with essence. You cannot speak of an awareness apart from the awareness of sound, sights, etc. There is no 'awareness requiring objects to experience itself' which would imply awareness inherently existed prior to objects, rather than as a happening -- there is just awareness of sound, sight, happening, you cannot separate 'sound' from 'awareness' as that act of 'awareness of sound' is one single experience happening without subject-object, no 'awareness' and 'sounds'.

Full, sorry.

If consciousness dependently originates, then it is a manifestation, and not a real subject. Everything that is in our field of experience, is a manifestation that is dependently originated. And it is clear, luminous, knowing. There would be no consciousness to speak of apart from conditions, and based on the condition of sense organs and auditory object, the act of sound consciousness arise. Same goes to other sensory consciousness. It is just a manifestation. Experientially you cannot find a boundary between consciousness and phenomena, otherwise that would be reification. You cannot say 'consciousness is over here, phenomena are over there'. The consciousness of 'TONGG' is just present where it is, the TONGG is the consciousness, without consciousness there cannot be the sound heard 'TONGG'. But even to speak of consciousness as something is to reify it, there experientially just 'TONGG', just that is auditory consciousness. There is no distance at all, you cannot find a distance between a truly existing subject and object. There is just everything, sounds being heard, scenery being seen, though the 'everything' is empty and dependently originated.

Basically your view is that subject and object are relative, and being relative they are empty, but you fail to understand the implications of emptiness. For example when you say: "I am the interplay of consciousness and phenomena. I am that which consciousness is at the moment. I can be my body, not be my body, be light, be rain, be hand, be anything, be sound, not be sound." How can there be an "I" that is a body, a light, a rain, etc. Any sense of "I" means continuity, identity, and hence not emptiness. What is empty does not have identity and continuity. It is like what Dogen said. You cannot become anything. There is becoming, but no 'something' becoming 'something'. Another thing is, you see consciousness as something separate from phenomena. This is what I have rejected which you claimed to understand but fail to grasp in your own experience because of your clinging to consciousness as separate. I think so far thuscomeone is one of the few that has quite a clear understanding of what I am talking about.

This is the false substantial view of being. There is no such thing as something becoming something as I explained. As Dogen explained. Furthermore, the sense of 'me', is just an appearance. The thought 'I did this' isn't the real actor of that. In actuality, body acts. Intentions is another arising that conditions the action. Intention isn't a real subject, it simply is another arising. However you cannot say the source of body's action is intention, just as you cannot say the sound of bell ringing comes from the bell, or the ear, or somewhere else. It has no origin. It does not come from somewhere, does not go somewhere, and has no location. It is a new phenomenon complete in itself, self-luminous and empty [ungraspable, unlocatable, interconnected].

Awareness is empty, has no location, does not come from somewhere and does not go somewhere [see Nagarjuna]. Because 'it' dependently originates, therefore is just aware where it is, as the sensation, the thought, etc. The sound of 'tongg' is different from the bell, the stick, etc, it is a new and complete-in-itself reality. It does not come from the ears, from the bell, or anywhere. There is no other awareness to speak of other than these self-aware sensations.

I'm a little busy these days, just doing a short reply. To say that 'I' can do things, or can become something, is to reify it as something real, as an entity. D.O. rejects all substantialist views. If what we call "I", is something that dependently originates, that mean precisely it is just a sensation that appears -- it is just an appearance with nothing inherent, like a mirage. Something that dependently originated is empty, thereby, cannot become something else -- for 'it' to 'become something else' would necessarily imply it is inherently existing. Therefore as what Nagarjuna said, what is D.Oed has "no-cessation, no-origination, no-annihilation, no-abiding, no-one-thing, no-many-thing, no-coming-in, no-going-out". And you cannot say that a previous appearance is similar nor different from the current appearance, because they have no identity! So with regards to apparent continuity, of something becoming something else, Zen Master Dogen said, One appearance cannot control another appearance. They aren't truly existing, just appearances that dependently originate. You cannot know what your next thought is, and if you can't even know what your next thought is, how can you possibly control your next thought. It just spontaneously appears on its own according to conditions. There is absolutely no controller, thinker. There is no subject and no object, only appearances which are empty, dependently originated and without identity.

BTW just to add: enlightenment is not so called an experience that is to be solidified, but a realization of the 'always so' that leads to the ending of 'self imputation' on our experience. This self imputation process is something that is ended once and for all, through the realisation/insight. So it's actually something that has ended, rather than an experienced that has been maintained. But again the ending (not of a separate self since there never was one to begin with, but the end of the self/duality/inherency imputation process) is brought about by a realisation that no-self has always been so. Once you realise there is no santa claus, you don't have to make an effort to maintain a state of no santa claus, you just stop imputing it is so.

No, I mean Daniel does not have a wrong perception of reality. An arhat is free from uncontrolled rebirth. He no longer comes back due to karma. In Theravada Buddhism, what is said about arhat just stops there. An arhat ends rebirth, period, there is no mention of their returning. When it comes to Mahayana Buddhism, it is said that an arhat will come back to continue his path to full Buddhahood. However he does not come back due to karma. He comes back because a Buddha has 'awakened' him from his personal cessation after a very long time, and out of his compassion and vows to attain Buddhahood, he returns. In any case it should be understood that an arhat never returns to samsara due to karma, he is already free from uncontrolled rebirth. He returns out of resolve to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. What you said here is fine. But some of the other comments you wrote previously needed to be corrected, for example the notion that no self somehow implies that practice is not needed etc.

There is no wrong perception of reality. No. An arhat will no longer cycle through rebirths. He has ended all ignorance and conditions for rebirth. If you don't believe Daniel is an arhat, that's your problem. In Buddhism, cessation of suffering means cessation of suffering, there is no chance you will ever get back to suffering or ignorance. No, there never was a self, and this has nothing to do with cycles. It is either realised, or not. Experience dependently originates, but there never was any experiencer apart from experience. It is in fear that you misunderstand (and you did) that I did extra clarifications.

Your post here obviously has no relation to what I said. Here I am, explaining how each psycho physical combination is unique, and you are saying everyone is like cockroaches. No link. A cockroach is a different and unique combination from Buddha and from you and me. All there is is happenings, but realization is not just one happening in the chain of events. Realisation is on-going. Every experience is immediately recognised as it is in its true nature. Thusness: Joan Tollifson once asked Toni Packer if she'd ever had one of those big awakenings where life turns inside out and all identification with the body-mind ceases. Toni replied, "I can't say I had it," she replied. "It's this moment, right now."