xabir2005

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    2,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by xabir2005

  1. "there is such a self"

    This is true in the ultimate sense, but in terms of conventions, it is fine to talk about persons - as Buddha said, Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.1 That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.2 Next thing is you must also understand that while there is no permanent self that is separate from experiencer or is the controller of experience, there are individual mindstreams with different set of conditions and karma. For example he smokes, I don't. Or Buddha is enlightened, but not Joe. Of course ultimately there is no 'self' that is smoking, smoking is happening, but relatively speaking you have to speak like because we have to follow the conventions - obviously Buddha's mindstream is Buddha's mindstream, and is not Joe's. Even though there is no self entity to be found in or apart from the manifesting stream of consciousness. In short, there is no self within nor apart from the psycho physical combination, but each psycho physical combination is unique and cannot be switched. In terms of conventional language, I am not you, you are not me, I cannot become you, you cannot become me. Yes, but whether this is realised is another case. No. Awakening means realising the universal characteristic of phenomena. Awakening is opposed to ignorance, which means ignorant of the universal characteristic of phenomena. The nature of reality is always so, but there is ignorance (in some, conventionally speaking), and there is awakening (in some). That is your misconception, not my paradigm. There is no self all along, but whether this is realised is a different matter. There is no self but there is ignorance of that, of course, even the ignorance is of the same nature, just karmic propensities and ignorance playing out as a sense of self and even that is just happeing without a real separate self, but ignorance precisely means not realising the nature of mind and experience and thus suffering as a result. Reality always IS, but whether it is perceived as it is, is a different matter. The ability to perceive reality as it is must be developed through insight meditation, resulting in insight and awakening.
  2. "there is such a self"

    Meditation are just means. After enlightenment the need for meditation takes a very different role, meditation becomes something like exercising in gym - just for keeping a healthy body and mind. Thusness seldom meditates now because effortless self-liberation is in his every moment experience (though partly it's because of his current busy lifestyle). However for unenlightened persons, practice, meditation is very important. Mindfulness and investigation of our experience, or self inquiry, both are different types of practices but results in certain insights on the nature of reality. In the end, practice becomes effortless, but only after the arising of insight. Even though there never was a self to begin with, this basic fact of reality will not be realised until you do practice and investigation of your own to ascertain these in your own experience, to give rise to insight. There is a good article by Daniel Ingram - http://www.interactivebuddha.com/bullshit.shtml Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit There was a guy on a blogsite to which I sometimes post who kept inserting comments in our discussion such as you can not become what you already are, awakening is not about more knowledge but instead about less knowledge, and that awakening happens regardless of study and meditation. I have encountered this vile point of view and its variants before, and so replied as follows, in slightly edited form: Dear [delusional view-poster], Somehow I just cannot resist countering your point of view with every bit of rhetorical force I have despite the fact that I am afraid the number who listen will be few. Here is a detailed analysis of what is wrong with that perspective on a number of fronts: The notion that you cannot become what you already are implies a whole host of conceptual problems that I will claim do not lead to much that is good that cannot be attained by conceptual frameworks that are not so problematic. Here is a list of the problems: 1) This notion encourages people to not practice. You can say what you like, but again and again I see people who subscribe to this and similar notions resting on their cleverness and grand posteriors and not actually getting it in the same way that my accomplished meditator friends get it. It seems so comforting, this notion that you are already something that you, in fact, are not. This brings us to the question of what you are and are not. 2) This notion solidifies a True Self teaching almost by definition. From any cursory analysis, what we are from an insight point of view is an extrapolation of continuity from a pattern of utterly fresh, transient, ephemeral, causal sensations. Anything added to this is extraneous from an insight point of view. Try as people might, a True Self in an experiential sense cannot be found. Thus, the notion that people already are something begs the question: What are they? It tends to imply that they are already something such as perfect, enlightened, realized, awakened, or something even worse such as Awareness, Cosmic Consciousness, The Atman, an aspect of The Divine, etc. all of which cannot actually be found. While Buddhism does sometimes go there, such as using terms such as Dharmakaya and Buddha Nature, these are very slippery, high concepts that were added later and require a ton of explanation and practice experience to keep them from becoming the monsters they nearly always become in less experienced hands. 3) Awakening involves clearly perceiving universal characteristics of phenomena. While one can attempt to rest comfortably in the notion that as these universal characteristics are there anyway, the whole, core, essential, root point of all this is that there is something to be gained by becoming one of the people that can actually directly perceive this clearly enough to fundamentally change the way reality is perceived in real-time. The straight truth is that the vast majority of people do not start out being able to do this at all. The notion that everyone already is someone who can perceive reality this way without effort in real-time is a fantastic falsehood, lie, untruth, and in short, one great load of apathy-creating bullshit. Said another say, your notion, namely that one cannot become one of the people who can perceive this because everyone already is a clear perceiver of highest caliber, is a profound delusion and simply does not hold up to reality testing. If one goes around asking people without very good insight into these things, i.e. the unenlightened, about basic dharma points, points that are obvious to those who have learned to pay attention well, one does not find that everyone already is a person who is perceiving things at the level that makes the difference the dharma promises. Further, even those of lower levels of enlightenment generally have a hard time saying they really are able to perceive the emptiness, luminosity, selflessness, causality, transience, ephemerality, etc. of reality in real-time at all times without having to really do anything. In short, your notion that this is as easy as just being what you already are is wildly off the mark, as the vast majority of people are woefully underdeveloped on the perceptual front in question. Thus, all reality testing reveals that your notion is missing a very fundamental point: while the universal characteristics are always manifesting in all things and at all times, there are those that can perceive this well and those that cannot, and meditative training, conceptual frameworks, techniques, teachers, texts, discussions and the like can all contribute to developing the internal skills and wiring to be able to fully realize what is possible, as thousands of practitioners throughout the ages have noticed. I have no idea where you are getting this bizarre notion, except that perhaps you are reading The Power of Now, following Adiashanti, or some other tradition that for reasons completely beyond me assumes that everyone already has the powers of perception of the rarest perceptual superstars. I myself have known before and after, meaning that I know what I was capable of perceiving and understanding before I underwent meditative training and after, and no amount of being fed the concept that I was already as developed as I could be, was already enlightened, was already there, had nothing to do, nothing to develop, was already as clear as I could be, was already perfectly awake, etc. was going to make the difference that the thousands of hours over years of increasing my ability to perceive things clearly did. It would be like saying: you are already a concert pianist, you just have to realize it, or you already are a nuclear physicist, you just have to realize it, or you already speak every language, you just have to realize it. It would be like saying to a two-year old: you already understand everything you need to know so stop learning new things now, or to a severe paranoid schizophrenic: you already are as sane as anyone and do not need to take your meds and should just follow the voices that tell you to kill people, or to a person with heart disease: just keep smoking and eating twinkies and you will be healthy, or to an illiterate person with no math skills who keeps having a hard time navigating in the modern world and is constantly disempowered and ripped off: no need to learn to read and do math, as you are just fine as you are, or saying to a greedy, corrupt, corporate-raiding, white-collar criminal, Fascist, alcoholic wife-beater: hey, Dude, you are a like, beautiful perfect flower of the Now Moment, already enlightened [insert toke here], you are doing and not-doing just fine, like wow, so keep up the good work, Man. Would you let a blind and partially paralyzed untrained stroke victim perform open-heart surgery on your child based on the notion that they already are an accomplished surgeon but just have to realize it? Would you follow the dharma teachings of people who feed other people this kind of crap? In short, are you completely out of your mind? Those who imagine that everyone somehow in their development already became as clear and perceptive as they could be just by being alive is missing something very profound. Do you imagine that you can just remind people of these things and suddenly all wisdom and clarity will suddenly just appear? This mind-bogglingly naive. I simply have to ask: from where did you attain this fantastic fixed delusion? I have gained so much that is good and lost so much that is bad by learning to practice well, learning to concentrate, learning the theory, learning insight practices, going through the organic process of the stages over decades, reading the stories, reading about the lives of the great practitioners, having dharma conversations with dharma friends, debating points, wrestling with difficult concepts and how to apply them to my actual life, teaching, learning, studying, playing with the powers, writing, realizing how things are, and delving deeply into the sensate world that I am astounded that anyone would want to try to reduce something so grand, wonderful, deep, rich, amazing and profound to such a paltry, ridiculous concept as the notion that all that is already in place in everyone regardless of what they have done or not done. All those benefits, skills, abilities, powers, states, stages, experiences, insights, and fundamental perceptual changes simply were not available until I did the work, took the time, participated in the process, and no amount of anyone telling me it was otherwise would have helped or made it so. This is an organic, causal process. I know of no examples where the necessary and sufficient causes did not involve some kind of work rather than a mere concept that somehow all those benefits and abilities have magically appeared already and they somehow just did not notice until you told them they had. In short: STOP IT! You are spreading craziness, and this is craziness that many people will not be able to tell is craziness, including, it seems, yourself. While I usually do not go so far as to tell people that there is something so deeply wrong with what they think and how they communicate it that they should stop it immediately and forever, this particular point is a great example of something I consider abhorrent and worthy of profound revision. Regardless of any kind intentions, the teachings that you perpetuate take a half-truth that seems so very nice and seductive to us neurotic Americans who just can barely stand another achievement trip and have such a hard time with self-acceptance and turn it into sugary poison. There is no need to tie the three useful concepts of 1) no-self, 2) self-acceptance in the ordinary sense, and 3) the notion that the sensations that lead to understanding if clearly perceived over and over again are manifesting right here, right now, to such a perversely twisted yet seemingly benign and similar concept as the one you unfortunately promote. While they look the same, careful examination will reveal why your way of stating things is so deeply flawed. P.S. For those not used to this sort of hard-hitting rhetoric, check out texts where the Buddha took on some dogmas he considered useless or harmful and see if he wasn*t even more forceful than me at points. It is precisely because suffering is impermanent that one must work to end suffering. If suffering were permanent, it could not be ended. Impermanence and emptiness has absolutely no contradictions with compassion. The common misunderstanding that there is no self = there cannot be compassion is just a total misunderstanding of what no-self means, i.e. misunderstanding it as nihilism. To be a Buddha, give rise to great compassion. Someone can attain liberation but without the great compassion of Buddha simply attains personal liberation like an arhat, though this is not the same as saying arhats are not compassionate. Next, enlightenment is eternal, not in the sense that there is a permanent unmoving self that is enlightened, but the continuum of wisdom is unceasing like river. Once awakened you cannot become asleep again. I see no contradictions at all, it is due to your misunderstandings that you see contradictions.
  3. "there is such a self"

    Everything is interdependent and arise seamlessly/inseparably but at the same time individual and different. The sound of bell ringing is not the same as the bell or the stick, but is interdependent with that. The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that: * at each juncture there lies a jewel; * each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix. * Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness. * Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others; * thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others. This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ...". The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction.
  4. "there is such a self"

    Whether you practice or not is of vast practical importance to attaining enlightenment. Contrary to some people who think 'there's nothing I can do since there is no self' which is a very confused view, if you want to attain enlightenment, you practice. Just as if you want to master music, you practice. You want to score As in exams, study hard. Of course enlightenment isn't exactly the same as that, but the point is practice is important. That there is no 'self' does not deny dependent origination. Just because there is no 'self' doesn't practice cannot be done. (And ultimately as Zen teaches, every ordinary action can be factored into practice so every doing becomes part of the practice: when walking just walk (no walker, universe walking), when sitting just sit, sitting quietly, spring comes, grass grow by itself.) The Buddha taught the View and Path that leads to the Fruition in a very systematic manner. We aspire to attain enlightenment for ourselves and others, out of compassion to end ours' and others' suffering, even though we understand clearly that there is no self and others. This sounds apparently paradoxical in theory but is actually not so in direct experience. When we say 'ours' and 'mine', it is simply out of conventions and does not refer to an ultimate entity. Furthermore, there are individual mindstream, but no separate and permanent perceiver or agent behind the stream (flow) of consciousness. As Diamond Sutra states: "All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated." "Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."
  5. "there is such a self"

    There is intention and decision, which is itself an phenomenon appearing without a thinker. It cannot be denied that the thought or intent "I think I will go to the party tonight" has arisen. However, even that thought, is itself an arising thought and there is no thinker or controller apart from that thought/intention/decision. That decision is often preceded by a process of analysis and judging before a final 'decision' to follow a particular course of action is made. Everything is just 'being done', but there is no doer. Even the sense of a doer is the 'being done'. I am trying to point out that randomness, chances, and control, these are both two ends of the extreme. I am denying these two extremes, I am not saying these extremes are equivalent, just as for example nihilism and eternalism are both extremes but different extremes. And as explained above, intentions and thoughts arise, but there is no controller. Just because there is no thinker doesn't mean there is no thoughts! There is no control as control implies a controller controlling things. There are however influences and conditions, and one thought can become an influence and result in action etc. However that one thought is itself simply an arising thought and is not a 'thinker' or a 'controller'. A controller apart from arising thought cannot be found. The apparent sense of controllership, of self, etc, are simply presently arising sensations and thoughts. Yes and by universe I include things like individual action and thoughts. Individual here does not mean a separate thinker apart from thought. Individual as in, relatively speaking, my psycho physical combination and actions and thoughts are different from say, Jesus's, or Hitler, or Buddha, whatever. Our mindstream, karma, etc, are different. Next, I don't deny volition. In Buddhism, volition arises when there is ignorance (there still a sense of doer seeking something). Otherwise there is just spontaneous action. Whether it is volition or spontaneous action (like wu wei), they are still more thoughts and actions arising without thinker and doer. There is no free will in the sense of a controller, however there is always manifestation. Intentions arise according to conditions, but intentions are not 'controlled' or 'limited' by external causes and influences. For that would imply there is a controller, who is being limited by and in opposition with external causes and influences, each fighting for control. No such subjective controller apart from an objective universe can be found. Reality is never split up in this way. It is not that the controller has no free will over objective causality, rather it is that there is no controller to begin with. Rather, there is just will, intention itself, which manifests and is dependently originated. There is no freedom in the sense of subjective controller. There is no bondage either in the sense of a controller being 'not free to do what it wants'. There is no controller. However, influences and conditions can be changed due to intention. Effort, intention, aspiration, all these are necessary. Do not give a nihilistic idea "oh there's nothing I can do about enlightenment since theres no self" which is simply a poor understanding of what this is about, and for practical purposes you need to give rise to aspiration for enlightenment, you need to practice and so on. It does not require a controller, it does require intention, aspiration, effort, investigation, mindfulness, etc, all part of the practice. Mindstream is not isolated but interdependent, like the net of indras, each node reflecting every other node and is thus seamlessly interconnected. Yet each node is individual. Next, impermanent factors in one mindstream does have eternal continuation though not in the sense of permanent eternality, but impermanent eternality, like a river flows endlessly but is not a static locatable graspable 'thing'. The mindstream continues as a process due to a continuing flow of causality. This can also explain what I mean: In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena: "What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?" "A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King." "But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical combination as this present one?" "No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be born."
  6. "there is such a self"

    Rupert Spira: ...And if there is no separate independent Consciousness, how can there be a separate, independent thinker, chooser, doer, enjoyer, experiencer? Our experience is one of the stream of appearances in Consciousness. These events are thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions, one following another... A, B, C, D, E... Each is utterly unique and each disappears absolutely before the next arises. Imagine a series of events as follows: Event A is the hearing of rain. Event B is the thinking, "Let's have some tea." Event C is the tasting of tea. Event D is the feeling of satisfaction. Event E is the perceiving of traffic. Event F is the thought that 'I' didn't cause the rain but heard it, that 'I' choose to have tea and enjoyed it, that 'I' perceived the traffic but did not create it, and finally, that 'I' remained over after all these experiences had vanished. The 'I' in this stream of events is itself simply another appearance just like all the rest. The 'I' is the thought 'I'...
  7. "there is such a self"

    There is no decider apart from the whole process of deciding. It's thoughts succeeding thoughts, followed by actions. However the intention, decision, isn't a thinker. But it becomes a condition for an action. Nothing is random, happening by chance, nor determined. Hence there is no control, but actions are influenced by intentions and imprints. As for comparing to rain and cloud: the difference is that rain and cloud are physical phenomena and no volition are necessarily or immediately involved to cause the occurence of rain, snow, etc, though recently the influence of human greed and volition has made a huge impact and caused global warming and will cause countless future natural disasters. This is an example of how volition of human can actually serve to condition and influence even the natural cycles of the environment, and that we are as a whole totally interdependent with everything else of the entire universe. Everything arises according to conditions, but human will and volition can also be part of the factor. This is a case of how even natural processes like weather are actually not 'pre determined' but arises according to condition, subject to influences that can be changed. There is no point in blaming somebody but you can transform them out of compassion which as Bodhisattvas that's what you do. As for praising: that's certainly worthy of doing. Buddha himself sometimes praised his students for their qualities. Even though we aren't praising a fixed autonomous entity, it is not necessary for there to be a fixed self to praise that person. The qualities though are not an inherent 'selfness' of that person, is a trait/characteristic of his mindstream process. The mindstream though impermanent and without self, is still the continuity of the same process/mindstream, and cannot at any time suddenly become another mindstream. I (my psycho physical combination) cannot suddenly switch into you and so on. And it is taught that this process actually continues from lifetime to lifetime according to karma, until you attain enlightenment and become freed from uncontrolled rebirth. As Ajahn Jagaro said: The Buddha's teaching is that there is an individuality in this process. The individuality of the process is there, the continuity of the mind and body in this life, conventionally speaking. You are the mind and the body process and there is a continuity and an individuality of the process. It's your mind and body and not my mind and body which continues from birth to death in this life. But there is the same continuity and individuality into the next life. You don't get cross wires. Your stream of mind and body does not get mixed up with my stream of mind and body. My state of mind and body does not get mixed up in what is in your account and vice versa. It stays in each person's account. There is a continuity in this stream of mind and body and this is the law of kamma. The individuality is there but there is no individual in it. So what you do now will bring about results down the road.
  8. "there is such a self"

    I don't see why a decision needs a controller. Decision is simply a thought arising. Notice that the dictionary itself states it is a 'process': 1. the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment: They must make a decision between these two contestants. Decision arise after a thought process. Unwholesome and wholesome acts are all influenced by intentions, decisions, imprints, and so on. But is no doer apart from the act/acting, the intention/intending, decision/deciding, etc. There is no decider, but there is decisions.
  9. "there is such a self"

    A decision is just a concluding thought after a process of analysis and judging. The thought process of 'should I go this way, or that way'. After some analysis, it is decided that the best option is 'I should go that way'. It's just a process, no separate thinker is involved. It is just thoughts in rapid succession. There is no free will in the sense of a separate thinker or controller. However, there are choices and decisions to be made. I don't talk about 'good' or 'bad', which is quite subjective. I use Buddha's definition which I think is much better, 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome'. For example, actions that cause suffering for oneself and others are 'unwholesome' and unskillful. Actions that brings joy to oneself and others are 'wholesome' and skillful. Wholesome karma leads to rebirth in higher realms, unwholesome karma leads to rebirth in lower realms. Just an example. See above on decision.
  10. "there is such a self"

    Choice/decision/intention is necessary, though no separate choos-er/controller/doer apart from the arising intention actually exists. 'Beyond me' implies that I am helpless. However the fact is, you have the ability to save the person (if you know how to swim). I'm just using 'you' conventionally, to refer to your particular psycho physical combination. You (your psycho physical combination) can actually help out and save the person. What is denied has nothing to do with the psycho-physical combination's ability to act in a particular way. What is denied is not that action can be done or intention can arise. What is denied is a separate controller, thinker, apart from the thought, act, etc. No, the thought 'go drown' is definitely worse than saving him, since he suffers/dies as a result of not being saved. Universe rolls on, but there are wholesome and unwholesome deeds/happening, which is part of the rolling on. I don't see how just because everything rolls on = nothing better or worse. Not lucky, but by karma + many other factors. By karma + many other factors, I was able to meet the dharma and practice. Hitler (using conventions) made the wrong choice/decision to commit mass murder and crimes. There is intentions, decision, bad and good karma, just no doer.
  11. "there is such a self"

    Instead of me showing you deeds that are done without doer, you should show me where is the doer that acts, because no deeds are done with doer. Now, when I said no doer, I do not say no deed, or no action. Obviously, action is made to make coffee. But where is the doer? Is there a doer to be found apart from the act? You may say, there is intention to make coffee. But intention does not imply an intend-er. Again, intention is a thought that arise, without a thinker, followed by an action, all happening in rapid succession but each thought, each action and manifestation is totally disjoint, a new present reality in itself. The notion that there is an 'I' that is behind thinking, acting, that is a conceptual notion that upon investigation is found to be baseless. It is the notion of a self that is imaginary. In actuality: just actions, thoughts, experience. Never is a separate experiencer, thinker, doer to be found. All I see is doing, not a doer. p.s. what is denied is not conventions (conventions such as I, you, Mary, James, etc), but an ultimately existing, separate, permanent agent (controller, perceiver, etc) or self. As Visudhimagga states - Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language, when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the result.
  12. "there is such a self"

    Deeds should be done. Why not? A person is drowning in the pond. You know how to swim. Should you save him? Of course! But before the deed is done, the intention must arise to save the person, and the thought 'I should save him' should arise. Similarly if you are not yet enlightened, the thought 'I aspire to be enlightened', or if you haven't practice, the thought 'I should practice' is important. But in the act of saving, it's all spontaneous and free. Intention, will, is involved, but it does not mean there is a doer, nor does he think about being a doer. It's just spontaneous. The universe has a direction, but the direction is simply the thought arising now, that will be a condition for an arising action, etc. Thought of planning what to do, thought of aspiring to do, etc. All useful. Whatever is happening does not require an agent that is 'doing' it. Deeds are done without doer.
  13. "there is such a self"

    Of course you can do something, i.e., read dharma books, practice the dharma, etc. But it is not that 'you' do. More accurately: deeds can/should be done. Practice can/should be done, if you want to realise whatever there is to realise. With regards to bodhisattva: saving sentient beings should be done, even though the bodhisattva clearly knows there is no one to save and no sav-er (Diamond Sutra). Anyway, more random stuff: http://www.buddhanet.net/t_karma.htm WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF KARMA? (Ven Mahasi Sayadaw) Ignorance (avijja), or not knowing things as they truly are, is the chief cause of Karma. Dependent on ignorance arise activities (avijja paccaya samkhara) states the Buddha in the Paticca Samuppada (Dependent Origination). Associated with ignorance is the ally craving (tanha), the other root of Karma. Evil actions are conditioned by these two causes. All good deeds of a worldling (putthujana), though associated with the three wholesome roots of generosity (alobha), goodwill (adosa) and knowledge (amoha), are nevertheless regarded as Karma because the two roots of ignorance and craving are dormant in him. The moral types of Supramundane Path Consciousness (magga citta) are not regarded as Karma because they tend to eradicate the two root causes. Who is the doer of Karma? Who reaps the fruit of Karma? Does Karma mould a soul? In answering these subtle questions, the Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga: "No doer is there who does the deed; Nor is there one who feels the fruit; Constituent parts alone roll on; This indeed! Is right discernment." For instance, the table we see is apparent reality. In an ultimate sense the so-called table consists of forces and qualities. For ordinary purposes a scientist would use the term water, but in the laboratory he would say H 2 0. In this same way, for conventional purposes, such terms as man, woman, being, self, and so forth are used. The so-called fleeting forms consist of psychophysical phenomena, which are constantly changing not remaining the same for two consecutive moments. Buddhists, therefore, do not believe in an unchanging entity, in an actor apart from action, in a perceiver apart from perception, in a conscious subject behind consciousness. Who then, is the doer of Karma? Who experiences the effect? Volition, or Will (tetana), is itself the doer, Feeling (vedana) is itself the reaper of the fruits of actions. Apart from these pure mental states (suddhadhamma) there is no-one to sow and no-one to reap.
  14. "there is such a self"

    It is just your illusion that what's being spoken about is a state. It's the nature of reality, always has been. That every experience is totally seamless and interdependent with the whole universe is not just an experience but a factual reality at any given moment of our experience, but you just didn't realise it yet. Even if a person didn't realise D.O. doesn't mean things aren't dependently originated, just as a person who didn't realise emptiness doesn't mean things exist, or just as a person who didn't realise impermanence doesn't means things are permanent, or just as a person who hasn't realised anatta means that there is truly a self. The reason why I quoted Thusness is because "one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous..." In other words, D.O. and Anatta does not mean determinism, not about being controlled by an external universe and thus unable to make individual choices, bur rather when one realises anatta and D.O. it is freedom, even though not in the sense of free will in the dualistic sense which really is bondage. Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh: In this food, I see clearly the presence of the entire universe supporting my existence. Zen Master Dogen: Although its light is wide and great, the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide. The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in one dewdrop. Brad Warner: The universe is scrubbing the stain off the toilet. p.s. Brad Warner's youtube video is very important. IT shows how the 'Maha' insight mentioned above is really about ordinary and mundane experience, not a far off state. It's not a coincidence that Thusness put 'Maha' along with 'Ordinariness' in his article.
  15. "there is such a self"

    Something Longchen just posted today: ....Awareness (and essence) is never lost in any state. There are roughly two stages of non-duality. The first stage is understanding 'no subject-object division'. The second stage is a more refined transparency stage. The second stage has experiences and insight not found during the first stage non-duality. Second stage understand no-solidity, luminousity(light) and 'one-action with the universe'. The second stage understands the 'whole/universe' better. ... IMO, 'Emptiness' is realised at the second stage non-duality. During the first stage, the visions has no inner-outer division, but all the 'colours' of visions are still there. During the second-stage, the 'colours' becomes transparent and bright luminousity... resulting in better understanding of 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form'. Additionally, one experiences that one's action is the same as the action of the whole universe. One realises that space is an illusion and all activities are simultaneous with the 'entirety/whole'. This is meant by when we eat, the whole universe eats. p.s. for Lucky, I wonder if you read Ajahn Jagaro's article too, which talks about karma/volition and its relation to anatta.
  16. "there is such a self"

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...pontaneous.html ...This section is not about Maha as a stage to achieve but to see that Sunyata is Maha in nature. In Maha, one does not feel self, one 'feels' universe; one does not feel 'Brahman' but feels 'interconnectedness'; one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous...
  17. "there is such a self"

    Oh by the way, the squirrel experience fears and is self-conscious. And it has all kinds of sufferings. And if you try to kill it, it fears. An arhat, however, does not fear, see the story of the lay arhat who doesn't fear and what the Buddha had to say about it in Verse 397 in http://www.vipassana.info/m.htm. And obviously, an arhat does not suffer, and I don't think I need to quote anything on that for you since that's the goal of Buddhism. But just for the sake of argument, even if squirrel doesn't have a sense of self, so what? It's still not enlightened. Enlightenment is not the absence of the sense of self. Yes if you are fully enlightened you don't have a sense of a center. But that's not the point. The point is you realise there is no self from the beginning. Always already just scenery, sounds, no seer, hearer, etc. That's why the emphasis on anatta as a dharma seal, not as a meditative experience. It's not something you can enter into (a state of no self), if it is a state, you will get out of it eventually. Rather, it is a permanent realisation. How many times have I said that anatta is not the absence of a sense of self, but is the ever-present nature of reality (including at times in an unenlightened being when sense of self is present), in other words, a Dharma Seal?
  18. "there is such a self"

    What Thusness and Longchen realised about Anatta and Emptiness, is basically similar to what Buddha and other Buddhist masters have realised. It is your wrong understanding of it that causes you to think they're not enlightened. Secondly, phenomena rolling on has nothing to do with being squirrel or crawling cockroach. Just because there is no producer or recipient of karma, does not mean the karma of a Buddha and a cockroach is the same. Please read this carefully: Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language, when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the result. No doer of the deeds is found, No one who ever reaps their fruits; Empty phenomena roll on: This only is the correct view. And while the deeds and their results Roll on and on, conditioned all, There is no first beginning found, Just as it is with seed and tree. ... No god, no Brahma, can be called The maker of this wheel of life: Empty phenomena roll on, Dependent on conditions all. - //Visuddhimagga// "Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds: Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it, The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen." - //Visuddhimagga// p.s. The Dhammapada V203/204 mentions, "Nibbana is bliss supreme" and the Lord Buddha Gotama declares, "Nibbanam paramam sukham" - Nibbana is the highest bliss. This is true, and when I met Thusness, he told us "the bliss I am experiencing right now is not something you can understand." And that statement says a lot: it has nothing to do with orgasmic bliss, sexual bliss, drug bliss, or any ordinary bliss. It is also beyond even all meditation jhana bliss (jhana itself already beyond all sensual bliss). Ordinary beings can NEVER fathom it. And pls, Thusness and Longchen are happily married. Thusness have 2 kids and loves his family, I've met with his whole family before. It's funny how you link personal relationship to anatta. Don't let your imagination run wild. BTW, no where did Buddha ever say, "Freed from suffering is to suffer and not suffer at will". He says, it's the end of suffering, PERIOD. If you don't have ignorance, you don't suffer, just as simple as that, because suffering only arises when you have the wrong view of self, a.k.a. ignorance/delusion. You can come up with you own philosophy, but please don't attribute it wrongly with the Buddha.
  19. Consciousness and Science

    So you are not cognizant of the thought? Can a thought arise without cognizance? Or do you mean there is a watcher of the thought?
  20. Consciousness and Science

    Consciousness just IS. It is not a mental state of contrasting and comparison with things. That would be a thought of comparison, and when it arises, that too simply IS.
  21. Consciousness and Science

    There are no objects