xabir2005

It's funny how I always 'coincidentally' (wasn't intending to find such articles) find articles that are related to what I was writing, and in this case, an article Thusness shared with me in 2005 and told me was very good, but I never really read until now. It is also related to the 2nd discourse ever taught by Buddha in Anattalakkhana Sutta) http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/anatta_jagaro.html Anatta (Non-self) and Kamma (Karma) The Best Kept Secret in the Universe by Ajahn Jagaro The teaching on Anatta or non-self is one of the most fundamental aspects of Buddhism, and may be the most important feature which makes the Buddha's teaching quite unique. The other aspect of the teaching which is sometimes seen to be difficult to reconcile or explain, interms of anatta, is the teaching of kamma or the law of kamma, which is the law of cause and results. The causes we create through our actions of body, speech and mind, and the consequences that arise from these actions. The law of kamma states that as we sow so shall we reap, and whatever kamma we shall do, we will be the heirs that inherit it. This to many people seems some what of a contradiction. On the one part we have the teaching of anatta, that there is no self or a personal permanent constant entity. So how can there be someone who inherits the results of what they do now? So this evening I would like to speak on these two aspects of the teaching and also how they relate to each other, possibly illustrate how there is no contradiction at all. It is quite the opposite in fact, for to understand one it does require the other. Actually when the Buddha taught the teaching of anatta or non-self, it needed or required the law of kamma, the law of conditionality, and the law of dependent origination to fill in the gap. The concept of anatta or non-self is of great importance in Buddha's teaching, and it is the one aspect of the teaching which is quite often found by newcomers to Buddhism, or even traditional Buddhists, to be very difficult to understand. Elusive, abstract and foreign. These terms could be used to describe how we react to this teaching when we hear it, and rightly so. There is nothing from our experience - the way we experience life, perceive life, think and communicate - which would give the secret away. It is the best kept secret in the universe. Only a Buddha or someone with the qualities and perfections of a Buddha could possibly penetrate this mystery or the secret without the guidance of another. That is why it is rare for a Buddha to arise in the world to penetrate this particular fundamental truth. It is so difficult because their are no hints. Even Sherlock Holmes could not have solved this one. It is completely contrary to what the appearance seems to indicate, and this is the teaching of non-self. What the teaching says is, that within this human being, consisting of mind and body, or consisting of body and the mental attributes of feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness, there is no permanent, personal entity which can be called a self or soul or ego. It does not sound right. Our experience seems to point back to someone in here, who is the experiencer, who owns "me" and "mine." This is the appearance which seems real. Even when people develop high states of meditation, as they did before the Buddha in India, where there were many different systems of religious teachers, spiritual seekers with their own systems of training of the mind, who were very accomplished, they simply were stuck on this appearance of a permanent self. There was a centre to all this subjective experience. There was a self, a centre point. Someone in there who is experiencing. Therefore every teaching that came out of India seemed to revolve around this one form or another dealing with this atman or atta or self or ego. In Christianity we have the soul. So there are many different notions about this core which is the real me, and everything else are attributes of me - my things, my body, my thoughts or my feelings. The me was the root of all these. So the Buddha in his teaching has burst the bubble and realised for himself that there was really no self, no real point that was a centre, and there was no self as such, and taught the teaching of no-self. But non-self is not meaning nothing, no personality. Of course you are you, the person sitting there. There is a mind and body, there is a personality, but there is no permanent entity. No aspect of that which you take yourself to be, which is permanent, or personal in the sense of being independent. And I will elaborate on this. What do we mean by what we call atta or self? What attributes should a self or soul have? A self or soul, if it is really you, should have, in order to have any significance or meaning so that it is really you, the following characteristics: 1. It has to be independent; otherwise how could it be really you. If other things can make it change, how can it be really you? So it has to stand independently. 2. If it is really yours, it must be completely in your power. This is a reasonable definition of me, which must be fulfilled for me to be real. If this 'me' does not fulfil this definition or does not have these attributes, then it is a fantasy. An 'I' or soul or 'me' dependent on other things, which changes dependent on other things, cannot be much of a 'me'. How can it be mine if I cannot completely control it? For example, consider an object which I possess like a watch. You can speak about it and say that this is my watch. None of you will disagree with that. It's my watch. That is the appearance in conventional reality, but if you look more closely, is it true? Is it really my watch in an absolute sense, other than in a conventionally accepted sense or merely for normal usage? In an absolute sense, it is not my watch, because I am going to lose it one day. Something will happen to it or it will get stolen, or I will die and somebody will inherit it. So in an absolute sense it is not mine, but something that will be with me temporarily. It really belongs where it comes from -the resources of the planet. Where will it go back - to the resources of the planet, like the matter of the universe. That is where it comes from and it will go back there. It is mine temporarily. So it is not mine in an absolute sense. Let us apply the same analogy to internal phenomena. That which is closest to me, 'my body', and we find that in actual fact when you apply this analysis, it is no different than the watch. As far as where the body comes from and where it goes back to, it is the same as the watch. Because of its changeability you can't say that it is mine. If it is mine I would make it different to what it is. It does not behave as I want it to, neither does your body behave as you want it to. You would notice this when we apply the same standards. If it is mine, I must have complete power to make it as I wish and I would wish everything that is mine be just as I wanted always, and I would be perfectly happy. Of course no one has ever been able to do that. But we all try and we all feel tremendous frustration at our inability to succeed. So not mine are the emotional feelings, perceptions, mental formations, thoughts, consciousness itself and the way the mental process operates. We'll apply the same analysis and see whether you can make your feelings as you want them to be and your thoughts to be as you want them to be. How many times a day do you feel what you don't want to feel, and remember what you don't want to remember, and think what you don't want to think? Your consciousness may dwell on some state of mind you do not want to have. The more you do not want to have, the more it comes out. Is this I really yours? And what is it in there that is you? What is it in this being that is sitting here 'you'? Am I the centre 'me' standing independently of everything else or is there anything else? The Buddha said no, and he stated it in no confusing terms. He stated very clearly - anatta, not self over and over again. Somebody might try to reinterpret the teaching of the Buddha as if there is some other self. In the Buddha's teaching there is no self to be found in this mind and body, of any form or any shape either in it or out of it anywhere. No self - full stop. But this is not to be accepted through belief, but to be realised through careful investigation. It is a well kept secret and only a mind which is extraordinarily well trained and disciplined and also knowledgeable can break through to this truth. The signs are not so easy to read. The conditioning is so strong. However we are fortunatethat we have the seeds. The seeds are being planted in our minds through the Buddha's teaching. You have heard the possibility, rather than hearing over and over again that the real you is within you, the soul - and after it dies it will go to heaven or hell. That is the real self. You believe it whether you understand or not. Maybe actually there is nobody there, nobody at home at all. So you can't forget that now. So when your mind is strong enough, through the practice of meditation, this inquiry will start. What is it that is me? What is it that I take myself to be? Look with clarity and attention, and it is possible to realise directly the teaching of non-self. The only time that one can really understand is when you see it with insight. Until then we can appreciate logically and intellectually, think about it, but we cannot have that direct seeing. Until we have that direct seeing we do not have right view. We cannot have the right view with regard to the nature of the body and mind. So one needs to get this as a personal subjective experience through insight. However it is sufficient for now to dwell and point out what the Buddha taught about anatta. There is no self in this body or in the mind process. I stress the word process because the body and the mind is not one lump of stationary matter and stationary mental states. It is an ongoing process, dynamically moving, changing always, and becoming something else, and this is when we come to the other aspects of the teaching of the Buddha. When there is no self how can this continue, how can it keep going? What is there if there is no self, if there is no one there? How does this function? Here the Buddha mentions the fundamental laws that operate in the universe. They are not created by anybody. They are not dependent on somebody's power. The existence of samsara implies these laws. The laws imply samsara. This is what samsara is. These are the laws that control it. These fundamental laws can be broken down into several. The broadest one is the law of conditionality. Usually we say that this is the law of cause and effect. This is not a good terminology because it is much more complicated than that. It is the law of conditionality. Broadly speaking, what it means is that, whatever arises, arises from conditions. When the conditions are there the result comes about. When the conditions are not there the result cannot come about. The Buddha expressed in a very succinct statement: When this is, that is. When this arises, that arises. When this is not, that is not. When this ceases, that ceases. You can apply this to a whole range of phenomena, physical and mental, internal or external, animate or inanimate. It is just a fundamental law that operates all the time without somebody ruling over it. That is all inclusive. There is nothing outside it. According to the law of conditionality based on conditions the results come about. When the conditions are not there the results cannot come about. I often repeat this story - how a Buddhist and a Christian may perceive something. When I was in Perth monastery, it was raining and some people came to the monastery with some children. They were Christian children. Only the parents were Buddhist. I asked the children why it is raining, and they said because God makes the rain. I said I don't believe that. They asked me what I think about why it rains. I said because the conditions are right for it to rain - the atmospheric conditions, the temperature, wind and the clouds, and because everything is right for it to rain and it rains. Not because it is somebody's will to make it rain. This is an impersonal law, it is not biased. Completely unbiased and fair in its operation. It operates at the internal level too. The law of kamma basically is that dependent on what we intentionally do, through body, speech and mind, there will be results. The nature of these results will be determined by the nature of the intention. If the intention behind the action is wholesome, the result will be pleasant or wholesome. If the nature of the action is unwholesome, the result will be unpleasant. This is the specific application of the law of conditionality. Dependent on the causes the result will come about. Volition is one area of consciousness where the human mind has the ability to will. We can will the body to action, we can will our speech or thought. Quite often this is the mental attribute that people identify most strongly with as mine. If you have been meditating for some time you will probably know what I mean. When you look into yourself or listen to yourself, what does me identify mostly with? I 'will', so it must be me. I am the one who is doing this. I am the one who is asking and I am the one who is answering. I can choose to stand up or sit down. This must be me. We identify strongly with our will, intention or volition, because it appears to be the centre. But this is also no-self, and this is where you have to apply your attention very carefully. Even the volition is conditioned. Why do you will something? Why do you choose something? Why do you choose to come to the BSV and not go somewhere else? You have a choice. There is a volition there. That volition was conditioned by previous experience, thoughts, feelings and previous volition etc. So that volition or choice is not an independent thing. The choice that we make is also conditioned. Why do you think, why do you act, and speak the way you do, the choices you make? It is the result of past conditioning. So even our choice (cetana), intention, or volition is kamma. This aspect of our mind is conditioned by the past. The fundamental force that drives us to make choices is the quest for happiness. Your volition comes from the quest for happiness. Your experience in the quest for happiness helps to shape your volitions, and in what directions they will drive you. So when you have this volition, intention to do, to speak and think, it is a force. Having spoken, having acted, having thought, is a force set in motion. It will have its consequences. It will shape something in the future. Immediately it will shape the state of your mind psychologically. You think an angry thought, or speak angrily, you will feel associated with it a negative state of mind. Psychologically you get a reaction almost immediately. But there will probably be other results, which can come later on, because you have set something in motion, and that will or intention is like sowing a seed. It will bring some growth with results and fruits. This is the law of kamma. Each volitional act will bring results which psychologically may be very quick, but quite often may take some time, to come about. The Buddha said that some results come in this life and some in future lives. The nature of the volition will determine the nature of the result. Now at the time of death what will happen? Imagine how strong this force is. See it now in your life while you are living. This will or force that animates this body to walk around, drive it for how many years, to do this and that. Do you think at death this force will just expire and go into nothingness? The Buddha said it does not. This force, this volition which is kamma, at the time of death will in itself, just like any other force, cause the arising of a new conscious moment, as it does in the present existence. Consciousness is an arising and a ceasing. It is flowing, but that does not mean it is smooth. It is always arising and ceasing. Every conscious state of mind is flicking into existence and passing away. If you pay attention you can see that. At the time of death as the mind ceases, the last ceasing consciousnessin this body causes the arising of consciousness in a new body, with a new physical base. And what arises is determined by the quality of the consciousness at the time of death. The quality of the previous consciousness conditions the arising of the new consciousness. Now if there is no self, if there is no one there, can this process really continue like this on and on? The question that is often put is, if there is no self, the person who is going to inherit the kamma is a different person than that who he now is. Is it not? Why should I care? I am not going to get the results. I can do what I want. That poor guy down the road is going to get all the results. It is interesting as an abstract thought. You can contemplate what you are experiencing now. Who is experiencing if there is no self? There is still experience. There is pleasure and pain, pleasant and unpleasant experience. There is no self, but the feeling is real, the state of mind is real, the happiness and unhappiness is real. These are real states of the mind though there is no self experiencing them. These states come about from past causes. The person who caused those conditions for the present state was you, or someone else. It does not matter. You are experiencing it now and it is a reality. 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. Who will experience it? You will be there just as much as you are here now. You are here now just as much as you were present in this stream 100 years ago or a thousand lifetimes ago. You were just as much you then, as you are now. And as long as you are this stream now you will be the same stream a thousand lifetimes in the future. What is the experiencing? There is the pleasure, there is pain, there is suffering and happiness. How do you feel about pain and suffering now? It is not liked by anyone, whether it is you or another. It is the same a thousand lifetimes before, as now. The relationship with the experience is the same. No one likes pain. Even though there is no you like a constant personal entity in this stream, still there is this relationship that pain and unhappiness is not wanted. It is difficult to bear. So we don't create conditions that bring about this suffering. The person who is sitting here now is not completely different from the person who came here last week, but not completely the same person either. Dependent on the past the present is, dependent on the present the future will be. So the idea of kamma simply implies that the way we live, what we do intentionally, volitionally, will have consequences. Not as punishment, not as reward. There is none who punishes, and none who rewards. That is because it is a law of nature, the law of conditionality. Volitional action will bring about results, and the nature of the results is determined by the nature of the volitional action. If it is positive it will bring about positive results, and of course if negative, unhappy results will follow and our relationship to the pleasant or unpleasant experience will be the same in the future as it is now. We do not want to be with that which is unpleasant. So the Buddha encourages over and over again, to cultivate good kamma. Feel what you feel now, and you will know the importance of planting the right seed for the future. There is no contradiction at all in the teaching of anatta and kamma. They flow together very well because of the law of dependent origination and the law of kamma. That is why it works the way it does, without anybody ordering it. It is orderly by its very nature. Any teaching that has got the teaching of kamma could be expected to sow the seeds of goodness. Any teaching which denies the law of kamma would open the door to irresponsible selfishness because you can get away with it. So this is considered the basic quality of a religion or philosophy, which will bring about good social structure and personal relationship, good moral standards, good virtuous upright living. It does not matter whether people have different religious beliefs, if they have the law of kamma by whatever word they call it, they can live together. It does not contradict with the law of anatta. Because there is no one driving, no one in the driver's seat, the laws operate and everything is orderly. No punishment, no reward, on favours, just orderly.

It seems your understanding of non-dual and anatta is strong. If you follow Daniel Ingram's practice completely, you won't go through the I AM experience, since his path leads straight to non-dual and anatta without going through the I AM stage. To understand Dwai's experience, you need to meditate on the relative nature of mind: (Dalai Lama) http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/sea...%20Dalai%20Lama Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind. There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state. All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self. Of these two aspects, viz. the ultimate true nature of mind and a knowledge of that ultimate true nature, the former is the base, the latter an attribute. Mind (self) is the basis and all its different states are attributes. However, the basis and its attributes have from the first pertained to the same single essence. The non-self-created (depending on a cause other than itself) mind entity (basis) and its essence, sunyata, have unceasingly existed as the one, same, inseparable essence from beginningless beginning. The nature of sunyata pervades all elements. As we are now and since we cannot grasp or comprehend the indestructible, natural, ultimate reality (sunyata) of our own minds, we continue to commit errors and our defects persist. Taking mind as the subject and mind's ultimate reality as its object, one will arrive at a proper comprehension of the true essence of mind, i.e. its ultimate reality. And when, after prolonged patient meditation, one comes to perceive and grasp at the knowledge of mind's ultimate reality which is devoid of dual characteristics, one will gradually be able to exhaust the delusions and defects of the central and secondary minds such as wrath, love of ostentation, jealousy, envy and so on.

Ah, I expected you to say that Hehe. Yes, I know what the Advaita POV is, I am just correcting his false conception of being a soul like entity. Incidentally, I believe Advaita talks about an individual soul. The individual soul is called Jiva, the cosmic source/Self is Brahman, and the true nature of Self (atman) is Brahman.

Lucky7Strike: You have a false understanding of what 'Awareness' is. Awareness is not attention. Without thought, nor any intention to fixate your attention anywhere, just pause (relax without 'doing') for a moment... in that gap, just a luminous but formless sense of Being and Presence. When you look at a thought, a form, you discover that it is the same vivid presence and empty, but the difference is that it is not experience as a moment of thoughtless Being/I AM. It is just pure sound, pure sight, pure thought. The sheer presence does not have a subject/object duality, it just IS. You just have to practice and experience, more posts by me would be useless. All the enlightened masters, not just a few, have said the same things, and you wouldn't listen. Just be more open minded and investigate further, don't stop at any conclusions. p.s. the Mahamudra instructions of Pointing Out Innate Mind (which leads to I AM insight), and then the Pointing Out Innate Thought and Pointing Out Innate (sensory) Perceptions, both which leads to non-dual anatta and emptiness insights, is quite useful and I believe something similar to what I said above. I highly recommend 'Clarifying the Natural State' by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal to those interested. Good and not too lengthy Mahamudra guide.

I wonder where you get your idea of being rid of responsibility from. There is responsibilities, there is conscious will, just no separate thinker. Again, you have a false understanding of anatta. And yes, once you're enlightened like Thusness and Longchen, you will be freed from suffering, be blissful, and be free of fears. You're actually criticizing all Buddhas and arhats since all of them have the same realisation of no-self and emptiness, and are freed from sufferings and are blissful (though also free from fears, are responsible, etc) p.s. there is no such thing as 'a state of no self'. No Self IS a Dharma Seal, it is not a state, it is a realisation, an insight into the nature of reality, that you cannot enter into nor get out of. This in Zen is called the Great Samadhi that has no entry and exit. Anyway, the whole goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. If there was no way to end suffering, Buddha wouldn't have bothered, since that is his only intention.

I have said already, insentient conditions are simply conditions for manifestation of consciousness. They are not the consciousness itself. The manifestation is a new phenomenon, that does NOT originate from insentient conditions, but interdependently arise with insentient conditions. BUT when I say Manifestation, I mean the manifestation of Awareness, I don't mean the insentient conditions that are necessary for that particular manifestation of awareness. You just mixed up my terms totally. Whatever you experience is already non-local. The sense of self arises according to conditions, but doesn't mean there is truly a self there. It is just a sensation (even if it is a sensation of locality) that is non-local and dependently originate. No, Awareness is not something separate from sights, thoughts etc. The phenomena dependently originates. Awareness does not stand apart from phenomena. That means, Awareness IS the sights, sounds, etc, and that it dependently originates, therefore Awareness is inseparable from causes and conditions. Again, when I said Awareness is the body, I am not talking about body as an inherently objectively existing entity, because there is no such objectively existing body. Much less am I saying that Awareness is 'in the body', I never said that. I am just talking about momentarily arising bodily sensations that dependently originates. Awareness has no existence apart from sensations arising moment to moment according to conditions. It has no independent and permanent existence. You are already making Awareness into an entity, which is an extreme. Awareness is NOT a persisting, continuous, eternal entity. It is not a Self that persists from past to present. Rather, there is just Manifesting-Awareness, the manifesting-awareness of body prior to cutting, and the manifesting-awareness of body after cutting, is just awareness manifesting according to Different conditions. It does not mean the same Awareness entity persisted through change. Awareness IS the manifestation which dependently originates, it is empty of any inherent existence. Even to say 'before and after' is already wrong, there is just One Sound, One Thought, One Sensation. Again, you are treating Awareness as some sort of soul, entity, atman, that can move from one body to the next. Awareness is not an atman. Awareness is empty. Awareness has no location, whether in this body, or the next body, or anywhere. Awareness is simply a Manifesting Sensation that dependently originate, and I'm using sensation to mean basically every experience - feelings, thoughts, sights, sounds, taste, touch, smells. Just because all is manifestation, does not mean I am no different from a pig. I wonder where you get all your strange ideas from. You are having very wrong views, please study Buddhism thoroughly. Sound, which I distinguish from the insentient condition of soundwaves, is self-luminous. In other words, the manifesting EXPERIENCE of sound, sights, touch, taste, etc, are self-luminous. I do not mean that insentient conditions is self-luminous, I hope you get this by now. But as I said, that is still holding an extreme view of Subject, one that can 'merge into' or 'become tree', etc. In reality, Awareness is just Manifestation. One manifestation cannot transform into one another. As Zen Master Dogen said, firewood does not turn into ash, winter does not turn into spring, life does not turn into death. Firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash. We have never actually experienced movement and transformation. We have NEVER experienced one thing becoming another, the notion of something becoming something is just a conceptual reification/fabrication we impose on our experience when we recall a previous experience. There is change, without a changing 'thing'. Always just this One Sound, One Thought. It's not that 'Awareness can experience creation as a center'. Rather, 'Awareness can MANIFEST as a sensation of a center, with the condition of ignorance'. Such a manifestation itself dependently originates, arise and vanish according to conditions, and is just more sensations that are aware 'where they are'. Everything just manifest in the same way. If everything just manifest in its own suchness, aware where they are, without a separate observer, then there cannot be any center. Even the sensation of a center is just a sensation that cannot observe another sensation, and hence is not a true center. I am saying that attention is not self. I do not mean Awareness is not sound. Awareness is what everything IS, attention is just a particular manifestation of awareness. Actually there is no need to say that 'Awareness is what everything IS', especially when you have a mistaken conception of what awareness is. It is better in this case to just say, 'everything IS', and attention is just one particular ISness. In classical Pali scriptures they don't talk about 'awareness as everything'. They just talk about phenomena. They don't talk about Awareness, because if there is no subject/object duality, no self, then there is ONLY phenomena and no other thing apart from phenomena called 'awareness'. Non-dual awareness is already auto-implied by talking about sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. The whole 'awareness manifesting' is already dualistic, which I am unfortunately using above. In reality there is ONLY manifestation, that alone is the awareness, there is no other substratum of awareness where manifestation appears.

For me, there is no duality between 'universal' and 'personal'. There is no universal consciousness in which personality appears. No-self does not contradict personality. What we call personal thoughts and actions, is simply thoughts arising without thinker, actions arising without actor. I don't have the bullshit thought that 'just because there is no doer, I cannot practice'. Practice happens without doer.

Stage II only applies to those who argue without understanding what is common to all. Understanding and appreciating the similarities, yet also understanding the paradigm difference, would be stage V. Also see the part of my comments on Dr. Loy at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...of-insight.html Thusness also felt that is important, that's why he told me to post it there. Many people today, including majority of Buddhists, don't understand the difference. I see that many teachers at the Hsu Yun lineage (and many other different lineages) today have a very Advaita kind of view and experience.

What I am saying is not the same as Lucky7Strikes, I do not say 'Awareness (subject) dependently originates with objects'. I do not use a subject and object paradigm at all. Rather, there is just an appearance, that is vivid and empty, which means the appearance itself dependently originates. And the appearance itself is Awareness. So I agree there cannot be sound without consciousness, however this statement is only partially correct since it already separate it into two conceptual categories that doesn't exist - one called sound, and one called awareness, but in reality, the sound itself IS consciousness. Since you seem very inclined to Advaita, I might as well post something from an Advaita person which I and Thusness found to be profound and well written. Randall Friend: Sunday, January 10, 2010 There are no objects Duality is imagination only. THAT there is a world of things in existence, with "you" only a small, insignificant and limited "part", is part and parcel of this dualistic equation. The instant a label is applied, reality is seemingly split up. We talk about awareness, then the world arises in awareness. From that platform, awareness is apparently owned, possessed, contained, limited. It's an unresolvable paradox - why is this so? Because a "thing" cannot BE another "thing". A "thing" stands apart and IS only a thing BECAUSE it ISN'T another "thing". In asserting it's "thingness", it must stand alone in space and time. So we have awareness and experience - subjective and objective - and in even calling them as such, their duality is forever solidified. Their separate reality is seemingly solid and true. Yet we're still spellbound by words, still caught in the labels, which project reality as separate. Yes? What is experience? Sensation. Perception. What is awareness? Experienc-ING. Sens-ING. Perceiv-ING. So here is a sensation - breathing. It's a familiar sensation. What is the relationship of the sensation called "breathing" and the awareness OF that sensation? Where is that sensation at? Where is that awareness at? Where does the sensation start and end? Where does awareness start and end? Where is the boundary or dividing line between sensation/experience and awareness? Aren't "sensation" and "awareness" two words for the SAME REALITY? Two words for the same nondual reality? Two words for "what IS"? Two words which seemingly split up "what IS" into subject and object? And from there, that "subject" is given a name, that "object" is given a name, and the story is woven. Separate reality is projected, imagined. The word "object" is just a concept. There is no such thing. And without an object, can there be a "subject"? No. There is only WHAT IS, and then that is broken up in concepts to create this imaginary story called "My Life". You're entire life is nothing but this false story, built on the shakiest of platforms. You ARE this nondual reality. The "real" YOU - IS the totality. Posted by Randall Friend at 7:57 AM There's a post I wrote previously that I think is worth bringing up again:

And the listener can't be located, the listener is not a 'thing' but rather is simply the process of listening, seeing, hearing, which is really just sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. There is just manifestations.

Both Thusness and Longchen have stucked at the I AM stage of experience for 15 years since their teenage years before realising Anatta and Emptiness. The I AM is experienced as not limited, but all pervading, timeless and spaceless. So obviously they knew what the I AM is through their experience and meditation. But this is not the final realisation. For Longchen he only realised Anatta in 2006 after a series of conversations with Thusness. He was very grateful and said he would be stuck at 'I AM' stage 'forever' if he did not met Thusness. As Longchen put in his own words in some of his many posts on my Buddhist forum after his realisation of Anatta: In an experience of 'no thought' and 'no sense impressions', the Presence will be felt as all-pervading. It is not vast, but all pervading. There is a difference here. Vast denotes great distance. All-pervading denotes infinity... no border... no center. Further insight of this infinity may allow you to understanding why space, location and distance are merely impressions. ....... Just my opinion only, I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence. To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'. However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required. ....... Thanks for the interesting article. It really contain many useful insights. Just a sharing... The author say that thought is a problem. It may not be entirely accurate. IMO, when visual vision and thought imagery arise, there is a tendency to compartmentalise certain sections as entities, focus or objects. Next, there is a desire to modify that section. For example, in the visual sense, from the environment you are engaging a conversation with someone. The mind desires to change the 'person' into what it imagines will be the desired outcome. Example, you want to make the person think the way you think and so on so forth. The mind fails to see that this is 'hit and miss' and that the changes is really not dependent on the desire to modify the subject. Rather, it has got to do with the 'person' own willing or not. So... to me, thought is the not the problem. Instead, the desire to modify and change 'what is' is the cause of suffering. Also, when we say that we are not the thoughts or the body, unconsciously we have separated 'phemonena' from a 'untouchable' portion of ourself. The difference at the non-duality stage is that, no attempt is made... Sensations are left as they are... At the I AM/eternal witness stage, there is a seeking for the place beyond thoughts. Also, at the I AM/eternal witness, no-suffering is preferred over suffering. There is no understanding that there is really NO blissful place that is beyond pain. When there is pain, there is nothing beyond it too. So at the I AM/eternal witness stage, attempts may be employed by the mind to get rid of the pain... to go a place beyond the pain. The understanding that 'sensation and pain' is inseparable from Presence/Buddha Nature is not there yet.

Yes, there is just the process that seamlessly interdependently originates, there is no subject and no object. Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh: "When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'." "..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...." "In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one." Thusness: "...as a verb, as action, there can be no concept, only experience. Non-dual anatta (no-self) is the experience of subject/Object as verb, as action. There is no mind, only mental activities... ...Source as the passing phenomena... and how non-dual appearance is understood from Dependent Origination perspective."

No. Shunyata in Buddhism has nothing to do with a formless Brahman, rather it means that selves and phenomena are essence-less, unlocatable, ungraspable, and interdependent. You can't force an alien paradigm and reinterprete the words. In Buddhism, there is no Consciousness that exists apart from phenomena. Awareness is just points of luminous clarity, be it the sensation of Being or I AMness to the sensation of sights and sounds and thoughts. There is nothing ultimate about Consciousness. Consciousness is simply all manifest phenomena, and it is phenomena that is empty, "uncreated, undying, and hence timeless". On the Anatta nature of Consciousness: as my friend Thusness told my friend Longchen during his 'I AMness' years in 2005 before his realisation of Anatta and Emptiness: Hi longchen, It is ungraspable not because the Ultimate Object cannot be the subject of observation; but rather there is really no such 'ultimate object' hiding behind anywhere. A 'someone' inside somewhere is from the very beginning a mistake. True authenticity comes when we realized that any form of 'centricity' is illusionary. To experience the Pure Presence of Isness, 'I AMness' must completely dissolve. The Pure Presence you experienced is non-local and has no-center. It becomes an 'I AM' due to linear mode of analysis. If you have time do explore into insight meditation and the essence of 'Emptiness' Regards, Thusness

No. I think the definitions got you confused. When I say sound, I mean the presence of sound as an experience, I am not talking about soundwaves which are simply a condition for the experience of sound. For example a similar kind of soundwave may give rise to different kind of experience in different persons and animals due to various types of biological and karmic conditioning, for example some high pitched sounds or low pitched sounds can or cannot be heard by others or might be perceived differently, more acutely, or otherwise, and thus soundwave is just a condition, the arising experience is Awareness, not the soundwave. Sound is awareness, an appearance that is vividly present yet empty and dependently originates. No. I do not mean consciousness resides in the body. I mean the chakras and the body are simply another condition for consciousness to manifest in a particular way, in this instance, to manifest as the human experience. Consciousness is fundamentally empty and has no locality but interdependently originates. Consciousness also influences and affects the body. Hence they are mutually dependent, yet not the same as dependence (consciousness created out of matter). Again you are mistaken. It is not the case that consciousness is one with sound, which would imply that subject and object are actually inseparable. Or rather it would imply an essence that is one with all appearances. This is Advaita but not Buddhism. Rather, in Buddhism, it is that there ONLY is sound and that is the only consciousness there is. There is no other consciousness to speak of apart from those phenomena, no essence that transcends and includes phenomena. In actuality there is just phenomena-ing presenc-ing and awar-ing. Just sounds, sights, taste, thoughts, touch, etc, all sensations are simply present and aware as it is and there is no observer apart from that. And that very appearance, though vividly presence as pure awareness, is dependently originated and empty. Consciousness IS sound, sound IS consciousness, it is not that consciousness is 'one with' sound. That is the subtle difference between Thusness Stage 4 and Thusness Stage 5. Since phenomena is all there is, it is phenomena that dependently originates. What dependently originates must be a phenomena, a self-luminous sensation arising and vanishing according to conditions. Every sensation is simply present and aware. No sensation can observe another sensation, there are just arising and vanishing sensations, every sensation is disjoint, a completely fresh and new reality. All there is is appearance, phenomena, no other awareness to speak of. These phenomena may be conventionally labelled as 'red', etc for conventional purposes, and wouldn't be a problem as long as we don't mistake what we characterize as something inherent.

Consciousness in Buddhism is treated as a separate element from the other insentient elements of earth, water, fire and wind. They are known as the five elements. Hence, the question of how sentience arise from insentience does not occur in Buddhism. The body cannot produce consciousness, for birth take place, the body must accomodate with the rebirth-consciousness to take birth, before life can form. This rebirth consciousness is not a production of the body, otherwise rebirth cannot take place, out of body experiences cannot occur (and they do occur). So what's the link between body and consciousness? There is a link, it is a mutual dependence as long as the link is established between consciousness and body through the chakras but it is not the same as consciousness having its source from the body. Consciousness has no such origin, though it interdependently originates. Whatever experienced, that is consciousness, consciousness is non-dual, but also it doesn't mean consciousness is a universal substratum (like Advaita) but rather in Buddhist view is an individual transient mindstream of consciousness. Awareness is simply all manifesting experience/phenomena itself, yet is non-arising. Sometimes I use the word 'arising' but I don't literally mean something arising in time, persisting, and subsiding, what I mean is just non-substantial dependently originated ungraspable vivid appearance. Beware of thinking that mindstream arise from some source, that it comes into being at certain time. That is an extreme. To arise is to establish that it has an existence, to say it cease is to establish it's non-existence. Both are extremes (the other two extremes are both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence). These four extremes are the false views negated by the Buddhist teachings of Emptiness. But be careful of talking Awareness as Unborn, it is not the case that there is an Unborn essence underlying all phenomena popping in and out of this background unborn reality (Advaita). Actually all things are already non-arising. They just manifest, appear, they do not truly arise. Because they do not truly arise, there is no coming from, and going to. It is just an appearance, a vividly clear yet empty presence, but there is no objectivity to it that can come and go as if we are an experiencer of things coming and going from our field of experience (dualistic). Whatever appears dependently originates and have no essence, just like the red-ness of flower though vividly appearing is no where to be found objectively or subjectively (for example, dogs don't perceive red), you cannot say that the red-ness has arisen or come from somewhere because it never truly existed to begin with, just an appearance. This dualistic and inherent framework of seeing things is false. In reality everything is Unborn. To say that Awareness, or Manifestation (which is the same) has a source or origin, is to stray into extremes. It establishes it's birth and having 'come from somewhere'. As explained, there are conditions, but there are no source and origin. There is no birth. There is no coming and going. In D.O., there is no movement. There is also no something transforming to something. See Heart Sutra. Even though all phenomena which is awareness is non-arising, awareness is clearly vivid and displaying as all the various forms. The sound of bird chirping which is a vivid presence itself does not come from somewhere, but is a dependently originated appearance. Padmasambhava: "13. This self-originated Clear Light, which from the very beginning was in no way produced by something antecedent to it, is the child of awareness, and yet it is itself without any parents--amazing! This self-originated primordial awareness has not been created by anything--amazing! It does not experience birth nor does there exist a cause for its death--amazing! Although it is evidently visible, yet there is no one there who sees it--amazing! Although it has wandered throughout Samsara, it has come to no harm--amazing! Even though it has seen Buddhahood itself, it has not come to any benefit from this--amazing! Even though it exists in everyone everywhere, yet it has gone unrecognized--amazing! Nonetheless you hope to attain some other fruit than this elsewhere--amazing! Even though it exists within yourself (and nowhere else), yet you seek for it elsewhere--amazing! Longchen Rabjam: "Phenomenal existences are unborn, of equal nature; In which the originally liberated appearances and mind prevail evenly without apprehensions; Concerning that marvelous sovereign, Naturally Liberated Mind, Listen while I tell you what I have realized. "All phenomena are primordially pure and enlightened, so it is unborn and unceasing, inconceivable and inexpressable. In the ultimate sphere purity and impurity are naturally pure and Phenomena are the great equal perfection, free from conception. "There is no separate emptiness apart from apparent phenomena. The notion of their distinctness is a division made by the mind. "In the mind which has no essence, various things Arise because of the objective conditions, Like reflections appearing in a mirror or in the ocean. The emptiness essence, unceasing nature, and Variously appearing characteristic, the magical display, is The dual projection of samsara and nirvana within a single Mind. "The primordially empty Mind, which has no root, Is not defiled by the phenomenal appearances of samsara and nirvana. "The nature of samsara is the essence of the mind, Which is primordially unborn and enlightened, So by seeing the Mind, realization of the nature of existence is attained. "For the Buddhahood which is totally and naturally pure, Do not search anywhere but in your own mind. "For people who want enlightenment, the meaning of the unmodified absolute Is to let the mind be at ease without effort." ( http://www.openbuddha.com/2005/01/06/natur...eat-perfection/ )

Good points.. If there is no duality, no self, nothing inherent, only dependent origination spontaneously manifesting and dissolving, everything self-liberates upon its appearance. The point is 'self-liberation'. A bodhisattva who realises this acts leaving no traces. There's a passage I believe is relevant, by Guru Padmasambhava: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...eeing-with.html If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition. But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively. But if you understand this empty primal awareness, which is your own mind, the consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized, just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky. In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created. Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly. This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of such great profundity, and, this being so; you should become intimately acquainted with self-awareness. Profoundly sealed!

BTW, I can also relate to the example of wu wei and explain how wu wei, which is without self, doer, but spontaneous action not separated with the entire universe, commonly mistaken as 'deterministic' and a state of 'bondage' is in fact true freedom since there is no more conceptual boundary dividing subject and object, dividing the doer and the action, observer and observed. When it is seen there is no 'me' in contrast with 'universe', the universe cannot 'determine' me (since a conceptual me separated from universe does not exist). Rather, there is just Universe, arising as this One Action, One Seamless Experience. Rather than being controlled by something else, we enter a state where compassion acts freely for the betterment of self and others. In contrast, the state of being bonded by being a separate self is suffering. In Thusness's words, one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous.

Just because there is no 'you' doesn't mean you cannot be compassionate for yourself and others. From Virmalakirti Nirdesa Sutra 7. The Goddess Thereupon, Manjusri, the crown prince, addressed the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Good sir, how should a bodhisattva regard all living beings?" Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, a bodhisattva should regard all livings beings as a wise man regards the reflection of the moon in water or as magicians regard men created by magic. He should regard them as being like a face in a mirror; like the water of a mirage; like the sound of an echo; like a mass of clouds in the sky; like the previous moment of a ball of foam; like the appearance and disappearance of a bubble of water; like the core of a plantain tree; like a flash of lightning; like the fifth great element; like the seventh sense-medium; like the appearance of matter in an immaterial realm; like a sprout from a rotten seed; like a tortoise-hair coat; like the fun of games for one who wishes to die; like the egoistic views of a stream-winner; like a third rebirth of a once-returner; like the descent of a nonreturner into a womb; like the existence of desire, hatred, and folly in a saint; like thoughts of avarice, immorality, wickedness, and hostility in a bodhisattva who has attained tolerance; like the instincts of passions in a Tathagata; like the perception of color in one blind from birth; like the inhalation and exhalation of an ascetic absorbed in the meditation of cessation; like the track of a bird in the sky; like the erection of a eunuch; like the pregnancy of a barren woman; like the unproduced passions of an emanated incarnation of the Tathagata; like dream-visions seen after waking; like the passions of one who is free of conceptualizations; like fire burning without fuel; like the reincarnation of one who has attained ultimate liberation. "Precisely thus, Manjusri, does a bodhisattva who realizes the ultimate selflessness consider all beings." Manjusri then asked further, "Noble sir, if a bodhisattva considers all living beings in such a way, how does he generate the great love toward them?" Vimalakirti replied, "Manjusri, when a bodhisattva considers all living beings in this way, he thinks: 'Just as I have realized the Dharma, so should I teach it to living beings.' Thereby, he generates the love that is truly a refuge for all living beings; the love that is peaceful because free of grasping; the love that is not feverish, because free of passions; the love that accords with reality because it is equanimous in all three times; the love that is without conflict because free of the violence of the passions; the love that is nondual because it is involved neither with the external nor with the internal; the love that is imperturbable because totally ultimate. "Thereby he generates the love that is firm, its high resolve unbreakable, like a diamond; the love that is pure, purified in its intrinsic nature; the love that is even, its aspirations being equal; the saint's love that has eliminated its enemy; the bodhisattva's love that continuously develops living beings; The Tathagata's love that understands reality; the Buddha's love that causes living beings to awaken from their sleep; the love that is spontaneous because it is fully enlightened spontaneously; the love that is enlightenment because it is unity of experience; the love that has no presumption because it has eliminated attachment and aversion; the love that is great compassion because it infuses the Mahayana with radiance; the love that is never exhausted because it acknowledges voidness and selflessness; the love that is giving because it bestows the gift of Dharma free of the tight fist of a bad teacher; the love that is morality because it improves immoral living beings; the love that is tolerance because it protects both self and others; the love that is effort because it takes responsibility for all living beings; the love that is contemplation because it refrains from indulgence in tastes; the love that is wisdom because it causes attainment at the proper time; the love that is liberative technique because it shows the way everywhere; the love that is without formality because it is pure in motivation; the love that is without deviation because it acts from decisive motivation; the love that is high resolve because it is without passions; the love that is without deceit because it is not artificial; the love that is happiness because it introduces living beings to the happiness of the Buddha. Such, Manjusri, is the great love of a bodhisattva." Manjusri: What is the great compassion of a bodhisattva? Vimalakirti: It is the giving of all accumulated roots of virtue to all living beings. Manjusri: What is the great joy of the bodhisattva? Vimalakirti: It is to be joyful and without regret in giving. Manjusri: What is the equanimity of the bodhisattva? Vimalakirti: It is what benefits both self and others. Manjusri: To what should one resort when terrified by fear of life? Vimalakirti: Manjusri, a bodhisattva who is terrified by fear of life should resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha. Manjusri: Where should he who wishes to resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha take his stand? Vimalakirti: He should stand in equanimity toward all living beings. Manjusri: Where should he who wishes to stand in equanimity toward all living beings take his stand? Vimalakirti: He should live for the liberation of all living beings. Manjusri: What should he who wishes to liberate all living beings do? Vimalakirti: He should liberate them from their passions. Manjusri: How should he who wishes to eliminate passions apply himself? Vimalakirti: He should apply himself appropriately. Manjusri: How should he apply himself, to "apply himself appropriately"? Vimalakirti: He should apply himself to productionlessness and to destructionlessness. Manjusri: What is not produced? And what is not destroyed? Vimalakirti: Evil is not produced and good is not destroyed. Manjusri: What is the root of good and evil? Vimalakirti: Materiality is the root of good and evil. Manjusri: What is the root of materiality? Vimalakirti: Desire is the root of materiality. Manjusri: What is the root of desire and attachment? Vimalakirti: Unreal construction is the root of desire. Manjusri: What is the root of unreal construction? Vimalakirti: The false concept is its root. Manjusri: What is the root of the false concept? Vimalakirti: Baselessness. Manjusri: What it the root of baselessness? Vimalakirti: Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is baseless.

No, I am not saying sense organs themselves experience. I am saying that arising experience IS awareness, that that experience dependently originates according to conditions which does include conditions like sense organs among a list of conditions. Thusness: One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way. From another website: Awareness is not our consciousness of the world; instead, Awareness is the phenomenal world. This seems to be counterintuitive because of the way we presume awareness operates. We see it as being like seeing, or hearing, or any of our other senses, somehow mirrored by the organs within our bodies. We take it to be a kind of sensing or percipiency. Thus some thing must be aware, sensing the world, like a brain which somehow `sees' what the eyes see and `hears' what the ears hear. It is easier to place this 'something' in the physical body - even if we cannot locate it with any assurance, explain how it works, or why it arises - than it is to say that Awareness is the existence of the world. Deriving the world from Awareness is much harder for us to contemplate. Some try to get free of the idea of consciousness being locked-up in our heads by erroneously proposing that the universe itself is aware. Others reduce awareness to some phantom-like add-on to our neurological processes. As you will discover reading through this book, Awareness is not sensing, it is doing. It is this activity of Awareness that we call "being" that gives rise to consciousness of ourselves and the phenomenal world. - James M. Corrigan Insight is not just an interpretation. It is a clear realisation of what is always the case, and the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it as to lose all doubts and this requires no interpretation of any kind. Always already, just sounds, sights, thoughts, no seer, hearer, etc. You did not choose to be born as a human unless you are a Bodhisattva. It will be silly to say that a person born blind or born in poverty have chose to experience that way. Rather, he is born by karma. The choice is in his creating of karma, but how the karma ripens is not his choice. Presence of sensation does not require intent, but it is inseparable from other conditions which does not necessarily include intent. Not necessarily. You can't heal an amputee by imagining he has legs. Yes, and the memory is another form of presence/awareness, but of a different form, due to a different condition. The thought itself is a vivid clear presence, just like the sensation of a sound, a sight, a bodily feeling etc, are a vivid clear non-dual presence, though vivid but also empty. Sound, though clearly vivid, is empty of an intrinsic or inherent soundness, just as the vision of a red flower doesn't mean there is inherent redness of flower -- just a dependently originated vivid vision. Dogs don't perceive red, due to different conditions. Potential is always there, and manifests due to the meeting of causes and conditions. No. Will is just one condition out of many conditions. I talked about the 5 conditions previously. Will belongs to the mental condition, there are other conditions like karma, biological conditions, physical conditions, etc etc. There are other lists that include not only 5 but 26 conditions, though I can't remember where I read it now. Intention does not create everything. Intention is a condition for individual action. Individual action can influence collective. But all these occur only according the laws of causalities. Just because you intent to make the moon green doesn't mean it's possible. In Buddhism, phenomena are empty of existence. That's why you cannot say existence is eternal. There is no inherently existing thing that is eternal. However, the mindstream flows beginninglessly and endlessly according to conditions, and this is eternal in the impermanent sense, not in a static permanent sent. It is not a habitual accessing of a state, but a realisation of the nature of reality as always so. Emptiness, impermanence, these are not a state of experience, this is a dharma seal, the characteristic of all experience. Similarly no self or anatta is not a state of experience, it is a dharma seal. You do not become impermanent, you (all sensate reality) IS impermanence by nature. You do not become nondual, you (all sensate reality) is nondual by nature. Same goes for emptiness, anatta. It's a manifestation of past karma. No. Volition is defined by Buddha as mental, not physical or bodily.