xabir2005

I have to state that D.T.Suzuki's translation of Lankavatara Sutra is very poor, though better than nothing, as Thusness said - poor translation, but D.T.'s experience is there and is able to capture the meaning of what is said in his translations and commentaries (though he would prefer a better translation). Thusness even thought of writing his own commentary of the sutra but dropped the plan when he realised D.T. has done it. What Suzuki meant by 'egolessness' is not impersonality or absence of ego, but the emptiness, unfindability of a Self. The sense of personality, me, etc, arise, but they arise without a center and are just more sensations that dependently orginates. The sense of a solid center is simply another impression that dependently originates and is transient and impermanent. Stage 4 and 5 are really not stages or states of experience but stages of insight into the nature of reality, of what is already always the case. At the I AM stage, awareness like the space in which all things manifest and subside. But when non-dual is realised, it is seen that awareness is simply all manifestation aware where they are, and there is absolutely no distinction between awareness and phenomena, space and objects. No differentiation into awareness and contents of awareness, because everything is awareness. Also, no intents are involved for awareness. Whether you like it or not, smells are being smelled, sounds are being heard. Don't like sound of airplane? Sorry, but that's just what reality is manifesting right now choicelessly and effortlessly due to dependent origination, that very sound of airplane is the presence of awareness. There is no distance or separation of 'awareness' and 'sound of airplane', that sound is the awareness. As Jeff Foster said, 'there is only ever the present appearance of life, with no individual at its core who could ever escape even if it wanted to.' There is absolutely no reification (definition: to convert into or regard as a concrete thing) in anatta because we do not reify awareness into a phenomena transcending permanent substance. All transient phenomena are the awareness itself. Awareness is not a permanent independent ultimate reality. If you treat Awareness as an unchanging space behind phenomena, that is reification.

The sense of me is just more sensations arising aware where they are, just as all other sensations are aware where they are, and there is no truly separately existing observer. No-Self is not a stage nor a state but the nature of reality. Enlightenment is not reaching a state or stage of experience, but realising what is always already the case as the nature of all experience.

The Pali version of Pari Nibbana Sutta is different from the Mahayana version which Bob quoted from, which is vastly different in content and nature from the original version. The Pali version is the literal account of what actually happened when Shakyamuni Buddha was passing away. Whereas, all Mahayana sutras are not from the historical Buddha as in spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha in India 2500 years ago, but actually latter works hundred of years later from revealed sources. Note: I am not saying this because I am a Theravadin, for Mahayanists and Vajrayanists especially those with certain level of knowledge of the historical account would also admit this, and it does not as a result mean the Mahayana scriptures are invalid. Anyway I'm a Mahayana Buddhist. See Loppon Namdrol's conversation on this subject here: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306

We think that Awareness is something existing apart and independent from phenomena. This pure presence and awareness feels like what 'I' truly am, while all other objects feels like what is not me. There is a sense of witnessing all the objects, and the witness feels more 'me' and thus those objects are not 'me'. From this perspective it feels like the consciousness that knows stands behind all experience while all experiences comes and goes from this unchanging being and consciousness/watcher. That it why it is called the Eternal Witness. This is due to the subject and object duality, where presence feels 'me' but other objects feel like 'other'. This duality is due to a deeply rooted karmic propensity that divides our experience. However if we investigate the relationship between awareness and objects, we realise that objects in fact, have no objective existence and is in fact the same presence awareness that we feel 'me'. As such, what is originally felt as 'me', pure presence and the Eternal Witness no longer feels divided, and everything sensed, felt, touched, is all equally the expression of the same presence and awareness. Objects no longer feel 'out there' and consciousness 'in here'' -- consciousness does not feel distant at all with phenomena and feels completely inseparable. The I AM does not feel more ME than a passing sound, a passing sight. The sense of me-ness and not-me dissolves in unity and the vividness and realness of all phenomena. When we realised this, the notion of Awareness as separate from objects no longer exist. It is no longer exclusive identification of consciousness as only pure formlessness. There is no more division of 'me' and 'not me'. However there can still be a reification of an All-Self, a substance, essence, Self that is at once one and undivided with all phenomena. All phenomena are non-dual expressions of Self. In Anatta, we realise that Awareness there is empty of anything inherent, independent, permanent, is empty of Self and what Awareness is is really just the appearances which dependently originates. The sound hears, the scenery sees, the thought thinks. Everything is aware where they are as vivid presence awareness, but nowhere can an independent, permanent, ontological essence be found. Awareness is the transience itself, nothing about Ultimate Reality. Who attains enlightenment? Daniel Ingram: "So who is it that awakens? It is all of this transience which awakens, though for a more mystical, thorough and seemingly ridiculous answer take a look at No-self vs. True Self in Part III."

Buddhism is not solipsism, there are different individual mindstreams, all of which are empty (dependently originates) and nondual (without subject/object division).

Materialist, commoners - a being, identified as a particular set of mind and body, is just an object located among countless objects in an objective universe. Consciousness/mind is contained in the body which is contained in the universe. Clinging to objects. Hindu Advaita & other monist contemplatives - the true nature of being is not mind and body but pure Consciousness alone. All objects do not exist objectively but are illusory projections of an underlying subjective reality. All beings are manifestations of a common source, a universal consciousness, One Mind/One Self. Consciousness, which is the Clear Presence-Awareness-Knowing that perceives everything, is permanent and unchanging while the contents of consciousness comes and goes in the screen of consciousness. Body and mind is contained in consciousness which transcends and includes both. Clinging to Pure Subjectivity, the only true independent and permanent essence. Pure Subjectivity itself has different levels of realisations, first different degrees of insight and experience into the I AMness (Thusness Stage 1 & 2) and the initial glimpse and insight of I Amness must deepen in four aspects: 1) the aspect of impersonality ('I' dissolves from the experience of I AMness, leaving only pure AMness, and one intuits that all is sharing the Source or as Manifestation of this Source), 2) the aspect of the degree of luminosity, (everything experienced as vivid, magical, wonderful pure presence) 3) the aspect of dissolving the need to re-confirm and abide in I AMness and understanding why such a need is irrelevant, 4) the aspect of experiencing effortlessness. Other than I AMness which is the Stage 1 & 2, there is also the realisation of non-duality but in the context of pure subjectivity - the Self is undivided with phenomena, the Eternal Witness/Watcher becomes One Witnessing and Subject/object is realised as inseparable, I AMness experienced as the one essence appearing as all phenomena (Thusness Stage 4). But this is not the same as Anatta (Stage 5). Buddhism - there are no Self, no Mind. Whatever experienced is Mind, but Mind is empty of any independent, inherent or permanent essence apart from those appearances. Only pure awareness AS those manifestations. Pure Awareness is not an unchanging Witness of phenomena, for Pure Awareness does not have any existence nor stand apart from the flow of phenomenality, yet at the same time there is no coming from or going to of phenomena (coming and going are notions arising due to reflecting on a past experience from the perspective of being an unchanging someone experiencing the coming and going) - there is just transient phenomena as awareness YET without movement, just this One Sound, One Thought, disjoint and complete in itself, without coming, or going, and without a Perceiver and Perceived distinction. Even though non-dual is described in Advaita, the difference is that Advaita clings to a Pure Subjectivity or essence in which all manifestations are inseparable from, while in Buddhism the non-dual awareness is in no way an ontological essence like an unchanging screen which is one with all manifestations, rather there is just pure awareness as the transience, Pure Awareness is not other than all appearances and Awareness does not have any independent or permanent essence (like a permanent untouched screen in which objects come and go). This is the difference between One Mind (Thusness Stage 4 enlightenment) and No Mind (Thusness Stage 5 enlightenment). There are no common source or universal Mind. Because there is no universal source, there are only individual streams of consciousness. Beings do not exist as manifestation of Pure Subjectivity, there is just Pure Awareness AS those appearances, as sounds, sights, smells, thoughts, etc, without a separation of 'hearer inside' and 'sound out there', 'seer inside' and 'scenery out there'. Though sounds, sights, smells, etc appear, they do not have any objective reality either -- whatever appears are dependently originated, like an illusion but not an illusion, empty yet vivid. Beings do not have any independent or inherent existence - imagine the net of indra, countless nodes reflecting each other in intricate interdependence, each node is individual but none have inherent or independent existence of itself, but manifest due to dependent origination. No Subject and Object. Taoism - less emphasis on metaphysical discourse, however a lot of emphasis on non-duality (no subject and object) as an experience. (see David Loy on Taoism and the well written article http://www.kktanhp.com/taoism_1.htm - check the Wu Wei chapter by Dr. Tan Kheng Khoo who is clearly well researched and experienced) Taoism, like Buddhism, does not talk about an Ultimate Self, as David Loy puts it: "Taoism like Buddhism rejects a substance-based ontology in favor of an event-based process." The only Taoist book that Thusness and I knows that talk about I AMness is 'The Secret of the Golden Flower' which is kind of like Awareness teachings and I believe have some amount of influence from the Zen teachings, though I personally found it kind of cryptic, Thomas Cleary's translation is quite ok. IMO other Taoist authors more often emphasize about non dual experience, spontaneity and dropping into oblivion, or zuo wang.

All I can say is that I know exactly what the difference is between the 'big space awareness' in which things come and go while the 'big space awareness' remains unaffected, and what 'non dual' is by experience where there is no separation between a perceiving subject and objects perceived.

I and Thusness do not use the term 'Brahma' but 'Brahman' to describe the ultimate reality since we are aware of the confusion. However, of course it does not mean Archaya Mahashridar Shridar Rana Rinpoche is not aware of the difference of which he clearly is. 'Brahma' is simply the word he use in place of the word 'Brahman', just as for Kashmir Shaivist they use the word 'Shiva' in place of 'Brahman'. Also, if you have read the article you would know that Buddhism does not teach an ultimate reality beyond phenomena. Also, it is not that what they have written is a speculation, for it is a description of what they have gone through and what they have realised.

Buddhism, like science, is a system whereby its practitioners can test and verify claims made by other scientists/spiritual practitioners, simply looking by themselves. That you have not verified those for yourselves does not mean it is a mere belief system since countless others, and you can too, verify for yourselves in your experience. See Buddha: The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away. Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine. - Majjhima Nikaya, 72 Firstly, Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche is not my friend, I have not met him, though I have dreamt of being in his presence. Thusness, who is another guy, is my friend, and I have met him personally many times and discuss often with him and have learnt a lot from him. Both of them are highly realised. However, it is a fact that Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche has joined the Vedantic tradition and studied under it for many years. I do not see any fault about Rinpoche's statements of Advaita, and neither do any other Vedantist as far as I am aware of. His statements about Vedanta in general, in particular its tenets about Brahman as the Ultimate Reality is a fundamental teaching in all Hindu schools generally. And he explained very clearly how this basic tenet is fundamentally different from that of the Buddhist. Of course, if you compare Kashmir Shaivism with Advaita Vedanta, K.S. is more clear about the non-duality aspect since it does not consider the world to be an illusion but a manifestation of Shiva/Brahman/whatever you name it. (Advaita Vedanta however does go into this aspect sometimes too, as explained in statements like 'The World is illusory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the World') However, the basic tenet of Brahman/Shiva/etc as Ultimate Reality still holds in this tradition. In Buddhism, we do not consider a non-dual Absolute (as in Thusness Stage 4) to be the final realisation.

I see.. good to see more people around my age who's into these stuff

Dharma Dan's forum (Dharma Overground) is a good place if you are going to start on practice and have any practice questions on Vipassana p.s., I see you're still schooling, just curious how old are you?

There is appearance of solidity. But the appearance of solidity is flickering in and out of existence in every single moment, we just aren't aware of impermanence at a deep level. Also, the appearance of solidity is simply sensations and perceptions that are dependently originated, though giving the impression of something solid. Just because we see and feel an appearance of solidity doesn't mean it exists objectively, independently, or permanently. To see something solid is just the awareness of an appearance, but to jump to the conclusion that when you close your eyes, what you see previously is still inherently existing (e.g. an inherently existing flower with a particular shape and colour) apart from you is just an conceptual fabrication. In reality all experiences are vivid but empty. As my friend wrote: What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form.

In direct experience, prior to labeling, conceptualizing, grasping etc, there is just the Isness/Thusness of everything. Our idea, concept, label, of flowers as 'inherently red' and inherently existing, that is just a conceptual fabrication. Nothing in our experience tells us that a flower inherently exist and is inherently red. It is delusion to think like that and grasp on forms as having inherent existence. As explained earlier though the Isness of the experience dependently originates, i.e., the Isness of the blue sky is different from the Isness of the sound of bird chirping, due to different conditions and thus different appearances, none of the appearances are actually inherently existing. They're just appearances, like a mirage, vividly appearing yet nothing of substance can be located anywhere. In our direct experience, there is awareness of red flower (just the pure knowing of the shapes and forms even without the labelling of 'red'), but nothing of it tells us that red flower exists objectively and inherently. As explained, it could be experienced in other ways. There's nothing that exists inherently and independently, all is just dependently originated appearances. Also your notion that objects take up space is merely due to our specific conditionings producing an experience of apparent solidity. In fact there is no solidity. What if we observe at a deeper level and find that what we normally think of as forms occupying space is actually itself mostly space? If we were to observe with quantum vision we see 99.99999% void, where's the shapes and forms? So it is just a dependently originated apperance. Isness is not something inherent, just a point of vivid luminous clarity yet empty. As Longchen wrote (a highly enlightened friend of me and Thusness): The non-solidity of existence This article describes a spiritual insight. It may be quite hard to understand. The things that we experience are registered by all the sense organs. The eye sight registers vision, the ears register sound, the body registers sensations. These perception, sensations and experiences are not happening in some places. They are the experience of the arising of certain conditions. There is no solidity and physicality in the actual experience. What we experienced is not universal and common to all. Here's an example to illustrate that: We know that as human beings, we see in term of colours. Some animals are however colour-blind, thus they see differently from us. But none of us, is really seeing the truth nature directly. The senses of different species of sentient beings experience things differently. So who is seeing the real image of an object? None. Likewise, the various planes of existence are due to different conditions arising. In certain types of meditation, one is said to be able to access these planes of existence. This is because they are not specific locations. They are mental states and are thus non-localised. In these meditations, our consciousness changes and 'aligned' more with these other states or planes of existence. All the planes of existence are simultaneously manifesting, but because our senses are human-based conditioned arisings, we only see the human world and other beings that shared 'similar' resonating arising conditions. But nevertheless, the other planes of existences are not elsewhere in some other places. What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form. OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises. For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading. These articles are parts of a series of spiritual realisation articles . Realising emptiness does not mean we stop being responsible. Emptiness does not deny cause and effect. It rejects the notion of things existing independently apart from interdependent origination. Karma is part of the truth of interdependent origination. If we realise that everything dependently originates and become more aware of this interdependence, then we might become more responsible in not creating negative and unwholesome conditions for ourselves and others.

Energy from what I understand means manifestation. All that manifest/appears in our experience is energy. And what appears has no independent existence of its own, it interdependently originates, which means it is empty of any independent or inherent existence. Was just reminded of the Dzogchen teachings. It teaches the three aspects of a being -- Dharmkaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya, which are known as the three bodies of a Buddha. In certain systems of Buddhism these bodies are to be cultivated and attained in a very long distant future. In Dzogchen these three bodies are discovered to be spontaneously perfected from the beginning as the true nature of each individual. It corresponds to Essence, Nature, and Energy. Essence = Emptiness Nature = Luminosity (Awareness/Clarity) Energy = Manifestation These aspects are a inseparable unity which is the nature of oneself and everything. It is not that energy has an independent essence, it's essence is empty, it's nature is luminous, vivid presence. My friend Thusness views it slightly differently... the nature is empty, its essence is luminous. This is subtly different in some ways. In any case 'energy' is not synonymous with an independent essence. If Vajrahridaya is around he could clarify more since he has practiced in the tradition for years.

And what is this abstract energy you're talking about?