xabir2005

This is a very profound text by Guru Padmasambhava which I love and think is a very good guide. However the translation provided in the youtube video is an old version and there are many errors and wrong interpretations by the part of the translator. I highly recommend the translation Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness, translated by John Myrdhin Reynolds, a scholar and student of the Dzogchen master Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche who wrote a foreword in his book. His book contains a commentary of the text which is also a good read. Here's the translation by John Myrdhin Reynolds: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...eeing-with.html

Karma is only one out of 5 types of major conditionings. Karma doesn't cause all your choice and actions. Your will, intention, is a result of many types of conditionings out of which karma may play some (but only a part) of the role. The point is, the karma that Buddha taught has nothing to do with determinism. Your will and intention is not determined. It dependently originates and is relative to various sorts of conditions but isn't determined by something.

I agree that all beings are unique with unique mindstreams. In fact, there is no cosmic mind, cosmic consciousness, only individual and unique mindstreams. These mindstreams however are interdependent on a whole lot of conditions and factors (i.e. from education, culture, etc) which shape their so called unique perspective. Hence, these unique perspective themselves are conditioned. Their lives, etc, are also shaped by karma, which can come from a previous lifetime. Because all these are unique yet interdependently originated, so called individual mindstreams do not have independent essence but are the result of seamless relativity. However this has no relations with the idea of a cosmic consciousness. Also at any point in time, there is only the experience: thoughts, sights, sounds. An entity that is the 'thinker', the 'seer', the 'hearer' etc cannot be found, though it may appear so. When you experience this, in seeing mountain just mountain -- there is no sense of a subject/object distance. And these thoughts, sights, sounds, etc, dependently originates.

As long as you cannot pinpoint an essence 'I', there is only the 'collection' so to speak. The "I" is not refering to a truly existing, independent thing but only a convention, like the name 'car' is labelled on the many parts joined together for a particular function but cannot be found in or apart from those parts. There is no car-ness of car, the car is dependent on all the factors and is without essence.

Yes, everything we experience dependently originates. To say 'it does not exist' still implies a real entity that can exist or not exist, or something that can first exist and later stop existing (i.e. the view of annihilation), etc. When we see that the 'self' is just a sky flower, appearing yet without substance, notions of it's existence and non-existence, etc, gets thrown out of the window.

The sense or need to 'get rid of the I' comes precisely from the sense of being an 'I' who can 'get rid of I'. Who is it who can get rid of things? Is there an 'I' in the first place to get rid of, and is there an 'I' that can get rid of that? Are they not just another arising thought, arising and subsiding in lightning speed, insubstantial like a bubble? How can there be an 'I' in it? Is not the mind just another thought, unchosen, spontaneously manifesting of its own accord? Choice, thoughts, intentions arise spontaneously on its own, don't they? What is the evidence of an entity behind those choice? And is not even the idea that we are a self, or a thinker, or a controller of a thought, itself simply another thought arising on its own without a controller? It will not be obvious at first, it takes practice, observing, contemplation. This is not about getting rid of anything, but seeing clearly the nature of reality, beyond our mind's false assumptions and conceptual interpretation -- rather, the clear seeing is based on the evidence of our direct experience. Greg Goode explains very well: http://rogeringraham.blip.tv/file/2479869/ Here's something else to consider... Let's say it will be noticed that the body is out of shape. A thought may arise that the body could do with some exercise. Next a decision to go to the gym could come up. Nowhere in this 'chain of events' is there the need for an entity that takes the decision. If there was such an entity, it first would have to decide to take such a decision to be able to claim 'authorship.' It also would have to decide to decide to decide ad infinitum, thus creating an infinite regress. What I always say is that non-doership does not mean that you are helpless, but that the 'you-agent' is fictitious. We say "I live, I think, I breathe" and so on but living, thinking and breathing is not done by someone; it happens by itself. Let's have a look at thinking: Is there really a 'thinker of thoughts' independent of thought? Does this 'thinker' know what the next thought will be? Or is the thought only known when it comes along? This thought may get claimed in the next thought, which could goes something like "Oh, I just thought about such and such". But is the 'I' claiming to be the thinker of the thought- not itself part of the thought? Do not take this to literally please, as there actually isn't even a 'next thought'; only this thought right now. There is no past, which has led up to this moment. There is only THIS; including memories and other apparent evidence for such a past. Nevertheless, there is the unfolding of this dream in which "the Tao, without doing anything, leaves nothing undone." As such there may be the appearance of doing exercises, making decisions, planning your day, falling asleep, waking up, gazing at the stars, reading these words, or registering the sounds around you. It all happens by itself. As the Zen saying goes: Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows by itself. - Leo Hartong And in case you're mistaking that realising no-self has anything to do with getting rid of intentions, thoughts, and actions, (or even getting rid of an 'I', which in fact cannot be found in direct experience) I believe the above passage should pretty much clear that up. When you see through the solidity of an 'I', you no longer defend something that never existed in the first place, nor waste effort trying to get rid of something that never existed in the first place, and in place of that fictional 'self' you have the entire universe at disposal -- mind, physical body, space, mountains, the rivers, the sky, are your Body, total freedom from the limitations of an illusory separate self confined to a body-mind. # There is thinking, no thinker There is hearing, no hearer There is seeing, no seer # In thinking, just thoughts In hearing, just sounds In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors. -- these are essential for contemplation to give rise to Anatta (no-self) insight, but all these must be understood as 'Always and Already so' -- it is not a state achieved in deep meditation. It is a fact of reality that can only be realised.

Buddhist Emptiness is not nothingness, because as the famous Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

It is not the same, because our consciousness is not 'arisen' out of the universe of things. The universe of things arise out of consciousness. Consciousness does not exists 'everywhere in the universe', the 'everywhere' exists in consciousness. In other words, when you have a true experience and realisation of what Awareness is, you realise that this is what I/You truly are and always have been, and you no longer have any notions of awareness being located objectively 'in things'. In fact I just found a quote today from a book I started reading last night which basically is saying what I have said there -- "It is not the world that contains the body, the mind and Consciousness. It is Consciousness that contains the world, the body and the mind, on an equal footing." Next step is... consciousness is seen 'as' everything, instead of everything 'in' consciousness. However being everything means being all of our experience, only. You do not make the mistake of viewing awareness as being 'in objects'. (There is no more projection of objectivity or the objective universe as in the previous step. You have clearly seen through that in the first step through the initial glimpse of pure awareness.) Each consciousness/mindstream is non-dual, but individual and unique so to speak, though ultimately empty also since interdependently originated. But there is no universal awareness. There is no subjectivity to it (as in the dualistic practitioners who sees a universal subject containing or being one with all objects) nor is there objectivity to it (as in ordinary being's perspective).

To add on to my previous posts... Before we realise awareness, we think that objects have their own identity, and further, we identify ourselves with those objects -- body and mind. We roughly know that we are conscious beings with awareness, but we mistake awareness as something contained by an objective universe (our awareness being one thing among the others), contained by our bodies, and is somehow an illusory byproduct of this 'real' universe or body-mind. We do not have non-conceptual experience and realisation of what Awareness really is, hence the true face of awareness is obscured by our false concepts. After realising the luminous source we realise all these objects (the phenomena we experience) have no 'objective existence' and are only illusory, impersonal happenings happening within Awareness, without any existence apart from Awareness, yet that practitioner clings tightly to that source, that ultimate Subject, and reify it into a source wherein everything manifests and dissolves. Nothing 'is' without the clear light of awareness shining and revealing everything. Thus, this is realised as the luminous source of all that is, however one easily reifies the luminosity into an essence apart from phenomena. At the initial stage, Consciousness seems to be the unchanging witness, while phenomena simply arise come and go within it. Hence duality remains. At this level, consciousness is seen as real, phenomena illusory. At this level you know without doubt and without concepts what 'You' are. This is an important step - to experience this 'I' non-conceptually. You'll see through the illusion of Awareness as being in the objects or being apart from You, it is You, no separation at all. The first step is to know what Awareness is (non-conceptually), to experience this I. At this stage one realises that I am not an object (apart from me) -- and the so called 'awareness' or 'non dual experience' is not what I experience, it is what one is, or rather what simply IS. It comes with a tacit realisation that you are not merely a lifeless corpse, body or a machine. You know that you are more than an insentient object. Can a corpse be capable of activities and cognizance? No. The body by itself is incapable of cognizance -- they are instead, objects cognized within Consciousness. I am not those objects. I am alive. I am Life, Consciousness, Being. I AM. This I AM is never doubtable because it is more real than real -- it is so real you can never deny your own being, nothing can be more real than the pure presence of Being. From the perspective of someone who realises the I AM which is so real, all other phenomena are like an illusion (But it is dualistic since there is a denial of transient phenomena and establishment of the reality of consciousness seen as unchanging). At any moment even if doubting arises, I AM that clear knowing/presence in which doubting is arising in. This I AMness is Self-Knowing, it is known only by BEING it, it is not an observer observing something. When the practitioner realises beyond a shadow of doubt that this is who he is (rather than interpreted as something 'he' experiences), then this is no longer seen as a mere transient experience but a permanent Realisation of the nature of one's being. To realise this it is important to use methods like contemplating on the koan, "Who am I"? However this is only a partial, not complete realisation, and many more stages of realisations must unfold to clarify the non-dual, anatta, empty nature of Awareness. But this realisation is the initial glimpse of what Awareness truly is beyond theories and concepts, one knows by realising/BEING IT. This is only possible by dropping all our mental chatterings, conceptual understandings and notions of what Awareness is, and simply drop everything else -- mind, body, etc... only contemplate 'Who am I', and allow ourselves to be filled with only this sense of existence or presence until one realizes what existence is. Next, we realise that just manifestation alone is it, there is no other Subject or Source to fall back on. But at the same time we do not mistaken ourselves or awareness as located externally 'in objects' or 'in the objective universe' or being contained by this 6 foot body (cause the notion of yourself as being a tangible object of any sort is already thoroughly seen through in the 2nd step where we realise that the body and mind is 'contained' within this vast container-like awareness instead of being the other way around -- objects having their own objective existence and awareness being located in those objects. The 3rd step goes further and sees there is no container-contained dichotomy). At this level, consciousness is seen as not other than the illusion-like, dream-like display, which nevertheless is vivid and luminous. Consciousness 'feels' real and vivid but is without manifestation-transcendence essence or substance. Not only are you not separate from awareness (it is not an objective reality), awareness cannot be separated from all manifestations. The appearances are not seen as having objective reality apart from your awareness of it (it isn't 'yours', but language is dualistic), nor are they seen as manifestations of a pure subject, but rather, it is simply all non-dual awareness. In short: Sentient beings cling to/identify with objects. Dualistic practitioners cling to/identify with Subject. Enlightened practitioners cling to/identify with neither. Marblehead mentioned the zen koan: Before study and practise zen, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. This is how I correspond it: 1) identification to objects 2) identification to subject, treating objects as illusion 3) no more subject/object, only pure manifestation as non-dual awareness

Yes. In Buddhist contemplation we just look into our sensate reality. As Buddha teaches: "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Look at the skin of your hands. Looks real? Touch it...feel it as much as you can. Can you don't think of a background, a watcher, or anything of that sort. And know that, that alone is awareness? Yet, those sensations, vivid as it is, is it in anyway permanent, having an independent essence of its own? That is all. Thusness: When there is simply a pure sense of existence; When awareness appears mirror like; When sensations become pristine clear and bright; This is luminosity. However, this clear, pristine, luminous awareness, is not in any separate from those appearances. The causes and conditions may not be part of awareness but are the factors and conditions that give rise to a particular experience, like a sound is interdependent with a lot of unseen factors that gives rise to it. The sound itself is awareness. Also, if sentient beings are not present, there is the absent of factors such as the person, the sense organs, to give rise to the experience of 'tree'. Without the experience, there is no awareness. Awareness is the experience.

Right... there is no such thing as a cosmic universal consciousness, that would be reifying consciousness into a Brahman, a metaphysical essence. There are just minds, but even minds being dependently originated are also empty of individual mind-ness... even so, all of them are only of one singular taste, the taste of luminous-empty insubstantial Mind. Padmasambhava: However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present. It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many. (On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor. ........ Niguma: Mahamudra as Spontaneous Liberation Don't do anything whatsoever with the mind -- Abide in an authentic, natural state. One's own mind, unwavering, is reality. The key is to meditate like this without wavering; Experience the Great [reality] beyond extremes. In a pellucid ocean, Bubbles arise and dissolve again. Just so, thoughts are no different from ultimate reality. So don't find fault; remain at ease. Whatever arises, whatever occurs, Don't grasp -- release it on the spot. Appearances, sounds, and objects are one's own mind; There's nothing except mind. Mind is beyond the extremes of birth and death. The nature of mind, awareness, Uses the objects of the five senses, but Does not wander from reality. In the state of cosmic equilibrium There is nothing to abandon or practice; No meditation or post-meditation period. ~ Miranda Shaw (tr.) "Niguma: Mahamudra as Spontaneous Liberation," in Passionate Enlightenment. Extracted from: http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/2004...pontaneous.html (great blog, btw) It is not the same yet not different. What you are talking about is the emptiness aspect. I am talking about the union of luminosity and emptiness, the union of non-dual awareness and dependent origination. You have to realise that everything is Mind, clearly luminous and vivid without subject-object duality, but at the same time, everything is Empty. (3 October, 2009) (11:25 PM) Thusness: u must always know that we do not deny luminosity but the empty nature must be realized what must teachers focus is the luminosity aspect (11:25 PM) Thusness: the brillant cognizance (11:26 PM) Thusness: some neglect the brillant bright and over skewed towards emptiness u must be able to integrate the 2 (11:26 PM) Thusness: it is vivid clear but empty therefore like a dream but not a dream (11:27 PM) Thusness: many mistaken that buddha talk about illusion like a dream (11:28 PM) Thusness: but all manifestation are just so, there is no exception (11:28 PM) Thusness: formation after formation, manifestation after manifestation...endlessly according to DO (11:29 PM) Me: what do u mean by buddha talk about illusoin (11:30 PM) Thusness: Buddha taught that life and samsara are like dreams but he was telling us that reality is dream like like painting on a pond (11:31 PM) Thusness: u must understand this clearly that whatever DO is SO (11:31 PM) Thusness: there is no exception (11:33 PM) Thusness: luminosity is like magical display it is the very display (11:33 PM) Thusness: that is why it is illusion like

First of all.. mindstreams are not dependent but mutually dependent on matter as explained earlier. The mindstream can exist (in the relative, non-independent sense) without body, can exist without the 5 senses, in a sense of purely mental realm, during death, sleep, or meditative absorptions. This mindstream thus transcends bodily death and is a process that continues from lifetime to lifetime without being in any way an independent, permanent essence, soul, or atman. The mindstream is entirely phenomenal and continues as a process. So does plants have mind? No, they do not have mind (in buddhism the sixth sense), plus they do not have the 5 senses. Sentient beings have minds, and usually have the rest of the 5 senses. Both internal (thoughts and mental realm) and external phenomena (sensory perception), so to speak, are non-dual awareness. Non-dual awareness isn't dependent on them, it IS them (the experience of thoughts, sensory awareness, etc), and the entire display of phenomena itself dependently originates along with all the factors and conditions that gives rise to the moment of manifestation. All that you experience are Mind itself, they are not external to Mind. Usually we experience mountains, rivers, as 'out there' and I/my mind is 'in here' looking at 'that thing'. In non-dual experience the duality of inner and outer division dissolves and there is no longer the sense that there is a separate 'you' experiencing everything, but rather, all there is is Everything experiencing itself. Hence you no longer have the view of a separate mind but see that All is Mind. What we originally thought to be a 'mind' inside our head turns out to be all the manifestation itself. The mountain, the rivers, are all manifestation of Mind, there's no longer a sense that it's 'outside' -- it's all Mind, while understanding that this Mind is not an independent substratum and source of things but rather is pointing to the fact that our true nature (luminosity and emptiness inseparable) is not other than all the entire display.

No Buddhist as far as I know have come to the conclusion that Buddha was killed. The food delivered to him was by a faithful disciple. He was very sad when he found out his food (whether it was poisoned mushrooms or poisoned pork or simply an underlying illness he already had which was triggered) was the cause of Buddha's sickness, but the Buddha consoled him and said that it is actually great merits because he was the cause for his entering the final great nirvana. If you think he was intentionally killed, you're the first person who came up with this conspiracy theory. Keeping in line with Buddhist dogma, Buddhas cannot be intentionally killed, only bled. Arhats can be intentionally killed though as what happened to Mogallana and some others. That's why two of the 5 heinous crimes that leads to rebirth in Avici hell for a very very long time are: bleeding buddha, killing arhat You don't see 'killing buddha'. The Buddha survived 4 assasination attempts by his jealous cousin Devadatta who has an evil intention to cause schisms, etc. On his 4th attempt he manage to bleed the Buddha, though failed to kill him. As a result of this act, the ground opened up and he fell straight into Avici hell.