xabir2005

QUOTE Guru Padmasambhava http://www.fodian.net/World/zzgse.html 21. Although there exist great many different fruits that do not agree among themselves, the nature of the mind that is inherent awareness is (none other than) the spontaneously perfected Trikaya. What is realized and the one who realizes it are not two (different things). When you look for the fruit and for the one who has realized it, since you have searched for the realizer (of the fruit) and have not found him anywhere, at that time your fruit is exhausted and overthrown. Thus, even though it is an end to your fruition, still this is the beginning with respect to yourself. Both the fruition and the one who has attained the realization are found to not exist anywhere. Without its falling under the power of attachments or aversions or of hopes and fears, your immediate present awareness becomes spontaneously perfected inherent clarity. Understand that within yourself the Trikaya is fully manifest. (Therefore) this itself is the fruition of primordial Buddhahood. QUOTE Diamond Sutra: "Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?" "No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha." Subhuti then said, "Most Honored One! You have said that I, Subhuti, excel amongst thy disciples in knowing the bliss of Enlightenment, in being perfectly content in seclusion, and in being free from all passions. Yet I do not say to myself that I am so, for if I ever thought of myself as such then it would not be true that I escaped ego delusion. I know that in truth there is no Subhuti and therefore Subhuti abides nowhere, that he neither knows nor does he not know bliss, and that he is neither free from nor enslaved by his passions." QUOTE Venerable Buddhaghosa: "Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds: Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it, The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen." QUOTE 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.

When the light is truly seen as everything, when its realised that all manifestation is source, instead of as 'the light OF everything' or 'the substance or source wherein all manifest'.... then, there is no more the notion of a universal source, consciousness, or a metaphysical essence. Keep the non-dual experience but don't go into reifying it. Each individual mindstream and manifestation is itself non-dual and entire. Also about two months ago I wrote to someone in another forum "we must see that the non-dual witnessing is an experience of one wholeness, it is not 'flowing through the Eye', as there is absolutely no difference between the 'light' and the 'everything'. The light is the everything." and "...any urge to go beyond, see with clarity it is also the tendency until one is able to rest completely in non-dual." If it is the case of something behind the Eye that is seeing, that is still the experience of "The Witness", the further realisation is to realise that there is no Knower or Witness -- there is actually Non-Dual Witnessing. The background hasn't been fully recognised in all of the foreground sensate reality. Instead of everything comes from One, non-duality is the realisation that the One is really everything, and yet, even that should not be mistaken as the final realization.

"No-Self" is not an unmanifest state contrasted to manifestation.... it's the realisation that all experiences, manifestation, spontaneously arise without an experiencer or a self. Or in other words the unmanifested is the manifestation. There never was an experiencer in any experiences... only due to karmic propensities/deep conditioning do we contract into the sense of self and an experiencer-experience split. But actually Always Already, in hearing only just sounds, no hearer, in seeing only just forms, no seer. This is the nature of reality, and should be realised as such, not a stage to be attained. The experience and realisation of No-Self is beyond any mental constructs that is perceivable from the mind. Therefore it is the "Mystery" -- yet it is not in opposition to Forms or Manifestation. It is not a form of subjective knowing. There is no person that perceives or understands no-self, nor an inner knower or witness that is aware of no-self, that would be contradictory. Rather, in the perceiving, just shapes, colours, sounds, no perceiver. When looking at bamboo through the insight of no-self, we do not study a bamboo scientifically as a subjective observer, nor do we even observe the bamboo carefully from a distance as a separate self. Instead of experiencing bamboo from the viewpoint of a 'me', rather, from the bamboo experience the bamboo: totally no distance between me and bamboo. In other words, we enter into the mode of being where the bamboo is the bamboo itself, and from there to look at the pine tree and the bamboo. Everything becomes manifest in their suchness. It is Mystery because there is no separate observer studying it from a distance, rather, it is a mode of everything being itself, or rather in a dynamic state of becoming. There is no knower and it is not a form of subjective knowledge. The Tao, being non-dual, is ultimately a Mystery since it cannot be made an object of observation by a subject since there is no subject/object relation. The Satipatthana Sutta, a Buddhist sutra from the Buddha which teaches awareness, uses expressions such as "observing the body in the body," "observing the feelings in the feelings," "observing the mind in the mind," "observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind." repeatedly. This means not separating oneself from the object of observation, and see/experience that the Observer and the Observed is one. Or to use a quote by Guru Padmasambhava, And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts), Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer; only a naked manifest awareness is present.

1st Chinese Ch'an/Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma on the matter of teachers: All know the Way, but few actually walk it. If you don't find a teacher soon, you'll live this life in vain. It's true, you have the buddha-nature. But without the help of a teacher you'll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher's help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn't need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you're so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you'll understand. You must understand that though mindstreams are individual, it is nevertheless non-dual without subject/object duality. There is no 'I' experiencing universe, there is just universe happening, univer-sing in dynamic manifestation. Looking at the floor, there is no me looking at it, just floor. The difference between this understanding/experience with that of the understanding of a universal substratum/consciousness is that those who hold on the view of cosmic consciousness holds the view of Pure Subjectivity while the experience of non-dual understood correctly is one of Pure Objectivity without Subject. Of course... even the objects are empty and dependently originated.

Has anyone watched this? "Ken Wilber Stops His Brain Waves" Pretty fascinating.

I don't know what's the Taoist view on this... At first it seems that remaining in wu needs to be sustained through letting go of the self and entering into a state of nothingness. But as insights mature it needn't necessarily be a stage to be sustained once it's recognised that there never was a self to begin with, there never was a stage to enter, no I to cease and never has it existed. In hearing just sounds happening, never a hearer. In seeing, just scenery, no seer. All just spontaneous manifestation. This is the transition from 'Stage 3' to 'Stage 4' in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment Of course prior to that point, the role of absorption is still important, but after the arising of insight there is a transition from efforting to non-efforting, due to seeing the pathless path without entry or exit: simply manifestation is the unmanifested, and never was there a 'self' to needs to be removed... and hence never was there a state to enter when all states and experiences are already spontaneously manifesting and self liberating. At this point No-Self is seen or realised as a Dharma Seal, the nature and ever-present characteristic of reality, no longer seen as a stage to attain. As my friend Thusness wrote a few years ago... Unmanifested is the manifestation, The no-thing of everything, Completely still yet ever flowing, This is the spontaneous arising nature of the source. Simply Self-So. Use self-so to overcome conceptualization. Dwell completely into the incredible realness of the phenomenal world. .... See deep silence as flow, See form as emptiness, See actuality as tendencies, See solidity as flux.

Agree A nice related video:

Yes, there is no control, because there is no controller. There is influences but no control. Our actions, these are influenced by various conditions (psychological makeup, environmental situations, etc). But really if we look deeply... we discover that there is actually no central 'controller'... even our thoughts, they just pop up spontaneously by its own accord. There is no inner 'thinker' behind is controlling those thoughts. There is only just one thought, then another thought. And we think there's continuity due the illusion that there is someone behind that is coordinating those thoughts, but really, each thought is distinct and there's always a gap between each thought. Each thought, phenomena, sound, sight, simply pops up spontaneously, each manifestation whole and complete, yet the flow of phenomenality happens ceaselessly one after another, in naturalness. Similarly to action... commonly we are under the illusion that there is a central doer coordinating the actions... Non-Action in Taoism is to see that really these actions are happening in naturalness, spontaneity, and in perfect harmony with the universe. There is no doing nor non-doing because everything is simply happening on its own accord without a doer. No central 'doer' can really be found. And even if apparent thoughts of individuality and effort arises, actually, that too is the natural Tao! Those thoughts too, are naturally happening on its own accord without a thinker or doer, and they arise due to influences by the deep conditionings in our mind. When the conditions are there, we can't help but naturally manifest in that way. Nobody are born enlightened, we are all conditioned from young to experience dualistically. There is really NOTHING that is not the manifestation of Tao... even apparently unnatural actions, thoughts, and the sense of self, are in reality the spontaneous and natural manifestation of Tao without a doer. The Tao is not a stage... it's a realisation of how there is actually no self or controller apart from the flow, and everything is happening naturally due to interdependence. When we see this, everything is still experienced as a seamless flow of aliveness, all happening on its own accord, but without a separative 'me' observing or controlling them. Therefore, just flow that is seamlessly interconnected, no I. The Tao and the teaching of no-self in Buddhism are interrelated... you may want to look into this article by my friend 'Thusness': On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection Lastly there's a beautiful quotation by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching which goes: People follow the world and its leaders, the world follows the laws of physics, the laws of physics follow the Tao, and the Tao follows what is natural.

First there is 'I' vs The Universe... Then I become a part of the flow... Then there is no I going with the flow, just flow. Walking effortlessly and naturally happening (happening without the need to think 'walk front, walk left') is Tao. A spontaneous movement of coughing due to itchiness in the throat, an un-selfconscious activity, that is the evidence of Tao. Grass growing by itself is Tao. Fingernails growing by itself is Tao. Turd on the floor also is Tao. Everything is happening on its own accord without any separate self or doer, the Way of things simply flows.

The word 'source' by itself isn't a problem but how we understand it. Thusness told me that in Buddhism, though it sometimes talk about Source, it is refering to an individual source. Having a universal consciousness and having the same metaphysical essence is different. In buddhism, there is no such source, there is however individual stream of awareness. Therefore one must still awake to the witness and later realize that it has nothing to do with a universal consciousness, nor seek to merge with it. Then one realizes anatta, non-dual, then one realizes the Dependent Origination. It is plain and simple and can be directly experience now, nothing mystical, just that when we read too much yet without the support of real time and direct experience, we conjure out all sort of nonsense. And as Thusness said, first experience the Witness, then realise that it's nondual Witnessing, then realise dependent origination. There is no denying of nondual witnessing, so one should keep the experience, don't deny that experience but also keep refining one's views, as Rob Burbea and Thusness have said. There is no denial of one's individual stream of consciousness, and one has to have direct experience of it, and then one realizes it's non-dual nature. And one realizes when one is freed from the dichotomy of subject/object duality, it is anatta. Experience has always been so. And each moment of manifestation is luminous yet empty, there is nothing extraordinary. In hearing, only sound... if there is sound without efffort, how can it not be dependently originated? When we become bare and naked in awareness and not react to dogmas, it is plain, direct and simple. Anyway, here's a text from The Supreme Source, a book from Dzogchen teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinoche, which Thusness lent me since years ago and I haven't returned him and he told me it's very very well written. Anyway here's some quotations from the book that may sound non-Buddhist but correctly understood it's not: From the All-Creating King Tantra, in which Samantabhadra speaks directly to the listener: "I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ... "I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]" (Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157). So how is this different from a reified universal substratum? The Dalai Lama explains: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God? A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss. We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level. Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape. In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence. This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.

I asked my friend Thusness (who was trained by a Taoist master for many years in the past) whether Tao is a substance, to which he replied: If Tao is a substance, then Lao Tze would not named it 'Tao', the 'Way'. Rather see 'non-action', 'naturalness', see the lack of essence like water. Not to look for anything in practice but rather touch this 'The Way'. Once the heart truly touches 'The Way' of naturalness, then the mind turns spirit and chi flows naturally. You will understand why "the valley spirit never dies". In self-so-ness, you will experience the valley that never runs dry even when consumed.

Tao Te Ching chapter 1: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal name The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth The named is the mother of myriad things Thus, constantly free of desire One observes its wonders Constantly filled with desire One observes its manifestations These two emerge together but differ in name The unity is said to be the mystery Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

Except that cessation means cessation, it isn't exactly a conditioned state/realm. Imagine an oil lamp that stops burning when the oil is finished, does the fire go to north, south, east, west, or does the 'where' simply not apply? In the case of an Arhat, his afflictions (the oil) which is the causes of birth and death is removed and simply stops giving rise to samsaric births/experience. I don't know where arhats will return to, but when they do come back they come back as Bodhisattvas, and Bodhisattvas I think can appear anywhere.

All Arhats enters into cessation after death. However, it is also the understanding of Mahayana/Vajrayana that after a very very long time they will return to complete their journey to Buddhahood. So, the Arhat's cessation isn't eternal.

No-self is often mistaken as selflessness or compassion. They are not the same. Selflessness means always thinking of others ahead of ourselves (contrasted with selfishness, always thinking of oneself while neglecting others). Realising that 'there is no perceiver, thinker, doer' apart or within the stream of phenomenality does not necessarily mean we start to think about the benefits of sentient beings. And therefore, it is perfectly possible for an Arhat to be selfish, while an ordinary being may be selfless. Actually, I believe most Arhats are compassionate people, but any less an aim of Buddhahood in Mahayana is considered not enough, because only a Buddha can benefit the masses of sentient beings while the Arhat simply enters into personal cessation. The Bodhisattvas make such a vow according to sutras, "但愿众生得离苦，不为自己求安乐". Which means they vow that all sentient beings may be freed from sufferings, but do not seek any peace for themselves (e.g. personal nirvana).

An Arhat, who has attained enlightenment and liberation from birth and death, is worthy of refuge [as an Arya Sangha], offerings, respect and reverence by all Buddhists.

It's a natural progression, but may not come until after aeons of staying in nirvana. Different teachers may put it differently. Lankavatara Sutra, and many Buddhist teachers, state that Arhat is equivalent to 6th - 8th bhumi in experience. That's why Mahayana considers those Arhats who do not aspire to return and help sentient beings and attain Buddhahood for the sake of everyone as being selfish. We nevertheless still pay great respect to Arhats.

Time is the illusion of continuity perpetuated by the sense of a separate and unchanging observer that observes movement, a doer or thinker that coordinates thoughts and experience, which isn't actual. When you realise that each moment is a spontaneous, complete and whole and disjoint manifestation of buddha-nature you'll see timelessness and non-movement in transience. Zen Master Seung Sahn elaborated on this topic in his excellent book The Compass of Zen (p. 143):

When you investigate this sense of being and awareness, you may realise that this awareness has no movement, is unborn, indestructible, undying and timeless. It is not an intellectual conclusion but a pre conceptual experience. You'll feel you've touched the core of your being. It is a pure sense of being, aliveness, existence, awareness that exists even prior to concepts or thoughts. It is utterly still in the sense that it is unmoving. It is not a tangible thing but felt as a vast unmoving background, like a sky in which clouds (transient thoughts and experiences) freely pass through. Resting in this background there is a sense of freedom and equanimity and stillness even though the clouds appear to be 'stormy'. Though a millions things came and passed through your consciousness but you'll feel that You as the constant witnessing presence remains unchanged, unmoved, in other words you'll feel that awareness is the only constant factor in your experience, or rather, it is who you truly are. Though I can attest that it is incredibly freeing and wonderful to let go of all pinpointed fixation on objects and simply rest on the background space, there are subtler insights to be discovered. Because at that point even though it is true that awareness can never be lost no matter what you are experiencing, but it is not yet realised that the abstraction/separation of awareness from transiency is purely fabricated. One then clings to a transcendental identity, clings to a formless absolute not realising there is no absolute-relative dichotomy. In truth transiency experienced in full is not something that comes in and out of (an unchanging) awareness, because it is itself the transient yet nonmoving awareness without coming, or going. (As 6th Zen Patriarch Hui-Neng and the Zen Master Dogen says, Impermanence is Buddha-nature. But this impermanence is not the mundane understanding of impermanence where something is born and then later dies.) There is no unchanging observer that observes movement, because the observer is the observed -- and this is what Dogen meant by time-being. Each moment of manifestation is already whole, complete and unmoving. Firewood is firewood, ash is ash, firewood does not turn into ash. Also there is no "The Awareness" when it is realised there is nothing other than awareness, that Awareness is not a static entity but cannot be separated from the diversities of manifestations in all its varying conditions -- the blue sky is not the same as the sweetness of honey is not the same as the presence of I AM in a state of thoughtlessness, conditions differs yet they are of one taste of luminosity and emptiness, all are spontaneously self-perfected. The transient sound and sensation is no more I AM than I AM and yet, empty and dependently originated. Everything that is dependently originated is already luminous and empty.

The Buddha said, he who sees dependent origination sees the Dharma, and he who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.