xabir2005

Dharma Talk: Debate by HE Tsem Tulku Rinpoche On the benefits of debate and discussions, and the proper way to do it.

I think he is refering to the 'mind-body drop' which is an important experience. To drop off all attachment to self, body, mind, etc. Lao Tzu: "And what is meant by saying that honour and great calamity are to be (similarly) regarded as personal conditions? What makes me liable to great calamity is my having the body (which I call myself); if I had not the body, what great calamity could come to me?"

In my opinion, Tao Te Ching as taught by Lao Tzu is pretty compatible with Buddhism, more so than many teachings. It does not teach an Atman/Self or a Brahman or an unchanging ontological essence separate from phenomenality. From first glance it might be mistaken that the Tao is talking about an ontological essence, or an unchanging Absolute, but it is not. Tao ('The Way') is simply the natural flow of things. Many aspects of their teachings are in line with the Dharma Seals. To quote my friend 'Thusness' (who was trained in Taoism for many years) using Taoist terms: "the Pristine Awareness is the great Unmanifest Infinity. It manifests itself as phenomenon existence but conceals itself; this is its great reserve. Momentarily it creates and recreate, this is called the Change. Before yin and yang, this is called the Original. That Presence that can be felt but cannot be defined, this is called the Spirit. Movement without core and center, this is called Emptiness. To see what is as it is, this is called Wisdom. The Tao in its Self-So, this is called Thus." "...In hearing, Tao is. Seeing forms, Mind is. No mind, Zen is. In movement is where your practice is." "The universe is this arising thought. The universe is this arising sound. Just this magnificent arising! Is Tao. Homage to all arising."

I know this is completely off topic but since there was some discussion about Tao and Taoism here, would like to mention my opinion. According to my friend 'Thusness', and my Buddhist Master and a few other Tibetan Rinpoches and the olden days Zen Masters and many modern Chinese masters, recognise Lao Tzu as an enlightened being (a pratyekabuddha). However, what he really left behind is only 81 verses of his wisdom when he was asked by an official to write something before retreating into the wild, unlike Buddhism which provided a very concise path and teaching -- almost like a science. I would like to add however that Tao Te Ching is the most mis-translated work ever. I asked Thusness once to look through about 100 Tao Te Ching sample English translations of Chapter 1, and he said only 1 or 2 can make it, most just seem silly and off the mark. Thusness used to be a Taoist a long time ago and studied Taoism in Chinese under a Taiwanese Taoist master. From an old conversation with Thusness in 2005: [23:09] AEN: hi [23:09] AEN: u used to say lao tzu was enlightened rite? [23:09] Thusness: yes [23:10] AEN: how about chuang tzu? [23:10] AEN: and did tao te ching teach impermanence, conditioned arising, etc? [23:10] Thusness: not as precise like buddhism. Buddhism almost make it a science. [23:10] AEN: oic [23:11] AEN: then how about chuang tzu [23:11] Thusness: the steps are so precise. [23:11] AEN: ya [23:11] AEN: true.. tao te ching is so short [23:11] AEN: do u read chuang tzu teachings? [23:11] Thusness: chuang tzu is different, only the no-doing aspect until luminosity is clear. [23:12] AEN: icic [23:12] AEN: so [23:12] Thusness: but lao-tze is deep and profound. What really has been spoken. [23:12] AEN: is there anyone else in taoism as enlightened as lao tzu [23:12] AEN: icic.. [23:12] Thusness: nothing really only the 5000 words. [23:19] Thusness: even with all our experience when reading the text, will make us feel shallow. [23:19] Thusness: will put us into stillness and at once in line with Tao. [23:19] Thusness: The Thusness simply flows. [23:20] Thusness: it is a different approach. But not to belittle tao de jing. Zen Master Han Shan: According to Lao Tzu, the greatest calamity is in having a body, thus he teaches the way of extinguishing the body to attain the realm of wu or non-being. Moreover, the greatest cause that burdens the body is in having knowledge, thus he teaches the way of abandoning knowledge to enter the realm of hsu[v] or emptiness. These teachings are similar to those of the vehicles of `Sraavakas and Pratyekabuddhas. He is like a Pratyekabuddha because he having lived in the time before Buddhism came to China, realized the truth of non-being by contemplating the changing nature of the world. Judging from the fact that he regards emptiness, non-being, and tzu-jan[w] or spontaneity as the final principles, his teachings are heterodox. But judging from the facts that his heart was full of compassion for the salvation of the world and that he attained the realm in which man and heaven mutually penetrate each other and in which being and non-being mutually reflect each other, he is also like a Bodhisattva. From the viewpoint of experience or skillful means, he was really (a Bodhisattva) appearing in the form of Brahmaa in order to teach the world. From the viewpoint of reality, he was the one who had attained the samaadhi of emptiness through pure living according to the vehicles of men and heaven.[11]

1) Advaita Vedanta does not teach Dependent Origination. 2) Buddhism's emptiness and dependent origination has nothing to do with Superimposition. Phenomena as explained many times, in Buddhism is not unreal or an illusion or superimposed. They are not an illusion that disappears when Brahman the reality is realised. Whereas Advaita sees the world as superimposition and mere projected perception and cognition and an illusion -- Buddhism sees phenomena not as an illusion, but as illusory-like appearances -- like a mirage, but totally vivid and luminous. Apparent but nothing inherently 'in here' or 'out there', unlocatable, ungraspable, without independent essence (it's dependently originated). So, in Buddhism the world of appearances will not disappear even after enlightenment because it is not an illusion or superimposition. Illusion-like (NOT illusional) or mirage-like appearances continue to manifest vividly, just that there is no longer the false vision of seeing dualistically and inherently. Whatever manifests is interdependently originated, nothing inherent. Nirvana is samsara rightly seen. Nirvana is not a separate transcendence from the relative world of phenomena, and ultimate truth in Buddhism has nothing to do with a transcendent superspace behind manifestation. In Buddhism, Nirvana = non-dual, non-inherent, pure vision of the world, hence no suffering. Samsara = dualistic, inherent, impure vision of the world, hence suffering. It has nothing to do with transcending an illusory world to the Absolute Reality of Brahman. Nothing to do with seeing through the forms to realise a formless substratum. The forms themselves are ultimate truth (luminous and empty). 3) As explained above, Buddhism does not see relative (D.O.) and ultimate truth (emptiness) as separate. Relative truth refers to all phenomena as interdependently originated, and what interdependently originates is empty, unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise and cease -- hence relative truth and ultimate truth as inseparable. This is incompatible with what some Advaitins do that is to separate the relative from the Absolute Brahman.

Precisely, the emptiness here is obviously not relating to the 'formlessness' or the 'non-phenomenality' of an inherent essence, consciousness, etc. There is no denying of forms, phenomena, and so on. Only that these forms, appearances, are empty of any inherent existence. And this emptiness is none other than those vivid phenomena themselves, emptiness does not deny non-dual luminosity and cannot be separated from non-dual luminosity. Emptiness is not talking about the absence of form and phenomena -- all these are vividly appearing yet empty. There is no non-phenomenal consciousness behind phenomenality -- to quote a highly realised friend of mine, "...It (this witness) is not unchanging, but is simply a knowingness that is not apart from the flow of phenomenality." As Heart Sutra so clearly stated: "Form is empty, emptiness is form; form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form. Likewise, sensation, discrimination, conditioning, and awareness are empty. In this way, Sariputra, all things are emptiness; they are without defining characteristics; they are not born, they do not cease, they are not defiled, they are not undefiled. They have no increase, they have no decrease." Obviously we cannot separate emptiness separate from form and phenomena! Anything teaching that does that is not teaching the Buddhist emptiness, but rather is referring to a formless, independent, eternal essence and hence not in accord with Buddhist teachings. Emptiness is not talking about the extreme of non-existence, or absence of form, rather it is saying there is no inherent, independent essence to self and dharmas. Hence a 'formless, shapeless essence' is not empty at all since it still assumes an independent, inherent essence, and falls under the extreme of eternalism and thus is not what Buddhism taught. p.s. This is not referring to anyone in particular but in general for all posters including myself: I think debating is great and I am certainly for it, but we should do it with an open mind of learning, listening what others are saying and also helping others learn and not for the purpose of 'winning' or dogmatically defending or imposing one's own viewpoint or ego. Just saw a good video by a Rinpoche yesterday on the benefits of debate and how to debate properly I thought is very good and worth sharing:

Hi Vajrahridaya, thanks for the sharing -- I liked your explanation on emptiness and dependent origination, very clear. Just like to comment on the point of equating Hindu realisation with 'just absorption' -- it is not necessarily the case. Yeah sure, you can remain absorbed in the state of pure consciousness for hours and days, but what is important is the 'realise' that it is our buddha-nature, it is always present and can never be lost. To be able to hear, see, touch, that's luminosity. One can access it regardless what we are doing or experiencing at that moment because it is fully available whether we are meditating or whether we are living our lives. To put it in another way: luminosity is always available, but whether we notice it is another matter. It does not require a state of absorption to access it. Hence, it is not merely a state of absorption, since that would imply one cannot access that perspective from ordinary lives outside absorption. Even one who has only recognised the 'Eternal Witness' will be able to 'see' and abide from that perspective in any moment of their lives and not just in absorption. From a Buddhist perspective, I would say that Hindus (and unfortunately many Buddhists as well) have realisations of the luminosity aspect of Buddha-nature, but often missed the empty aspect, or D.O. On the other hand there are some who can see the empty aspect but missed the luminosity aspect. Both are important and must be seen as inseparable. Yes As Thusness used to say: The self-luminous awareness from beginning-less time has never been separated and cannot be separated from its conditions. They are not two -- This is, That is. Along with the conditions, Luminosity shines without a center and arises without a place. No where to be found. This is the emptiness nature of Presence.

There is consciousness, but consciousness is empty of substance -- i.e., not an independent, permanent entity, or an ontological essence. It is not an Eternal Witness/Observer. When seeing scenery, just scenes -- that is consciousness, consciousness is not a seer. When hearing sound, just sound -- that is consciousness, consciousness is not a hearer. Everything dependently originates, and everything is consciousness. As described in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment Non-dual luminosity, presence-awareness, is fully present and nothing denied. Only that its empty nature must be understood. Buddha-nature or the nature of mind in Buddhism is defined as luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

Of course - I have never claimed that Brahman is a stage or state. I always said that even the initial realisation of 'I AM' is a realisation of what 'always is'. Whatever insights and wisdom gained -- it must not be a stage or state of attainment, otherwise it is not an insight. Whether it is luminosity, non-dual luminosity, emptiness, or anatta/no-self, or any other aspect to realisation -- the criteria is that it must be realised as 'always and already so', otherwise it is not wisdom. Anyway the way to realise 'I am Brahman' is through self inquiry, not through suppressing ego. Suppression doesn't cut the root of ignorance. When realisation dawns, there is naturally no more ego (i.e. identification with body or mind) - the removal of false identifications is a 'side effect'. There is no need to destroy a 'self' or 'ego' that wasn't there in the first place -- when realisation dawns, the 'self' is naturally seen through. Otherwise whatever attempts to silence the ego will not work, it will return. Thusness wrote a summary regarding the various aspects of insights: When there is simply a pure sense of existence; When awareness appears mirror like; When sensations become pristine clear and bright; This is luminosity. When all arising appear disconnected; When appearance springs without a center; When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller; This is no doer-ship. When subject/object division is seen as illusion; When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts; When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth; This is anatta. When phenomena appears pristinely crystal; When there is merely one seamless experience; When all is seen as Presence; This is non-dual Presence. When we feel fully the unfindability and unlocatability of phenomena; When all experiences are seen as ungraspable; When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve; This is Emptiness. When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt; When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful; When presence feels universe; This is Maha. When arising is not caged in who, where and when; When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless; When everything appears right every where, every when; This is spontaneous perfection. Seeing these as the ground of all experiences; always and already so; This is wisdom. Experiencing the ground in whatever arises; This is practice. It doesn't work this way. It will become incomprehensible. As I said we must let the Sunyata teachings speak for themselves and not replace the terms. The Non Dual Absolute realisation is equally important as well, but it cannot be mixed up together. There are many aspects to insight -- each is important. For example the initial realisation of I AM does not mean that one realises no-doership, but one who realises no-doership may not realise non-duality, or emptiness, etc. But this does not mean 'emptiness' is way high up -- some may have emptiness wisdom, but not luminosity, then the pristine luminosity of I AM becomes a later phase. None is higher than the other. But we must not confuse one insight with another. Dr. Greg Goode: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about." Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

While Brahman is not a phenomenon it's generally described as the basic ground or substratum in which phenomenon appear on and subside to. Analogy often used is a blank screen which 'contains' all appearances, where pictures can come and go while the screen remains unchanged. Therefore known as the 'screen of consciousness'. However after certain phase, the fixation and sinking back to a void background is removed because one realises and experiences Awareness As all phenomenon. Then the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon is removed. I like what Douglas Harding says: ..."Victim of a prolonged fit of madness, of a lifelong hallucination (and by "hallucination" I mean what my dictionary says: apparent perception of an object not actually present), I had invariably seen myself as pretty much like other people, and certainly never as a decapitated but still living biped. I had been blind to the one thing that is always present, and without which I am blind indeed -- to this marvelous substitute-for-a-head, this unbounded clarity, this luminous and absolutely pure void, which nevertheless is -- rather than contains -- all that's on offer. For, however carefully I attend, I fail to find here even so much as a blank screen on which these mountains and sun and sky are projected, or a clear mirror in which they are reflected, or a transparent lens or aperture through which they are viewed -- still less a person to whom they are presented, or a viewer (however shadowy) who is distinguishable from the view. Nothing whatever intervenes, not even that baffling and elusive obstacle called "distance": the visibly boundless blue sky, the pink-edged whiteness of the snows, the sparkling green of the grass -- how can these be remote, when there's nothing to be remote from? The headless void here refuses all definition and location: it is not round, or small, or big, or even here as distinct from there. (And even if there were a head here to measure outwards from, the measuring-rod stretching from it to that mountain peak would, when read end-on -- and there's no other way for me to read it -- reduce to a point, to nothing.) In fact, these coloured shapes present themselves in all its simplicity, without any such complications as near or far, this or that, mine or not mine, seen-by-me or merely given. All twoness -- all duality of subject and object -- has vanished: it is no longer read into a situation which has no room for it."... Related: Thusness Stage 5: No Mirror Reflecting

In terms of dependent origination, anatta, and so on, all traditions agree. Cessation of grasping, clinging, self identification, yes of course. I would certainly agree. Nirvana is Samsara rightly seen, which is much better than Samsara wrongly seen in that one will not be suffering due to 'wrong vision'. An escape from suffering is possible. Just that it is not an escape from the transient 'unreality' to an unchanging 'absolute reality' or a Brahman that is the substratum of all phenomena. If you want to talk about the classical Pali and Theravada texts, there are only Dharmas, which are then made up of either conditioned or unconditioned dharmas. Both according to their texts are 'realities'. There is no one 'absolutely real' and one 'unreal'. There is only dharmas, there is no permanent 'noumenon', nor a Self, a Witness, etc, underlying all dharmas or anything like that. Thus Theravada and Pali texts are mainly a 'no self teaching' -- only dharmas, no separate self. But when it comes to Mahayana and Vajrayana, sometimes there is the Buddha Nature a.k.a. 'true self teaching' as I call it. However it is not contradictory: all phenomena are the expression of luminous-emptiness inseparable, there is no separate Self or Watcher or Background behind these phenomena. Thus, non-dual, no separate self, etc. It is not necessary to know all Buddhist vehicles to know some of the basic tenets of Buddhism. Each tradition may disagree with another, but that doesn't mean they disagree on the basic tenets. If they disagree on that (e.g. if they teach eternalism or nihilism or any of the extremes so explicitly rejected by Buddha), they shouldn't be Buddhism in the first place. Yeah of course, but I agree with him most of the time. Of course I don't agree with him sometimes -- but like you, I agree with him mostly. Thusness and I think he is a very enlightened practitioner.

As my previous post stated, Buddhist emptiness is not the same as Advaita Vedanta's denying of phenomena as unreal. As such it cannot be compared, and especially not in terms of 'lower and higher' truths. You are making the same mistake of interpreting Buddhist teachings according to Hindu paradigm. Please read my previous post carefully.

Yi kuan dao is a fear based cult that believes that by being initiated into their religion they will be sent to heaven. They are asked to keep certain initiation secrets otherwise they will be struck by lightning (though the secrets can be found on the net). If you want to learn authentic Taoism or Buddhism, stay clear of them. http://www.buddhismaustralia.org/cults.htm excerpt: I Kuan Tao (Tian Tao) - Yi Guan Dao The followers of I Kuan Tao claimed that it is a distinguished lineage back over 2000 years when it begins from the ancient Chinese astrolgers, emperors, Confucius, and so forth. From 18th Ancient Patriarch Mencius, the lineage travels to the west, the lineage began from Shakyamuni Buddha, Mahakashyapa to 28th Indian Patriarch Bodhidharma. But the modern practice of Tian Tao, as we know it today, was established about 70 years ago. In the 1930, Shi Zueng Zhang Tian Ran and Shi Mu Sun Hui Ming, became the 18th Patriarch and started theirpractice I Kuan Tao in Chi Nan City, Shang Dong Province of China. Their work spread by word of mouth, andby 1946 I Kuan Tao became prevalent among 36 provinces of China. At the end of the Civil War in 1949, many followers in China found their beliefs incompatible with Communist doctrines. This and other reasons compelled large numbers of them to emigrate to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea,Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. Tian Tao quickly took root in these new lands, spreading with its teachings Chinese culture and traditional family values. By increasing the number of I Kuan Tao temples, they believed that they are bringing the Buddhist "Western Paradise" to earth and creating a world of brotherhood and universal love as envisioned by Confucian teachings. Presently, they claimed that the founder, 17th Patriarch Lu Zhong Yi, was an incarnation of Maitreya. He has major influence and impact on the present form of I Kuan Tao. The central teaching of Tian Tao, is based on the initiation ceremony - a new formula on the Triple Gem, namely: 1. Opening of Heavenly Eye (Dian Xuan Dao), 2. Oral Transmission of the Maitreya prayer (Chuan Ko Jue), and 3. Hand Gestures (Jie He Tong). They believe that the recipient has obtained the Tao and that his name has been reserved in the heaven and erased from the lists in hell. Upon death, the recipient will ascend straight to heaven without having to endure the cycles of rebirth. Graeme Lyall (Australia), 1999, wrote: "The group is known as Ee Kwang Tao (Yi Guan Dao). I was invited to attend the opening of one of their 'Holy Houses'. It was one of the strangest rituals that I have ever witnessed. Following the ritual we were invited to go before the 'Master' to receive initiation. I declined on the grounds that I had been invited to attend the opening but not to join anything. After a while they approached me again and they said that the 'Master' was waiting for me and I MUST go before the 'Master'. I replied that I must not do anything of the sort as I am atraditional Buddhist and had no wish to join their organisation. I thanked them for their hospitality and said that I was leaving. As each person arrived they took their name. As I left they asked me for my name as they said that the names were being sent to heaven and, as I refused initiation, my name would have to be struck off the list. I consulted a Chinese friend about my experience and he immediately identified it as the Ee Kwang Tao cult which, as was said, is proliferating in Australia. The initiates are sworn to secrecy with the threat of harm to themselves and their family if the secrets are revealed. This dangerous cult bears no relation to Buddhism so beware of them."

If i'm not wrong, Advaita, though not the same as other dualist Hindu schools, is still considered in mainstream as orthodox Hinduism, and has now become the most popular school of Hinduism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy Hindu philosophy is divided into six Sanskrit āstika ("orthodox") schools of thought, or darshanas (literally, "views"), which accept the Vedas as supreme revealed scriptures, and three nāstika ("heterodox") schools, which do not accept the Vedas as supreme. The āstika schools are: 1. Sankhya, a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter. 2. Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Sankhya 3. Nyaya or logics 4. Vaisheshika, an empiricist school of atomism 5. Mimamsa, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy 6. Vedanta, opposing Vedic ritualism in favour of mysticism. Vedanta came to be the dominant current of Hinduism in the post-medieval period. The nāstika schools are: 1. Buddhism 2. Jainism 3. Cārvāka, a skeptical materialist school, which died out in the 15th century and whose primary texts have been lost. These nine philosophies form the nine gems of the Sanātana Dharma. In Hindu history, the distinction of these six schools was current in the Gupta period "golden age" of Hinduism. With the disappearance of Vaishshika and Mimamsa, it was obsolete by the later Middle Ages, when the various sub-schools of Vedanta (Dvaita "dualism", Advaita "non-dualism" and others) began to rise to prominence as the main divisions of religious philosophy. Nyaya survived into the 17th century as Navya Nyaya "Neo-Nyaya", while Sankhya gradually lost its status as an independent school, its tenets absorbed into Yoga and Vedanta. http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Vedanta/ Vedanta(meaning literally the end portion of the Vedas) is a branch of Hindu philosophy which focusses on the reading, and analytically interpreting the ancient Vedic writings, especially the Aranyakas and Upanishads. Vedanta is the essence of the Vedas. Various branches of Vedanta exist, each branch choosing to interpret the codified scriptures in its own way. The most important and popular Vedantic branch is the Advaita (ad- not, dwaita- two; meaning non-duality). This branch was popularized by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. (c. 800 AD).

It's not just emptiness that is important. The luminosity or pristine awareness that Thusness described as "total vitality, total intelligence, total luminous clarity" is equally important and must be seen as inseparable. Luminosity and emptiness inseparable is the groundless ground of all experience and the nature of mind. Just that reifying an absolute, ontological essence, is not part of Buddhism. It is not a 'background substance' where phenomena pops in and out where the 'background substance' remains unchanged and unaffected -- it is a non-dual foreground experience. All is Mind. There are many different aspects to practice and insight and all should be seen as equally important. Thusness said: When there is simply a pure sense of existence; When awareness appears mirror like; When sensations become pristine clear and bright; This is luminosity. When all arising appear disconnected; When appearance springs without a center; When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller; This is no doer-ship. When subject/object division is seen as illusion; When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts; When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth; This is anatta. When phenomena appears pristinely crystal; When there is merely one seamless experience; When all is seen as Presence; This is non-dual Presence. When we feel fully the unfindability and unlocatability of phenomena; When all experiences are seen as ungraspable; When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve; This is Emptiness. When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt; When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful; When presence feels universe; This is Maha. When arising is not caged in who, where and when; When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless; When everything appears right every where, every when; This is spontaneous perfection. Seeing these as the ground of all experiences; always and already so; This is wisdom. Experiencing the ground in whatever arises; This is practice. Also, I think there are both external intelligence (buddhas and bodhisattvas and other beings) and our own innate intelligence. In buddhism theres nothing wrong with surrendering to a higher power especially in mahayana and vajrayana which emphasize a lot on the devotional aspect also. Though we don't really believe that the world is created by a 'brahma' or a monotheistic creator. (We believe Brahma is a god but not a creator)

I don't have a big issue with the term true self. If non-dual insight is not there, and with trancendental insight of pure consciousness, then the true self is solidified and seen as a background watcher/I AM (thusness stage 1). If non-dual insight is there, then the true self is understood as everything (thusness stage 4 onwards), which is the same as there being no separate self or observer. However even though the dualistic bond is gone there is still the danger to reify the absolute as an essence. But in any case an enlightened person is not bounded by certain terms and can freely use them according to circumstances as long as he conveys the right understanding. Anyway two relevant articles: No-Self vs. True Self by Daniel Ingram And David Loy (academic and zen teacher and author of many books, one I like is 'nonduality'): [T]his phenomenon can be described either as no-consciousness or as all-consciousness. Early Buddhism chooses the former, claiming that consciousness is nothing more than all those things that are experienced. Sankara opts for the latter, insisting that all those things are the manifestations of consciousness. Buddhism says there is no self, there is only the world (dharmas); Sankara says the world is the Self. To say that there is no self, or that everything is the self, are then equally correct - or false, depending on how one looks at it. Both descriptions amount to the same thing. What is clear in each case is that there is no longer a duality between an object that is observed and a consciousness that observes it, or between the external world and the self which confronts it. ... Both are attempts to describe nonduality, and because each makes absolute a relative term, neither is more or less satisfactory than the other. ... Just as our usual understanding of experience is dualistic, so is the language that expresses this understanding. An attempt to describe the nondual experience will naturally tend to eliminate one or the other term. ... So there are two paradoxes; to shrink to nothing is to become everything, and to experience everything as One is again equivalent to nothing ...