thuscomeone

Universe as in, not the total universe of course, but as in non-separation between mind and matter. It's not a good word, but it's more vague than mind, so it works better here. Ok, were not going to get anywhere if you don't tell me what you mean by "mind." So tell me. In that sutta, he is not referring to mind as such. He is referring to the deathless which includes mind, but is also beyond mind. The unborn.

"True mind" is in the same vein as tathagatagarbha. People mistakenly think it's implying a self-existent, cosmic awareness. It's referring to an unborn, infinite potential -- emptiness.

Dualism and non-dualism are equally invalid. If you claim that things are all of one non-dual mind, you are still still implying dualism. Calling this non-duality "mind" is an error. Calling it anything implies dualism. So first, things are not dual. This means that there is no "something." Now if there is no something, there can be anything. Anything is possible. There is no obstruction. Things can arise, change, have their own properties, function, and interact. So to not call this anything would also be wrong. So things are not non-dual either. This means there is no "nothing." Things are not the same and not different, not existent and not non-existent. Not both and not neither. The Buddha's entire dharma is based on dependent arising. Because a chair arises dependently, there is no chair. Because there is no chair, the chair can arise dependently. To imply, as you do, that there is a self-existent, independent, unchanging awareness which is the source of everything is not only wrong, but it violates the entire dharma and reduces it to hinduism. An implication such as yours, that there is such an awareness, is rife with logical inconsistencies. For instance, if there were such an awareness, how could anything arise from it? This would require it to interact in some way with its creations. It would require this awareness to change. If it could change, that means it is not independent. If it is not independent, it does not truly exist. It is empty just like everything else. But please, if such an awareness exists, point me to it. Oh yeah, and when mind is spoken of in the context of non-duality, it is not really referring to "mind," but to the whole -- mind plus matter. It would be better just to call it "universe."

The difference?

Notice the link. It is the sutra.

No, it's clear that you must accept dualism if you accept thoughts. You are using a red herring here by rewording me. If you say there is mind, you must accept there is something other than mind. Not conceptually, not as an appearance. As a fact.

From Xabir's blog: "Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding. This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness." http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html?m=1 Further down on the page there is a dharma talk in which the teacher says that Buddha once told some monks not to consider awareness as the ultimate source.

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality.

Is there mind apart from perception, sensation, and thought? Well there is the alaya. But that's not the ultimate source. Where is a mind apart from these changing things? What I'm saying is that, if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit thoughts. Thoughts create dualism. You must accept dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm multiplicity. Since you seem to be fond of zen, this stage is known as "no mind."

If you're implying that I'm a physicalist, you're wrong. I'm not an idealist or a physicalist. Mind and matter arise together. They are not the same and not different. As soon as you admit mind, you must admit something other than mind as well.

Provisional limitations? If you mean that emptiness has infinite potential to manifest, you're right. But it only has that infinite potential because it is limited. So I don't think that's what you mean. There will always be limitations on the individual. Why? Because nobody exists alone. This is pretty basic. Your deal is that mind is the ultimate source of everything. It's not. You need to read nagarjuna.

Thank you. Some sense. Solipsism would mean that, since my self/mind is all there is, I should have no limitations on what I can do. I should be able to shoot a fireball out of my hand at will. I obviously can't do that. This is because I am limited -- Dependent arising.

The lack of understanding? Uh, in the discussion we're having? Or do you want me to say the mind? In that case, it's located in a conventionally existent mind.

Not both, not neither.. What did I forget? Myself? Oh that's empty but conventionally existent as well. There is a huge lack of understanding of the two truths and their differences here. The understanding of which is absolutely critical at this level.

At the relative level, pre-analysis, there is obviously a distinction. Yes. But post-analysis, there is neither him nor you nor no him nor no you.

Yes. Or to put the path this way: Seer=seeing=seen and this dependent manifestation is not existent or non existent It really helps in organizing to put emptiness of subject first and have it naturally expand from there to emptiness of object. One gradually sees deeper and deeper into dependent arising at each stage, and the division gets smaller and smaller, until its full implications are known at stage six.

I think I'm starting to see just how difficult it is to try and argue for the truth of the dharma. It requires a complete uprooting of deeply, deeply rooted assumptions. Many of which lie in the nature of language and thought itself.

So what about anatta? Do those views have no validity either? Sure, that magical display is dependent arising and infinite potentiality. Like I said to lucky, you can go too far. You don't need to negate dependent arising. Dependent arising is the basis for freedom from extremes. Without it, that falls apart. Dependent arising is the middle way -- not something and not nothing. I think, like lucky, you are wrongly conflating absolute and relative here. At the relative level, there is right and wrong view. Generally speaking, all views are at the relative level. And some are more correct than others. But at the ultimate level, no view can capture it. There, the views are simply arising, ungraspable manifestations like everything else. Yesterday, I made a chart of all the realizations starting from emptiness of subject to emptiness of object. Slowly they begin to expand outward. And yes, they start with view and come to a sort of "complete view" -- a complete map, and then, at the last stage, the map is dropped.

Ha. Probably. It's from "the three pillars of zen" by Phillip Kapleau Roshi. In the section on Yaeko Iwasaki's enlightenment letters. A beautiful account of awakening if there ever was one.

There was a zen master, Harada Roshi, who once said that "once the need for buddhism is no longer apparent, true buddhism is manifesting itself."

"Peaceful" is an understatement. Honestly, if there is a state that is more peaceful than that, I just don't know. No fear, no anger. I mean, knowing that wherever you are is ok and is where you're supposed to be. What could be better? I know, I know, don't get attached. But this is beyond anything I would have imagined. I hesitate to claim realization for myself, as I like being humble, but if this is not anuttara samyak sambodhi, what is?

Do you mean that words can never really capture what is? They can only point? Something along those lines? Or like every single view creates a permanent self/controller/doer...? If so, I think I know what you mean. Every view limits what is and constrains it. Clinging to any view limits the unlimitable.

Yes, he believed that emptiness was only contained in a certain experience or view. Exactly. It encompasses everything. It is everything -- views and no views. Gampopa's squeezing the dough was just as much emptiness as his student's view was. So where is the need to rest in a certain view?

In that case, I don't know! Report back to us when you find out I'm not thusness, but I'm telling you, though, that you may find something if you look into the difference between views of emptiness and actually being that emptiness every moment. "One day, Gampopa said to the assembly, "I need to instruct the Khampa Geshe separately from the rest of you." When he went to see the lama he was asked, "What Dharma have you studied? What have you practiced?", and so he described the many pieces of advice he had received and how he had put them all into practice. To the question: "What experiences have you had?", he described the way nondiscursive wisdom, the path of seeing, had arisen. To: "Are you holding to that as the path of seeing?", he replied that he was, based on his understanding of The Vajra-Verses of Lamdre. To this, the lama said: "Really? You are holding to that as the path of seeing?" He replied that he was certain that he had realized it as it was introduced to him by Lord Sakyapa, who had used these words: "Uninterrupted continuity of the experience, the bliss, and the emptiness of the uncontrived nature of mind, the peak state of innate mind — this is the nondiscursive wisdom, the path of seeing, that which produces the fine distinctions of awareness." Gampopa then exclaimed, "How unfortunate! Are you holding to that from the bottom of your heart as the path of seeing?" He replied, "This is the path of seeing as realized by way of all sutra, tantra, quintessential instruction, and meditative experiences." To steer him away from this way of thinking, Gampopa squeezed his sen [barley dough] in his hand and replied, "I prefer this to your nice 'path of seeing'." Gampopa then said, "Take a walk to that hill over there in the east; later we will discuss all of the dharmas received from others to which you are attached." Phagmodrupa went up the eastern hill and pondered all of this. A short time later, all of his former good experiences quickly disintegrated, falling away like chaff and husk, and he then genuinely realized the true face of authentic realization, that which is beyond rational mind, the mahamudra. At that moment, his mind became unobstructed, like space, and he gasped, "All those former lamas — what are they to me now?" He returned to Gampopa, who was aware of his realization and said to him: "I have nothing more than that to teach you."

I would put it more as: realize then don't become attached to your realization. Just be.