thuscomeone

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything. The house is on fire and we have to move, move, move and get the hell out! We just have to be very very careful of what we do and what we think. I would prefer to think that we have to understand in order to get out of the house, rather than do. There must be a radical shift in consciousness that comes not from action, but from understanding. No offense, but I think what you've written is still too many words -- too many concepts whirling around in the brain. It can be condensed much more. The solution is much simpler, but much more subtle.

Sorry, quoted my own post...

You don't need to master anything. You don't need to achieve anything. Samadhi's, gong-fu, paramitas -- they all mean absolutely nothing if you can see the real root of suffering. The nature of your mind, which is creation of permanence, doesn't sync with the nature of nature, which is impermanence. That's the root. To steer this back to a discussion about enlightenment... That's what I believe enlightenment is -- knowing the cause of suffering and abandoning it. "Just live that life. It doesn't matter whether it is life or hell, life of the hungry ghost, life of the animal, it's okay; just live that life, see. And as a matter of fact no other way. Where you stand, where you are, that's what your life is right there, regardless of how painful it is or how enjoyable it is. That's what it is." - Taizan Maezumi

But see, you're talking about changing your actions in order to achieve a certain state of acceptance. Again, through thought, you have created a state to seek after and to attempt to rest permanently in. And again you will suffer because that state you crave will inevitably be upset by change. It's the same problem again and again with everyone who suffers. It can all be traced back to the same thing. I'm not saying that actions aren't important. But, as I see it, starting with changing actions is not the correct way to end suffering. One has to start with the mind, with thoughts. It is thought itself that creates suffering. Thought is the root of it all. When the mind is changed, good, virtuous and proper actions will follow.

"Nobody listened to him, that's why there is Buddhism." - J. Krishnamurti Daniel Ingram is closer than most to what the Buddha actually taught, but he still has his own views which he clings to, so he is still off.

That's exactly the problem. You want to practice so that you can achieve a certain state, a permanent state where you'll be free from harm. That's what everyone wants -- permanence. One creates that ideal, permanent state and then clings to it and fears losing it against the relentless tides of change. But those tides inevitably come and one is disturbed, fearful, and anxious again. The moment you think about trying to reach that state of "effortless acceptance", you create the state that you want to reach. Then there is a comparison between what you are now and what you want to be -- that future state. In that gap between what you are now and what you want to be is the suffering of all mankind, as a certain sage once said. In that gap is all fear, anxiety, stress and worry. But if you can just be, without trying to get anywhere, just note whatever is happening at the moment -- even if it be a thought of trying to get somewhere -- and not try to transform it, then there is finally peace.

Let me put it simply There is only change in this life, and with our minds we create the illusion of solidity/continuity. In truth, there is no continuity except in one's own mind. Thus all concepts ultimately don't apply to reality -- whether they be concepts of existence, non existence, emptiness, buddha-nature, god, rigpa, space, tao, eternity, nothingness, dependent arising, buddha-mind -- because they all suppose a self, a permanence, continuity. There is just "this" -- which can only be felt, never described. These concepts/thoughts themselves, as they manifest, can never be described either. Put it all down. Someone's level of enlightenment doesn't matter. What matters is whether you are happy or not, whether you are free from fear, anxiety, stress. The diseases of the mind. It all comes down to acceptance. If you can accept this moment, right now, completely -- without making an effort to accept it -- then there is no fear. Can you do it?

I don't intend to make it personal. If I came across that way, I apologize. It's that old ego coming back again. To recognize things is to see them as they arise. To "not recognize" them is to see their emptiness. There are three levels here, really: the conventional, relative and ultimate. The relative is what is called mere appearance. For example, a chair is mere appearance. Pre-analysis it appears solid and existing from it's own side. Now we can't refuse to acknowledge the presence of the chair. It's there. Actually, we can further divide it into the incorrect relative and the correct relative. The incorrect relative is seeing that things are present but feeling that they exist from their own side. The correct is seeing things as present but dependently arisen. The conventional is concepts. Concepts are stable, so they apply to the relative which seems stable. And the ultimate of course, is that there is no findable "chair" when we analyse it. Now, when we say, "emptiness is form", it means that the it is the appearance which is empty. Emptiness is not apart from dependently arisen appearances. So, in practice, if life, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the presence of a chair, or a thought, or a moment, etc. You can't live if you don't. That's the relative. If you think that you can stop using concepts, you're kidding yourself. At the same time, liberation in real time is seeing through the emptiness of appearances. It's more of a feeling of openness and letting go in experience, rather than a "seeing", though. I can acknowledge the presence of the chair (conceptually, relatively) and at the same time feel it's emptiness. There is no conflict in view there. One more things I wanted to touch on. I think we can get all excited about our experiences of liberation and forget that these experiences are themselves ungraspable and impermanent. Personally, I don't go around every second of every day, analyzing everything to see that it is dependent and empty. That is a little absurd and doesn't need to be done. I only turn my mind to, or "feel" emptiness when fear, stress, worry, anxiety, etc. -- basically the afflictive emotions that arise from ignorance -- come about. The majority of the time I am living in the "incorrect relative" lol.

And yet you yourself continue to conceptualize! You are too focused on non-conceptuality. It can't be avoided. It's how we function. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with conceptuality. It's attachment to it based on not recognizing it's emptiness. Then both concepts and non-conceptuality aren't a problem. The view of dependent arising is very subtle. It almost seems paradoxical. Things are present...but they aren't at the same time.

Oh I understand that. I'm just saying that you can't deny there is a moment present here. It is mere appearance but still undeniably present. One can deny too much and in not recognizing this moment, fall into nihilism. But we don't want to hold too tightly either. It's a fine line.

Exactly. It really is beautiful how it all just comes back to this moment.

Nice to be back haha. Yeah, I see that there is no seer apart from seeing, thinker apart from thought, etc. There are only the dependently arisen, present yet ungraspable aggregates. And the aggregates are not existent, not non existent, etc. Yeah, I went through seeing dependent arising pretty thoroughly a few years back. Now I've penetrated non duality and anatta. I'm putting all the pieces together now haha. Looking at your blog, it seems you have come a ways in your insights as well... Oh wait, you're talking about non-duality not anatta with "no seeing apart from the seen. Yeah, I went through that. That's the "one mind" stage. It's funny, while non-dual and anatta have subtle differences, they really both are the same in that they both eliminate the sense of a permanent, independent watcher separated from the transience.

Ah, I see. Dependent arising as a thought/realization is itself dependently arisen.

I haven't posted on this forum in almost a year. I've been away from Buddhism for a while. In this past week, I've had very rapid and deep insights into non-duality and anatta. First, I came to see no separate self. That is, the I simply IS the five skandhas. The watcher is the thought/skandhas. So, in a way, it is wrong to say that there is no watcher. The thought that creates the watcher IS the watcher. Nothing needs to be rejected. This experience is blissful. But it isn't the end. I was still dividing subject and object. I then remembered non duality of subject and object that I had realized before. So the I is the skandhas and the skandhas are...awareness. Then I was still subtlety dividing awareness from thought. This is where things get strange. I would like xabir to respond to this as I believe this is the "no mind" stage in Zen. When I realized that awareness and thoughts are the same, the whole phenomenal world in all its multiplicity came back into view. The all subsuming awareness that was there before dissapeared into phenomenal multiplicity. This came to me when I was wondering how to fit dependent arising into my view. Dependent arising requires multiplicity. The ten thousand things return to one. What does the one return to? The ten thousand things. There are only these 5 dependently arisen, impermanent aggregates. I have another question for xabir as well. What does the emptiness of emptiness refer to? Does dependent arising itself need to be completely rejected at some point? What does it truly mean to be free of views? This is what I'm very confused about right now.

Non, do you honestly believe that a woman (or anybody for that matter) would actually enjoy being with somebody who made them suffer or caused them pain? Unless you are talking about somebody who is disturbed here, in which case I don't know why you would want to be with that person anyway, people in general want to be around somebody who makes them feel GOOD. Who makes them feel happy and confident about his or her self. That's what most people want. Think about it, do you enjoy being around people who cause you pain? Probably not...but hey who knows. Like some other people have been saying here, the reason girls like to be around these jerks or assholes sometimes is because at least these guys have some sort of spine. Some sort of confidence. And that is better than a "nice guy" people pleaser with absolutely no backbone. It's like choosing between the lesser of two evils. They don't go for jerks because of the pain these guys cause or because of their jerkish or asshole like behavior itself. It's about the confidence. Now of course you can be a good person and not be a people pleaser. You can follow the golden rule and still not be a people pleaser. You can be a good guy and still stand up for yourself and have a spine. That is the guy that a woman really wants. Hell, it is the kind of person that anyone, man or woman, would like to be in a relationship with or be around.

Right now, I believe that is is unbound happiness. It is a realization of how to truly be happy. It is a realization that as long as we keep depending on external things in order to be happy, whatever they may be - knowledge, beliefs, people, objects - we are keeping our happiness bound and constricted, we are giving up the fate of our happiness to something other than ourselves. One thing that I've been thinking lately is the bounding of happiness to knowledge. This relates to Buddhism. Happiness in Buddhist terms, for me, has always meant the realization of emptiness. Yet I think that relying on emptiness or anatta or whatever to make us happy is another way to chain our happiness. It is giving our power away again. I mean, what if emptiness were proven wrong tomorrow? Would our happiness go away? If it was completely dependent on seeing emptiness, then it would. As such it would not be true happiness or true enlightenment. As cliche as it sounds, I think that enlightenment is seeing we are the only ones who have ever had the power to bring ourselves true happiness. It is just seeing that real happiness can only come from within.

I thought about leaving, I considered it, but I'm not going to just yet So going back to it, you still haven't answered my question. In a moment of thought, is there awareness which is the source of thought and then the thought itself? Are there two divided things in that moment? "Heaven is awareness, earth is phenomena, man is "I." So then would say that the "I" you speak of is not awareness or phenomena? Would I be correct to call this "I" will? And once again, I ask you... "I would like you to please tell me everything there is to know about this "I" that you speak of from your perspective. Tell me everything you can about it. What it is, what it isn't."

Ok lucky, lets try this. This discussion is not going anywhere after many pages. I would like you to please tell me everything there is to know about this "I" that you speak of from your perspective. Tell me everything you can about it. What it is, what it isn't. I think this may help get this discussion going somewhere. And if it doesn't, I may have to bow out. I just cannot for the life of me figure out what this "I" is that you are talking about. I'm baffled.

I don't know either if I mean what you mean. Please tell me what you mean. Is this awareness which is not thought according to you this "I" that you talk about? I ask you once again, in a moment of thought, are there two divided things - this awareness you speak of and the thought? The book is pervaded by space. The book is in space. But there is also no space apart from the objects within space. What do you mean when you say that awareness is "the dimension of existence"? What does "I am man" mean? (other than the obvious meaning)

I just told you, seeing the day change to night or night change to day. Seeing the body get older. There is no time apart from objects.

Ok, that's why I'm asking you, at the moment of an arising thought, are there two divided things? The source of the thought itself and the thought? Thought is not thought? So now you are talking about a free floating "I"?

Ok...in a moment of thought, is there awareness which is the source of thought and then the thought itself? Are there two divided things at that moment?

I can see time as change, from day to night, as the body getting older, etc.

Oops my bad, I did contradict myself. Sorry Actually I would say that the eight liberations are all partly true. They are all pieces of the big picture. In different levels of experiences, one acquires different pieces of the whole truth. So those experiences are not completely true but they are not false either. So if you can't see that one level has more truth to it or is more real than a previous level, and hence if you can't properly discriminate between reality and illusion, you are in a senseless position like I said.

Please explain. Basically all I've said is that there is both duality and non duality. And duality shouldn't be forgotten or seen as not important. edit: oh nevermind, I see it. my bad.