thuscomeone

See this is why I think you are talking about the alaya and you are grasping at it as a separate controller or separate self without really knowing it. The alaya is the basis for all thought (or that which "gives rise" to all thought) since it is the basis of the mind itself and it is that which travels from birth to birth as a non substantial, impermanent and dependently arisen continuity. When you talk about the difference between awareness and thought, would you say that that is analogous to the relationship between space and matter? Here I would be equating the alaya with space and thought with matter. Since the alaya (or space) is the basis of mind itself, it obviously pervades all thoughts (or matter). And you cannot actually separate space and matter, or the alaya and thoughts. There is no space apart from matter. And there is no matter apart from space. So at any given moment when a thought arises, the alaya or space is contained within that and there are not two divided things in that moment. There is not "the source which gives rise to the "I thought" and "the I thought" as two separate/divided things at that moment. Let me ask you and please answer this, when a thought arises, at that moment is there the source which gives rise to the thought or the basis for that thought AND is there the thought itself? Are these two divided things in that moment? This is what I think you are thinking. The way I see it, the "source" that gives rise to, or the basis for that thought itself is not apart from that thought at that moment. It is contained within and it pervades that thought. It is that thought!

I don't think that awareness is a thing, but I still know where "it" is and that it is present. Otherwise, I would have no basis for talking about it. And I CAN find that which I believe to be the "I." So I accept that it is there. But for you, why talk about something that you can't even find? If you can't even point it out to yourself, how do you accept that it is there? Then you are just accepting something on faith. I can find everything that I talk about. I can find dependent arising, I can find impermanence, I can find awareness (though it's not a "thing"), I can find sensations, I can find the "I." Do you know why I talk about these things AT ALL? BECAUSE I CAN FIND THEM IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE. The only thing I can't find and that you can't find is this elusive "I" which you continue to talk about. And I'm sorry, I don't accept that something is there on faith. I told you before that awareness is both formless and in all forms. That is you can see it in all forms since it is actually not separate from all forms yet you can't see it's basic quality of illumination - that is formless.

What do you mean? Disappears as in become nothingness? What do you mean by disappears?

What? Tell me where that which gives rise to thought is. Where is this source of thought without thought? I've asked you several times and you still avoid the question. Point it out for me. I don't think you know.

I would say that none of them are false. They are just different levels of experience. I'm just trying to tell you that if you believe that we can't make distinctions or that there is no actual difference between illusion and reality, you are in a senseless position.

Yet without even bothering with what awareness is or isn't, lets look again at your statement, "you are the movement which tries to find the "I." Isn't that movement, that analysis which tries to find the "I" a series of thoughts? I asked you this before and you didn't answer. Please answer me. The sense of "I" is a thought. Right? Like when I say "I will go to the park" or "I will do my homework." That's all thought, isn't it?

Um because there is a difference between an illusion and reality? That's why one is always careful to say that things are like illusions and not actually illusions. Because there is a difference/ an important division between those two - like an illusion and actually an illusion. Now difference and sameness are not inherent in things, they arise dependently like everything else. But they are present nonetheless. This whole point and the whole path of Buddhism is built on stressing duality. Sure there is non duality at a certain level. But you won't get anywhere without duality. You know, knowing the difference between "Right view" and "wrong view"? Between "true existence" and "non true existence"? etc etc. Here we go again with this attack on discrimination.

No I want you to tell me. But since you probably don't even know what that means yourself and you are going to spew out some garbage at me that you just made up on the spot in response to this post, maybe I can help YOU make sense of it. "If all is reality, then all is illusion." "If all is illusion, then all is reality." These are just word games. Look, there is a reality out there. There is something present that doesn't just vanish when you approach it. Now what is present is ungraspable but it is not a nothingness. Like take a mirage for instance. That is a perfect example of an actual illusion. When you approach and investigate that mirage, it dissapears. That means there was never anything there to begin with. It was actually just a nothingness that you were tricked into believing was something actually present. Now if I am looking at this chair and I find that the chair cannot be said to exist, not exist, both or neither then the chair still doesn't disappear does it? Now, there is still a dependently arisen chair obviously present. Yet as is said, the chair is like an illusion because it is always changing and it has no self substance. But it not actually an illusion because it isn't actually just a nothingness. It doesn't vanish like a real illusion that I described would. So the chair is both real and like an illusion but not an illusion.

So then there is an awareness and then there is thought? These are separate? But isn't thought awareness itself? Isn't a thought/thinking a form of awareness just like seeing is? Where is this awareness that is not thought? Point it out for me. And don't cop out again by telling me to think for myself. That is just an tactic that you use to take the burden of explanation off of yourself. I think you are going to eventually tell me that this awareness is the gap between two thoughts. That is what YOU really are is that awareness which is the gap and as that awareness you are NOT thoughts, sensations, etc. Again, you avoid my question. Don't put it on me. I asked you where this movement that you claim you are is. So point it out for me. "The source of the "I" thought?" The "I" thought is a thought thus it is mind/awareness whatever you want to call it and that "I" thought comes about through causes and conditions. That's it. There is no other "source" of the "I" thought. If you have found one, tell me.

Another thing here. I think you are making the same mistake that I made for a long time. You are talking about two things that can't be separated but they are not one. This is what I thought non duality meant for the longest time. I thought that it meant the coming together, the union of two different things. Actually that is not non duality at all. Non duality is not a union of two different things. It is precisely that there are not two things to begin with. It is not the merging of "mind" and "phenomena" or "matter" as two different things. The merging of two different things still presumes duality. Instead, non duality is just one indivisible happening.

"The movement which tries to find the I." Are you separating awareness and thought here? Are they different? In my own experience, the movement which tries to find the I is itself a thought. So the I is that thought which tries to find the I. So the "I" is trying to find the "I"! The I is not other than thought! It is not something else than thought itself. Like right now, we are analyzing in order to find the "I" right? And all that analyzing is movement of thought isn't it? If this movement is not thought, then where is it? One more thing, I think you may be actually talking about the alaya - the 8th consciousness, when you speak of this I which is not sensations but which is not outside of sensations either. The alaya travels from birth to birth with a non substantial continuity so in that sense it can be considered outside of sensations. Yet it is also the basis for all sensations and the basis of mind itself so it can be said to pervade all sensations. The alaya is frequently mistaken as an "I", as this separate, divided controller. I know that it is said that the 7th consciousness taking the alaya for an "I" in this sense is one of the main causes of samsara. But I'm not quite sure here. Maybe Xabir can expand.

Hmmm, expand.

Oh sure creations mind are non inherently existent, but as I've said multiple times, that does not connote non reality or nothingness. No, dependently arisen phenomena are very real. Emptiness is not non reality though it may seem like it. It is actually a deep affirmation of reality. See, I get the feeling that when you talk about no established reality, you are not just talking about things being like an illusion like the buddha said but you are talking about things literally being illusions or abstractions or literally not real. Not actually present.

So would you say that you are that "I" that you describe here? "It is not outside of sensations nor is it sensations." So where is it then? Point it out for me. If I am going to believe that what you say saying is legit, I have to be able to find that thing which are talking about within my own experience. Otherwise, it has no basis in reality. It is an illusion. You see, for me, I can find the "I." I know where it is in my own experience. So since I can find that thing and point directly to it in my own direct experience, I know the "I" I am talking about is not an illusion. I find the "I" contained within all sensations - it is in fact, not other than all those sensations and it can never be separated from them.

You are such an arrogant know it all little you know what. If I said the last word, I would most likely be banned. You really don't know shit about my experiences so I wouldn't talk about them with authority if I were you. My "method of investigation"? I don't have a specific "method". I just look at things and try to figure out how they work. I look for facts about reality. I try to find the way things truly are. For instance, somebody tells me that things are always changing. So in order to see if they are correct, I observe the world and see that yep, they are always changing. It is not that difficult. And that is it. No special method. I just observe. If what I find has a basis in reality, I accept it. If it doesn't, I reject it. Why is a creation of mind not an established reality? At this point, I would say that creations of mind are the ONLY established reality. I think you are thinking that if there is truly only the mind, then the world is actually unreal. No, as I said before, the world is very real. It is not a nothingness.

I JUST TOLD YOU IT'S MEANING. It can mean either complete nothingness, the extreme of non existence or it can mean rejection of all moral values (the more traditional meaning of it). Buddhists would say that it is nihilistic to think that there is nothing after death. Materialists believe there is nothing after death. So nihilism and materialism are equated. Jesus Christ on the cross (sorry).

Sounds like your cup is pretty full as well. You think you know everything and that you have all the answers too. Don't be a hypocrite. I'll just start with that first sentence. "Enlightenment is complete freedom of will" Lucky, who is the one who wills? What and where is the "I" that wills? Is this "I" in control? Is there an "I" in control and then that which it controls as two different things? Because this is usually what will implies. An "I" which is outside of sensations, manipulating sensations. A "I" which is going to "get this" or "get rid of that." One more question, where have you gotten your views from? Yourself? I'm not saying that they don't have validity because you learned them yourself. I'm just saying that if you are going to call some of the stuff that you write Buddhism, you should think twice and you should really look into confirming your views with a teacher, if you really want to know if what you know is Buddhism or not.

I told you that mind is awareness, mind is that knowingness, that illuminating quality that is both formless and in forms. I think you are looking for how the mind itself was created. There is no answer to that in Buddhism because there is no first cause, there was never a beginning to the mind. There are just endless manifestations of mind arising from moment to moment due to conditions, causes and parts. As for the continuation of the characteristic of phenomena, if you mean how can things have characteristics when they are empty? They have relative identities. Not identities in themselves. These relative identities persist through causal continuity. Where have I created a god terminology? You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said anything about God. Emptiness is not god. Mind is not god. I told you that I am just getting into this "all is mind" stuff and in fact I am reading a book right now which I think is going to really expand my knowledge on the subject. But even without reading the book, I can pretty much tell that all is mind. I don't really care for your arguments like "all existence would be sentient" because right now in my own experience and in others experience I know that there is only the mind, there are only sensations as the first and final basis of reality. Do I know all the implications of that yet? Certainly not. But I do know that is true from my own personal experience. Just please, look into your experience and see if you can find anything other than sensations. Well when you talk about the unmanifest as "a creative potential" that sure sounds a lot like emptiness. When you use that term, I don't see that it is wrong to equate the two.

Oh I need it? You are quite the guy you know that? Nihilism in Buddhism has two meanings. Rejection of all moral values which leads to meaninglessness AND it means nothingness, stating that nothing exists. Nihilism and materialism are pretty much equated in Buddhism since a materialist would say that there is just nothing after death. The rejection of nihilism is precisely the rejection of these two views. Eternalism has to do with true existence and the whole soul thing. That is some people have always thought that there is an unchanging core to their being that live forever. The rejection of eternalism is precisely the rejection of this view.

Oh you see? You know where I'm at? Ok... Lucky, what is enlightenment in your mind? Who are you? What is "yourself?" What is "expanding clarity"? What is this source that is yourself? Please answer all of these questions for me as I have taken time out my day to write long winded answers to your questions. I would really like to know if, deep down, you actually have anything of substance to back up your authoritative, condescending tone.

I told you what mind is already. I just wrote you a long answer. Go back a page and there is more. When I talk about mind as the all, I'm talking about mindstreams. Individual mindstream not a universal cosmic substance or something. YOUR mind is the totality of YOUR experience. MY mind is the totality of my experience. We have different minds. Your mind is the all in your unique experience, my mind is the all in my experience. But our minds are not the same. I already told you how the mindstream arises. The moment of individual mindstream needs certain conditions and has parts. So it is empty but present. There is no contradiction between the mind being the all in one's experience and the mind arising dependently (or being empty). If you find one, you have not looked deep enough. For instance, in this moment of your seeing, in YOUR own unique experience, the mind is the all there is yet this moment of seeing arose didn't it? This moment wasn't always there was it? No, it arose. And whatever arises is empty, not truly existent. Why would an existent thing need to arise? It exists. True existents don't need to arise because they exist. So the mind is empty and there is no contradiction. I would say that "the unmanifest" is emptiness because emptiness is that "which gives creation it's infinite potential" as you say. Without emptiness, nothing could happen. Nothing could change or arise because all things would be fixed, static and truly existent. Without emptiness, you could not become enlightened. You could not change. Emptiness is that potential and I already told you that emptiness is not non existence. Emptiness IS impermanent and dependent phenomena. The mind is consciousness, the mind is thoughts, the mind is intent (intent is just an arising thought such as "I will do this"). As for movement, I'm not quite sure but you mean by movement but I would say that is the mind too. The mind is constantly moving and changing. So the mind is all these things. As for "cognition of existence from the perspective of non existence, etc." I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain and don't cop out this time. Please actually explain what you mean.

I said that is was my fault for calling you an idiot. I admitted that it was me at fault not you. Now you come back and insult me? Contemplation of dependent arising is precisely to see that something is present and yet to see that what is present is not truly existent. Contemplation of dependent arising is to see the middle way between the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. Dependent arising IS the middle way. It's just how things are. No, reality is very real. It's just that mind is really all there is. Reality is certainly not an abstraction. If you kick a rock that pain you feel is not an abstraction, it is very real. Thinking like this is going into more nihilism, saying that everything is just an abstraction.

I never said that you never become angry. Anger arises, sure. But if you see the emptiness of it's arising, it will dissipate. Or rather it will change into a calm state of mind. And if you continue to see the emptiness of your anger, you will naturally be less and less angry and you will experience a calm state of mind more often. That's it. Sure, trust your own experience over the words of the Buddha. I know. It just so happens that the words of the Buddha correctly describe my own experience.

No, I would say that that is wrong. The more you question, the more obvious things become. You see, things are pretty simple. Not simplistic, but simple. It's we who make them complex. Your continuous questioning of where your mind was led me to believe that you were confused if you had one or not. For instance, if I can't find my keys when looking in a certain spot, I'm probably going to conclude that they aren't there. It's so obvious where it is, I really don't know how it would be hard for you to find it. No? Dependent arising doesn't mean that something is present? So what is it that is arising dependently? Nothing? Arising is the arising of something hence the term mere appearance or clearly apparent non existent. I've had a phenomenal change of awareness already from questioning "who am I?" so don't presume that I haven't and I know nothing about that. Impermanence and dependent arising are NOT abstract concepts. Don't make them into abstractions. They are facts about reality. For instance, you can look anywhere and see that it is a fact that there is change. But we must remember that change is not a "thing." Language makes it seem as if one is reifying change but in actuality it is never reified as a solid thing. It is emptiness and thus it is ungraspability itself. "Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements." I really don't know what you are saying here. Could you please expand? You seem to be saying that no connection can be found within dependent elements? That's what dependent arising means, that there IS a connection. Unless you are saying that all things are connected yet are individual (a tree is not a human is not a car, etc.) The latter makes sense, the former not so much. "All" is the totality, the total field of experience of an individual mindstream. "Part" is all of those individual things which make up the totality of the field of experience of an individual mindstream. Look, this is it basically. First, all is mind. This means that if we really look into our own experience, all we can find is the mind. There is actually no border or division between mind and matter at the deepest level. So we can say "all is mind". Yet this mind is empty because it is always changing and because it arises dependently. What does it depend on? Take a moment of hearing for instance. In that moment, the stick, bell, a previous moment of mind, etc. are conditions for (or parts that make up) that total moment of experience of mind. Without these things, that moment of mind could not be. Thus it and all other moments of mind come about dependently on parts, causes and conditions. So the mind is not truly existent. Yet it is also not non existent. This is because there is obviously something present. And it is because without a "thing" (existence) there cannot the absence of a thing (non existence). In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent. This is why the term unborn is sometimes used. If something has never been born, it cannot be absent. It has never been there to be absent in the first place! Because there is not existence or non existence, there is also not both. How could there be both? That is just taking two wrong views and putting them together. So not both. Then we can't say neither either. For to say neither existence or non existence we would still be presuming that there is existence and non existence both of which we have previously refuted. So we can't say neither. So the mind (or mindstream) is undeniably present yet it is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. In the end, it is ultimately ungraspable. Yet we can still talk about it's presence validly on the relative level. And actually the relative and absolute are the same. I should mention here that the relative is dependently arisen phenomena and the ultimate is emptiness. The relative and absolute are actually the same because whatever is dependently arisen is empty and vice versa. So in the end, the mind's undeniable dependently arisen relative presence is it's ultimate ungraspability. Strange huh? This is why I talked about being in the world and out of it at the same time. Being in the world IS being out of the world (unaffected by it). It is really the best of both worlds. That's it, a very very basic summary of the mind's nature. This is certainly not all there is to the mind. Not by a long shot. But as to the whole thing about the stick, the bell, immaterial, material, arising, etc. this is basically it.

Sure we can "transcend" concepts. But don't let that make you think that you can't make clear distinctions. This is a huge error I see with a lot of people. They seem to think that "nirvana" or whatever is a state in which you are incapable of discrimination or conceptual thought. I said it before and I'll say it again, that is not where you want to be. The shield thing is just a metaphor. When you realize the fact that all things are present yet completely ungraspable you realize that you can be in the world yet completely unmoved by it - by unmoved I mean that if you see dependent arising in every moment (something which I am not able to do yet) your anger will fade away. But you do not make a conscious effort and say "I must get rid of anger." No, you let it arise naturally and see it's emptiness in that moment. Then it fades away and you are unmoved by it by not reacting to it. For the last time, I did not choose this username because I think I am better or smarter than anybody. Get over it, move on. I chose it because I like the sound of it. It sounds cool to me. It sounds badass to me By the way, I'm not insulting Zen. I'm insulting people who think that Zen is about just having a blank state of mind in which all thoughts must be shunned and being incapable of conceptual thought and discrimination should be glorified.