thuscomeone

I just told you. When you said "where is it?", it is right there. It is that which knows, it is that knowingness, that awakeness. It is formless, that is you cannot see that basic illuminating quality of awareness yet, really, it is also all forms. Because there is no seeing apart from the seen, hearing apart from the sound, etc. I'll quote Bodhidharma for you in his "Bloodstream Sermon" "Student: But if they don't define it, what do they mean by mind? Bodhidharma: You ask. That's your mind. I answer. That's my mind. If I had no mind how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas" without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real buddha. This mind is the buddha" says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature the absence of cause and effect, is what's meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a Buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind', but such a place doesn't exist." Got it? If you deny that you have a mind, you are a nihilist and you are not following any tradition of Buddhism. As I've said numerous times, the mind is obviously present. For instance, in order to deny you had a mind, you would have to use your mind thereby refuting your own position. The mind may be the one and only thing that we absolutely cannot doubt the existence of because it as sensations, thoughts, etc. is the first and final basis of our reality. It is present but it just that it is dependently arisen and impermanent (always changing). Dependent arising means that there is something (well not a "thing") present. That is what it implies. There is something there that is arising dependently. That is why it avoids nihilism. This "something" is sometimes called a "clearly apparent non existent" or a "mere appearance." It is clearly apparent because you can't deny that there is something there yet it is not truly existent. I don't laugh at the question of "who am I?." I've thoroughly investigated that and I have found that "I" am a individual mindstream which has currently taken the form of a human being and which continuously changes and arises dependently and is thus empty. This mindstream is not nothing but it is not something (truly existent). It is beginningless and endless. There is no controller in this mindstream which is outside of the sensations manipulating the sensations. Any supposed controller would be inseparable from the sensations themselves. That is, there are not "two" things in this mindstream - a hearer and hearing. There is just one happening in which the hearer and hearing are undivided. Now I don't know everything about who "I" am yet but I do know some very very important things. And I am not going to deny that. No, no, no no, those words are not flexible at all. They have very precise meanings within Buddhism. Dependent arising can't be used to mean independent and impermanence cannot be used to mean permanence. You can't just have words mean whatever you want them to mean. You will get absolutely nowhere and will only confuse yourself. As to how the mind "comes" from immaterial things, you have to understand that at the deepest level, the mind and material things are said to be undivided. There is no border between them. You can see this for yourself if you investigate deeply. Now this particular area - the "all is mind" stuff is something that I'm just getting into right now. So bear with me here. The ways I see this is that the mind is the all and the mind has parts and whatever has parts if empty. For instance, the mind as hearing is the all - yet that mind as hearing has parts - the person, the stick, the bell, the ears, etc. So it is empty because that mind does not have own being apart from all those parts. The whole which is the mind does not have independent being apart from the parts which make it up and the parts do not have independent being apart from other parts. Thus the parts and whole (the mind) are both empty.

You are right, they aren't my way. It's all a result of a lack of mindfulness. It's so easy to blame somebody else for your getting angry when in fact it is YOU yourself who gets angry.

It's a USERNAME! What is with people on this board thinking that I think I am better than other people because of my username? I like the name, it sounds cool! I like the avatar, it looks cool in my mind! Get over it already. Good lord. I like how anybody who claims that they understand the way things are is on a "guru trip." I'm so sick of this mentality. Like this pseudo zen "true knowing is not knowing" stuff. That shtick is outdone and it's tired - get over it. And Lucky as regards your subtle jab at my crying over dependent arising thing, if you truly knew what it meant in regards to suffering and end of suffering, you would see the beauty of it. To be in the world at the same time you are out of it. To be completely present yet completely unaffected and unmoved by events around you. Now I don't claim to be unmoved all the times but the implications of seeing dependent arising in ever experience are to be unmoved. I am not at the level of mindfulness yet where I can see it in every situation. It is as if you go back to where you always were but now it is as if there is a shield around you protecting you from all harm. I wish you could know, I really do. As I said before, I do not usually insult people on forums. This time I just absolutely could not resist. Xabir and Lucky have been arguing for 14 pages and it's obvious that lucky7strikes is just not getting it. Or I should say that he is very confused, in one post it seems like he almost gets it and yet in another it seems like he is further away than ever.

I didn't want to get back into this discussion but I can't resist. You can't even find your own mind? How pathetic. You shouldn't be arguing with anybody about anything if you don't even know that you have a mind. Your mind is what is communicating with me right now. Your mind is what is seeing the words on your screen. Your mind is undeniably present, it is just ever changing, a series of mind moments rather than a solid thing and it is dependently arisen. Guess what? Do you know what you are using to ask me where my mind is? YOUR MIND. It sees forms right now dependently on the eyes, on the computer in front of it, on you and the words that you are typing, on this website and all the people who have created it, on a million different conditions and causes. "who believes he has understood." I can cite find you numerous article, numerous books, numerous quotes straight from the mouths of Buddhist masters from all different traditions that all agree with my spin on dependent arising and impermanence and no separate self. This is not something I take lightly. I know that I have the correct understanding of these things from the Buddhist perspective because I have spent days and days, hours upon hours confirming these insights. Please don't try to tell me what I don't know. You really have no idea. Sure there are different interpretations of Buddhism but I can guarantee you that 95% of them - zen, dzogchen, theravada, mahayana, vajrayana - agree that things like impermanence, dependent arising and no separate self are the basic facts of reality. Know why? Because these are the basic teachings of the buddha. So any school which calls themselves buddhist is going to have these. It just so happens that thusness and xabir talk about all these things (in the correct way).

I am not a cheerleader you twit. Sure there is no inherent beingness to any locations. But there is still the distinguishable act of seeing which dependently arises. Seeing a bird in the sky, that is a distinguishable act of seeing of which the seer is contained within. You see, it is that simple. But you don't want it to be simple do you? Why are you making this so hard on yourself? You may not need the eye to see but you need the mind. You need the eye to see forms but you can still see darkness without the eye. In which case, you still have a mind. Wherever there is any type of seeing, forms or formless or whatever there must be the mind. That is really all there is to it. What are you talking about, moving your "I"ness. Your awareness is not an "I"ness to begin with so you wrongly conflate the two. Your awareness is by nature "I"less (devoid of a separate controller/doer). You need to stop acting like you have refuted the Buddha and all who have followed him. You are the one who has found all these flaws in their model of reality. Right. Get over yourself. Impermanence, change is not a basic fact of reality? Dependent arising is not a basic fact of reality? No separate self (the presence of the mind and sensations basically) is not a basic fact of reality? I don't usually get mad at people in discussions but you are a grade A idiot. I am out of this discussion for good and I want nothing further to do with you. Goodbye.

You kidding me? Dude, what is so absurd about what Xabir is talking about? This stuff is obvious to any sane person out there - impermanence, dependent arising, no separate self. That's all he is talking about. These are the most basic facts of reality. Furthermore, you sidestepped and dodged my question about whether there is a seer apart from seeing. Sure there are different types of seeing, but there is still seeing. And there is still no seer to be found outside of that seeing. Honestly at this point I have to give you one of these

No it really is not beyond me. You said "there is no distinguishable experience of seeing" which is a stupid statement. You did not say that there are different types of seeing which is what you say here. Much of what you have said in this topic is just jumbled nonsense that leads nowhere. That is not my fault. Yet that last little summary paragraph was pretty good so I have to give you credit for that.

There is no distinguishable act of seeing? I'm sorry...but are you a moron? You are so caught up in intellectual games that you can't see what is right in front of your face. I honestly cannot understand three quarters of what you are spewing out here. You see, I like to cut through the bullshit. And I can tell by scanning your posts that there is a lot of bullshit. And honestly, the fact that I cannot understand what you are saying is your problem, not mine. So you're watching TV using your eyes right now. That is not a distinguishable act of seeing? Really?

Once again you miss the point. There is not and never has been a "daniel" as a controller outside of the controlled, a seer outside of the seeing. But there IS a "daniel" as an individual human body and individual mindstream which is simply present. For godsakes, read some of what xabir is posting for you. He is giving you gold and you are shitting all over him. The way I see the whole "you are already enlightened, you don't have to practice thing" is that everyone already has the potential for enlightenment. Just like you have the potential to punch someone in the face. Yet just having that potential doesn't mean that you will actualize that potential, which is what enlightenment is.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? So a stick is the same as the sound of a bell? You, a human, are the same as a tree? No distinction can be made between either of these? There is no difference between my mind and your mind? If you try to play this card, you are really just going to end up in a senseless position. Come on now, don't be stupid. There is a phenomenal world of appearances out there which is dependently arisen which labels like same and different apply to and point to. It's just that all the things that same and different and such and such point to are dependently arisen and thus empty. Everything is contained within and interdependent with everything else yet everything is individual. In my mind, denying distinctions means denying the phenomenal world and denying the phenomenal world means nihilism. Then there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That is not where you want to be. You really need to study the difference between the relative and absolute. I see you are still going on about the no doer thing. And I see that you have still not addressed my point I made a while ago. Is there a seer apart from seeing, hearer apart from hearing, etc.? That is, can seeing and the seer be separated so that there are TWO things - a seer OUTSIDE of the seeing which controls and manipulates that seeing and the seeing itself? Or is the seer contained within that very seeing itself?

Oh cut that out. This is one reason I sometimes don't like zen. These little games and ambiguous sayings rather than just getting down to business and cutting through the bullshit. I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm interested in clear distinctions between right knowledge and wrong knowledge. I certainly have heard this koan. And It doesn't mean that there are no correct conceptual answers, if that is what you are implying. Ever heard of "right view?" You think Zen masters don't believe in right and wrong answers? Read some dogen and get back to me. What happened to concepts are no different than non conceptuality? Ok, from my experience and study there are The 5 sensory consciousness', the thinking/ideation consciousness and the alaya. None of these are self existent/independent or unchanging. Try as I may, I can't find this self existent consciousness that you are talking about here. And I can't find any sort of watcher or pure subject which is witnessing the thoughts and which stands apart from the thoughts. That is you seem to be saying that there is consciousness as a light which illuminates and then there is a thought. So if I have a thought at this moment, that means there are two things involved, the light and the thought. Yet all I find from moment to moment is thought/thinking, hearing, seeing, etc. going by in rapid succession. If one were to presume that there is this light which is behind thoughts, I could only say that it couldn't be other than the thoughts themselves because the thoughts are all I can find! So then for me, there are not two things - the light/subject and the thought/object. In a moment of thinking, these two are completely one/inseparable/undivided in my own experience.

I'm still curious as to why you would divide the light which illuminates and the objects which are illuminated. It seems to me that they are the same thing.

Why isn't pure consciousness thoughts themselves? Aren't thoughts part of consciousness? This is a beautiful insight and one I didn't even think of.

Dwai, I just want to ask you something. Two things in fact. Does your awareness change? Does it arise dependently from certain conditions and causes? If not, where is this unchanging and independent awareness? Point it out for me.

I'm curious, does number 2 mean sticking to what you believe no matter what and continuing to claim that it is correct? I used to think this was a wrong attitude. Nowadays I am starting to believe otherwise. Why do some people seem to call anybody who believes they are correct and sticks to it a fundamentalist? Does number 4 mean believing that nobody is more right than anybody else? If so, I have some qualms with those who believe that the most spiritually developed are they who believe that everyone is right and nobody is more right than anyone else. Also, what does it mean by attaching to the "outward" forms of religion?

Insentient causes and conditions are definitely required for moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. to come about. I don't know how you can deny this. Say you have a moment of hearing the sound of a bell. Well the hearing of the sound of that bell would not come about if it weren't for the bell, the stick that was used to hit the bell and the person using the stick. These are all conditions which allow that moment of hearing. What are you talking about? Of course sound does not cause the existence of the drum stick. There are different conditions for the arising of sound and for the arising of a drum stick. There is no actual boundary to causes and conditions. They stretch back into beginnningless time. It's obviously impossible to know every single cause for something but we can know the causes and condition that are present NOW. Since that is what we can know, we have to create some sort of artificial boundary.

On second thought, I think we all need to read up on karma before we say anything else about it in this topic. It has been said that karma is even more complex and difficult to understand than emptiness.

Maybe it's just me but I've never understood how karma is such a hard concept to understand. As it has been said before, it's just cause and effect and the fact that your actions have consequences. Really difficult right? Now there are many nuances to it but the basic idea is very simple. I look at it as, for instance, hate only leads to more hate, ignorance only leads to further ignorance, etc.

Well one could see samsara and nirvana as mental states. In that sense, mental states have no beginning or end, they just change. The "end" of samsara is the changing of it as a mental state into nirvana as a mental state.

Lucky, maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you need to see that there is no doer apart from doing. No hearer apart from hearing, seer apart from seeing, etc. No separation can be made between hearer and hearing. That is a very liberating thing to discover because we usually divide the hearer from the hearing and we believe that there is a hearer who stands apart from/outside of the hearing and controls the hearing. Thus we get into all sorts of frustrations based on this fundamental error. When you see this, since the hearer is no longer an agent outside the hearing which controls the hearing, since it IS the very hearing itself, all attempts to manipulate and control experience just fade away. There is no longer anything OUTSIDE the hearing which could exert control or manipulate. Then there is just what is. I personally feel this is liberating. How much do we suffer because of our constant attempts to manipulate and control? There is a good quote by Jiddu Krishnamurti on this "Are not the thinker and his thought an inseparable phenomenon? Why do we separate the thought from the thinker? Is it not one of the cunning tricks of the mind so that the thinker can change his garb according to circumstances, yet remain the same? Outwardly there is the appearance of change but inwardly the thinker continues to be as he is. The craving for continuity, for permanency, creates this division between the thinker and his thoughts. When the thinker and his thought become inseparable then only is duality transcended. Only then is there the true religious experience. Only when the thinker ceases is there Reality. This inseparable unity of the thinker and his thought is to be experienced but not to be speculated upon. This experience is liberation; in it there is inexpressible joy." - Authentic Report of Sixteen Talks given in 1945 & 1946 ...p.14. There is a good video on control and freedom by Ajahn Brahm that I just watched the other day One more thing, I've found that you shouldn't make effort to block out the thoughts of a "doer apart from doing." Just recognize that they are more arising thoughts without a controller apart from them. This helped me because, if these thoughts give you comfort, you don't need to shun them and you can just let them remain free and unmanipulated. There is a passage from thusness' blog that I have always liked. "Good sons, all hindrances are none other than ultimate enlightenment. Whether you attain mindfulness or lose mindfulness, there is no non-liberation. Establishing the Dharma and refuting the Dharma are both called nirvana; wisdom and folly are equally prajna; the method that is perfected by bodhisattvas and false teachers is the same bodhi; ignorance and suchness are not different realms; morality, concentration and wisdom, as well as desire, hatred and ignorance are all divine practices; sentient beings and lands share the same dharma nature; hell and heaven are both the Pure Land; those having Buddha-nature and those not having it equally accomplish the Buddha's enlightenment. All defilements are ultimately liberation. The reality-realms's ocean-like wisdom completely illumines all marks to be just like empty space. This is called 'the Tathāgata's accordance with the nature of enlightenment.' " ~ The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment

What if there is no free will. So what? What if free will, this constant need to control and choose is actually the cause of much of our suffering? What if letting go, surrendering, not trying to control or manipulate anymore is true freedom? Just a thought...

This is true and I think it needs to be stressed. On the one hand, there is absolutely nothing outside of awareness in one's own experience. So for instance, say you are looking at another person. That person is only known through your mind. In that sense, they could be said to be only your awareness. Yet that person is not just your mind because they have their own mindstream, their own body, own history, etc. And to say they were just your mind would be solipsism. So yes, not two but not one either.

This is an interesting subject to me. Do you think there is an objective world? Objective meaning a world/reality apart from our minds (mindstreams in buddhism)? In Buddhism, the true nature of the mind is empty and non dual yet I still do not think that this denies that there are things which are independent of our minds. Now I don't mean objective as in inherently existing, I mean it as if our minds were not here, everything we see around us would not be here. I do think there is a reality independent or our minds. There is insentient matter and natural dependently originated processes that we can observe taking place that happen without any aid from our mind. I see no reason for those processes to somehow "dissapear" if our minds were not here. I have a hard time expressing myself on this. What do you think?

I don't see that cause and effect is being denied. It's just a different way of looking at it. Yes the present may be ungraspable in a sense yet it is still really all there is. Typing on these keys, that is the present, the "now" moment. I should add that dogen says that each moment fully contains past and future yet is independent of past and future.