thuscomeone

Um...sure? Is he gone for good or what?

I have never claimed that the objective world "exists." My original assertion and question was: I believe that there are relative, dependently arisen insentient objects which come about due to processes which have nothing to do with the mind. Does this mean there is an objective world, an always changing and thus empty world that can be without the mind? You are not convinced? That doesn't really mean anything to me. Beyond my practical understanding? I have wept, yes literally wept, at the fact of the beauty of emptiness. At the union of emptiness and form. At the fact that because of the ultimate inability to assert the four extremes, ungraspability is the nature of things/reality, whatever you want to call it. Since grasping is the root of all suffering in my mind, in realizing I had nothing to grasp ultimately, I felt for the first time that I could overcome all suffering. Don't tell me I'm just parroting words. You have done nothing to show me that you have a better understanding of emptiness than me. All you can do is make witty and snide remarks and call me a moron.

"I claim to understand emptiness." What do you mean by this and what am I missing with emptiness? Or are you saying that the very fact that I claim to know what emptiness is makes me a moron because emptiness isn't anything? It is actually no-thing. The absence of things. That's true, but there is still right view. There is still correct knowledge. I believe that right view is not this "no view" nonsense. Everybody has a view. It is correct view that matters. Emptiness as the viewless view is still a viewless view.

Moron? Because I am curious as to whether or not there is an objective world? A question which has been asked by great philosophers throughout history? It's easy to call somebody a moron on the internet isn't it gold? You don't have to look them in the face. Gives you a feeling of power doesn't it? You think I care if I have your respect? You can keep it, I don't want it. Ehh, I have to clarify what I mean when I say that there is nothing but mind for us. The mind (individual mindstream) as non dual, empty presence expands and encompasses everything in one's field of experience. In a sense it is like a field which is undivided from everything in the field. Yet, though undivided, it is not the same as everything in the field. The mind is sentient, there are things which are insentient. They are different.

When did I ever say the book wasn't right for me? Stop acting like I'm refusing to read it. I don't need to "lean" on an authority figure for support. I don't just believe the dalai lama because he is an authority figure. I believe what he says because I have seen what he says is true. And most other Buddhists teachers worth their salt say the same things that he does. But as to the argument from authority thing, if you wanted to know about a particular subject, wouldn't you go to a well known authority on it? There is nothing outside of mind itself for sentient beings. I agree. For us, there is nothing but mind itself. Yet does that mean that mind is the ultimate reality of the universe? Is mind the ultimate truth for insentient things? There is a big universe out there. We are just one piece in it. I know all this. This is emptiness. I've been over this. You do not agree that there are dependently arisen mere appearances that are merely labeled? That the labels refer to? Sure ultimately there is no thing in itself yet there are relative appearances which can have relative identities/beings which we can distinguish from one another with labels (conventionally). If you do not agree with this, you do not agree with buddhism - form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Of course they have a basis. Dependently originated, relative mere appearances. Again, this is basic buddhism. Denying appearances and their relative functioning is nihilism. I'm not talking about anything inherent. So a concept in your mind is the same thing as as the mere appearance of a tree? Sentience (awareness) and insentience are the same thing? Appearances have relative identities that come out of dependent arising which are not true, actual identities (things in themselves). They have different relative natures. In fact without having relative identity (dependently arisen identity) they would not be ultimately identityless. Lastly, as to the appearances/labels thing, you misinterpret me. All I'm saying is that without something that the label is referring to, there would be no label. So the label/concept depends on that which it refers to (the mere appearance) in order to be.

I don't get this either, yet I hear people say it or imply it over and over again. I don't even know where to start with it. I agree that the mind has a hand in bringing forth some matter. For instance, a building is conceived of in the mind before it is built so without that mental conception it would not have come to be. Yet even that does not come completely from the mind. And take something like the sun rising, rain falling from the sky. That is a natural process that the mind has absolutely no part in. Ok so the mind labels it "sky", "rain" etc. So what? Instead of "the sky" you can call the sky a "bear", "a house" "a frog", whatever. Those words are all still pointing to something which is there and which I don't believe would just disappear if these labels went away or if the mind went away. Unless somebody can convince me otherwise. This is a perfect example. I think that this topic definitely relates to this Zen koan: "Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves. While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?" One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind." "Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

I believe the dalai lama not just because he is an authority on the subject (that is one reason though). I believe him because what he says aligns with what I have come to know from personal experience. That personal experience tells me that he is a better source of knowledge on buddhism than GIH is. Yes though, I do agree in some sense that all we can ever know is our own consciousness so even if there were an objective world, we would not be able to know it. That does not mean the rejection of an objective world. It just means that the sentient beings experience is never apart from the mind so that we can never be outside of the mind. It does not mean as far as I know that mind is the only reality. For us it is, but not for everything. If we are talking in terms of Buddhism here, it is primarily concerned with sentient beings and sentient beings understanding of their true nature. Yet sentient beings are not the only things in the universe, they are just one piece. There are insentient things. I do not see that solving one part of the puzzle solves the whole thing.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?opti...iew&id=2383 The reference is here "Given these premises, it is very fair to raise the question: is Buddhism suggesting that everything is nothing but projection of our mind? This is a critical question and one that has elicited different responses from Buddhist teachers. In one camp, great masters have argued that in the final analysis, yes, everything, including our experience of suffering and happiness, is nothing but the projection of our mind. But there is also another camp, which has vehemently argued against that form of extreme subjectivism. This second camp maintains that although one can, in some sense, understand everything as creations of mind, this does not mean that everything is nothing but the mind. They argue that one must maintain a degree of objectivity that things do exist. Although the consciousness, the mind, plays a role in creating our experience and the world at the same time, they maintain there is an objective world that is accessible to all subjects, all experiences." And another instance: http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=417 "The fact that our inner experiences of pleasure and pain are in the nature of subjective mental and cognitive states is very obvious to us. But how those inner subjective events relate to external circumstances and the material world poses a critical problem. The question of whether there is an external physical reality independent of sentient beings' consciousness and mind has been extensively discussed by Buddhist thinkers. Naturally, there are divergent views on this issue among the various philosophical schools of thought. One such school [Cittamatra] asserts that there is no external reality, not even external objects, and that the material world we perceive is in essence merely a projection of our minds. From many points of view, this conclusion is rather extreme. Philosophically, and for that matter conceptually, it seems more coherent to maintain a position that accepts the reality not only of the subjective world of the mind, but also of the external objects of the physical world." Gold, when it comes to Buddhism, I believe the Dalai lama a lot more than I believe you. As to your assertion about sentience and insentience apart from the mind. Well see my problem is this. Those words sentience and insentience point to things in the world/reality. They are mere labels for dependently orginated things. So our conceptual labeling is not all there is. If there were not processes that happened "out there", we would have no basis for conceptual thinking. That is first there is the appearance and then there is the label. Now I don't think that if you change the label, you change the thing. You change the label. That's all. In terms of calling it non dual or dual, this presence is non dual. Simple. It is described as non dual by teachers. I have felt that it is non dual. Non dual meaning not dual. Absence of duality. We need to be able to distinguish things and I think your extreme form of subjectivity that says "it's all interpretation" is absurd, dangerous and it eventually collapses unto itself. Now when I say dual or non dual, I am describing relative appearances which are not just nothingness, which are obviously diverse and which need to be distinguished. Ultimately, yes, to fixate something such as non dual or dual as truly existing is an error and so in that sense to assert them is wrong. But there are relative appearances and there is relative identity which can correspond with "fixed" labels. The way I see this non dual presence is like this: We all have different mindstreams. All of our mindstreams are non dual meaning that that mindstream is undivided from phenomena. One could say that this presence is sort of a field which reaches out and touches all phenomena that are within our particular expanse of experience. Yet, though this mindstream is undivided from phenomena in the field of experience, I see no reason to say that it is the same thing as everything in the field of experience (trees, cars, rain, houses, etc.). A mind and a tree are not the same thing though the mind as seeing cannot be found apart from that tree which is the seen, in experience. The mind is sentient, a tree is insentient. This also gets into another interesting subject. Right view vs no view. That is, does right view mean that only one specific view is correct or does it mean that ultimately no views are correct?

I know this. This is non duality. Our individual mind streams are non dual. Yet to say that everything is just the mind in my opinion is not the same...there are sentient and insentient things.

Wow I'm sorry but you are a jackass. Ignorant? I know emptiness thoroughly, I've felt the non dual presence that is talked about. Yet in knowing that, I still do not see how there is no world apart from our mind. The Dalai Lama himself has said that there is debate in Buddhism over an objective vs subjective world. So don't think I'm so crazy. I wasn't teaching you Buddhism. I was revealing what I had learned so far and seeing if anybody could help me further my insights. Are you mad that I rejected what you had to say in that PM? After thinking about it, I realized you were wrong and others who post here such as xabir and vajra are right. That's that. You know, I read your posts on here and you are always on your high horse, condescending everybody. You need an attitude adjustment and that is that.

Do you think that it is or ever will be actually possible for us to know with 100% certainty what happens after death while we are still alive? Thought this might make for a good discussion. I'm curious to know what some of the bums think on this subject.

Not too long ago I re read the famous Zhuangzi butterfly passage. It really got me thinking this time about the nature of the mind. "Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction. [but one may be the other.] This is called the transformation of things." After I read this, I PM'ed goldisheavy because what reading this passage got me thinking about was very close to some things that goldisheavy often talks about on this forum. One thing in particular actually - meaning and the unfixed nature of meaning. I think that a lot of us feel that the main function of the mind is to find a perfect, unchanging, fixed "way things are" in reality. For instance, some of us may say that reality or the universe works through dependent origination with dependent origination being defined as specifically "this" and not "that." And the universe doesn't work any other way. Now, the meaning of dependent origination can change at a whim, can it not? If all of a sudden, we decided to say that dependent origination actually meant that we are all parts in the body of an eternal god, would this new definition be inferior to the typical one? I don't see why not. It would only be inferior if one were to believe that meaning is fixed and there is only one correct, absolute meaning. But meaning is obviously not fixed as just demonstrated. It is fluid, pliable, flexible, etc. This brings in the possibility of seeing the mind as an artist, a painter, a creator instead of a rigid instrument. Think of the world or reality like a blank canvas. The mind then is an artist which paints on the canvas using meaning/words/symbols/thoughts. In this sense, the mind does not discover an existing fixed reality or way things are. Instead, it creates the way things are. And it can change it's creation or paint a new picture at any time. I think this opens up limitless realms of possibility and I think, in a sense, it is true freedom. Relating this back to Zhuangzi, the meaning of the passage, to me, is that Zhuangzi and the butterfly are not fixed in nature. Zhuangzi can be anything and the butterfly can be anything. They can be one in the same or completely different. It is all up to the mind, to the artist.

Oh you're completely right. I don't believe anything to be true before rigorous (and I mean rigorous) examination of it. It is easy to be swayed into believing something if it is coming from somebody with a title that entails they have some sort of authority - master, lama, "father"...

My knowledge is according to what I have been told about rainbow body. It is knowledge of popular understanding of rainbow body not direct experiential knowledge.

Isn't rainbow body just what happens when one recognizes the clear light at death? Of course, there is also rainbow body that can be attained during life, I know that. What are the practices to attain rainbow body in life other than just resting stably and consistently in true nature? Also, this may be a big question and kind of out of the blue, but what is rigpa and how is it the same or different from emptiness?

So then, when you talk about non dual awareness, you are talking only about experiencing/experience? Non dual then would be that in the experience of a sentient being, the sound and hearing are one, inseparable? You are not saying that sound and hearing are actually one and the same as an ontological fact. Sound and hearing are still different and each originate dependently according to different causes and conditions. You are just saying that purely and only from the experience of sentients, thought thinks, scenery sees, etc?

Well that is what I am trying to do. And so far I am not getting anywhere. Yes, luminosity is the magical display. The magical display is appearances is it not? What else would it be? So emptiness + appearances...? If not, then what is luminosity to you? Maybe it would help if we defined our terms. And I'm quoting what I said here again because I want you to speak to it and I think it may be near what you are saying... "Awareness is not a source. It just IS everything. I did not mean by this that, for instance, trees are aware - that trees can think and feel. I meant that a tree's shape IS seeing awareness, the tree's sound IS hearing awareness. The tree is not aware, the tree IS awareness whether sentient beings are present or not. As another example, my physical body is formed from various causes and conditions. But, it also cannot be without awareness. It's shape is seeing awareness, it's sound is hearing awareness, etc. These causes and conditions are also awareness."

Could you explain this?

First of all Xabir, vajra said this earlier in this thread. Now this is non duality according to him. It seems to me that you are talking about a different non duality than he is. Perhaps you have realized something he has not. But you two are two of the biggest buddhism experts on this board and I have not heard him say what you have been saying to me regarding non duality. Ok I get the mindstream part but I still do not know what you are getting at in terms of non duality. I have said awareness IS phenomena. You said yes that is correct. I then brought that statement to it's logical conclusion - 1.) awareness is phenomena 2.) for there to be phenomena there must be awareness 3.) there was a time when sentient beings capable of awareness were not present on earth. 4.) since there were phenomena before there were sentient beings then awareness was present before sentient beings were present Now I said that awareness IS all dependently originated and impermanent phenomena in the sense that phenomena cannot be without awareness. Awareness is not a source. It just IS everything. I did not mean by this that, for instance, trees are aware - that trees can think and feel. I meant that a tree's shape IS seeing awareness, the tree's sound IS hearing awareness. The tree is not aware, the tree IS awareness whether sentient beings are present or not. As another example, my physical body is formed from various causes and conditions. But, it also cannot be without awareness. It's shape is seeing awareness, it's sound is hearing awareness, etc. These causes and conditions are also awareness. Now, you said this is an incorrect understanding. And now you wrote this "What we originally thought to be a 'mind' inside our head turns out to be all the manifestation itself. The mountain, the rivers, are all manifestation of Mind, there's no longer a sense that it's 'outside' -- it's all Mind" ...which seems to be in agreement with what you said was incorrect before. I'm sorry if I am making this hard. It is just not clear to me what you mean.

Ok Xabir, I'm back. So awareness being non dual to you means that it depends upon external phenomena in order to be? So awareness and external phenomena are linked together in that way and in that sense they are non dual. Non dual that you are talking about is not that awareness and external phenomena are one in the same but are just linked together through dependent arising aka awareness cannot be without external phenomena. So you are just talking about dependent origination...? And I found this quote from the shurangama sutra. What does this mean to you? "Your mind and your body, and all the mountains, rivers, and spaces of the earth are merely phenomena that exist within the One Bright True Mind."

Yes Yes! This is it! I couldn't figure out how to word it properly. You've said it better than I could.

DHARMA TALK ON ONE MIND by Bassui Tokusho Zenji If you would free yourself of the sufferings of the Six Realms, you must learn the direct way to become a Buddha. This way is no other than the realization of your own Mind. Now what is this Mind? It is the true nature of all sentient beings, that which existed before our parents were born and hence before our own birth, and which presently exists, unchangeable and eternal. So it is called one's Face before one's parents were born. This Mind is intrinsically pure. When we are born it is not newly created, and when we die it does not perish. It has no distinction of male or female, not has it any coloration of good or bad. It cannot be compared with anything, so it is called Buddha-nature. Yet countless thoughts issue from this Self-nature as waves arise in the ocean or as images are reflected in a mirror. If you want to realize your own Mind, you must first of all look into the source from which thoughts flow. Sleeping and working, standing and sitting, profoundly ask yourself, "What is my own Mind?" with an intense yearning to resolve this question. This is called "training" or "practice" or "desire for truth" or "thirst for realization." What is termed Zazen is no more than looking into one's own mind. It is better to search your own mind devotedly than to read and recite innumerable sutras and dharani every day for countless years. Such endeavors, which are but formalities, produce some merit, but this merit expires and again you must experience the suffering of the Three Evil Paths. Because searching one's own mind leads ultimately to enlightenment, this practice is a prerequisite to becoming a Buddha. No matter whether you have committed either the ten evil deeds or the five deadly sins, still if you turn back your mind and enlighten yourself, you are a Buddha instantly. But do not commit sins and expect to be saved by enlightenment [from the effects of your own actions. Neither enlightenment] nor a Buddha nor a Patriarch can save a person who, deluding himself, goes down evil ways. Imagine a child sleeping next to its parents and dreaming it is being beaten or is painfully sick. The parents cannot help the child no matter how much it suffers, for no one can enter the dreaming mind of another. If the child could awaken itself, it could be freed of this suffering automatically. In the same way, one who realizes that his own Mind is Buddha frees himself instantly from the sufferings arising from [ignorance of the law of] ceaseless change of birth-and-death. If a Buddha could prevent it, do you think he would allow even one sentient being to fall into hell? Without Self-Realization one cannot understand such things as these. What kind of master is it that this very moment sees colors with the eyes and hears voices with the ears, that now raises the hands and moves the feet? We know these are functions of our own mind, but no one knows precisely how they are performed. It may be asserted that behind these actions there is no entity, yet it is obvious they are being performed spontaneously. Conversely, it may be maintained that these are the acts of some entity; still the entity is invisible. If one regards this question as unfathomable, all attempts to reason [out an answer] will cease and one will be at a loss to know what to do. In this propitious state deepen and deepen the yearning, tirelessly, to the extreme. When the profound questioning penetrates to the very bottom, and that bottom is broken open, not the slightest doubt will remain that your own Mind is itself Buddha, the Void-universe. There will then be no anxiety about life or death, no truth to search for. In a dream you may stray and lose your way home. You ask someone to show you how to return or you pray to God or Buddhas to help you, but still you can't get home. Once you rouse yourself from your dream-state, however, you find that you are in your own bed and realize that the only way you could have gotten home was to awaken yourself. This (kind of spiritual awakening] is called "return to the origin" or "rebirth in paradise." It is the kind of inner realization that can be achieved with some training. Virtually all who like Zazen and make an effort in practice, be they laymen or monks, can experience to this degree. But even such [partial] awakening cannot be attained except through the practice of Zazen. You would be making a serious error, however, were you to assume that this was true enlightenment in which there is no doubt about the nature of reality. You would be like a man who having found copper gives up the desire for gold. Upon such realization question yourself even more intensely in this wise: "My body is like a phantom, like bubbles on a stream. My mind, looking into itself, is as formless as empty-space, yet somewhere within sounds are perceived. Who is hearing?" Should you question yourself in this wise with profound absorption, never slackening the intensity of your effort, your rational mind eventually will exhaust itself and only questioning at the deepest level will remain. Finally you will lose awareness of your own body. Your long-held conceptions and notions will perish, after absolute questioning, in the way that every drop of water vanishes from a tub broken open at the bottom, and perfect enlightenment will follow like flowers suddenly blooming on withered trees. With such realization you achieve true emancipation. But even now repeatedly cast off what has been realized, turning back to the subject that realizes, that is, to the root bottom, and resolutely go on. Your Self-nature will then grow brighter and more transparent as your delusive feelings perish, like a gem gaining luster under repeated polishing, until at last it positively illumines the entire universe. Don't doubt this! Should your yearning be too weak to lead you to this state in your present lifetime, you will undoubtedly gain Self-realization easily in the next, provided you are still engaged in this questioning at death, just as yesterday's work half done was finished easily today. While you are doing Zazen neither despise nor cherish the thoughts that arise; only search your own mind, the very source of these thoughts. You must understand that anything appearing in your consciousness or seen by your eyes is an illusion, of no enduring reality. Hence you should neither fear nor be fascinated by such phenomena. If you keep your mind as empty as space, unstained by extraneous matters, no evil spirits can disturb you even on your deathbed. While engaged in Zazen, however, keep none of this counsel in mind. You must only become the question "What is this Mind?" or "What is it that hears these sounds?" When you realize this Mind you will know that it is the very source of all Buddhas and sentient beings. The Bodhisattva Kannon is so called because he attained enlightenment by perceiving -i.e., grasping the source of the sounds of the world about him. At work, at rest, never stop trying to realize who it is that hears. Even though your questioning becomes almost unconscious, you won't find the one who hears, and all your efforts will come to naught. Yet sounds can be heard, so question yourself to an even profounder level. At last every vestige of self-awareness will disappear and you will feel like a cloudless sky. Within yourself you will find no "I," nor will you discover anyone who hears. This Mind is like the void, yet it hasn't a single spot that can be called empty. This state is often mistaken for Self-realization. But continue to ask yourself even more intensely, "Now who is it that hears?" If you bore and bore into this question, oblivious to anything else; even this feeling of voidness will vanish and you will be unaware of anything-total darkness will prevail. [Don't stop here, but] keep asking with all your strength, "What is it that hears?" Only when you have completely exhausted the questioning will the question burst; now you will feel like a man come back from the dead. This is true realization. You will see the Buddhas of all the universes face to face and the Patriarchs past and present. Test yourself with this koan: "A monk asked Joshu: 'What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming to China?' Joshu replied: 'The oak tree in the garden.' " Should this koan leave you with the slightest doubt, you need to resume questioning, "What is it that hears?" If you don't come to realization in this present life, when will you? Once you have died you won't be able to avoid a long period of suffering in the Three Evil Paths. What is obstructing realization? Nothing but your own half-hearted desire for truth. Think of this and exert yourself to the utmost. - Any Koan masters here know the meaning of this? "A monk asked Joshu: 'What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming to China?' Joshu replied: 'The oak tree in the garden.' "