thuscomeone

I often think that he knew much more than he said. He's also a testament to why a teacher is really useless if they have insight but can't communicate it to people in a way they can understand. He had his faults, sure. He also did speak highly of the Buddha on more than one occasion.

Don't compare him to Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti had deep insight into "anatta." Probably more too. He just wasn't a very good communicator. He would condemn the kind of arrogance GIH shows. Comparing K to GIH is an insult to K.

No, I know that words are limited. But words can point. If you can't even communicate about something/point to it clearly, what is the point of saying it is there? If you can't even talk about it clearly, it's just nonsense. I don't want to prove its non-existence. I want to prove its dependent arising. And you say I put words in your mouth? If you can't even describe/point to awareness in your current moment, its not even sensible. Like I said, its just obscurantism. Look, I can easily describe to you awareness in my current moment. I am watching TV and typing on the computer. Awareness here seems to be independent from the computer, the TV and my body. In other words, there seems to be separation between "seeing" and "seen." That's one level. But if I investigate, I can see that awareness in this moment is actually produced by a combination of things. This moment of seeing/awareness requires the physical and the non-physical. It requires the eyes, the body, the awareness, etc. So ultimately, to call this moment of seeing "awareness" is wrong. It is a combination of mind and matter. To call it solely either one would be to limit it. To call it mind would be to deny matter. To call it matter would be to deny mind. True non-dualism is not "all is mind." "All is mind" is another ignorant assertion that there is some separate, independent thing called "mind." True non-dualism is seeing that mind is dependent on matter and vice versa.

Right, that's what I just said. You can only see non-division and division through division -- concepts, logic. Distinguishing requires division. Like I said before, you are caught up in logic/intellect itself and can't see what it is pointing to. You are looking at a wave (the divisive content of thought) and can't see the ocean (the non-dual way thoughts manifest, without a controller). You have to use the wave to see the ocean, but you won't let go of the wave. I can tell from the extremely intellectual nature of yours and GIH's posts that this the problem with both of you. Could you give me a clear explanation of what this awareness is? Is this awareness "aware of" something? Actually, let's move this out of the realm of theory and into real life. Wherever you are, right now, describe to me this awareness in that moment.

I'm not saying there is no division. Conventionally there is. Logic requires division, of course. Logic is a tool. Nothing more. It allows us to distinguish right from wrong. It's only through division that we see non-division. That we can distinguish division from non-division, ignorance from wisdom. But don't mistake the finger for the moon.

When I say there is "me thinking", that is just a thought. There is not a "me" and thought, which is what you are assuming. There is just the thought "I am thinking." It's the difference between seeing the content of thoughts, which is dual, and seeing the way thoughts manifest. Which is non-dual. I think you're too focused on the former.

I never put words into your mouth. I'm trying to figure out what in the you know what you're talking about. Everytime I ask you something, you avoid a clear answer. You either can answer or you can't. I'm beginning to think you don't even really know what you're on about. Your ideas of "intent" and "mind" seem to be just that -- ideas, abstract concepts which have little grounding outside of your head. You say, oh well, they resist categorization. I call BS. You can either express what you mean or you can't. If you know in your heart what you believe to be true, you will be able to find words to express it/categorize it clearly. But then some of your posts contain half-truths, so I keep coming back. The truth is very simple. Much more than you are making it out to be. Generally, whenever I encounter posts such as yours, which are, in general, long diatribes, I know that there won't be much wisdom in them. I prefer simplicity. Truth is completely obvious. It's just like looking all around for your keys and then finding them in your pocket. I don't know if you've read "Siddartha" by Herman Hesse, but there is a part in there in which Siddartha meets the Buddha. The Buddha tells Siddartha that he is clever, but warns him not to be too clever.

Ok, you don't like "come from." So would you say that there is an "intender" (something which is doing the intending) and an "intent"? Can these be separated? I have a hard time understanding many of your posts. Your consistent obscurantism ("it's not quite this...it's not quite that") makes it difficult to figure out what you are talking about; to pick out the point you are trying to make. When you say that "all things in the field of awareness are manifestations of your intent" you are supposing something which is in control. It is controlling the contents of this field. My experience has led me to believe the opposite.

Well that post was directed at goldisheavy. But it's good that there is someone here who is sane. P.S. Your posts always lift my spirits!

You teach people? Who?

"All things are in a state that reflects the state of intent." Intent always come first according to you. Whatever state arises comes from intent. Thus all states are completely controlled by something. Completely meaning that there is no state which isn't intended. What is in complete control? You tell me. You are proposing that there is something which is directing and determining. What is that? Right, and if there weren't sound that you played through the speakers for you to turn off, there would be no speakers. One who claims to understand DO should know that.

Ok, I'm just going to repeat what I said before to you GIH, as it is very important. Intention precedes all states. That is basically what you are saying. The effect of intention may not be complete control, but even then that effect of non-complete control is completely controlled by this intent. Correct? Actually, a speaker can't exist without sound. Sound is the whole reason speakers were invented.

Ok, let's just talk about the mind that is intending first. Object or not, doesn't that mean that this mind can choose? Intention precedes all states. That is basically what you are saying. The effect of intention may not be complete control, but even then that effect of non-complete control is completely controlled by this intent.

Does this mind you are talking about have control. Can it manipulate things around it? I guess it doesn't have to be an object. But if you claim that mind is the source of all, as you have before in this thread, that means that it does have these qualities -- control, will, etc.

You are better than any lineage? GIH, you are very arrogant. I can be very arrogant too. But at least I can admit my arrogance.

Something which has control. Which has will. Which can choose and manipulate. Something which is not an object, but can manipulate objects.

I think what you may not be seeing here is that this "something" you are investigating with is not a controller or background. For instance, you investigate using thoughts. When we speak, we say "I did this, I did that." So this creates this idea of separation between the "I" and the "doing." There is an "I" which is controlling the doing -- which is separate from it. But is that "I" really a background/controller? In other words, is this investigation controlled by a permanent "I" or is the investigation just a series of impermanent thoughts?

This is what I've been trying to say the whole time. Although, I wouldn't use the word "ultimately." Most of the confusions in this thread arise from only being able to see one half of reality, the being side or the non-being side -- from going to extremes. That's why Prasangika is king. It doesn't go to extremes.

Back here, you said this. When you say intentional, do you mean that there is an agent that is in control, which is choosing to recognize?

Ok, I'm jumping back in here. How is GIH's view not shentong?

It's Dostoyevsky. Please, leave the literature talk to the writers. You're right, I probably shouldn't have even replied there. Frankly, I'm sick of bickering with you. I feel drained of energy most of the time I encounter your posts, in most of which you just regurgitate the same nonsense, and when I have to face the pointless task, which is similiar to banging my head against a brick wall again and again, of trying to get a point across to you. It's not healthy to keep this up. So you can reply to this post all you want, but I won't acknowledge your reply or reply to it.

Oh, even someone familiar with it? Funny, because Xabir seems to understand me pretty darn well. And so does vajra most of the time. Fact of the matter is, I don't much care for your judgments of me. They may be right or wrong. That really isn't what concerns me. Let me just tell you this. I know my insights and what I have written to you and others are correct. There is no doubt anymore. These insights are confirmed by such people as Buddha, Dogen, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, The Dalai Lama, shunryu suzuki, etc. etc. I'm sure it seems very arrogant of me to say that, but I'm not going to say I don't know when I actually do. So like I said, I'm here to talk about these things and dispel ignorance about them. Whether or not you understand them has no effect on whether I do. If you want to actually understand this stuff, it's good to have a clear progression from emptiness of self to emptiness of other. Otherwise, you really won't get it at all and you'll just be lost in the muck of wrong views.

Ok, I see what you mean.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't clear. I have been very clear and precise with my points aside from the errors I made at the beginning of the thread. Since then, I have made few (if any) faults. Yes I have explained it to you very clearly. Twice now. Get it straight, I'm not here to be liked. This isn't a popularity contest to me. I'm here to have discussions and to dispel ignorance. If somebody claims to understand something that they obviously don't, I'm going to call them out on their BS. Oh and I understood the meaning of DO long before this thread. Coming into the thread, I was just kind of unsure what to believe.

Here's a question, though. Might seem foolish. If emptiness is infinite potential for manifestation, would that mean that there could possibly at some point be something beyond mind and matter? Like something unimaginable to us right now? Do you know what I mean?