thuscomeone

I just want one thing. GIH, you are all about the mind. Mind this and mind that. But you've yet to give any sort of clear explanation of what you believe the mind to be. You continue to dodge the question every time I ask you by turning the question back on me. Even the highest truth can at least be pointed to with words. Nobody would object to that. If you can't even communicate it then it is just nonsensical. So please, if you can, communicate to me clearly and succinctly what you believe mind to be.

Say you have one phantom. Not two. The first phantom denies the presence of a second phantom. Though it may be a phantom, it can still be right or wrong.

Yes it is very clear that mind is dependently arisen. See, what I mean by "false concepts" is what I think you mean in your second paragraph. The illusion of solidity is created by mind. The mind is not the actual creator of everything (or are you saying it is?), just of false solidity.

So, in other words, mind is dependently arisen? aka neither mind nor matter have primacy over one another. When I hear "all is mind", I take it to mean that all false concepts and discriminations arise from mind.

But I mean this isn't easy stuff. This completely shatters the frame most people live their lives in and it ain't so easy to understand at first either. But I have to thank you immensely for maintaining that blog. It has helped me through many a dark night (no pun intended).

You're welcome. And thank you!

I've read some. From what I've gathered, their enlightenment isn't much different than mahayana enlightenment/prajnaparamita. The natural state in the two seems to be the same -- effortless suchness.

Yes, it could certainly be more clear. Could I recommend you something to read? I think you'd like it. It is a series of letters from a young japanese woman to her roshi. She wrote them on her deathbed, as she was sick and slowly dying. The letters reveal the deep level of enlightenment she reached in just a few weeks before her death. It is pretty amazing. I would definitely say that she got beyond substantial non-dualism. The roshi even claimed that she had reached the highest level possible under a master. Her name was Yaeko Iwasaki and the letters were published in a book called "The Three Pillars of Zen." I'm unsure if you can find the book online...

Again, I don't think inherent here is referring to a substance, but the inherent potential of emptiness. But I don't really know. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

It says not empty and not full. So I think it is not referring to a substantial ground, but to emptiness as a potential. But who really knows.

You stage nine seems to be just like the one I posted. They both emphasize "just this" or, as you say, anatta.

I love maps! They're so much fun. Stage eight on my map sounds like shunyata to me. At least close. No-mind is not the same as anatta, but it is close. No-mind closed the gap on any sort of permanent, independent awareness or self and affirms multiplicity. Beginning to see into dependent arising. This has been a realization for me, not just an experience. But I sometimes get caught up in things and must remind myself.

Check out stages nine and ten. Sounds strangely familiar. http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Zen%20Poetry/About%20the%20Ten%20Ox%20Herding%20Pictures/Zen%20Master%20Ji%20Bong%20-%20The%20ten%20ox-herding%20pictures.htm

Right. Because they arise dependently, they don't actually arise. And vice versa. I only say that I have attained based on the zen literature I have read and the immense peace within this realization. I equate samyak sambodhi with the 10th oxherding picture, tozan's fifth rank, etc. Hell, I equate it with thusness' level 7. Perhaps it is a greater realization, but if it were, it would certainly be an elusive one that I have never heard spoken of in zen.

I'll try. I'll use a famous example from the genjokoan -- firewood and ash. Firewood is firewood and is not ash. Firewood is distinct. But at the same time, one should not suppose that the firewood is gone when there is ash. The firewood is still present in the ash because if it weren't for the firewood, there would be no ash. The past is present in the present. The past is not gone. The future is also present in the present. As Dogen says, ash and firewood fully contain past and future and yet are fully cut off from past and future. Time and space require division. When past, present and future are all together, where is time? When mind and matter are together, where is space? But this togetherness of past, present and future is occuring at a very distinct and specific moment in time. And this togetherness of mind and matter is occuring in a very specific space. So this means that things are not the same and not different. If you say that they are both the same and different, it is essentially the same as saying they are neither the same or different. Not same affirms difference. Not different affirms sameness. Whatever way you put it, it still comes out the same. The point that you come to, either way, is that concepts ultimately don't apply because they all suppose "is" and "is not." Both positions are incompatible with how things actually are.

It's far from perfect. Rather, it's perfection in imperfection. But anyway, moments are both continuous and discontinuous. That is to say, there is timelessness within time and spacelessness within space. And ultimately, since there is both, there is neither, and no concept can touch what is.

Thusness and Xabir are ignorant overall? Of course. And you're the only one who really knows what's going on. You've got the inside scoop. Man, you really think your you know what doesn't stink, don't you?

...

Right. He knows some important things. But he won't go any further and admit that he doesn't really know everything I.e, the real meaning of dependent arising, the fact that Buddha's teaching isn't about a cosmic consciousness, etc. etc.

I am more certain than I have ever been before. I will enjoy it. Thanks again.

It's a general "you" that could refer to anyone. Another red herring. I understand what you say. I just don't put much stock in it. "convenient" means that, since reality utimately transcends all concepts, all "is" and "is nots", "mind" is a tool to point to something and communicate. Nothing more. No, that is not at all what I believe. Don't put words in my mouth. I have made it clear that that is not what I believe. I have made it clear that I don't assert the primacy of mind over matter, or matter over mind. They arise together, as I have said. I shouldn't say that? I don't know what it means? Oh, of course, because I'm the one with a view of awareness as a self existing and permanent source (which, by the way, is a view I showed to be completely illogical a few posts back, which you just ignored). Yeah, ok dude.

Personally, I don't put too much value on your opinion. No offense. But you haven't proven to be insightful at all yourself throughout this thread. The only faults and position shifts I have made were in the beginning of the thread. Since then, I have been on a straight track. And I admitted my earlier ones. Please get over it. Or get some actual insight yourself, so you can move out of the peanut gallery and actually contribute something worthwhile. Thanks. And I'm at a point where I've put in enough work to be able to say with certainty that, yeah, I do pretty much get it. I believe Xabir could verify. But I'm not asking him to do so haha.

There is no contradiction. When you talk about mind, you are referring to a particular. When you talk about the emptiness of mind, you are not talking about a particular -- you are referring to what I called universe, or non-duality. So in the second case, you aren't really speaking of mind. In that case, mind is just a convenient label. As I have said many times in this thread, things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent.

Mind is not particular or non-particular. Ironically, for all your relativism, you fail to see this point. It doesn't have to be physical to be present. A thought is clearly here, but I can't see it. For the last time, it is neither something or nothing. You aren't going to tell me. I'm wasting my time. Bye.

Christ, get off of it. It's a tool to point with. Mind is specific. It refers to a particular. Universe refers to something which contains noth mind and matter. It is more general. When talking about non-dualism, it is better to be more general. I said that it includes the mind. Since it is not non existent. But it is also beyond the mind. Since it is not existent. It is the creative potential that allows for both mind and matter. Just tell me what you mean by mind. Quit avoiding it. You either can or can't. I get the sense that you have very strong personal views which you have developed on your own over the years. You cling to these views because of your pride -- you came to them to them all on your own so you can't give them up. You won't listen to xabir because you think he can't think for himself. But you would learn a lot if you accepted an authority other than your own.