Sunya

Neither of those articles reject what I posted above or in our private conversations. Actually that quote I posted from the Dalai Lama is from the Sunyata wiki page.

This is not a misunderstanding. This is what emptiness means in Buddhism. Nothing exists separate from anything else because there is no-thing. "Thingness" is a concept, a mental label which possesses a false assumption that there is something out there with an enduring identity, some essential core, and causes this 'thing' to be. It's like you think there is some actual thing there called a 'tree' but there isn't. Various causal processes give rise to characteristics of 'tree.' These processes are also intertwined with whatever gives rise to other 'things' near the tree, like other trees, the leaves, water, the dirt, the air, the sky, the animals. It's all interconnected, and this makes everything empty of self-existence. Since you believe I am the one misunderstanding, I will quote the Dalai Lama. One of the most important philosophical insights in Buddhism comes from what is known as the theory of emptiness. At its heart is the deep recognition that there is a fundamental disparity between the way we perceive the world, including our own experience in it, and the way things actually are. In our day-to-day experience, we tend to relate to the world and to ourselves as if these entities possessed self-enclosed, definable, discrete and enduring reality. For instance, if we examine our own conception of selfhood, we will find that we tend to believe in the presence of an essential core to our being, which characterises our individuality and identity as a discrete ego, independent of the physical and mental elements that constitute our existence. The philosophy of emptiness reveals that this is not only a fundamental error but also the basis for attachment, clinging and the development of our numerous prejudices. According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is simply untenable. All things and events, whether ‘material’, mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence. To intrinsically possess such independent existence would imply that all things and events are somehow complete unto themselves and are therefore entirely self-contained. This would mean that nothing has the capacity to interact with or exert influence on any other phenomena. But we know that there is cause and effect – turn a key in a car, the starter motor turns the engine over, spark plugs ignite and fuel begins to burn… Yet in a universe of self-contained, inherently existing things, these events could never occur! So effectively, the notion of intrinsic existence is incompatible with causation; this is because causation implies contingency and dependence, while anything that inherently existed would be immutable and self-enclosed. In the theory of emptiness, everything is argued as merely being composed of dependently related events; of continuously interacting phenomena with no fixed, immutable essence, which are themselves in dynamic and constantly changing relations. Thus, things and events are 'empty' in that they can never possess any immutable essence, intrinsic reality or absolute ‘being’ that affords independence. Like I told you in our private discussion, just because the 'body' can exist without air for a period of time doesn't mean that it's independent. Temporary independence doesn't mean permanent independence. Even in that temporary state of not having air or food, the body is living off of stored nutrients from the environment. Even if it weren't, the 'body' is not an independent thing at all but rather consists of complex processes working together. "Body" then is a concept for these complex processes, so there is no such thing as "body" separate from these processes. The body is empty of inherent existence in this way. Not just because these complex processes are interdependent with the energies of the world, but also because there is no such thing as a body separate from these complex everchanging processes. Again, not a misunderstanding. This is just Buddhist philosophy. Even though wikipedia is a crappy source, there's nothing there that contradicts this. Scott, It's fine for you to disagree, which you clearly do, but it's rather ridiculous to claim that I don't understand Buddhism and that you "schooled" me. Lay off the pride a bit. You lack understanding of Buddhism and therefore have no right to make claims about what Buddhist enlightenment is and isn't. I did lower dantien breathing for a year maybe 5 years ago. This was before I knew you. We've known each other for about 2 years.

I would love to make the conversation me and Scotty had public, the one where he supposedly "schooled" me and "destroyed my arguments" and demonstrated his "clear understanding of Buddhism" but he told me he doesn't want it to be made public. Go figure. I think Scotty deserves everything that Seth wrote to him, and I told him this, but he doesn't get it. (12:45:11 AM) me: you deserve it with how you've been acting (12:45:20 AM) Scotty: really? (12:45:23 AM) me: you shut people down and talk down to people when you disagree with them (12:45:33 AM) Scotty: so? What's really upsetting for me here is that Scotty has made baseless claims about Buddhism and claims he is an expert in the dharma. Though I am not by any means a Dharma teacher, I study and practice Buddhism and know a thing or two about the philosophy of it. Him and I have had personal conversations, and I would never consider him as possessing understanding of Buddhist philosophy. He was always disagreeing with the teachings of emptiness and claimed to me that the perceiver is separate and distinct entity which exists independently and has selfhood. This clearly is not inline with any Buddhist teachings that I know of. In fact, it goes completely against Buddism. I initially got into the conversation in an attempt to point out that he does not understand the dharma and isn't an authority figure, therefore his baseless claims about Buddhist enlightenment should be taken with a grain of salt. And now Scotty has decided to attack me claiming that he "schooled me" and "destroyed my arguments" when he didn't at all. I want to post our long conversation publicly to keep his false pride in check, but I will respect his wishes not to.

lol, Scott, your arrogance is quite incredible. Your line of reasoning consisted of disagreeing with me and then assuming victory based on relying on yourself as an authority "you're wrong because I said so" and then you became quite angry and hostile with me. I'm willing to post the whole conversation publicly actually since I find it incredible how you're acting.

Where did you read that?

Where do you live? I love ponds.

I don't think there's any use theorizing about this sort of stuff and trying to make sense of it conceptually, and then having faith or conviction in who/what you are purely on an ideological level. Truly the only way to answer such a question is to go beyond concepts completely and meditate. If there is anything that we can learn from masters of the great mystical traditions, it's that the truth must be realized by every individual for themselves empirically through their own experience. Direct experiential knowledge of our true nature is the only way to go if you truly want to know the answer to the question "who am I?" Anything else is just an opinion based on beliefs and assumptions and really has no positive value. I think that the best way to approach a path is to not be so skeptical but rather openminded and curious. Hmm, could that be so? Could there be truly more to me than this limited little "I"? Let's find out.. With that kind of approach, you'll have an answer.

Could you clarify what you mean by 'inner sound'? Thanks

Ummm that wasn't meant as an insult. I don't claim to understand Taoism, and I wouldn't be offended if somebody stated that fact. Look, I spent many hours trying to explain what the meaning of emptiness is and you always disagreed. That's not correcting me. That's just disagreeing. If you understood Buddhism, there wouldn't be a disagreement. Yet you continually argued strange notions like "the body can exist without air for 17 minutes therefore the body is independent which means emptiness is a false teaching." No, Scotty, if you understood Buddhism you wouldn't be saying such strange things. Yes, I did. Buddhahood or supreme enlightenment is the goal of Buddhism. It's not my idea of Buddhahood. It's clearly defined in Buddhist texts. You can't redefine Buddhist enlightenment to suit your experience and claim you understand Buddhism and say Buddhists themselves are somehow deluded. Even if you had a taste of emptiness, that's still not Buddhahood. First stage Bodhisattvas have realized emptiness and so have Arhats, but they are not Buddhas. There are clearly delineated differences. http://www.fpmt.org/.../paths_sopa.php You may disagree with Buddhahood as a realistic possibility, but please don't redefine Buddhist enlightenment to suit your needs. Taoism is a fine path and leads to great realizations. So does Buddhism. Neither is superior.

I've had many conversations with Scotty outside of these forums and while he is a very nice person who I consider a friend, I have to point out that after many conversations he still doesn't understand Buddhism. So his claim that Taoism is superior should be taken with a grain of salt since he never had a Buddhist teacher or followed a Buddhist path. I don't want this to turn into a flame war of which path is better. Whatever works. There are many paths to the Dharmakaya. It's definitely misleading. There's no steps beyond Buddhahood. Basically a Buddha is one with the Dharmakaya, complete omniscience, and limitless power to manifest in any plane of existence, in addition to perfect compassion. I don't know what could possibly be beyond that.

I did dantien breathing for a long time (everyday for a year) and didn't really get anywhere. I also tried mindfulness of breath at the nostrils and found it to be more effective, but I found it difficult to not get "lost" in the breath and space out or get sleepy. Honestly I think the most effective concentration method which forces you to constantly hold attention and stay awake is visualization. It was only until I tried visualization that I realized just how crappy my concentration skill was. Also, mantra with visualization as in deity yoga works very well. http://www.chagchen.com/index.htm this online book might be very helpful, specifically the Resting Mind series which are shamata (concentration) practices. Also, please keep in mind that concentration in and of itself is not a path. After you can continually rest the mind and focus, you should move onto insight practice, like the practices in Exploring the Mind series for the purpose of gaining insight.

I'm not just talking about having experiences here. You're looking down on 'sutra' as if the realization is beneath you or something. Enlightenment in sutrayana is the same as enlightenment in Dzogchen. If it's possible to practice sutrayana through books, then surely it's possible to practice Dzogchen through books. They're both just methods for awakening with clearly delineated instructions. Namkhai Norbu sells many books with practice instructions. Is he putting those out as paper weights? You don't need anything to realize your natural state. It's always available. Sure transmission may help, and to do certain Tantric practices it may be a necessity according to tradition, but the natural state itself is unconditional. It may be a book that awakens you or a flash of lightning in the night sky. Books written by masters can serve as teachers themselves. If you have a teacher available to you, then that's great. Most of us don't, so books written by them can replace that role. And yes, there are plenty of books which have complete instructions for realization. You're acting like I'm insulting your deeply cherished beliefs. I'm not saying having a teacher isn't a bad thing and is something not to strive for. Relax

Maybe it's best to stick to what works for you instead of making absolute statements that apply to everyone. You have no idea what causes or conditions will lead someone to realization. It could very well be a book written by a powerful Dzogchen master. I know people who have attained very deep realizations just by following the words of the Buddha in the Pali Suttas.

A lot goes unsaid. They don't write books for nothing.

He means you can't learn Dzogchen without introduction, but I think a book written by a Dzogchen master can take care of that component.

http://bcove.me/6gz19fhz really good talk on Mahamudra with Daniel Brown. Worth watching!

I heard the book Secret of the Vajra World is good... just ordered myself a copy

Concentration is important. I agree. Well, it's not a fact according to the realization of Buddhist masters. It's an opinion, sure, and maybe your opinion will change one day. Interesting how you seem to know what I have or have not experienced. Buddhist view isn't 'dogma.' It's the beginning and the end. Without view, people form their own wrong conclusions about their meditative experiences. We are both suffering. It's clear from your posts that you still suffer from emotions like pride and anger. No use in hiding it, and there's nothing wrong with it either since you're not enlightened. But why pretend to be free from suffering when you're not? I'm guessing you have such ability if you make such a statement. Please create a world where I agree with you about the Void. Or at the very least help me pee for I am much too lazy to get up at the moment.

No Buddhist practitioner achieves liberation through samadhi because samadhi is not a culminating method in Buddhism. Concentration is only a stepping ladder until insight or analytical meditation is used. Samadhi only leads one to the jhanas, and there is no liberation to be found through that method. The Buddha was a master of samadhi before he achieved enlightenment. Ultimately he rejected his teachers because he realized there is no liberation through samadhi. This isn't a Buddhist view, though you can hold it if you wish. Form and formless (Void) are both empty of substance and arise dependently on causes and conditions. There is no sourceless source or base for reality. Reality is actually groundless. The issue is that you are clinging to an experience of formless meditation and then assuming it's the source of everything. Why don't you try that and find out of it's actually true? If it were true, then there would be no need for individual salvation because the countless Buddhas who achieved liberation before us could simply enlighten us. But since we are definitely suffering, the only logical conclusion is that one cannot influence the world as much as you think even as a Buddha.

Um, not Buddhist teachers I hope? As already mentioned, the goal of Buddhism is not samadhi. The formless jhana of infinite consciousness was found by the Buddha 2,500 years ago to not be the cure for suffering, because even in that state of samadhi there is suffering and no wisdom or compassion. The Buddha's enlightenment then happened when he realized that no state of mind, whether gross, subtle, or formless, leads to liberation. Liberation cannot be achieved just through letting go. If you don't integrate, you create a false duality between "pure consciousness" and the world of form and other beings. The Void is not anymore special than the World.

John, There are in fact some Vajrayana centers in Greece that you can check out. Why not do that first? It's great to meet a teacher in person and form a relationship. If you don't want to, then you can purchase books by Namkhai Norbu from the Shang Shang bookstore and learn Dzogchen that way. They have a book on Rushens there. You need to be a member, and I think their low income membership is $70 a year last time I checked, so it's pretty affordable.

Hi John, Are there any Vajrayana teachers living near you? I think you'll find all of Tibetan Buddhism to be quite profound, not just the Dzogchen lineage. If you want to practice through Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, the Shang Shung book store has all the books that you need to practice. Is there a Dzogchen Community center near you? If you want a live connection with a teacher, Namkhai Norbu might not be the best choice since as you say he has many students, but I hear he is available for email and his transmissions through webcast are powerful.

I just found this site/book today by good fortune. It's very good, so I just want to share it with you. http://www.chagchen.com/index.htm It's Mahamudra meditation, which is a gradual teaching of concentration/insight practices to realize the true nature of mind. The Resting Mind series will particularly be very helpful for you as you right now, and I wouldn't attempt the later insight practices until you can rest in tranquility for long periods of time. Also, once you can rest in tranquility, all you have to do is relax your focus and let thoughts arise. Then it's easy to rest without getting lost in thoughts. Without a basis in tranquility, it's very easy to get lost in thoughts.

If you write a song and I record you playing it, is that theft? I'm not making any money from the recording. Just enjoying it. I don't see it as theft. Theft would be if I stole a CD, but nothing was stolen. Only a copy was made.

Thanks for chiming in.