Simple_Jack

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

More from "Buddhist Hinduism." Here is an individual who was trying to propose the same thing about Dharmakaya as a "ground of being" http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056&start=60: platypus wrote: I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being... Namdrol: Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being. platypus: What about a dependently originated ground of being? Namdrol: That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate? Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground? Platypus: that's what advaita says too, that jiva are ultimately one with brahman and simply maya. Namdrol: There is no jiva, from a Buddhist POV. Nor is there Brahmin. Platypus: So all dharmas do not arise from dharmakaya? Namdrol: No, they do not. booker wrote: How about Kunzhi as understood in Dzoghen? It is said to be the ground of being - all being sentient and insentient, and is not dependently originated. Isn't it? Namdrol: The term "ground of being" does not exist in any Buddhist text, nor any Dzogchen text. It is a western gloss, one that is inaccurate. There is a term "kun gzhi" this is understood differently in different Dzogchen cycles and by different Dzogchen masters. So there isn't a one size fits all definition. In those texts that speak of the so called kun gzhi -- the kun gzhi is complete free from all extremes. Whatever arises from it therefore, also must be free from all extremes. "Being and non-being" are just cognitive errors. From another thread talking a bit about the kayas http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=6258: ronnewmexico: in a conventional sense........... looking at awakening as a uncovering process not a becoming other or added onto process. One is always this way just not knowing of it...when knowing produces nurmanakaya. Nirmanakaya however being always pesent in things of the real, in some manner shape or form. A process, a procedure of action. Circumsantially produces the presentation but always present as process in the way of things. Dechen Norbu: Be careful not to think as Dharmakaya, Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya as separate. It's not as if one day the Darmakaya decided to send us a Nirmanakaya, like "God sent his son Jesus to teach us". Do you get what I'm saying? I think Ron is hinting that in his usual style (quite hard for me to understand ). This is from this link My link: Buddha told Subhūti, "Not only is the Tathāgata’s bodily form a false form produced by the aggregation of causes and conditions, which does not have real substance, so is any kind of thing in the universe, in this world as well as beyond this world. All living and non-living things, shapes and colours are merely formed by aggregations of causes and conditions. They are impermanent and will change as causes and conditions disperse. They are as illusory as the flower in the mirror or the moon in the water! "If looking at appearances of objects, sentient beings are able to lucidly awaken to its aggregation of causes and conditions, and understand impermanence, their arising and ceasing; and if at that very instant, distinguishing does not arise, then without discrimination, they can enter into deep stillness. In stillness, pure wisdom reveals itself. With supreme wisdom, they realise that all worldly form is created by causes and conditions. Its nature is empty; it is not reality. In this way, they will directly perceive the Tathāgata’s Dharma-kāya."

More posts from dharmawheel...This is from this thread titled "Buddhist Hinduism?" http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056: From the OP: "I'd like to ask for some thoughts regarding the idea of Buddha-nature in some Buddhist schools, and whether there is any meaningful difference Buddha-nature and Hinduism's atman." Astus: "The difference in brief. Those who believe there is an actor behind action think there is a self/soul. Those who realise that the mind is empty, without a self, understand that it is buddha-nature." Namdrol: "Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya." Coldmountain: "What, then, is Buddha-nature? Is it an unconditioned substance? Does it exist independently of change and plurality?" Namdrol: "Nope, not an unconditioned _substance_." coldmountain wrote: To what does the term refer to, then? I'm not clear how a belief in an unconditioned, immutable anything fits with the teaching of conditioned-arising. Namdrols response: That depends on who you ask. In Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Sakya school, tathāgatagarbha is the union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. According to the Gelugpa school, it is the potential for sentient beings to awaken since they lack inherent existence; according to the Jonang school, it refers to the innate qualities of the mind which expresses itself in terms of omniscience, etc, when adventitious obscurations are removed. In Nyingma, tathāgatagarbha also generally refers to union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. There is only one Indian commentary on this issue -- the Uttaratantra and its commentary by Asanga. In Chinese Buddhism it is interpreted more literally, in texts such as Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, and in some currents of Sino-Japanese Buddhism it is indistinguishable from Advaita. The Chinese had no experience with Hindus, really, and did not guard as well as the Tibetans against eternalism creeping into their Buddhism. Astus: The saying that "it gives rise to phenomena" means that everything is conceived by the mind and the mind is empty. It is the same as dependent origination where ignorance gives rise to formations, etc. When ignorance is eliminated, the nature of mind is realised, ignorance is transformed into wisdom - it is explained in detail in Yogacara with 4 wisdoms, in Vajrayana with 5 wisdoms. In Zen it is summed up as if you're aware you are a buddha, if deluded you are a common being. This is not the case that there is an absolute substance behind everything but it's like as it's explained in the early texts as the difference between skandhas with and without attachment. Series of posts where Huseng refutes the notions of eternalism in "The Awakening of Faith...Jikan wrote: I think the kinds of trends Namdrol is referring to as eternalism in Sino-Japanese Buddhism can be seen in the Tendai doctrine of hongaku shiso, where Tathagathagarbha is understood not as a potential for awakening as in the Indic tradition, but as always-already Buddha (hongaku shiso is translated as "inherent enlightenment"). http://www.jstor.org/pss/30233979 (it's a dated article but it explains the hongaku concept well) This concept turns up especially in the rhetorical flourishes of Kamakura Buddhism (eg Nichiren and Dogen). Said concept of fundamental enlightenment (Jpn. hongaku; Chn. benjue 本覺) appears first the treatise Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith 大乘起信論. It is not strictly a Tendai concept and is actually common to Huayan and some lines of thought in Chan / Zen. Namdrol: "therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness." As translated, very similar to Advaita. "But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness." As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism. Huseng: I'm looking at the Chinese and that last sentence has an additional part. 《大乘起信論》卷1：「唯是一心故名真如，以一切言說假名無實，但隨妄念不可得故。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a12-14) "They are only just one mind ergo the name suchness because all language and provisional appellations have no reality only accompanying delusional thoughts which are unattainable." The "they" at the beginning is referring to "all dharmas" (一切法). "Transcend" is also not a good translation for li 離 which just means "apart from". This is really just a Cittamatra position. Such remarks are made in the context of epistemology and not ontology. Mind here is equated to suchness. Is that really eternalist? "But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness." As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism. 《大乘起信論》卷1：「此真如體無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故；亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故。當知一切法不可說、不可念故，名為真如。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a14-18) [3]極＝相【金】。 Unfortunately you are relying on a bad translation. This line ... for all things in their Absolute aspect are real ...is an interpretation rather than a translation. If you look at the Chinese and literally translate it word for word it sounds like this: 以一切法悉皆真故 [instrumental particle] all dharmas entirely all true/real thus I don't see where the translator got "Absolute aspect" from. This section of the text is talking about how conventional phenomena and the principle behind them complement each other. Namdrol: As I said, "as translated" -- "all dharmas entirely all true/real thus" This is definitely off. Not Buddhist. Huseng: "all dharmas entirely all true/real thus" That last character reading as "true/real" (zhen 真) might be an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 which is suchness. Given that the sentence pattern here is made up of four-character segments this is probably the case. In Literary Chinese they have a habit of maintaining four-character segments and will abbreviate binomials to make them fit into the sequence. It leads to a lot of confusion as one might imagine. So it would probably be best read as: "all dharmas entirely all suchness thus" Looking at the Chinese a bit closer I'm sure that the zhen 真 here is an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 because in the following sentence you get the other half of the binomial appearing (ru 如). This section of the text is saying that all dharmas are suchness, therefore they need not be rejected or affirmed (pointed to). They conventionally exist and their conventional existence need not be rejected or affirmed when the principle is understood. Do you see anything wrong with saying that all dharmas are entirely suchness? Namdrol: It may be the case that a certain eternalism creeps in at the hands of translators like Suzuki, nevertheless many people read these translations without knowing original language and take them at face value. Bad translations die hard too. Xabir: "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists? Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”. The Bhagavan replied: “Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha. Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?" ~ Lankavatara Sutra .............. (33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views. First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent." ...... Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence. ~ Shurangama Sutra Namdrol wrote: Many people these days in Zen understand terms like "One Mind" exactly in the same sense as Advaita. Which is why we see cross-over teachers like Adyashanti and so on. How is this different than what you said about all Buddhas sharing the same one mind? Also, since according to Mādhyamaka philosophy, there is actually NO difference between a Buddha and a sentient being, wouldn't EVERYONE share the same one mind? Namdrol: As for your first question: all Buddhas share the same realization. In this sense they "share" the same mind. The wisdom of a Buddha is free from being one or many. Since the dharmakāya is free from all extremes, it does not make sense to assert that Buddhas have differentiated mind streams. Their omniscience is identical because, to put it into relative terms, their minds and the object of their realization, emptiness free from extremes, have merged since Buddhas are in a constant state of equipoise on reality. In terms of Madhyamaka, Buddhas and sentient beings are the same in so far as neither are ultimately established. Conventionally speaking, however, sentient beings have not abandoned everything to be abandoned and realized everything to be realized, but Buddhas have. That constitutes the difference between buddhas and sentient beings.

From this thread on dharmawheel http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5344 -- A post from Namdrol who is a Loppon with realization of emptiness "This is a species of Buddhist doceticism. Dharmakāya, in brief, has several different versions. The basis version is that Dharmakāya is the complete realization of emptiness and the omniscience that springs from that realization. Sambhogakāya is, in this basic version, rarified form body which exists outside samsara and is responsible primarily for communicating dharma to advanced bodhisattvas. Nirmanakāya manifest to ordinary beings. These terms get used differently in Vajrayāna systems where the three kāyas are understood as different aspects of the nature of the mind, clarity, emptiness and the inseparability of the two. N From this thread from dharmawheel http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3985&start=20...Coincendentally someone on that forum tried to equate concepts such as dharmakaya as equivalent to "God" as creator...There was also a mention of Shin Buddhism by someone in that thread and they were basically saying the same thing as what you are trying to posit: " Keshin wrote: I don't find the view of God and Buddhism, or even True Self ("soul") to be against Buddhism. It may be worth reading the Kunjed Gyalpo (aka Kulayarāja Tantra). That's like, a goldmine. Here's two excerpts: " ... everything is Me, the All-Creating Sovereign, mind of perfect purity ... I am the cause of all things. I am the stem of all things. I am the ground of all things. I am the root of all things ... There is no other Buddha besides Me, the All-Creating One." "I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything." This is not a sort of Buddhist theism. Bodhicitta aka Kun byed rgyal po gives rise to everything when it is not recognized for what it actually is i.e. the nature of one's mind. Very similar statements are found in Mahāmudra literature." Astus wrote: "I had actually read your post about it before I posted that quote. The Buddhist point is that there can't be any ultimate being/substratum. It is a common mistake to take alayavijnana/tathagatagarbha/dharmadhatu as something behind/beyond the world as the origin of everything. Also, if "God" (with a capital) is not a creator and/or a ruler the word itself has practically no meaning." "Let's clarify here then. The five skandhas are all there is and you can't have a self/soul/X beyond them. The difference between samsara and nirvana in Buddhism relies on whether one is attached to the skandhas or not. Thus any entity, thing or being outside (or inside, for that matter) the skandhas is practically impossible. Thus there is no self/soul in Buddhism, neither an absolute God." Kenshin wrote: It may also help people to know I can't not see what I use the "God" for. I take a closer affiliation with the Jonang and Pure Landers than I do other groups, especially ones who focus on absolute non-self-ness. Namdrols response: Jonangpas are not theists.Their argument is quite different. They are arguing that qualities of buddhas are naturally present in sentient beings, albeit covered up. That emptiness is not just a blank void, but is endowed with qualities. A series of posts by Kenshin and Namdrol's reply to them: Keshin wrote:

.

From this website, My link: In a spirit of ecumenism or harmony, many people like to believe that the Dharmakaya is the same or equivalent to God. "However, the Dharmakaya is not to be understood as a Divine Being, or an Absolutely Existent Permanent Entity. The problem we are facing, as students in the Kagyu lineage, it seems, is the seeming contradiction between the teachings of the second and third turnings of the Dharmachakra. Briefly put, the second turning emphasizes the emptiness of self and phenomena, the absolute nonexistence of any permanent, unchanging essence. This is the Madhayamaka view. Yet, the third turning, as exemplified by the Uttaratantra Shastra, espouses a permanent, unchanging Buddha Nature, inherent in all sentient beings, which is both the cause for their eventual enlightenment, and the fruit of said enlightenment. It must be understood that these teachings, though apparently contradictory, are actually not. The Dharmakaya, or Truth Body of the Buddha, is empty. It is beyond conceptual elaboration, and cannot be posited as a Thing, a Being, or anything else. It is really beyond existence and non-existence. Yet it is posited as "having qualities," and of being of the nature of "clear light." It must be understood that these two points of view are not mutually exclusive." Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso (Buddha Nature. Snow Lion Pub., 2000) states, "The terms "dharmadhatu," "suchness," and "absolute truth" are synonymous in that both "dharmadhatu" and "suchness" denote emptiness and the absolute truth is the way everything exists, which is also emptiness. In the context dealt with here, which is to say in the (Shentong) view, this emptiness is to be understood mainly in the sense of ultimate emptiness or the ultimate expanse. This is the nature of mind or the way the mind truly exists, being the inseparable union of spaciousness and awareness or of emptiness and clear light. According to the Madhyamaka, however, that nature of mind is to be understood solely from the point of view that all phenomena do not truly exist. In this view it is nothing but empty in the sense of not being accessible to any conceptualization. It is very important to gain a proper understanding of these two different views. What is mainly taught in the system to which the Uttaratantra Shastra belongs is the aspect of awareness (Tib. rig pa) or clear light (Tib. od gsal), whereas in the system of the Madhyamaka the aspect of emptiness in the sense of freedom from conceptual elaboration is exclusively taught. If one understands well what is meant by the inseparable union of emptiness and clear light, one comes very close to the path of the Vajrayana (305.)" So, although the views can be called different, it appears that a union, or synthesis, of aspects of these views is to be desired. Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche also comments on the difference between the Hindu notion of eternal atman and the Mahayana idea of Buddha Nature: "There is a great difference between "true self" as taught in the Hindu traditions and as taught in the Mahayana system. In the first sense the term "true self" denotes a self that is eternal, unique, and independent. "True self" as taught in the Uttaratantra Shastra is equivalent to the state of peace in terms of complete freedom from any conceptual elaboration ... . The Mahayana system does not hold to the view of an eternal, unique, and independent self (343-4)." If another tradition explains the Absolute in terms similar to Rinpoche's explanation of mind, which is after all the Dharmakaya in its absolute nature, then I join hands and prostrate to such a tradition. ... meanwhile, I rejoice in those who practice any path which leads away from suffering and towards peace and compassion, to whatever extent."

Whoops, Buddha actually taught for 49 years not 40 years (I'm a hypocrite VMarco! ) Don't know what you're getting at about the Zen comment, but whatever. Haven't read any of Suzuki's material, but that quote was appropriate to what I was talking about. Anyways, what I mean is that the discriminatory thoughts themselves are not the root problem. People get lost by focusing on the "branches" so to speak, instead of getting at the "root" of the problem. What I used to do and what TzuJanLi advocates is the karmic seeds of inherent and dualistic views creating yet another duality of subject/object. There isn't the experiential understanding of what Milarepa said: "Thoughts are great awareness." Without the insights into the nature of experience: Saying to "let go," of any conceptual ideas, notions, beliefs, whatever, to experience "pure awareness" and to "Just Let Be" is in itself ignorance stemming from inherent and dualistic views. In fact any form of "letting go" without the insight into the non-dual, emptiness aspect of experience, is just the karmic seeds of inherent and dualistic views manifesting itself yet again. This is nothing more than a contrived "contraction" or "holding" disguised as "letting go." To state that in order to experience reality in a non-dualistic fashion by abiding in some sort of mental state or mental realm (such as the example I illustrated above) would be "going out of Zen" so to speak. This is still modifying experience in order to arrive at non-dual Presence. There is still an inherent "agent" a "doer" which creates the duality of a subject and object of experience. This is still not the natural and effortless way, which is the "self-liberation" of a subject/object dichotomy in each passing moment...which is spontaneous response to whatever conditions arise. Of course, first we have to "arrive" at the point where any sort of conceptual framework, any views of inherency in persons and phenomena, any sort of "ground" for experience is continually destroyed from moment to moment. Without this, spontaneity...The fearless and uncontrived experiencing of whatever arises i.e spontaneous perfection of experience in each moment; won't be natural and effortless due to an inherent framework (which operates even on a non-conceptual level) which divides experience into a subject/object dichotomy. An "agent" or "doer" which links each experience will keep manifesting itself. Whatever is experienced won't "self-release" effortlessly of their own accord. Due to a inherent and dualistic framework for experience, people miss the fact that this has always been so...That whatever arises according to causes and conditions is "naturally-so." That experience in each moment, is in itself naturally self-perfected. A good example of this is the Cloth Bag Monk of historical Ch'an. He expounded Ch'an by using a cloth bag he carried around with him, that when asked what is the Buddhadharma: He would drop the bag. If they understood he would laugh with joy. If they didn't, he would just pick the bag up and leave. No matter whether the cloth bag is dropped or picked up: Either way, it has always just been this.

There are inconsistencies here and there. Too much to comment on. Though your posts are a little better now, compared to when you first started posting here.

The "conceptual mind-chatter" isn't the problem. Using language to formulate something; using the formulated language, to point something out to others isn't the problem either. Though Lao Tzu talks of "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao," he composed a work to point out to others this "eternal Tao." So language, conjuring up words to explain something to others has its relative use. Using myself as an example: For me personally, it doesn't matter whether I discriminate things or not discriminate things. Whether I think/say "It is like this," "It is like that;" whether I discriminate things by saying "This is good," "This is bad" or "This is higher," "This is lower." Doesn't matter to me either way: For me, it is all utterly and totally ungrounded in reality; all being totally unestablished and equalized. The question is: How does this differ for someone who is only able to view their sensate experience, mired in a inherent and dualistic fashion 24/7? Who is only able to view or experience things (even on a non-conceptual level) in a subject/object dichotomy, whether in daily activities, sleeping and in their dreams? Relatively speaking: There is a difference between an "ordinary person" and a "sage." We can say things like that there is: No realizer, no act of realizing; No knower, no act of knowing; no meditator, no act of meditation; no agent to purify, no agent that is to be purified; but has this point really been actualized on in the mind-stream of the individual? This is the difference. We are so used to experiencing things from an inherent sense of an "agent" and a "doer." An apprehender and apprehended framework. These karmic seeds that blind, operate very deeply in our consciousness. These are the karmic seeds that cause us to absolutely identify things in a dualistic framework. This why after Buddha had taught for 40 years, he said he didn't teach a thing to anyone. Why in the Zen school ( thanks for the quote Balance!) it is understood as this: "There is no starting point, no goal, nothing to attain. Just to run the path is our way." -- Shunryu Suzuki EDIT: Changed/added stuff to sentence.

This is Nothing personal against you, but I sincerely hope that no one takes your posts too seriously (Not that I think anyone cares about what I post though ); especially when discussing Buddhism. I've only read some of your posts here and there, but it shows that you generally don't know what you are talking about. I have seen a lot of misleading information in your posts, especially when discussing Buddhism. A lot of it is a misrepresentation of what it actually teaches. Please, if your gonna spout the "Buddhist" shit, at least study the material and present it accurately; instead of just spouting nonsense and misleading people on what it teaches. If your gonna talk about what non-duality is: Get some experience of what that actually is like, before spouting all this shit. Have a great day!

"The act of talking about non-duality is what defeats the concept.. it establishes the certainty of duality, but.. chase after gurus and mystics, theories and beliefs, but Life is right here right now and it is nowhere else.." Yeah, I remember I was like that at one point also....Just "letting things Be." That was after the "I AM" experience and when I tried to go back to that feeling by stopping my thoughts to be "In the right here, right now." I have found that this is still the karmic seeds of inherent and dualistic views manifesting itself, even on the non-conceptual level. Through my experience: We are immersed in inherent and dualistic views 24/7...in a subject/object dichotomy whether awake, sleeping and when dreaming. It takes a lot more, a lot of built up wisdom and merit (a lot of cultivation, a lot of "giving up" in order to "see through" the karmic seeds that manifest as inherent and dualistic views that blind, through the power of insight) than to just "Simply Let Be," in order to really experience "non-duality" in one's life. Even when in a non-conceptual state. It takes "giving up" through insight, in order to truly experience "non-duality" in one's life.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read the linked article and his bio...IMHO, seems a lil "pop-ish." On his site it says he was influenced by Advaita, Sufism, and Zen; but he doesn't really make a distinction, when discussing non-dual awareness. I don't mean any disrespect towards any one tradition since they're all appropriate for one time or another, but I feel he doesn't delve into certain aspects...Like for example, he describes the non-duality of internal/external phenomena, but it seems that he has inadvertently attached to a "here and now." In my experience this is no different from a grasping to "self" notions. This is still the "seed's of inherent view" manifesting itself in each moment; there is still a subject/object duality of a doer being established in each moment. He also uses the analogy of the ocean and the waves for the the experiences of consciousness (which is a common analogy in Buddhism,) but following the example above: Even then, he fails to make a distinction of non-dual presence from the perspective of substantial non-dualism. From my experience: Inherent view's operate on a subtle level, where you can fail to recognize it at first. It takes refinement in order to understand how you were continually getting caught up in solidifying an "I" and an "I Am," when experiencing thoughts, touch, sound, feelings, etc. So there's a move toward experiencing everything as unsupported, ungraspable, disjoint and spontaneous. There's a shift from seeing "awareness" as some unchanging essence or the background for manifestations; to "seeing" that the manifestations are (or is) awareness. There is bliss, when experiencing everything without a "support," without a "center," without "basis" or as unsupported. There's a sense of freedom when experiencing the essenceless and coreless free-flowing "wave" of phenomena in all it's vividness...As not established in the past, future (and especially,)present or as "here" or "there" (awareness itself isn't even established.)[/i] Everything is experienced as a "self-releasing" display; arising and ceasing according to the interdependence of causes and conditions. Hui-neng's poem deals with what I described above : Fundamentally Perfect Wisdom has no tree. Nor has the bright mirror any stand. Buddha-nature is forever clear and pure. Where is there any dust? The above is describing the two-fold selflessness, but is not complete (Since he composed this before the robe and bowl was transmitted to him by the 5th patriarch.) Though experientially understanding the above is crucial for moving towards the natural, spontaneous and effortless Way that Taoism is known for.

.