gatito

So what - Malcolm completely destroyed Dharma Wheel and then apologised for all the suffering that he caused in his exalted position. He's worthless as authority compared to the Kunjed Gyalpo, so I'll stick with that because the Truth is very simple: - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." THE SUPREME SOURCE The Kunjed Gyalpo The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde (Nice and simple - now everyone should be able to understand that )

Let's try this again, firstly, Malcolm is clueless, secondly (or rather, firstly : ) : - "Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you! From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it." THE SUPREME SOURCE The Kunjed Gyalpo The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

The link leads to this: - And my response to that nonsense : - THE SUPREME SOURCE The Kunjed Gyalpo The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Ah - I see - my bad - however, having reread , I still disagree (as you seem to be trying to merge diffent established systems into your own fundamentally dualistic model). My gratuitous advice to anyone else (i.e. not to you Jeff ) is to pick either Emptiness or Direct Path Advaita (and don't even attempt to mix them with each other, let alone with Christianity ). Sorry, no deal about the reading list Jeff - it's entirely up to you whether you read Greg's stuff - or not.

You can argue that with Greg: I'm not a fan of the Emptiness approach myself - I find it somewhat indirect

You'd probably find him very useful No way am I stepping foot in Christian mysticism land - anyway, it died out completely with the Cathars Your last sentence, I'll disagree with because it's incorrect (e.g. Brahman doesn't equal Ishwara - you'll find the details of why that's the case in the Preface to Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvriti - and Emptiness doesn't equal Brahman etc.).

Emptiness Teachings by Greg Goode: - http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Interestingly, and to be fair, Greg Goode makes the point that Emptiness does not equal Consciousness (God). (However, Consciousness/Awareness = Atman = Brahman = God )

Then we will have to agree to differ Jeff Form is not the definition of Consciousness. Consciousness is that which the apparent subject of the objects (forms). I'll repeat that it's "that which is reading these words (and knows that it's reading these words)" Consciousness changes not, altough there's a deep-seated and usually completely intransigent belief that Consciousness comes and goes and/or that it is a product of an imaginary bodymind. Form appears to change constantly and that lies at the heart of the Buddha's teachings about dukkha. The simple duality is Consciousness and Objects - that's a useful starting point for a fruitful inquiry. If you start overlaying that with even more beliefs, you will continue to go round and round in circles. From what you say, Emptiness (for you) is an experience and therefore it's an object rather than actual Emptiness. Furthermore, there's no desire or potential (or aversion) in Emptiness - it's Empty

Au contraire. I've pointed out several times that there's no separate individual self (atman). Nowhere, have I disparaged the actual teachings of the Buddha, which have served as a great inspiration to me - and which I cannot fault. In fact, once when I got into a discussion with a Buddhist (in the real world), I was told that what I was saying about Life, the Universe and Everything was pure Buddhism, so perhaps I'm actually a defender of Buddhadharma?

I might call that a thought (a belief) , a feeling or a sensation. No more than that and of no more significance than any other apparently experienced object. So why are they useful in the context of anatta/anatman? Can you define Emptiness in your own words and from your own direct experience of Emptiness? No it's not a game, it's a tool - a thorn used to remove false beliefs (a.k.a. ignorance). That's a fundamental misunderstanding. Form = Consciousness always Everything is always Empty (Void) Do you see that you have three things to which you refer? Consciousness, Form and Void (Emptiness) Emptiness is simply a descriptor of Consciousnes/Form.

Highly relevant to the OP (Translation by Francis Lucille - who was one of Greg Goode's teachers) http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/Francis_Lucille_Translations //www.stillnessspeaks.com/Francis_Lucille_Translations

What case Simple_Jack?

See my point that if something is subconscious - it dioesn't exist - obviously! You assert the existence of subconscious and therefore of conscious - so that's an (obvious) duality Self-inqiiry is no game - it's deadly serious because it destroys all false beliefs, including the existence of the (fictional) separate self and it therfore it therefore equates to death. Form = Consciousness and Consciousness = Form would be a better translation.

<snip> Reported

Thanks again dawei My understanding of the thread is that it is an attempt to promote a dogma of anatta/anatman, which appears not to be understood (Self-realised) by the OP. The subject of the OP is evidenced by the tagging of this post with anatta and anatman. I'm not clear what you yourself understand by stating that you see a contradiction in me saying that there's no such thing as a non-dual state but I'll attempt to address the implied misunderstanding: - A state has a beginning and an end (and it is also an object) therefore, it could not be nondual. However that does not invalidate nonduality, therefore, there is no double-standard (and double standard was obviously both an ad hominem and an implied insult). Furthermore, in addressing misunderstandings about nonduality in words, provisional credence has to be given to common misunderstandings (e.g. that there is a separate self -atman). Later, more advanced teachings then demolish the earlier provisional teachings. This is known as "sublation" in Western philosophy and is refered to in the Eastern traditions as "using a thorn to remove a thorn". There's no "double standard" in that. Also, as I've outlined above in response to Jeff, the non-existence of a separate self does not invalidate the existence of a nondual Self.

Hello Jeff That's not true - that which is reading these words exists. If it did not exist, it would be unable to deny its own existence. Just stick with that for a while until it makes sense. If you're unable to see that clearly, you'll remain firmly stuck in your dualistic belief system and you'll make no progress whatsoever with demolishing all those false beliefs (e.g subconscious obstructions). Some food for further thought - and this is also very basic self-inquiry like the exercise that I've given above - ask yourself the question that if something is not yet perceived, where is the evidence that it actually exists? If you don't percieve something then its proposed existence is only a belief (i.e. a single thought).

And the point is that Simple_Jack posts copy and paste dogma, which he cannot explain in his own words because it appears that he does not understand these quotes himself and instead of dealing with the specific issues, he resorts to ad hominems and badgering when those specific issues (copy and paste dogma and ad hominems) are challenged.

Consciousness can be defined as "that which is reading these words" It is self evident that something is reading these words and that this something knows that it's reading these words. Awareness is synonymous with Consciousness (although it is sometimes used to differentiate in the case that separate objects are believed to be present). Emptiness is merely a description of Consciousness and incidentally, Consciousness is specifically referenced in the Kunjed Gyalpo. Regarding "mind": that's merely a thought - there's no evidence of "mind". What is mind if it is not the current thought? All this can be self-validated - if not it is merely a misunderstood belief system. Moving on to anatta: - Atman is defined as individial Consciousness, however, there is no evidence for an individual Consciousness, as the Buddha evidently realised and hence the teaching about an-atman (anatta), which is now the basis of the fundamental misunderstanding by those "Buddhist's" who propagate an intellectual (i.e. dualistic - and therefore false) version of the Buddha's teachings. ^^^ That's a good starting point for anyone who is seriously interested in understanding first-hand what the Buddha taught and who is interested in Liberation.

and he is unable to detail specific points as instructed by the moderator and he continued to post ad hominems - thus ending a discussion about the specific issues (for the time being).

Reported again - for ad hominems ("double-standards" and "bias")

Thanks again And I'd be happy to deal with any specific issues in the Debunking a Creator thread if it is unlocked.

Reported for fourth ad hominem

Reported - for third ad hominem

Thank you