Search the Community

1. And 2.: actually what I meant was that the realization does not leave traces, there is no "object of realization" being clung to. As an example: I realize there is no self, in seeing just the seen no seer, but I do not assert "non-existence" (which is an extreme) as a truth since non-existence is asserted based on a predicate of existence. Therefore, the "no self" here is simply a non-asserting rejection of the view of the existent self, while not asserting new claims such as "non-existence", and in effect there is in seeing only the shapes, colours and forms vividly experienced, no self but also "no no self". Therefore I cannot possibly cling to a "no self", there is just the traceless realization authenticating itself moment by moment in all diverse manifestation - seeing forms, hearing sounds, chop wood, carry water, everything expresses Buddha-nature, primordial purity, enlightenment. This is what Dogen calls practice-enlightenment: you don't practice For enlightenment, your very practice itself expresses enlightenment: in sitting just sitting (zazen) which is the universe sitting - air con humming, cool breeze blowing, in walking just walking, there is nothing the great way does not pervade. No longer do I sit meditation in search for something, as every moment is simply the expression of perfect buddha-nature. There isn't even a "being conscious of" or a need to remind of "no self" - no self, no no self, only the direct, intimate, self-luminous and non-dual sensate world expressing moment by moment as an interdependent and empty process, complete in a single manifestation. And if every moment and manifestation is simply so, what need is there to cling to special state, a previous moment of vision, or a thought like "no self", or anything at all? As what Joan Tollifson once asked Toni Packer if she'd ever had one of those big awakenings where life turns inside out and all identification with the body-mind ceases. Toni replied, "I can't say I had it," she replied. "It's this moment, right now." Dogen also says: "To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." However to answer your question about whether realization is permanent: the answer is yes, just like waking up from a deluded dream you can no longer believe in the monster, or when you realize there never was a real santa claus that you can no longer believe in santa claus, likewise when you realize no self that realization cannot be unseen and the false view is from that point on relinquished. As Dogen says: "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." To your last question: there is no "diamond sutra bodhisattva" as distinct from other kinds of bodhisattvas. The definition of a bodhisattva on the bhumis are generally accepted throughout Mahayana Buddhism. As the glossary states, a 1st bhumi bodhisattva is one who has directly realized the twofold emptiness.

The benefits are to be seen provided the mantras are incanted in the right way...right tone, inflection and meter. I can give example of one mantra that was given to me in a dream. I used it to vaporize some "inner demons"... Of course you know that I say this in the symbolic way. Moreover, it helps me relax when i dont have time to meditate and connects me with the unknown teacher who came to me in a dream and gave me the mantra. I got it when my life was in doldrums and it helped me stay sane and practically saved my life.

Not exactly. There is ultimately no samsara and no nirvana, it is only spoken of conventionally. Samsara and nirvana is also empty of true existence. When suffering (samsara) is conventionally spoken, nirvana (the end of suffering) is conventionally spoken. But if there is ultimately no suffering (suffering being dream-like, illusory, dependently arisen appearance without substance), then there is also no real cessation (nirvana) of suffering. Therefore samsara and nirvana is also relative truths. Relatively speaking. Since suffering dependently originates from the twelve chains of causation starting with ignorance, the arising of deep wisdom will cut off the chains of ignorance, I and mine making, karma making, clinging and attachment. Since there is no more conditions (e.g. Ignorance) for suffering and afflictions, they stop arising. Since rebirth depends on karma, which depends on ignorance, one who has ended ignorance also no longer makes the conditions for further births in samsara. Samsara is just a label for the human condition under the chain of suffering and ignorance. If you break ignorance, that can no longer be called "samsara". "Samsara" is not a place or even a thing, it is simple the state or condition of someone who is deluded and suffering, and that designation no longer applies for one who is awakened and liberated.

Haha, Xabir "thinks" he's a badass. I can assure you that you are hardly a blip on the radar, your insight may seem profound to you but it is nothing. If you would like to disagree then test your mettle as you dream.

hehe the jokes are funny but i think its a pretty cool exercise chidragon. I kinda let my mind go and contemplated what it would be like to make sense of reality without the obstruction of other people's explanations. That alone was a really nice exercise, for which i thank you. I wondered first about the origin of reality, if such a thing can even be said to exist. My buddhist beginningless beginninglessness tells me it can't, but i wondered about beginnings.. if reality came before consciousness, or consciousness came before reality. I decided it was a chicken egg mystery and that i wouldn't know the answer by logical deduction. One could just as well proclaim that they arose simultaneously, a yinyang pair, and maybe some people would believe that. Some people will believe anything as long as it makes sense to their logical minds and someone authoritative says it in their religious voice! hahahah But just waking up on earth one day with amnesia, not remembering anything about anything, i pondered that. I realized that that is (without the actual amnesia) a wonderful zen state in which everything is fresh and new and full of infinite potential, not the infinite potential of entropy, but the infinite potential of the empty vessel; the mind that did not try to explain away everything so that it could nominalize phenomena and then, thinking it knew the name of something therefore it knew something about it. Which is basically what language does on a subtle insidious level that pervades our conscious process entirely until we realize that we might be dreaming, or characters in the divine dream, and all this might not even be what we cling to it being so tightly. So in my imagination i woke up in the grass and saw the sun and just thought it was beautiful and warm. Inevitably, i thought about the conversion of elements in a plasmic furnace, or about solar deities, or UV rays. But i realized that i would just say hello and maybe a prayer of thanks to it and move on to finding breakfast if i were truly amnesiac. I think the best thing i took from your exercise chidragon is the realization that the tabula rasa or "blank slate" is supreme.. the beginners mind of the zen master that doesnt grasp or reject, just acts spontaneously in accord with what it perceives. I am a firm believer that there is something going on here that science can't explain, and that the religions don't perceive, and the spiritual traditions perceive that they don't perceive everything, but they don't perceieve, well, what they don't perceive. So in my own soulbending (and ignorant, and arrogant) attempts to perceive the workings of this vast mystery for myself, i have only seen an unknowable dream, a phantasmagorical mirage of empty phenomenon, some of which are stable enough to be perceived as "real" by the untrained mind, and some of which shift mockingly in front of my face as though the spirit of the All would rather not be seen, and the act of perception inspires it to change into something unknown while the observer watches witlessly. In a sea of time so vast that even a big bang is just a flicker in the ocean of reality, and the end of a reality is no more significant than a dreamer waking up to realize it was just a dream, only to find themselves in another dream, ad infinitum... in a sea of time like that, what we are dealing with when we gaze at the I AM is beyond the comprehension of a silly mortal, a would be seer, basically a charlatan who clings to the idea that they can indeed understand the ultimate reality as if it conformed to ideas and logic.. :D so i have arrived at the conclusion time and time again that the best mind is the empty mind, and that we aren't designed to know or supposed to realize the unknowable and that which transcends realization. The most we can hope for in gazing at the I AM is that we be shocked into the awareness that I AM THAT and just let yourself die its for the best. Anyway if you read all that, i wish i could pin a gold star on your nose, for being so obliging. And chidragon, neat thoughts, thanks again for sharing

Again, I insist, I have experienced the same Pure Presence you are talking about, and you are always making your fake strawman about Brahman (and your fabricated strawmans "a myriad of special, bliss-like dimensions, where you could be a god" are just laughably irrelevant) that simply don't represent what Thusness or what Advaita is really talking about. And anyone who reads Thusness Stage 1 with unbiased mind will be able to see that they are the same. It is just the same-same non-conceptual timeless Pure Presence, the pure consciousness-existence-presence that so many are talking about. Even the Eckhart Tolle - author of The Power of Now - equates the Now with "I AM" in his own words. But you just like to play with words, such as "it is not I AM but the non-illusory Self" which are actually just two different words for the same thing. And if you put aside your fabricated strawman version of Brahman and just talk to a Hindu about your experience, I am sure they will see a lot in common, as this great article ( http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx ) states: "If you have understood what I have written above, it is easy to understand why when Ringo Tulku presented the Shentong view in an Indian symposium, all the Hindu Indian scholars happily agreed with it and told him happily, “This is the same view as our Vedanta!.” Also, a few centuries ago, Jonangpa Kunga Drol Chog, a throne holder of the Jonangpa, had visited Muktinàth, where he presented his views to the Hindu yogis present there. These Hindu yogis also called him a genuine Hindu yogi after they heard his Shentong view." ... "If the Ultimate View of Buddhism is Shentong, why did thousands of Brahmins from the time of the Buddha until the 12th – 13thcenturies, become Buddhists and refute the Hindu view as wrong? Many of them were brilliant Hindu / Vedic scholars before they became Buddhists. How could all of these scholars uphold the Shentong view while refuting the view of the Upanishads, if they were saying the same thing? Shenphen Hookham says, “They have their own view and we have our own, so what’s wrong if they are the same?” This implies that the views are the same. Do all the Shentongpas agree to her reply? If they do agree with her then were all the scholars like Candarakãrti, Jñànagarbha, Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla, Ratnakarashànti, Bhavaviveka, Buddhapàlita, Sàntideva, Prajñàkaramati, and thousands of others just fools to refute the Hindu âtmà view of the Upanishads and become Buddhists?" Next... Obviously you have no idea what the realization of an Arhat is. And never have I suggested that the Arhat is one who is of the I AM stage realization, or your realization. Why? The Arhat is one who already realizes anatta, or emptiness of self. In fact even a stream entry has already realized this. This realization corresponds to Thusness Stage 5. Then what about Bodhisattva? A 1st bhumi bodhisattva is defined as one who realizes the twofold emptiness - the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena: the latter corresponds to Thusness Stage 6 realization. The first emptiness: the emptiness of a subjective self, agent (perceiver/controller/doer/thinker), soul, being, within or apart from the five aggregates. One sees that the framework that "a seer is seeing the seen" is delusional, I.e.in seeing always just the experience of the seen, colours, shapes and forms without a seer. One realizes that a subjective self is illusory. Emptiness of phenomena means each of the five aggregates does not have objective existence. There is no formness in form, no substance of thought, etc. So they are appearing but empty, illusory like a magician's trick, like a mirage, a dream. Here is an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary site on the definition of twofold Emptiness: Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the ātman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood. ... One last thing before I move on to the next point - your statement "Over and over the Buddha described Arhats as still holding on to the notion of an ego, a personality, a being and a life." Is wrong. Instead this is what the Buddha said in the Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, what do you think, can an Arhat have the thought, 'Have I attained the Way of the Arhat?'" Subhuti said, "No World Honored One. Why? Actually there is no dharma called 'Arhat.' World Honored One, if an Arhat had the thought, 'I have attained the Way of the Arhat,' that would be an attachment to self, others, living beings and to a life." I don't see how this statement can be misunderstood as it is as clear as daylight - unless you were not reading with two eyes open. It clearly states that an arhat does not have self-view and self-notions, and if he were to have it, he cannot be called a real arhat. All Buddhists will agree that an arhat is free from conceit or the view and sense of a self, since that is by classical definition what an arhat is about - realizing and perfecting the realization and experience of the truth of no-self, all defilements and afflictions stemming from self-view and conceit are destroyed. Also you said "I recall Buddha saying once that as began to discuss the nature of reality the Arhats who were there collapsed from the shock,...and thus unable to hear what was being pointed to. " While it is true some Mahayana sutras may have chosen to present things this way, they are not historical occurences as only the Pali canon of scriptures present the historical account of Buddha and the arhats - the Mahayana sutras are latter days visionary accounts of unknown masters and so are metaphorical and not something that truly occurred in the historical sense, and anyway real arhats cannot even experience the slightest shock or fear much less faint from it, but I disgress as the issue of the origin of Mahayana sutras and Vajrayana tantras has been discussed in details in this thread: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 and http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434746 Next issue I want to address is your notion of four turnings. While not denying the validity of them, they must be understood in context - in other words you should have a firm understanding of each preceding turning before understanding the next, otherwise your understanding will be no different from the non-Buddhist. As Thusness have told me 6 years ago when I only began to know him: the Buddha is not here to teach some minor aspect of our essence, I.e. The luminous clarity/luminosity, as that is already done in the Upanishads and the Vedas. Without clearly understanding and realizing anatta and emptiness, the luminosity will be grasped wrongly and turned into the Ultimate Self. Buddhism does not deny the luminous clarity, but through the realization of the twofold emptiness we relinquish all grasping including the reification of the "Presence" into an Ultimate Self. Luminous clarity is not "empty of other but truly exists as a Self" like the Shentong thought: rather luminous clarity is empty of any truly existent self. It is neither intrinsic emptiness nor extrinsic emptiness - both are extreme views. And we do not reify luminosity and presence-awareness into some ultimate non-phenomenal noumenon, and due to nondual insight we see the one taste in all sense perceptions and thoughts - what the Mahamudra masters keep talking about. Also, I see that you like to quote Mahamudra masters, but you should understand that Mahamudra masters always talk about the emptiness of the nature of mind. No Mahamudra master that I know reify reality the way you do like the extreme shentongpas (some Mahamudra masters teach shentong but it is a very mild version without falling much into great faults of eternalism). And the great Mahasiddhas always sing about the emptiness of mind, such as what 3rd Karmapa said: "Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind. Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever. Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut." And like what the sutras stated: "Thus, there is no mind in the mind, but the nature of the mind is luminous-clarity (prabhāsvarā)." While the nature of mind is empty of self, nonetheless the unceasing stream of luminous display isn't denied. But this is clearly different from some of the Shentong sources you present which interpretes clear light through the eternalist framework. The clear light in the Mahamudra tradition is also taught to be completely empty of self. And anyway the Prasangika Madhyamika view is held as definitive throughout all four traditions in Vajrayana including Kagyu and Mahamudra (not Shentong or at least not your extreme version of it), the view of Prasangika Madhyamika is philosophically the same with Mahamudra and Dzogchen, except that the latter two systems introduces students to the view not through a series of logical inference or analysis but through direct pointing out into the nature of mind. So while the third and fourth turning talks about luminous mind and introduces the student straight to it, it always goes along with emptiness: luminosity and emptiness is inseparable, and is not emptiness as you understand it, it does not mean emptiness of other. Without right understanding of anatta and emptiness, there is no need for Buddhism at all. P.s. I, simple jack, seth ananda, vajrahridaya, are not into arhat path or hinayana, we study mahayana, vajrayana and the direct path of mahamudra and dzogchen in fact. We just happen not to share your perculiar view of Buddhism (skewed towards a certain shentong view) which we think is extreme and eternalistic. We see clearly that your view is no different from the Hindus... And anyway you also grossly misunderstood what an arhat (or a bodhisattva) have realized. I doubt you will understand nor concur much with what I write (as you yourself said you don't understand the seven stages) so I will just leave it at this for now.

Even though everything is empty, like a dream and illusory, nonetheless sentient beings are deceived by appearances and believe in a self and a real world, so even within their dream they suffer. It is like being in a nightmare not knowing that the nightmare is only a dream. Awakening means you realize the dream as illusory. So it becomes like lucid dreaming, you no longer suffer because of the dream and you can even control and do whatever you like in the dream. So even though everything is primordially pure, realizing it is what makes a difference. Waking up is what is important, much like if a beggar has a diamond hidden in his pillow but does not realize it, he will not benefit from it and still be poor. Because sentient beings, though illusory, have mistakenly taken self and phenomena as real, they are suffering. This why it is sensible to have compassion for them. So it is said that emptiness and compassion is inseparable. Aspirants of Mahayana give rise to the thought of bodhicitta and vow to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all suffering sentient beings. Not only do we want to wake ourselves up, we want to wake everyone up. The attainment of Buddhahood is the highest attainment and result of Mahayana/Bodhisattva practice, but it is true that even Buddhahood is illusory and thus not something to be clung to. The only truth here is that of emptiness. As for rebirth, yes I believe in literal rebirth. Apart from Buddha who remember countless past lives, lots of practitioners I personally know have clear vivid memory of their past lives. Furthermore there are research done by scientists like dr ian stevensons which back rebirth, and such research into children's past lives (they are able to prove the child's memories are right) are fascinating and even published in well known scientific and medical journals. Anyway remembering past lives through meditation is not rare.

Well therein lay the problem-- I can be, my ideas if executed are more powerful than me charming powers-- but, im BROKE!! I tried setting on the path to execute them, started a business, but was really screwed over-- really screwed-- still i move-- cant let a bunch of life setbacks keep my dream back-- Seriously, if you'd like to start a correspondence, I'd gladly share- maybe ill make a posting, and hopefully i could be provided enough positive energy-- like i've said in other posts, I agree, just my happiness will do at this point

Means the same as realizing 'there is no weather in or apart from the everchanging rain, wind, clouds, sunlight, etc' Anatta removes the view of source, and the view of an ultimate reality, which is different. If appearance is without core and essence, then it is illusory like a mirage, a dream, and so on. A mirage is apparent but without core or substance, a bubble is apparent without core or substance.

Hi everyone. Don't worry about the "back and forth". I really appreciate the interest everyone has taken in this. I was just busy the last few days with school and job interviews. I'll get back to a steady translation routine as soon as possible. 问：防危？答曰：防火候之差失，忌梦寐之昏迷。翠虚曰：精生有时，时至神知，百刻之中，切忌昏迷。 Question: What is "preventing danger"? Answer: To prevent error in applying the fire (e.g. its degree and duration), one must avoid a dream-like stupor. Mr. Cuixu said, "The essence is generated at a specific time. When the time comes, the spirit knows. Throughout the hundred quarter-hours*, the most important point is to avoid stupor." *zdic says that "hundred quarter-hours" refers to one day and night. 问：交合？答曰：磁石吸铁，隔碍潜通。 Question: What is "copulation"? Answer: A lodestone attracts iron. It communicates secretly through obstacles. *I'm not sure if I translated this correctly. First, I'm not sure if copulation is the right translation for jiaohe. Second, I'm not sure how the two phrases in the answer relate to each other. 问：有无？答曰：金碧经曰：有无互相制，上有青龙居，两无宗一有，灵化妙难窥。 Question: What are being and non-being? Answer: The Golden Jade Sutra says, "Being and non-being control each other. The abode of the green dragon is above. The two non-beings are rooted in the one being. The spirituous transformation is marvelous and hard to glimpse at." 问：刑德？答曰：阳为德，德出则万物生，阴为刑，刑出则万物死。故二月阳中含阴而榆荚落，象金砂随阴气动静落在胎中，故曰归根也。八月阴中含阳而荞麦生象金，水随阳气滋液于鼎内，故卯酉乃刑德相负，阴阳两停，故息符火也。 Question: What are punishment and virtue? Answer: Yang is virtue - When virtue comes out, all things grow. Yin is punishment - When punishment comes out, all things die. Therefore, since yang contains yin in the second month, elm pods drop. This symbolises metal sand following the movement and stillness of yin qi, dropping into the fetus - Hence, this is called returning to the root. Since yin contains yang in the eighth month, buckwheat grows. This symbolises metal water following the juice of yang qi in the tripod. Therefore, mao and you* are the points where punishment and virtue carry each other, and yin and yang both stop. Therefore, here the fu fire ceases. *My understanding is that when applying the earthly branches to the months, the first month is always 寅(yin2). Therefore, mao is the second month, and you is the eighth month. From Baidu: 　　月：正月是由寅开始，每个月的地支固定不变，然后依次与天干组合；由第一年的正月丙寅月、二月是丁卯月、三月是戊辰。从甲子月到癸亥月，共六十甲子，刚好五年。 *榆荚 = yu2jia2 = elm pods ... 问：黑白？答曰：参同契曰：知白守黑，神明自来。白者，金也。黑者，水也。以金水之根而为药基矣。 Question: What are black and white? Answer: Cantongqi says, "If you know the white but guard the black, then spiritual clarity will come automatically. White refers to metal. Black refers to water. This means to use the root of metal and water to create the foundation of the medicine." 问：寒暑？答曰：真一子曰：不应刻漏，风雨不调，水旱相伐。或阳火过刻，或阴符失节。凝冬变为大暑；盛夏反作浓霜，火候过差，灵汞飞走，运火之士可不谨之！ Question: What are coldness and heat? (e.g. of winter and summer) Answer: If things don't match up with the water clock, then wind and rain will not be regulated, and flood and drought will follow each other. In some cases, the yang fire is too much. In other cases, the yin fu is too much. Then, deep winter becomes great heat, and deep summer becomes thick frost. If the duration and degree of the fire is in error, then the spirituous mercury will fly away. A gentleman who operates the fire cannot afford to be careless in this!

Toni specifically explained how there is no entity called weather. Since weather cannot be pinned down apart or within any of the everchanging, impermanent flow or conglomerate or aggregation of varying activities. It is not 'weather is just an activity' - if weather can be equated with one particular activity, that doesn't make sense since an activity lasts an instant, and if it it is to be equated with all activities, then it is merely an imputed phenomena without true existence, or if you see weather as something underlying all activities - that is also a delusion - there is truly no weather to be established apart from phenomenon. The point about anatta is that there is no 'One'. The 'One' is broken down into its constituents, in the same way 'Weather' is broken down into the constituents, therefore realizing there is no 'The One', or 'The Weather'. Therefore, nothing unchanging, independent, like Brahman. In seeing just the process of seeing, the experience of the seen, without a seer. Also Brahman is not seen as 'totality of movements' (in the sense of 1 + 2 + 3 + ... to infinity = the one phenomenon Brahman) since Brahman is non-phenomenal and without movement - rather it subsumes all movements to be the one unchanging substance in its final analysis (1, 2, 3, are all false phenomenal projections upon infinite non-phenomenal Brahman), i.e. all is only Brahman, since all are illusory images appearing within and as the one unchanging substratum of Brahman - no combination of phenomenon will add up to become that noumenon - only when all superimpositions of phenomenon are removed is Brahman revealed, or when you stop seeing the necklace as necklace do you see it as the substratum of gold. This is obviously different from Buddhism since we analyze consciousness into constituents and do not subsume all into one single unchanging substratum or entity. Or in the words of Alex Weith, "what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it," Anyway here is something about Adi Shankara: Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyze Adi Sankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered real (true). Adi Sankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real (true). Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real (false). Whatever is independent of space and time is real (true), and whatever has space and time in itself is not real (false). Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream. The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real (true). On the other hand, Adi Sankara claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely real—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Sankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993): If the world were unreal (false), then with the liberation of the first living being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a living being attains liberation.(but it is possible that no living being attained the ultimate knowledge (liberation) till now. Adi Sankara believes in karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal (false). The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal (false). False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing which is perceived by our senses and exists but is not the truth. Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes. Undeniable does not mean reality (truly existent) - it simply means undeniable because vividly manifest, appearing. You cannot pin down the existence or entity of appearance, so appearances are empty.

Unrelated to the current discussion, I was just going through Alex Weith's postings yesterday and found them to be deeply insightful even after re-reading the second or third time. Just a sharing: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta Posted by: An Eternal Now Some excerpts of postings about Bahiya Sutta by AlexWeith (who is a lay Soto Zen priest who recently realized anatta) from http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4765011/A+Zen+exploration+of+the+Bahiya+Sutta?offset=0&maxResults=20 Thusness told me that he thinks all these are very well written, which I fully agree. "In the seen, there is only the seen, in the heard, there is only the heard, in the sensed, there is only the sensed, in the cognized, there is only the cognized. Thus you should see that indeed there is no thing here; this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself. Since, Bahiya, there is for you in the seen, only the seen, in the heard, only the heard, in the sensed, only the sensed, in the cognized, only the cognized, and you see that there is no thing here, you will therefore see that indeed there is no thing there. As you see that there is no thing there, you will see that you are therefore located neither in the world of this, nor in the world of that, nor in any place betwixt the two. This alone is the end of suffering.” (Ud. 1.10) ............. There is no end to the process of awakening, but in Zen Buddhism there are steps and strategies. These introductory posts will explain my position, what I discovered so far, and how it unfolds. Having got hold of the ox, one has realized the One Mind. In Zen literature this One Mind has often been compared to a bright mirror that reflects phenomena and yet remains untouched by appearances. As discussed with one of Sheng-yen's first Western students, this One Mind is still an illusion. One is not anymore identified to the self-center, ego and personality, yet one (the man) is still holding to pure non-dual awareness (the ox). Having tamed the ox, the ox-herder must let go of the ox (ox forgotten) and then forget himself and the ox (ox and man forgotten). The problem is that we still maintain a subtle duality between what we know ourself to be, a pure non-dual awareness that is not a thing, and our daily existence often marked by self-contractions. Hoping to get more and more identified with pure non-dual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls "stagnating waters" for about a year. This is however not seen as a problem in other traditions such as Advaita Vedanta where the One Mind is identified with the Brahman that contains and manifests the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep within itself, yet remains untouched by its dreamlike manifestation. ............. So what has been puzzling me what the sense of presence, the sense of being and its relation with the sense that things around me manifest their presence. Over the months I realized that if this beingness seems to be located as the center of our being, it is actually the flavor of all things. Reading the blog "Awakening to Reality" that has become my main source of inspiration, I realized that this presence felt as the presence of 'what is' is the *luminosity* that the Mahamudra teachings are talking about. Gradually, feeling my own sense of being has become feeling the beingness of all things, leading to a deeper non-dual realization that gradually colapsed the sense of a Primoridal Awareness, True Self, or Bright Mirror into what is present here and now. The conclusion is that all phenomena are in themself empty and luminous, ungraspable and self-aware, ever changing and alive. The conclusion is also that there is nothing beyond that; no permanent pure potential beyond phenomena, no true self that would be the source and substance of phenomena and above all no primordial awareness or Consciousness that would contain the five aggregates. The whole universe is contained and expressed in a the "cypress tree in the court", simply because in the absence of a super Self in the background, the cypress tree brightly present in this very moment is the absolute reality made manifest in its suchness (tathata). Most Zen koans point to this realization, together with Hui-neng poem "Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists, Nor the stand of a mirror bright. Since all is empty from the beginning, Where can the dust alight". Surprizingly this deconstruction leads to a deeper level of non-duality. Huang-po's "One Mind' is starting to become Mazu's "No Mind, no Buddha". ............. Practically speaking this means: 1). becoming aware of one's sense of existence and focusing on it until it starts to feel as if the only reality is this pure presence-awareness containing everything; 2). shifting this sense of being-existence-presence-awareness to apprehend the beingness of all things, until everything starts to feel bright, luminous, present and alive. At this stage, there is no more "self" and "other", nor is there any subtle duality between primordial awareness and phenomena arising and passing away within it. There is only "seeing seeing the seen" without a seer, nor solid material objects behind the seen. This does not mean that there is absolutely no Primordial Awareness, Self or One Mind. This would be an extreme position rejected by the Buddha. This explains why the Buddha remained silent when asked about the existence of a Self. Answering "Yes" would mean that there is an eternal abiding inherent essence beyond phenomena (eternalism), while answering "No" would lead to nihilism, the other extreme view. The Buddha's way is the middle way, between these two extremes. There is a self, but this self is an conventional concept to describe something that appears to be and is experienced as such, but it not an abiding ultimate reality. There is a Mind, but this Mind is empty [of an abiding essence]. This Mind is the *non-abiding mind* of the Diamond Sutra. Therefore, *Mind* is *No Mind*. ............. This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go. The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is. The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas). At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become. ............. This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go. The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is. The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas). At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become. ............. @beoman & @giragirasol: Yes, when we realize that there is no super Awareness beyond consciousnes and become mindful of consciousness as it manifests at the 6 doors of the senses, we also realize that everything that we can ever experience is contained within one of these 6 streams of consciousness, including the 4 other aggregates that are known through the agregate of consciousness and the arupa jhanas that are in reality very subtle non-conceptual mind-states of the cognizing-consciousness. Arriving at this point, we can start to investigate the 5 aggregate as well as the sense of self. If we start with the aggregate of form (the physical body), we realize that our direct experience of the body is nothing more than stream of images (seeing legs, arms, a nose), the other senses and above all sensations. Exploring these sensations we realize that there is an impermanent stream of sensations that more of less matches the images of the body. However, the stream of seeing-consciousness is always distinct from the stream of sensing-consciousness. One never sees a sensation, but an unpleasant sensations can match the sight of a wounder arm. These stream are therfore seem as independent, yet totally interdependent. A sound, can trigger a thought that can trigger a sensations, that can trigger the images of a hand moving. Altogether, these 6 impermanent every changing streams of consciousness create the illusion of a solid substancial body. The same method applies to the other aggregates. ............. When it comes to the investiation of the sense of self, we must first realize that, even after what some have called technical 4th path, and even if we know that what we are is not any of the 5 aggregates, we still have a sense of self, a sense of existence. The sense "I am" has not been overcome yet. This issue is discussed in the Khemaka Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html In this text, Ven. Dasaka meets the Arhant Khemaka and tells him that "there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this." (...) ""Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'" The Arhat answers saying "friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession." Abendoning the five lower fetters means being an Anagami. Here the Arhant says that that even Anagami may still have a residual sense of self that he calls, the 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession." As to how this sense 'I am' is experienced, the Arhant asks: "then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?" And the monk replies, "as the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly." he sense of self is like the scent of the flower. It is the flavor of being. In order to get rid of this residual sense of self and become an Arahat, the sage explains: "As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated. Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated". This means observing the arising and passing away of the 5 aggregates until "the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated". ............. Practically speaking, the above mentioned method works in the same way. One can either split each of the 5 aggregates into 6 streams of consciousness, to see how the sense of "a body" (aggregate of form) arises when all senses working together create the illusion of substantiality, pretty much like the images track and the sounds tracks of a movie that together create the illusion of reality. Using the same method we can also see how the illusion of a solid body dissolves when we look deeply and see that what we had assumed to be a body is nothing more than an illusion created by 6 impermanent, separate-yet-interdependent streams of consciousness. We can also investigate the sense of self as such. In the seen, only the seen. We first realize that we cannot know the objects seen as such, but only the seen (shapes, colors, textures, etc.). We also realize that there is no separate entity that sees. There is seeing, but no seer. Seeing is seeing. Same with the other streams of sense consciousness. Then, what I do is to look for a sense of self, and see whether it is more assocated to one of these 6 streams of consciousness. It is generally associated with a physical sensation around the solar plexus or gut, and is therefore related to the stream of sensing-consciousness. When this is seen for what it is, the sense of self drops. There is nothing beside the spontanious functioning of the senses. Here the purpose is not to lock and make permanent a special state of consciousness, but only to gain deeper and deeper insights into Anatta and Shunyata until we become absolutely unable to make anything into "me" or "mine". ............. @giragirasol - and yes the results experienced during meditation when we stop investigating and let go of clinging that what has been seen as an illusion does match the traditional description of Rigpa. It first come for a brief moment, until it eventually becomes the only game in town. This is no surpize, since the Dzogchen teachings are basically about seeing the fruit (of mainstream Buddhism) as its ground (view) and the path (practice). But here one should clearly mention that there is absolutely no inherently existing "Awareness" that is felt as existing separately from "phenomena arising witghin awareness", which would be Advaita Vedanta and maybe Kashmir Shaivism, but not Dzogchen. The Dalai Lama was very clear about that and insisted on the fact that Dzogchen can lead people astay if they lack a clear understanding of no-self, emptiness, co-dependent origination, interdependence, etc., recommending the in-depth study of Longchenpa with a solid background rooted in Tsongkapa's Lam Rim or other similar treaties. ............. With respect to the Zen 10 ox-herding pictures this above deals with "ox forgotten, man remains" (no more super-Awareness, One Mind beyond the 18 dhatus, 6 senses) and then "ox and man forgotten" when the lingering "sense I am" that used to apprehend the aggregate of consciousnes as the One Mind is also extinguished. This is not the only interpretation, but it does match Zen master Sheng-yen's commentaries. ............. And of course, mindfulness of the mind/6 sense doors/citta, being totally one with the seen, the heard, etc. is at the heart of Zen practice. Ultimately, meditation practice is always "allowing everything to be as it is". However can only let go of what we see as an illusion. As an exemple disembedding from thoughts, sensations and perceptions allows us see them as mere reflexions. It then becomes easier to let go of thougths, sensations and perceptions. However, the same practice will also crystalize the sense of a witness untouched by phenomena that gradually evolves into a super non-dual Awareness seen as the source and substance of phenomena. Without further investigation, letting go is letting go thoughts, sensations and perceptions, but unknowingly also holding on to the Witness, Awareness or some other illusory inherent self hanging somewhere in the background. It is only when we investigate and look deeply into this awareness that we become able to let go of clinging to what looked like the Absolute leading to a deeper non-dual realization from the Awareness vs reflections-within-awareness duality. ............. @jhsaintonge - hi, it's pretty much on topic actually. On May 12, 2011, I was doing the laundry after struggling for days on the fundamental koan "if you knew that you couldn't do anything to gain elightenment, then what do you do?" Suddenly, everything felt dreamlike, everything namely may life, the universe, several past lives, everything felt like a dream, something that never happened, something illusory arising from a great void, a creative nothingness, unborn, uncreated, beyond birth and death, beyond time, non existing yet source and substance of all things; me, awareness, consciousness was seen as being nothing more than its projection that would then get identified with its projected dreamlike appearences to create the illusion of a real life in a real world. As a result of this event, everything felt perfect, whole and complete for weeks. And something did shift permanently. Now what is that? Advaita Vedanta Jnanis told me you are That". You are a jnani. Zen masters said, "you have seen the ox", the essence of the Mind. Reading Christian mystics, it is clear that this event is seeing God as the Ground of Being, the unmanifest source of all things. Nothing wrong with the experience. It is great, awesome, and enlightening in the sense that it opened the an abiding non-dual state that some call technical 4th path. But then, iis this the Buddha's awakening? Not so sure. Because although this event does validate the teachings of Neoplantonism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian mysticsm, there is no real insight into "Co-dependent origination" and most as the other things that set the Buddha's teachings apart from other great Indian spiritual traditions. ............. There remains a duality between "That" and phenomena. "That" feels like an impersonal uncreated clean mirror in the background that reflect phenomena, yet remains untouched. As a matter of fact that is the Self that Raman Maharishi talked about. That is the Arma (or Atta in Pali). On a later stage, we realize that "That" can self-contract or on the contrary expend. It is like zooming in an out. In reality, it never changes, but gets more or less identified with phenomena. Attending to this pure presence-awareness, it naturally grows and overpowers phenomena to the point where everything is seen as appearences reflected within it. Yet "That" is the Self. The problem is not the Self, but what we make out of it. Grasping at it tends to create a subtle duality, since we can become more or less identified with its dreamlike projections. There is Awareness vs phenomena arising within awareness. Awarenees is IT. Phenomena arising within it are Maya, illusions. We must cease identification with, or disembed from illusory (empty, impermanent, not-the-self) phenomena. This is precisely what great Advaita Jnanis did, like Ramana Maharishi who meditated for years in a cave after his awakening. The problem is that the more we disembed as this stage, the more we grasp at this pure non-dual Awareness, Absolute or Self and fail to realize what the Buddha realized under the Bodhi Tree. My conviction is that in order to realize No-Self (Anatta), the Buddha has realized the Self. He was already an accomplished yogi, a master in his own right. But he still wasn't satisfied, because it wasn't yet the end of suffering. Why, because as long as there remains any tiny sense of "me" or "mine" either in relation with body and mind, or with a Self, primordial awareness, Consciousness, Brahman, the One Mind, God, etc. there will be suffering. ............. My guess is that the Buddha first realized the Self and then started deconstructing it. He took this non-dual awareness and thought, "how can I be sure that this will not perish with the body?", "isn't awareness nothing more than something that arises as the result of sense contact"; "can awareness or consciousness exist beyond the 5 aggregates?", "what is the sense of self, being, existence?", "how does it arise?", "why is it still there after self-realization?", "why is it still there in the highest arupa jhanas?", "how can it be extinguished without dying?" Then one day, Gautama awakened to impermanence, co-dependent origination, no-Atma (antta), emptiness, suchness, etc. and knew that, "this is the end of suffering", "the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming and going, etc.". I am far from that, but I am starting to realize that the Buddha did go beyond what everybody saw (and still seem to see -even Buddhists- as enlightenment, awakening or self-realization. Something that implies the realization of the Self, but goes further. ............. So what is this pure, unborn, empty, timeless and nondual Awareness? As I see it now, it is just the non-arising, unsupported, empty and self-luminous nature of what is that the mind grasps and imagines to be an essential sustancial inherhent ultimate reality beyond phenomena. Seeing a white ox on a while empty field covered with snow (common Zen simile for the experience of the One Mind), the mind assumes that there is a pure "Whiteness" beyond all white objects. Why? Because when the mind is not yet freed from ignorance, it needs to hold on to some kind of stable reference point, reifying its unconditioned and nonabiding nature realized in a moment of total surrender into seeing the eternal Source and substance of all things. As I am starting to see it now, there is no clean mirror behind the images reflected in the mirror.The mirror cannot be separated from its reflected images. The reflected images are the mirror. Reality is like a lucid dream, but there is no dreamer, nor dreamed reality beyond the dream. There is just an timeless flow of dream images dreaming themselves within the dream. In dreaming, only the dream / in seeing, only the seen / in hearing, only the heard. ............. Padmasambhava's take on the same subject (where we see that Dzogchen and Vajrayana do not contract Pali Buddhism): "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging. As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent. The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny." ............. The suggestions that I have received were to acquire 'right view'. The mind needs to acquire some form of conceptual model that allows it to accept the possibility of its own non-abiding ungraspable empty nature. Right view is therefore required to facilitate the shift of perspective from "I am Awareness, everything is in me" to "nothing whatsoever is me or mine, all dharmas are empty". A good start would be Walpola Rahula's classic "What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada". It can be completed by "The Way to Buddhahood: Instructions from a Modern Chinese Master" by Ven. Yin-shun. A great autoritative summary of the Mahayana path. Then, based on a solid understanding of the core insights of Buddhism, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's "Clarifying the Natural State" (if still in print, or anything from the same great 16th century yogi) will be the best introduction to the Mahamudra and indirectly to the the sem-de series of Dzogchen. The logical progression is therefore: - Advaita Vedanta - Pali Buddhism - Mahayana Buddhism - Mahamudra, Dzogchen If we skip Pali and Mahayana Buddhism and jump directly to Mahamudra or Dzogchen, the risk is to interpret Mahamudra or Dzogchen as a Buddhist version of pop-neo-advaita, equating emptiness and rigpa with awareness. This is very common nowadays and some Western lamas seem to encourage this trend to water-down the Dzogchen teachings, as always in order to appeal to a larger public. Business is business. ............. The great thing about Buddhism is that is never goes beyond our direct experience. In our direct experience, "the seen" does not imply the existence of solid objects out there that are the objects of what is seen. They may or may may not exist, but our direct experience is only "in seeing, only the seen". In our direct experience, "the seen" does not imply the existence of a subject (an entity located in our brain looking through our eyes) or an impersonal unmanifest eternal witness (the Self, Awareness). In our direct experience there is only "the seen", without anybody seeing. The dream is just a metaphor. "The seen" is itself: not existing, not non-existing, nor both existing and non-existing ;-) ............. Mahamudra is often defined as the union of emptiness and clarity. In Zen we call it the inseparability of the empty essence and luminous function of the mind. What does it mean exacty and how is it related to practice. As I see it, the practice of what Kenneth called 1st and 2nd gear (noting vipassana and self-inquiry) allows us to witness the impermanent nature or phenomena that are gradually seen as being dreamlike, impermanent and ungraspable. As a result, we disembed from our identification to phenomena and wake up to our existence as pure awareness, first as the silent witness untouched by thoughts, then as an impersonal presence-awareness somehow detached from phenomena (3rd path) and finally as a non-dual awareness [that is not a thing] that includes phenomena and manifests as phenomena (4th path). Through this process, the witness crystalizes the *clarity* aspect of what is, while phenomena manifest the *emptiness* aspect of what is. When the separation is complete, empty phenomedna are seen as dreamlike apprearences within pure clarity apprehended as non-dual awareness. In the Direct Mode (3rd gear?) some have noticed that phenomena become more alive, luminous, clear, in a way hyper-real, while the sense of an observing witness tends to dissolve. Why? Because at this stage the direct mode shifts the our attention for the witnessing position beyond or behind phenomena towards phenomena and objects on the foreground. As a result phenomena (the seen, the heard, etc.) become more clear, alive, actual and hyper-real revealing its *clarity* aspect, while the sense of self, the witness, the observer or the sense of existing as a pure impersonal univolved awareness dissolves and fades away, revealing the *emptiness* aspect. In both cases, *emptiness* and *clarity* are present but are somehow divided into two opposites sides: a). The subject is the only reality: the all pervading witnessing non-dual awareness (clarity) on one side, and empty impermanent phenomena reflected within awareness on the other (emptiness), or b.) The objects are the only reality in the absence of a knower: the "actual" world bright clear and luminous out there (clarity) and no self, witness or presence on the other side (emptiness). Both states are valid point of views as long as we understand that everything is both *empty* and *luminous*. Then there is no opposion or conflict between cycling mode and direct mode, this or that. Gaining freedom from fixed views we gradually realize the union of emptiness and clarity. Zen master Linji (Jap. Rinzai) illustrates a). and . as the 1st and 2nd of his Four Positions: 1). Remove the objects, not the man (non-dual awareness that is both the source and substance of all things) 2). Remove the man, not the objects (no sense of self or agency, all that remains is the functioning of the six senses) 3). Remove both man and objects (emptiness of both self and phenomena) 4). Remove neither man, nor objects (traceless enlightenment beyond enlightenment) ............. What is nibbana? "If we wish to go by the Buddha's words, there is an easy principle that the Buddha taught to a disciple named Bahiya. "O Bahiya, whenever you see a form, let there be just the seeing; whenever you hear a sound, let there be just the hearing; when you smell an odor, let there be just the smelling (...) When you practice like this, there will be no self, no "I". When there is no self, there will be no running that way and no coming this way and no stopping anywhere. Self does not exist. That is the end of dukkha. That itself is nibbana". Whenever life is like that, it's nibbana. If it's lasting, then it is lasting nibanna; if it is temporary, then it is temporary nibanna. In other words, there is just one principle to live by". - Buddhdassa Bhikkhu, 'Heartwood of the bodhi Tree' ............. Hello Zyklops, I know that it sounds strange and counter-intuitive. To bring it back to the reality of our direct experience of things as they are, let me try answer with the following questions: - Have you noticed that no sunlight ever enters into the mind, nor even into the brain? - Have you noticed that even in dreams, while sleeping in a dark room with our eyes closed, we experience bright vivid dreams? - Have you noticed that when the sense of self fades away, everything becomes more vivid, bright and luminous? - Have you noticed that when I am aware of something, this "I" is itself a thought and/or a feeling? - Have you noticed that althought our sense of existence seems to imply the existence of a knower located somewhere behind the eyes, the sense of existence-presence-being is only the actualization of an ungoing impermanent flow of phenomena [coming into being], including what we had assumed to be the subject of all experiences? When the self/Self is seen as an illusion, awareness is also revealed as a quality of phenomena. In other words, there is no Awareness out there aware of phenomena. Phenomena are themselves self-aware, empty and luminous. This is also what Dogen means by "to study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away" (Genjokoan). ............. The notion of a 'primordial awareness', 'knowingness' or 'buddha-nature', seem to find its origin in the 'tathatagarbha' (Buddha's embryo) described in the Lankavatara sutra that soon became very popular in China, Korea, Japan and Tibet, in relation with Yogachara (Vijnanavada, mind-only) Buddhism that strongly influenced the Zen (that used to be called the Lanka school), Mahamudra (also called the 'Mind Seal') and Dzogchen traditions. Scholars agree to find its root in the Anguttara Nikaya, where the Buddha talks about the 'luminous mind' ('pabhassara citta' in Pali): "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements". As mentioned above -at least as far I am concerned- there is nothing wrong with it, provided that we clearly understand that the Buddha did not talk about a permanent unconditioned entity untouched by phenomena. There is a "luminous is the mind" and "the triple world is mind-only" (Avatamsaka sutra), yet this mind is empty [of an abiding essence]. This mind is a more like a stream of interdependent luminous phenomena, a flow of seeing, hearing, sensing, thinking, etc. ............. Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that. On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it, As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates. "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta). ............. What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma). It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly. ............. Thanks, sure. I especially like the "In lhatong—in terms of the Four Naljors—one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises". This is how the practice these days. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc. out there trying to dis-embed from the seen, the heard... If it seem that someone or something is investigating, seeing, practicing, it soon appears that this sense of a doer, an observer or even this abstract and impersonal sense of being is just thinking, feeling, sensing. ............. As a matter of far, I am not familiar with noting vipassana. What I do is to hold on the 'sense of being' or 'sense of presence'. This presence that first felt like "I am presence-awareness" now turns into the direct apprehension of the beingness, presence or actuality of seeing, hearing, sensing, etc. in the absence of a subject, knower, self or non-dual awareness-super-Self. The sense of being (or feeling of existence) is not anymore the sense of my being as a sentient being or even as pure non-dual awareness, but is simply experienced as the beingness of 'what is' manifesting its presence. For more, see the original link Labels: Alex Weith, Anatta, Stages of Enlightenment, Zen 2 comments | |

Those consistency and consequential quality as a basis for 'existence' is all based on conventional view. They require you to establish them as truths, as existences, in order to establish the consistency. In reality, two instances of occurences are neither the same nor different - the previous day's instance of 'moon' is not the same as today's instance of 'moon'. Or today's weather is 'cloudy' and tomorrow is 'cloudy' too doesn't mean there is an entity called 'weather'. Just because they have apparently similar shapes or colours does not imply existence. In the same sutta: "What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." Toni Packer: A somber day, isn't it? Dark, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. Amazing, this whole affair of "the weather!" We call it "weather," but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding, wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amidst darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice-covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So — what is "weather" other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings, and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No entity "weather" to be found except in thinking and talking about it. Now — is there such an entity as "me," "I," "myself?" Or is it just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," "Toni," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I think and believe I am? Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of "myself" from moment to moment? Is this, maybe, the essence of retreat work? Exploring ourselves minutely beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding. Coming upon clarity about this deep sense of separation which we call "me," and "other people," without any need to condemn or overcome. Most human beings take it totally for granted that I am "me," and that "me" is this body, this mind, this knowledge and sense about myself which so obviously feels separate from other people. The language in which we talk to ourselves and to each other inevitably implies separate "me's," and "you's" all the time. All of us talk "I" and "you" talk, we think it, write it, read it, and dream it with rarely any pause. There is incessant reinforcement of the sense of "I," "me," separate from others. Isolated. Insulated. Not understood. How is one to come upon the truth if separation is taken so much for granted, feels so common sense? Since existence cannot be pinned down, yet undeniable flow of appearances remain unceasing, reality is indeed illusory like a dream, like a magic show. If Salt and Atom is just a label, this means 'salt' and 'atom' does not have any real existence to it - in the way that there is no 'tathagata' in the five aggregates, or a real entity 'weather'. Anatta (no tathagata inside or outside five aggregates) contradicts Advaita, while emptiness of phenomena (no 'salt', 'atom' etc) contradicts the view of matter as having inherent existence. But that is on the ultimate level. I am happy to accept generally scientific explanations for most of the things on the conventional level (except when it comes to things like the origin of consciousness).

Xabir, thanks for your detailed response. Putting aside the atman/anatta questions for a moment, I want to address your understanding of what 'real' means. I am inclined to think part of this is a semantic issue. Are you saying that my experience isn't real/existing? I could grant that my experience is real in the same way a dream is. Both are temporary and when one wakes up from a dream they say "Oh it wasn't real". But the experience happened. So how isn't it real? So I would grant that when we perceive things in physical reality we are not perceiving their ultimate nature. But how is even an illusory experience possible if there is not some existing stimulus? How is experience possible at all if nothing is 'real'? Also,my other question about Greg Goode remains, which is why he chooses to focus on nondual teachings if he feels emptiness is a 'higher' truth? I know you're not him so you don't know but I'm wondering what your opinion is. Best!

To answer your questions, this will stop your worries. 1. All teenagers have acne, so don't worry about it. Eventually it will go away. Your friend told you a fallacy which is not true. 2. Wet dream is completely normal for a teenager. It is because you are in the development stage to be an adult. Another words, you are in a very Yang state, you have lots of energy. When your Yang state has reached to the ultimate it will try to go to a Yin state. E.g., your wet dream releasing the sperms is one good example. Then, your body will manufacture sperms again in the next three days and bring you back to the Yang state again. By the law of Nature, the Yang-Yin cycle repeats itself. 3. Wet dream is normal for the same reason in 2. It is very natural because it went on its own without any intent on your part.

First you need to understand what is the realization of I AM or Atman. It is that in a transcendental moment without concepts, one discovers the pure presence-beingness, a pure sense of existence, which is undeniably present and conscious. In that moment of realization there is no reifying it into a purest identity, but due to latent framework of seeing inherently and dualistically, that Pure Presence is taken as a purest identity and reified into something like an Eternal Witness. Then later one discovers that the subject/object framework of seeing reality is false, that there never has been a subject object, observer-observed dichotomy. At this point every perception and sensation is experienced as Pure Presence and Awareness. But even though one has overcome the dualistic framework due to nondual realization, because one still cannot overcome the view of an inherent self, one still subsumes everything to be One Mind, One Naked Awareness - like an inherently existing mirror inseparable from and manifesting itself as all its reflections. There is no witness/witnessed dichotomy, but Awareness is seen as inherent. Then comes the realization that there is no seer-seeing-see, there is no self, no agent, never was and never is. In seeing always just the scenery, shapes, colours, the process of seeing without a seer. Same goes for hearing, thinking, etc. At this point one realizes no subjective self, but objects may still be seen as inherent, until one realizes the emptiness of phenomena. So you can see that each level of realization includes and transcends the previous realization. The next realization does not deny a previous realization and experience, but refines the view. So the masters have said before, "keep the experience but refine the view." For example non-dual realization does not deny the non-conceptual beingness and presence experienced in the gap between thoughts, but understands it is merely one aspect of consciousness pertaining to the mind realm, and actually all manifestations, seeing, hearing, smelling etc are equally pure consciousness without subject/object dichotomy. Hence this takes away the specialness and ultimacy of I AM-ness but seeing the one taste or single flavor of all manifestations - I AM is no more I AM than a sound or a sight. Then the next realization, anatta, sees that there is no self, while not rejecting the previous insight of no subject-object division (if in seeing just the seen no seer, non-dual is already implicit) but further deconstructs the view of an inherent self or awareness into its constituents streams of cognizance or manifestation arising from the various sense doors, so in effect it is realized that the process itself rolls and knows without a knower. By the way realization of anatta and emptiness is not an experience - it is a realization that there never was or is a self or an object of phenomena. In seeing just the seen, no seer, always has been the case. It is not an inferred conclusion, or a mere experience, but a realization that this has always been so - there is no self right from the beginning, self is merely learnt, a deluded framework. In other words no-self is not a state or a thing you find, but a delusion that you permanently see through in a moment of realization, like waking up from a dream, or discovering that santa claus isn't real, or the likes. I do not agree with Ken Cohen's view that sensual reality is real/existing. Appearance cannot be denied but is empty. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. "Though the knowing part manifests individually without ceasing [mkhyen pa’i cha ma ‘gag par so sor gsal kyang] since compassion is present as the wisdom of vidyā [thugs rje rig pa’i ye shes su bzhugs pas], the aspect of action and agent [bya ba dang byed pa’i rnam] appearing as [du snang ba] an object and a subject [yul yul can] does not exist." - Kongtrul (Compassion here means something like unceasing manifestation/appearances)

Not just Taoism, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and the list goes on. Religions by nature separate people from their true spiritual nature. One cannot be spiritual and religious, the two can never exist hand in hand. Spirituality is free and cannot be defined by dogma or ideology, once someone decides to teach spirituality then they have immediately begun to teach the exact opposite. This is why I say enlightenment is a sham, because invariably, if you are led to enlightenment because of a path, then it is not real enlightenment, but rather one created by the actions one has followed. Buddhist enlightenment is simply Buddhist enlightenment, Taoist enlightenment is simply Taoist enlightenment, Christian enlightenment is... well you get the point. True awareness does not come from books or teachers but an innate understanding of one's place within the universe, the nature of the universe, and what simply is. You can't be taught this, it can only be experienced. If one is led to this experience, then one can never be entirely certain whether it is authentic or a prescribed and defined experience. If I tell you that you will reach enlightenment and that when you do, this and this will happen, nine times out of ten, what you expect to happen will and that in the end is the problem. Now to get back to sexuality. Sex is the most beautiful experience we can have and one of the most spiritual. It's perhaps the biggest threat to religion because one who can experience sex without guilt or regret will be able to see through the smoke and mirrors of religion. In fact the biggest detriment to monks is the fact they never experience life, so the enlightenment they experience is not defined by the natural order, but rather a pious dogma. Religions are the basest of organizations. They teach children to hate themselves, that they are not good enough and need to be better, that those feelings that are completely natural are evil and sinful. And we wonder why so many grow up sad and empty, looking for something else to fill the void that has been created. It'sad, yet most people will read this and tell me, not what's in their heart, but what they've been taught to believe. It's so ingrained within them that they can't even take a moment and reflect, because if they do they might figure out that everything that they've believed up until this point is really nothing but superstition and moral ideology. They might just realize that good and bad don't really exist and then where does that leave them? Are they good? If they're not good, are they bad? What if they're neither, where do they go from there? It's very hard to wake up from this dream and realize that they simply are who they are and nothing more, that there is no need to follow any designated path, that the path that their heart leads them on is enough. It's very hard to understand that their mothers lied to them and that their fathers lied to them, that everything about their life is merely a husk of what actually is. Yet when one can do that, then they can see all this guilt, sadness, and delusion melt away like ice on a summer day, leaving behind, not cold hardened water, but a cool pool of fresh potential. Aaron

Warden: Bubba - why did you rape Steve again? I thought we talked about this. Bubba: I'm sorry Waaden. I thought me having lucid dream again. I can't seem to tell what is real anymoo.

why fight when you can just flow? Think about it a moment: If the ego is trying to maintain your ignorance, then ignore the ego. dont fight it, just let it be, and stay concentrated on what really matters to you. weather it is your dreams or the concept of dream vs awake, just be mindful of it. Let it take form without making it materialize, allow it to fit it's own pattern instead of looking for a pattern in it. Experience it without trying to conjure up the experience.

Thank's for the reply , I have a bunch of questions though if you dont mind. What do you mean by spirit attachment? I was doing about like 10-20 minutes of half lotus a day. I would also do some mantra chanting, and just sitting and being silent in my room for whatever time. It's been more than a week now that I haven't done any meditation or the other stuff, it started around after I stopped my practice. As for my dreams, they are all over the place. I can usually remember my dreams pretty well but I can't seem to recall any of my recent dreams. I can only get bits and pieces which don't mean anything(I have a bunch of dreams a night, I also tend to dream fairly easy and quick). What do you mean by my grandmother is whipsering in my ear? Why the would she be doing such a thing? I'm sort of confused here. ^you also lost me here, I have no clue what you are talking about . If you could please be so kind to go deeper or send me a PM, it would greatly be appreciated (:

I just remembered that I read about the guy who recorded his dreams in a book called "How to believe in Nothing and Set yourself free" buy a guy named Michael Misita. http://www.scribd.com/esdfs/d/39063815-Misita-How-to-Believe-in-Nothing-and-Set-Yourself-Free This is an awesome book by the way. Here is what he wrote: Almost one hundred years since the publication of Freud's classic "Interpretation of Dreams," dream work is receiving widespread recognition as a valuable technique for learning more about the self rather than being dismissed as merely phantasms of the sleeping brain. For example, there are professional dream organizations; movies with dream themes are raking in millions; bookstore shelves are filled with dream books, and magazine articles on working with dreams have become almost monthly fare. During the passionate embrace of altered-state-of-consciousness work in the 1960s, one study paid a young man a full-time salary to record his dreams over the span of a year. He settled into a small mobile home and set out to record his nightly encounters. With some practice, he was recording up to one hundred pages of material a day. What became incredibly clear was that the source of his nightly excursions was the experience of awareness. A particular form of dreaming, lucid dreaming, offers us a direct link to the experience of pure consciousness. The ultimate self-awareness experience in sleep is knowing you are dreaming while you are dreaming, yet this is but another bridge to even higher levels of consciousness. Although dreams are the psyche's deepest imagery generating system, we can also benefit through the conscious application of imagery experienced in creative visualization. Jeanne Achterberg, president of the Association for Transpersonal Psychology, draws a line from the image to the immune system to support a neurological relationship between the image and the body's maintenance of health. Pointing to the central role of emotions in both imagery and disease, she states, "Verbal messages must undergo translation by the imagery system before they can be understood by the involuntary or autonomic nervous system and related components. "

St Augustine had horrifically sensual dreams,...however, enlightened ones do not dream,...they woke from the dream, even while sleeping. For those who suggest they are lucid in dreams while sleeping, why aren't they lucid while so-called awake in the illusion? If someone is really lucid, are they lucid in the dreams they are having while they are so-called awake? Or do they "think" their subconscious is only active while the sleep,...as if there are no stars overhead in the daytime. V

The further you advance in this path the more you realise that the physical state/life (yang) is also a dream. Once you experience this: "Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi." You'll realise the undeniable truth of Chuang Tzu's statement. Lucid dreaming is a step in between this life and normal dreaming (yin). Enlightenment is the final awakening, what the Buddha called nirvana. The ultimate reality, no more dreaming.

This is why I stopped doing it. I was literally writing novel length entries for the details and plots of my nightly dreams. On top of that, most of the content was inherently meaningless or recycled crap. I had that realization after I spent a week in solitude. No human contact, and meditating through most of the day, while the night would be entering into lucid consciousness. I noticed that my dream content in those nights was composed of stray thoughts I had during the day. If you don't have a method of dealing with the content of your consciousness (some meditation method), lucid dreaming is going to be meaningless, and you're just going to be dealing with your own projections and expectations about what you think should happen. The chances of doing anything real are going to be pretty slim. I think. What do isolated/enlightened people dream about? As far as I have read in certain Taoist lineages, nothing. Their consciousness is clean and clear, so their sleep is deep, restful, and empty. Any dreams they do have, since their consciousness is so clear, are composed of higher level energies that they are easily able to perceive. None of the sub-conscious crap that clutters most everybody else.

@cat: yes if reincarnation is a reality, this is most certainly the afterlife, and the prelife, and in that sense just another bardo. i think that death is like a dream state where our soul's resonance shapes the experience it has and the journey onward.