Search the Community

What is relative, is ultimately empty, while empty, does not deny appearances. Emptiness and appearances are inseparable. You can dream many different unicorns, each with different colours. Are they ultimately different or same? Everything is dream-like.

Actually when I say sentient universe, I am just talking about appearance and processes and relative interconnectivity, not some cosmic substance. Everything is relative and utterly unestablished. When I say universe manifest this, I mean relatively all the causes and conditions coming together to manifest this... when hearing sound, it is the entire body-mind, the air, the drum, the stick, the ears, the action of hitting, the person hitting, everything is manifesting this! I have to go into hearer-mode again and quote something from Dogen: it is “mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,” It is not just you hearing sound or ears hearing sound... it is the entirety of it! Cause and effect is relative truth and therefore true relatively... and what arises relatively are ultimately empty of thingness, therefore non-arising... like a dream object, a dream house, a dream unicorn is mere D.O.ed appearance and cannot be located anywhere, or have a real arising, abidance, or disappearance.. This is the ultimate truth, which does not deny relative truth.

Just flipped open my book, the bookmarked page shows just what I need. "Considering that the attainment of enlightenment is accompanied by the realization of the empty nature of all things, you may wonder why noble beings, having realized that we are not truly existing, would still feel so compassionate towards us. Is it even possible to carry out activities for the benefit of others in such a state of realization? The stage of Nonmeditation is accompanied by the wisdom that perceives the nature of things as it is. Therefore, thre is no longer any fear of samsaric suffering or any confusion in one's own experience. Yet, one still perceives how other beings suffer due to not realizing the natural state of all things. This realization is accopmanied by immense compassion. Imagine two friends: one is asleep and the other awake. The sleeping person has a nightmare in which he is chased by vicious carnivores like tigers, lions and leopards. He is scared for his life, yet these vicious animals do not exist at all. There are no tigers, lions or leopards, but the dreamer believes that they actually do exist. The other person sees that his friend is suffering a horrible nightmare. he knows very well that the house is perfectly safe and there is absolutely no reason to be afraid. Of course he shakes his friend and says, "hey, wake up! You are having a nightmare. You do not have to suffer - wake up!" When his friend wakes up, he discovers that it was only a dream and all his suffering was for naught. In the same way, sentient beings undergo all kinds of worry, pain and suffering believing what they perceive to be real. None of samsara's deluded experiences truly exist in any way whatsoever, and yet we attach a solid reality to them and cause ourselves endless suffering. Even though they have attained true and complete enlightenment, buddhas and realized masters still perceive our suffering and so they teach, write treatises, sing vajra songs and perform countless other activities to benefit others. In the ultimate sense, there is no difference in the identity of any phenomenon - everything is of one taste; but in the relative experience of individual beings there is a great difference. This is why the buddhas employ so many different techniques and methods to guide, inspire and teach others." ~ Thrangu Rinpoche, 'Crystal Clear'

You're basically asking: If wisdom is like an illusion and suffering is like an illusion, why advocate one over another? Because even though this is like a dream, sentient beings suffer due to ignorance (even though suffering is an appearance) and 'we' naturally and compassionately respond to them, even though without even the notion of a self or other.

'unfindability' is not a thing that can be found... so yes. In other words, emptiness is empty. 'Self' is merely a fabricated imagination of the mind. It is a fiction. A fiction cannot be found or located as something, other than a mere mental projection. He is talking about the state of parinirvana, the state of cessation for an arhant where there is no more samsaric births. It must certainly not be mistaken as an unborn metaphysical essence of sorts. I have written an article of relevance http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html First of all, I do not say that things are an illusion. But rather, they are like an illusion - the appearance is undeniable, so it is not mere non-existence, yet while appearing they cannot be located (to have inherent existence). Recognitions, wisdom, nirvana, ignorance, suffering, all are equally empty and insubstantial. They are equally like an illusion (but not that they are illusions). You can't get out of dream-likeness - even nirvana is dream-like and illusion-like, but you can wake up to that fact. Emptiness is ultimate truth. Dependent origination is relative truth. So yeah, truth. Emptiness is ultimate truth, but it is not an 'ultimate reality' (because even emptiness is empty).

This is what I mean. This 'unfindability' or 'unestablishability' is illusory. Do you see this? Santa can be found as a character in various works of literature and in the shopping centers around the New Year's time. This is because people try to locate Tathagata as if it were an object. What should Tathagata say to such misguided attempts? Tathagata spoke differently to people who were more enlightened than run of the mill idiots. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.04.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.02.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html That recognition is an illusion. All recognitions are illusory. Not true. You can't wake up from the eternal sleep. Your dream has changed, but you're still dreaming friend. All recognitions are somewhat illusory. You've grasped a part truth to be the whole truth. Who are you kidding? You know what I mean. Why weasel in parenthesis? This situation of there being no findable, independent, permanent self is the truth? Or is it an illusion?

Yes, mind too is dependently arisen. There is nothing ultimate, permanent, or independent about mind. "All is mind" simply means all experiences are mental perceptions/experiences, like a dream, you can see, hear, things that seems real (especially in lucid dreams), but it is entirely mind. Waking life is not really different. I don't mean "false concepts and discriminations"... I mean mind, and the nature of mind which is luminous and empty.

And... this does not contradict what I quoted in my blog article. Shurangama Sutra is talking about a beginningless luminous mind. It does not make eternalist assertions* of mind. Shurangama Sutra also argued against the non-Buddhist view that mind is permanent while arisings are impermanent: "(33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views. First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent." ...... Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence." Shurangama Sutra does not deny mind and its luminosity, but denies the permanence and inherent existence of mind. ----------------- * http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged. * http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the ‘clear light’ (abhasvara, ‘od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, ‘dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered ‘permanent’ in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted… ~ HHDL

Hi Bums! I have been planning to write a review for a while of my experience of 'No self' [so far], so here goes. Back a bit Xabir posted his Ruthless Truth post, and I got Interested. I was already very familiar with the teachings around No self, thanks to the epic postings and debates with Vaj, Xabir and CowTao here at the Bums. [thanks by the way] But the Idea was purely intellectual for me. I thought what the heck, I'll give RT a shot. It took a long time to get accepted as a member but when I did, I entered straight into dialogue, and did my best to just follow their prompts, and look at the nature [if present] of Self. It circled round and round a bit, I think because I cooperated and didn't try to argue or debate them, it didn't descend [much] into name calling, as It often can over there. I had done quite a bit of the Mahamudra style of meditation, where you question "who is thinking, seeing..." as thinking or seeing itself is actually happening, and in meditation could easily see that when you look to see - who is thinking, there is no one actually there - but this never really carried over into daily life. Anyway, someone suggested shifting focus, and lying in bed one night, contemplating the days discussions I suddenly 'saw' as clear as day that I have never seen the slightest evidence for this 'alleged self' and there is quite clearly - No self! Never has been, never will be. Now this realisation has had quite an impact on me. Before I get to that, I will give you a little history. I grew up in an intensely abusive religious cult. I had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and possible Bipolar disorder, both of which I managed myself over the years with meditation, mindfulness practices and healing modalities. I worked on everything I was able to, but I knew that 'underneath' I had stuff I could not reach. Now at the moment I am studying Transpersonal Counselling. A few months before my realisation, I stepped into class [a dream module] one morning, and the teacher asked who had a dream. I put my hand up, so she chose me to demo the process we were learning. I shared a quite innocent sounding dream and we began the process, when she suddenly backed out, saying she was caught between being a teacher and a therapist, and that we had hit serious developmental flags, and could not continue publicly. I thought 'how strange' as I felt fine and did not know what what she was worried about. She kept checking in with me during the day, but I was fine, till going home. I started to feel very heavy and dense. I wrote it off as fatigue, and went to bed. That night I woke up thinking I was having a heart attack. I held my pulse and it was fine, so no heart attack. I was having a serious panic attack. I barely made it to school the next day, and the teacher ran up and said "are you alright?" She had thought more about my dream when she got home, and then got really worried. She organised counsellors for me, and I finally got to start plumbing the depths in a way that I had never been able to do before. Unfortunately It was going well but very slowly, but my panic attacks were getting worse and more and more overwhelming. Till I was forced to take medication. That was an extremely hard decision because I have refused medication my whole life. But this shit was real deep and utterly terrifying to my core. Any way they put me on a light dose of Diazapam which is a valium based medication. It took enough of the edge off things to be able to still work on my problems. Caffine, and driving would still trigger strong panic, as well as physical fatigue, and when doing these things I would have to increase my dose... Back to realisation Land. After realising No self I had a very strange next day. All the things that make up Seth were still there, but they were no longer 'held together' by a false story or a set of Ideas with a false claim to self hood. I didn't take my medication. Panic arose, but so did blissful spaciousness, and a sense freedom without boundaries... Everything that arose passed easily. The next day I really tested it. I drank a can of V and drove an hour and a half {which alone would have had me lying fetal and gasping for breath only two days earlier} and then spent the next 8 hours digging deep trenches for a friend. I was fine. Its been a month, [today i think] since I got it, and what an interesting time. I feel like I do not have to worry about the stuff inside me. It just comes up by it self and unravels or falls apart by it self. The Counselling course has me actively looking at stuff also, and that is good too. I have never been so relaxed and laid back. I also seem to be more of a Lady magnet as well. Mind you I can still loose my shit over stuff, but it passes much more quickly, and usually is far less Intense. I have been reading a book on Nagajuna's teachings, that CowTao recommended to me, called the Sun Of Wisdom. Deep thanks Cow, its amazing. Everything I read is just sliding Into place. It makes total sense as soon as I read it. I am not just understanding It mentally I am seeing it directly. These understandings are helping me understand Longchenpa who is also blowing me away. The world is simply empty appearance. All phenomena at any level is floating and dream like, empty in its nature. If it sounds like I am dissociated guess again. While I feel like I am becoming free from the Influence of the world, as its loosing its power over me, for I am seeing its ultimately unreal nature, and thus attachments are falling off me like flies, I feel more connected to the people I meet than ever. I have more Time for everyone I meet. And I feel a great sense of love or Compassion often just rising up for everyone. It's not some emotion I am generating, It's just naturally arising. So that's my story so far. I do not really care whether people think No self is just another belief system, for if it is, it is astonishing in the internal psychological revolution that it brings about. For me It's value speaks for itself. I Hope many people are Inspired to look for them selves... Great Blessings! OM Ah Hum! Seth Ananda.

I agree with everything you've stated. If only I could fully be that all the time, starting right now! I am a work in progress. When I made that statement about a million dollars I was more talking about "The Secret" club. There are good things that this club states, but there is also some delusion in there as well. It's cool that people are getting these ideas of self empowerment, but it's not a complete perspective in my opinion. Of course it, itself is a marketing ploy, and most people wouldn't be ready for more deeply nuanced perspectives. It's all a part of the global process anyway and it's not a bad part of it. I've just met some pretty delusional people toting it's teachings, strengthening their clinging to the illusion of the American Dream. Even though I agree that there is nothing wrong with abundance, internally and externally.

Wake up! time to go. Again, the dream is over, Come! Reality.

That's not what dependent arising means. Dependent arising does not postulate any ultimate limitations, only provisional ones. Literally it means right now, given your circumstances, you cannot shoot a fireball out of your hand. It doesn't mean it can't ever be done. We see this happen in dreams. I've been lucid in many of my dreams. In most lucid dreams I could fly, but not in all! The fact that I've been lucid and yet unable to fly in some dreams shows me something important. Patterns have some weight to them, and sometimes even knowing that all your patterns are a dream is not enough to break them. Why? Because knowing has depth to it. Not all knowing is equally deep, profound and sure. Two people can know the same thing but if one knows that thing in a deeper way, the results will be different for each of the two.

Nothing unusual in the mundane life. Just after I posted this, I meditated on my bed doing the Tara mantra and made up a little meditation on the way, staying so long because it seemed to be going good. Then I somehow found myself in a voidness, and I started flying down. But as I flew I realized that I was going to ejaculate, so I tried to pull out of the state. Alas I spooged in the void, not sure how that works. But I didnt wake to consciousness, but into a dream state, and later finally I emerged back to this apartment. Not really sure, but I hope this is Tara or my higher mind helping a guy out. I was already seemed to be near the end of the "flu", but now feel much better. Draw your own conclusions about semen retention making a guy go nutty in the high summer, about Tara, about it all. Who knows.

Then could a sentient being, a person, be turned into a bug then to a piece of fruit? It seems like you are saying that one's perspective on things could make this possible. What if you wanted to turn that bug into a leaf and some other sentient being wanted to turn it into an elephant...as in overlapping intents. Or does that only happen with your own consensus in your mind? It's difficult to conceive that one's own mind is the sole creator of one's universe including the sentient beings within it and one's immediate environment is simply the habitual patterns of one's subconscious. Of course, as you say, this isn't the "only" way to see and experience, we can choose to be ignorant and construct a reality where there is certainty of an objective environment and so forth. But in terms of what is ultimately possible you seem to be saying that the world is not co-created, but created by the sole intent of the mind that is experiencing it, as if each is his/her individual dream. Haha, indeed, that's difficult to digest.

GIH, a few questions that arose in me reading this...(nothing rhetorical here) How does one view sentient beings he/she meets in this dream? Can they be said to be existent minds or separate entities? Or do they arise from your own mind eminating sentient beings compared to non-sentient things? You mentioned how the mind requires a-priori knowledge to recognize its experience, that it must know the world to experience it. But then when you speak of volition, how could there be pure volition arising apart from contextualized and structured manifestation? Or if the manifestation is simply the intent itself, what basis does it have in making that "choice"? Isn't it always conditioned by a-priori knowledge of the world? As in your example of the leaf turning into a bug, the volitional intent to do so arises because one knows there is a "leaf" and a "bug." Or maybe what you're saying is that when the mind understands its own contextualizations to be not limited by a set of laws, one can sort of play with the relationships established in the a-priori knowledge, which you seem to be saying has unlimited potential beyond the unmanifest into the unknown...

If they had some wild experiences like false awakenings, lucid dreams, seeing visions in meditation that look as real as anything can be real, etc... perhaps they'd question their assumptions. Or perhaps not. More experience is not always the answer to all our problems. It can help if the person is ready to be helped. But there are people who experience amazing things and simply ignore the amazing experiences or file it all away into a safe mental bin called "hallucination" or "dream" and never think of it again. Sometimes what gets a person out of this condition is a logical argument and not more experience. So sometimes more experience can help and sometimes what helps is more rigorous and more uncompromising reasoning. But underneath all that, I believe there has to be a basic willingness to accept at least some change. If someone is not willing to accept any change in the worldview, I believe that someone will not benefit from anything, be it more experience or better logic. And besides, we tend to think that our way of life, the more magical way, is better. At least I certainly think so. But I imagine many people appreciate a non-magical way much more. It's a matter of taste. Do you like strange things happening all the time? Do you like normality and a solid routine? Do you appreciate that when you open the door to your room, your room is still there just as you expect, instead of a magical forest or some other weird dimension? So what I am saying is, I can appreciate other people wanting to live a less magical and more mechanistic kind of life. The only thing is, if I believe someone reasons incorrectly, I have no respect for that. So I am willing to accept people's choices in some ways, but not always their reasons for those choices. I guess I am not 100% accepting. (only 95%?)

Very nice. I agree with everything there except the reference to the brain at the end. Now this should be taken further. What this guy calls "infinite" is actually mind. Why? Because finite and infinite are perspectives and not objective reality. There is nothing that's objectively finite nor is there anything that's objectively infinite. When you realize that the entire world is nothing but perspectives, then you realize the mind is the primary reality and not substance or anything else that appears to the mind. Having a perspective, and changing from one perspective to another is what the mind does, voluntarily. The entire analysis this guy performs happens with regard to what is readily apparent. He needs to go further and consider the non-apparent, the so-called "mystical" realm he rejects. For example, when I look in the mirror I recognize the face there as myself. Why? Because I've come to expect myself to look a certain way. This expectation is not something that's readily apparent, but it is there in the mind. I've had a dream when I looked in the mirror and saw nothing. I freaked out. Why? I was expecting to see something. I didn't see what I expected, hence I freaked out. To really sharpen the point, let's consider light. How do I know what light is? I know what light is because I know what darkness is. So for example, if I go into a perfectly dark room, even though there is no contrast that's apparent in the room, just perfect endless darkness, I still recognize it as darkness even in the absence of any contrast as far as the obviously apparent phenomena go. So how do I know it's dark in the dark room? I know it because I also know what light is. So even if there is no contrast for me to go by, I can still compare what I see to everything else that I know. And these things are not merely categories. Like light and dark they are cognitive complements. Cognitive complements are more basic than categories. So in order to see anything in the world I must a-priori know what the world looks like. If I don't know what the world looks like, when I observe the world I don't recognize the world as the world. I will think it's all garbage or even irrelevant background noise. The reason I can recognize the world is because the world exists in my mind as knowledge. I know the world before I see it. If I don't know the world I can't see it, just like if I don't know what my face looks like, I can't see it in the mirror. This is not obvious to everyone. In fact we can examine things further and realize not only does the world exist in mind, but it exists only in my mind, or only in your mind from your perspective. Here I mean it's not just that the mind is what overlays the boundaries over the external-to-the-mind world, but the whole thing, boundaries, and whatever is between them, all of it is in the mind and nowhere else. In the video I get the impression he thinks the mind is merely producing the arbitrary boundaries to overlay on top of the real and external-to-mind world. It's not only the boundaries, it's whatever between them is mind-made too. So a perfect endless smooth stretch of blackness is mind-made because you need to know what light looks like to recognize blackness as blackness. You need a mental context of some sort to have any sort of recognition of any kind, not just the boundaries and contrasts. And to take it even further, this guy should talk about intent. For example, using intent you can transform the leaf on the ground into a bug and have it fly away. That's something this guy doesn't even want to touch with a ten foot pole, because imagine how crazy people will think he is if he says that? But it's true. One huge aspect he doesn't touch on is that all the contents of mind are volitional. They're the way they are in dependence on our volition or intent. How can you walk along the street? When you move your feet you're volitionally changing the relationships in the mind. You're altering meanings in the mind. Of course walking around is a very conditioned, very patterned exhibition of intent, so we don't think of it as magical. An enlightened being can manifest intent in ways that are beyond ordinary habitual patterns and such displays will appear magical and nonsensical to someone who expects familiar patterns. Beyond the manifest being contextualized by known unmanifest, like the manifest perfect darkness appears that way because we know what light is like and this isn't it, so the light is a known which is unmanifest, both light and darkness are contextualized in terms of something else, something hidden. Because all knowns have meaning in terms of unknowns, which are infinite. So when I see the dark room as dark, not only do we have two knowns playing off each other light/dark, but the known light/dark combo is also playing off a total unknown, which for obvious reasons cannot even be named or mentioned since it's unknown. But logically we know known in terms of unknown. We know what it's like to know things because we know what it's like not to. So an unknown is a kind of known too. We know what it's like not to know. At this point we are front and center in the Mystery.

To be free from suffering in the dream of being chase by tigers, even though it is simply a dream, you need to wake up. When you wake up, you realized you attained nothing. But it does free you from suffering, even though suffering too is part of the dream and hence not real in the sense everything in the dream is just like an illusion. If you don't know reality is empty and dream like, you are bonded by it.

this self is still mere conventions, as the texts have often stated, even enlightenment, nirvana, buddhahood is dream-like and insubstantial and in fact there is no wisdom, no attainment, no buddhahood in the ultimate sense

The essence of what you are saying is twofold: 1. Resolve matters. When you make a serious vow, you are demonstrating (mostly to yourself) the strength, the depth, the sincerity, and the tenacity of your resolve. It is a way for you to convince yourself beyond doubt that you are truly serious, that your resolve is diamond-like. It's also a way to give your dream a more concrete shape. 2. It's the nature of mind to manifest whatever you resolve on. Buddhism is not the only system of thought that teaches this kind of wisdom. Hindus teach the same thing, for example. I am sure others teach a similar set of ideas. Wisdom will never completely disappear. Wisdom can be difficult to recognize, but it's never completely absent. Enjoy the wisdom you find in Buddhism and make the most of it, because Buddhism is not going to last forever. Knowing that this human life does not last forever causes you to appreciate the opportunities in this life. Knowing that Buddhism does not last forever causes you to appreciate the opportunities in Buddhism. It is the nature of all things to change. At some point things change beyond recognition. That's only natural. All things are cyclic. There is nothing to fear and there is nothing to hang on to. Or let me put it this way, if you want to hang on to Buddhism, make all the best that's in it emblazoned on your heart and share without reservation. But be vigilant. Not everything in Buddhism is great. You'll never learn anything of significance if all you do is emulate, copy and follow. Do some of your own thinking and feel free to question everything.

to form a view about things is to land in the extremes of affirmation and negation... As you need to affirm something about something, it does not go beyond the extremes of 'there is' and 'is not'. Everything is a magical display, utterly unestablished and dream-like, from samsara to nirvana, apples, dependent origination, emptiness. While empty it vividly appears. This is not a contradiction but simply the way things are. To cling to wisdom and right view means you have established that there is wisdom, there is right view. Heart sutra says, no attainment, no suffering and end of suffering, no ignorance and no wisdom. Not even an emptiness. Just a magical display... Where is and is not do not apply.

I am simply pointing out that one should understand how view, experience and realization are interconnected... Previously the dream-like realization arose but it didn't occur to me its implications on view. So I missed the essence and purpose of prajna wisdom, how it leads to liberation...

It is possible to eradicate the view 'there is' and 'is not'. How? Through the realization of the twofold 'non-inherency'. For example before anatta one clings to a sense of an inherent awareness. One keeps referring back to an awareness that appears very real and is 'always here'. One keeps coming back to that sense... Why does this clinging keep arising? Simply speak: it is the view 'there is' an awareness, as an inherent, independent and permanent reality. This view is the cause of clinging and referencing back to an awareness. But it is possible to forever stop refering back to an awareness or background. It is the realization that 'seeing is just the seen' - awareness is simply all self-luminous transient manifestation. As such there is no longer clinging to the notion of 'there is' with regards to awareness. 'There is' cannot apply to awareness because awareness is an ungraspable process, it is not an entity. As such, a burden is lifted, a tendency to cling is released via realization. Anatta releases the view 'there is' or 'is not' with regards to a subjective self, body, awareness, etc. Similarly the realization of the emptiness of objects further releases various clingings on things simply by seeing how 'there is' does not apply to reality. Everything is dream like and apparitional, like a magic show. So you see, it is entirely possible to be free from views of 'there is' and 'is not'. In fact if you still believe that there is inherent awareness after anatta, something is very wrong. It probably means you experienced no-mind but the realization of anatta hasn't arisen. When you contemplate on the implications of view, you will come to a realization of how pervasive view is, and what is the fundamental core of view (is and is not) and how every suffering and clinging is simply a manifestation of view. Thusness has been hinting at me what I missed (he told me I haven't realized what view is but did not tell me what it was as he wanted me to find out for myself)... I considered deeply before realizing what it is about.

Differences are relative... Ultimately everything is dream-like and empty, including nirvana. Nothing whatsoever is attained. The Diamond Sutra says arhat is no arhat therefore arhats are called arhats. Same cld be said about view, view is no view therefore its called view. Today I entered a cool state (actually it is becoming increasingly common) where I lucidly projected myself into a semi dream-state where everything I think becomes a visual (even auditory) reality and I could walk through walls etc fearlessly as I knew it is my projection. Everything I think becomes 'real'. From this it is seen that dreams are no different from waking life really. Indeed everything is just like a dream! I still can't walk through walls in waking life tho but maybe when my realization deepens I hope I wld lol

I have just come to a new realisation of the implications of views in daily life. I could have misunderstood what goldisheavy meant but I think it has to do with the fields of meaning. I have realised how ideas, beliefs, notions, views pervade our life and causes attachment. I now see that every single attachment is an attachment to view, which, no matter what it is, comes to two basic clinging: the view 'there is' and the view 'there isn't'. I started by noticing how in the past I had a sense of self, body and awareness... That these all seem so real to me and I kept coming back to that subjective sense and this is no longer the case now: I don't even have a sense of a body nowadays. Then I realized that all these clingings are related to view. The view of There is.... Self, body, mind, awareness, world, whatever. Because of this clinging on to things as existent, they appear real to us and we cling to them. The only way to eradicate such clingings is to remove the root of clinging: the view of 'there is' and 'there isn't'. The realization of anatta removes the view of 'there is self', 'there is awareness' as an independent and permanent essence. Basically, any views about a subjective self is removed through the insight that "seeing is just the seen", the subject is always only its objective constituents. There is no more sense of self, body, awareness, or more precisely there is no clinging to a "there is" with regards to such labels. It is seen that these are entirely ungraspable processes. In short the clinging and constant referencing to an awareness, a self dissolves, due to the notion "there is" such things are being eradicated. The realization of dream-like reality removes the view of 'there are objects', the universe, the world of things... One realizes what heart sutra meant by no five skandhas. This is basically the same realization as anatta, except that it impacts the view "there is" and "there isn't" in terms of the objective pole, in contrast to the earlier insight that dissolves "there is" of a subjective self. What I have overlooked all these while is the implications of views and how the thicket of view causes all clingings and suffering and what underpins those thicket of views, and how realization affects and dissolves these views. Related stuff: A view is a fundamental belief one holds about reality. For example, "everything exists" (sarva asti) .... The root of both these mistaken positions is "is" and "is not" -- for example "I exist now, and I will continue to exist after death" or "I exist now but when I die I will cease to exist". ~ Loppon Namdrol And http://nickdowntherabbithole.blogspot.com/2011/07/conversations-breakthrough.html#more