What is a phenomenon?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Body listen... you tAke me too seriously and too literally. Don't be so dense if you want to fly. Relax. I speak in poems and songs. Don't worry about defending your doctrine because I don't really attack it. I have high esteem for Buddha because I understand what he's saying. Why so? How do I know I understand Buddha? I am his mother and father. That's how. His intent is my intent. I know what he wanted to say because that's what I want to say. He's my minion in the world of appearances. He can be your minion if you begin to own the concepts instead of being owned by them, which is your current modus operandi.

 

D.O. is endless and beginningless...

 

I see that your still in a "I AM" ness is cosmos crew view.

 

 

 

 

 

I've not read anything that you've posted here other than that which I've now responded to...your first impression negatively impresses. Hoping for better. Answers to my questions would be a good start.

 

Maybe read some past posts and see some answers?

 

I've had these experiences through extensive quiet retreat in mountainous regions and integrated with regular society in various degree's of perfection and non-perfection as well. No Buddha here as of yet fully realized.

 

But... grew up my entire life practicing Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism under masterful guidance, then switched to Buddhism through seeing a number of years ago under the guidance of prominent masters and memories from past lives.

 

If I do miss read you... I do apologize for doing so. Words are tricky and subjectively defined, generally.

[xenolith]

Please refer me to those answers.

Edited June 18, 2009 by xenolith

[Vajrahridaya]

Please refer me to those answers.

 

Just be patient and read some past posts. I don't have that many...

 

All the answers are in seeing D.O. as including consciousness as well as all levels of meditation and detachment, etc.

 

Did you fully read the poem? The house of Brahma refers to the I AM experience where all creation is one's own consciousness. It's a subtle pride.

 

How...by what means? (question 1)

 

Already answered that.

 

If you think I am you're mistaken. Why do you think I am? (question 2)

 

Just the idea of everything being one mind as a literal statement. Just identifying things with a God, or a Tao as a one thing. When the all is a process and not really an essential oneness per say.

 

What substance? (question 3)

 

All one thing?

 

 

Duh...why do you think I think that? (question 4)

 

You mention all things being a God or a Tao? Unless metaphorically. I can use these words metaphorically, but I won't actually cling anything to a singular identity... well consciously at least.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

[xenolith]

Already answered that.

You only think you did..."extensive quiet retreat in mountainous regions"...your ignorance is showing.

You don't have a clue about anything that you're writing about...little tip for 'ya...neither God or Tao implies oneness...that association was in YOUR mind...not mine.

 

Thanks again xabir.

 

xeno out.

[forestofclarity]

Before discriminating consciousness, what is emptiness? What is dependent origination?

 

I suppose no one things its odd that the first link in the chain of dependent origination in the suttas is ignorance.

 

Before even a thought arises, is there....?

 

 

But clearly, dependent origination and emptiness is the way things are, and is clearly not a method.

 

These things are concepts. As such, they are dependent on a mind which is able to know concepts. Without such a mind, how can one say, this is how it is? This would be like saying, clearly the English word "tree" describes a tree.

Edited June 18, 2009 by forestofemptiness

[xabir2005]

Before discriminating consciousness, what is emptiness? What is dependent origination?

 

I suppose no one things its odd that the first link in the chain of dependent origination in the suttas is ignorance.

 

Before even a thought arises, is there....?

Yes there is. The general theory of D.O. applies even without the 12 chain, the 12 chain is just a part of its manifestations. In particular 12 chain is the afflictive process of DO in a sentient being, an Arya (enlightened being) sees phenomena as DO without afflictions. Also, the early discourses present nirvana as "unconditioned by dispositions", but it is never considered to be independent, or uncaused.

 

Namdrol:

 

For one thing, the twelve limbs only explain the afflictive process of samsara. There are presentations however of a "reverse dependent origination". You can look those up. But the in main, the general theory of dependent origination is appropriate here: where this exists, that exists, where that arose, those arose, and vice versa.

 

Instead of the twelve limbs of afflictive dependent origination, there is the five powers, the five faculties, the seven limbs of awakening and o on, the 37 adjuncts of bodhi, just as Shravakayana Aryas do.

 

-------

 

"Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers). - SN 12.23

These things are concepts. As such, they are dependent on a mind which is able to know concepts. Without such a mind, how can one say, this is how it is? This would be like saying, clearly the English word "tree" describes a tree.

These things are concepts to the unenlightened mind. At some point there is a quantum shift of perception and then you stop relying on concepts and theories and just experience it or realise it. There is just D.O./emptiness happening, there is no conventional understanding about it. The teaching is just a raft to reach that realisation. Edited June 18, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

You only think you did..."extensive quiet retreat in mountainous regions"...your ignorance is showing.

You don't have a clue about anything that you're writing about...little tip for 'ya...neither God or Tao implies oneness...that association was in YOUR mind...not mine.

 

it's amazing how childish people act when their assumptions about their experiences are questioned.

 

and yes both God and Tao imply a oneness. but if they don't to you, that's wonderful.

 

 

 

 

These things are concepts. As such, they are dependent on a mind which is able to know concepts. Without such a mind, how can one say, this is how it is? This would be like saying, clearly the English word "tree" describes a tree.

 

does Tao depend on mind?

Edited June 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

You only think you did..."extensive quiet retreat in mountainous regions"...your ignorance is showing.

You don't have a clue about anything that you're writing about...little tip for 'ya...neither God or Tao implies oneness...that association was in YOUR mind...not mine.

 

Thanks again xabir.

 

xeno out.

 

Wow... such strong and passionate subjective feelings?

 

And I thought I was sharing tears of joy with a kindred spirit in this Kali Yuga of mass confusion? Oh well...

 

Anyway... yes the term God either denotes a creator of everything in a dualisitc sense. Or in monisim a creator of things that all things are one with. So yes... the term does generally de-note "oneness".

 

 

 

Before discriminating consciousness, what is emptiness? What is dependent origination?

 

I suppose no one things its odd that the first link in the chain of dependent origination in the suttas is ignorance.

 

Before even a thought arises, is there....?

 

 

Yes there is, because in Buddhism ignorance is en-lodged deep in the non-conceptual ground of the mind stream. One can touch this deep ignorance when one experiences formless bliss realms that are hyper powerful and wonderful without a single arising of a thought. Like, infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and beyond perception and non-perception. Ignorance is subtle and mischievous and hides itself non-conceptually.

 

These things are concepts. As such, they are dependent on a mind which is able to know concepts. Without such a mind, how can one say, this is how it is? This would be like saying, clearly the English word "tree" describes a tree.

 

Mind is also dependently originated.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[forestofclarity]

Xabir,

 

The 12 links describe the cycle of birth, old age, and death--- in other words, the whole wheel of life. I cannot find where these limitations you describe appear in the suttas, please direct me.

 

You will notice on close inspection the arising of the 5 skandhas in the 12 links. Speaking of the skandhas, in skandha does DO belong? You will also notice on the 12 links the arising of craving and clinging, i.e. the 1st and 2nd Noble Truth. And what is the teaching of the Buddha: Dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

 

Thus, you can see how the links of DO, the 5 skandhas, and the 4 Noble Truths fit together.

 

 

 

 

 

Vajra,

 

By the time you experience things as "formless" or "bliss", perception has already arisen, and thus this is not prior to thought.

 

In which skandha does the non-conceptual ground of the mind stream belong?

 

On what does the mind depend?

 

Yes there is, because in Buddhism ignorance is en-lodged deep in the non-conceptual ground of the mind stream. One can touch this deep ignorance when one experiences formless bliss realms that are hyper powerful and wonderful without a single arising of a thought. Like, infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and beyond perception and non-perception. Ignorance is subtle and mischievous and hides itself non-conceptually.

Mind is also dependently originated.

Edited June 18, 2009 by forestofemptiness

[xenolith]

and yes both God and Tao imply a oneness. but if they don't to you, that's wonderful.

I'm saying in no uncertain terms that it doesn't apply to me...don't project your pre-conceived notions onto me or anyone else. My experience indicates other than what you and Vajwhatever are attributing to me...don't project your perceptivity inadequacies onto others...did you not read the "us" in "The rest is the Tao, the fabric of God...it's us."? Word up, us means more than one. Why that doesn't imply an absence of oneness to you guys...unaccustomed to thinking outside of your pre-conceived notions one has to conclude.

Edited June 19, 2009 by xenolith

[Sunya]

I'm saying in no uncertain terms that it doesn't apply to me...don't project your pre-conceived notions onto me or anyone else. My experience indicates other than what you and Vajwhatever are attributing to me...don't project your perceptivity inadequacies onto others...did you not read the "us" in "The rest is the Tao, the fabric of God...it's us."? Word up, us means more than one. Why that doesn't imply an absence of oneness to you guys...unaccustomed to thinking outside of your pre-conceived notions one has to conclude.

 

"fabric of God" implies a permeating essence which is monism, oneness.

 

take it easy, whats with the hostility?

[xenolith]

"fabric of God" implies a permeating essence which is monism, oneness.

Are you really this moronic? This permeating essence that you refer to is IS IN YOUR MIND...NOT MINE. Let me try it in another way meant to overcome you're pre-conceived notion fixation: us...multiple...individuals...in aggregate...would it help if I described us as lots and lots...making up the fabric of God...those are all plural concepts...how the fuck do you get monism out of that? From believing your pre-conceived notions is how.

 

Read my sig.

 

And stop doing it.

take it easy, whats with the hostility?

I don't tolerate morons well.

 

Vaj, the above applies to you as well.

Edited June 19, 2009 by xenolith

[Sunya]

time for some lemonade perhaps?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

 

By the time you experience things as "formless" or "bliss", perception has already arisen, and thus this is not prior to thought.

 

In which skandha does the non-conceptual ground of the mind stream belong?

 

On what does the mind depend?

 

Which Skanda?

 

All of them... When the seeming I-dentity absorbs into these states of meditation, there is no sense of an I, but there is an experience that is later to be reflected upon. Regardless of how one interprets this. Any level of experience or experiencing, non-dual or dualistic through the 5 senses or what the mind can reflect upon is dependently originated based upon focus or mind-stream attention.

 

Thus... all these seemingly non-conceptual formless states regardless of if they are deemed as such in the experience which through my own are not deemed as such and seem somewhat ultimate are considered conceptual... even non-conceptual is conceptual... it's a non-conceptual concept.

 

D.O. is so subtle that it incorporates non-conceptual, or formless states before they are deemed formless within the expressive formate displayed through this medium.

 

D.O. is very subtle intuitive.

 

There is no ultimate..."this is it" ism... that is the ultimate truth of Buddhism.

 

No foothold.

 

The mind does not depend on anything but other than what dependent origination is aiming at. Mind is NOT an ultimate ground of being or experience. Though, it is the source of it's own dissolving when it understands it's own D.O./emptiness.

 

There is no essence. It's all empty, even the realization of emptiness is empty of any inherent emptiness. Nothing is inherently established. Thus... no buddhahood, no Buddha... this is just a description not of zero. but of dependent origination.

 

It's very intuitive... where even the non-conceptual states of consciousness transcending itself are deemed as inherently without essence, foothold or identity.

 

Mind is dependently originated. There is no essence, only process. There is no superimposition, there is only infinite flow.

 

No..."this is it". Only realization of there is no..."this is it".

 

 

 

 

I'm saying in no uncertain terms that it doesn't apply to me...don't project your pre-conceived notions onto me or anyone else. My experience indicates other than what you and Vajwhatever are attributing to me...don't project your perceptivity inadequacies onto others...did you not read the "us" in "The rest is the Tao, the fabric of God...it's us."? Word up, us means more than one. Why that doesn't imply an absence of oneness to you guys...unaccustomed to thinking outside of your pre-conceived notions one has to conclude.

 

So many boxes and outside of boxes as boxes... Your reaction is a semblance of your identification or reification (ultimating) of experience, or experiencing. When unilaterally is all empty of any inherency.

 

God is a Western term... Describe it then.

 

For me, it's a metaphor for infinite process of interlinking infinites' that are all inherently empty of any self standingness. When I say or think... "God Bless"... I inwardly mean... "May your good merits within your own infinite paradigm (that you may or may not be aware of) take precedence.

 

This is an entire re-defining of the word. Thus, I don't use it in word discussion as the concept of God has a loded history of reification.

 

If we are not understanding you as you are experiencing, then show no attachment to the mis-understanding and learn to describe with more clarity.

 

 

I don't tolerate morons well.

 

Vaj, the above applies to you as well.

 

That means you don't see D.O./emptiness very well.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

 

No..."this is it". Only realization of there is no..."this is it".

Exactly. There is no 'This' only but 'When there is this, that is.'

Edited June 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited June 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly. There is no 'This' only but 'When there is this, that is.'

 

Constant realization of the D.O./emptiness of every arising experience and simultaneous experiencer either conceptual or non-conceptual... seamlessness.

 

Really, really non-dual. Buddhism is the most non-dual if only one can realize what D.O. actually means experientially and not merely conceptually. It's even more non-dual than one substantialism. Because it see's clearly infinite individuality while seeing through it. It see's clearly infinitude beyond the coming and going of cosmic cycles. Soooo deep.

 

 

 

 

What limitations are you talking about?

 

Anyway, you should also know what is the difference between 'nirvana with residue' and 'nirvana without residue'. Before an Arhant passes away into nirvana without residue, he experiences nirvana with residue. And what is it? It means his skandhas are still perfectly functioning and he is still subjected to the laws of karma. That is even though he is no longer subjected to ignorance and he no longer creates new karma, but his experiences are dependently originated based on various conditionings in which his past karma is part of it. That's why you hear in the sutras about arhats who die horrible deaths because of things they've done in their past lives. However, he is no longer adding fuel to the cycle or process of samsara, no longer adding conditionings to fuel new births.

 

Which is the difference between Mahayana and Theravada is that one vows to attain enlightenment for infinite sentient beings. Thereby leaving an infinite residue of positive karma to manifest infinite conscious Nirmanakaya rebirths through even after one extinguishes the flame of grasping.

[xabir2005]

Constant realization of the D.O./emptiness of every arising experience and simultaneous experiencer either conceptual or non-conceptual... seamlessness.

 

Really, really non-dual. Buddhism is the most non-dual if only one can realize what D.O. actually means experientially and not merely conceptually. It's even more non-dual than one substantialism. Because it see's clearly infinite individuality while seeing through it. It see's clearly infinitude beyond the coming and going of cosmic cycles. Soooo deep.

Which is the difference between Mahayana and Theravada is that one vows to attain enlightenment for infinite sentient beings. Thereby leaving an infinite residue of positive karma to manifest infinite conscious Nirmanakaya rebirths through even after one extinguishes the flame of grasping.

My understanding is that Bodhisattvas of a particular bhumi (8th, I think) return to samsara but not due to uncontrolled rebirth according to good and bad karma.

 

He can choose to manifest anywhere due to his vows, compassion, powers, and is no longer subjected to uncontrolled rebirth. However I agree that Bodhisattvas return and hence leaves an 'infinite residue' of pure karma. There is a difference between 'virtuous' and 'untainted/pure' karma.

 

As Guru Padmasambhava said:

 

If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.

But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit

will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.

But if you understand this empty primal awareness, which is your own mind,

the consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,

just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.

In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.

Edited June 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited June 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[forestofclarity]

It seems that you are proposing an additional skandha called the "mind stream." Concepts do not arise until the arising of perception and then reactions. Grass does not contain the concept of grass. The concept of grass is added on by the mind which consists of the last four skandhas (and possibly the first, depending on who you're talking to).

 

Have you studied the 5 skandhas in your meditation?

 

The Buddha taught that ignorance comes from confusion of the skandhas--- that we are tangled in the tangle. He also taught the arising of clinging/grasping on the 12 links of D.O.

 

Clinging to Buddhism is a form of Buddhism. A judgment that Buddhism is better than something is a reaction arising in the fourth skandha. If you know well the skandha scheme, you know that when the skandhas arise with clinging or aversion, then there is the reinforcement of confusion and ego.

 

The Buddha's solution is untangling the skandhas and not clinging to them. In this way, liberation arises.

 

You see, there is nothing in the Buddha's teaching about the cosmos and the way it is. The Buddha himself said he taught dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

 

Which Skanda?

 

 

 

Xabir,

 

Your quotes are fine and all, but do not answer the question.

 

Outside the quotes, are you able to answer these questions in your words, in your own experience?

 

What limitations are you talking about?

 

o fuel new births.

Thusness:

In hearing, Tao is.

Seeing forms, Mind is.

No mind, Zen is.

In movement is where your practice is.

[Vajrahridaya]

You see, there is nothing in the Buddha's teaching about the cosmos and the way it is. The Buddha himself said he taught dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

 

Which is how the cosmos keeps going each infinite spectrum of moment dependent upon the previous, experiencing it either as it is self liberated or self bound in each and every conscious intwining.

 

There is only d.o.

 

Do... does and is goes... as there is only doing without a doer really, unless one wants to think of infinite doer's then, yes, that's true too.

 

No one, no two...

 

 

Ahhhh... the result, still D.O.'d

 

Never reify

[xabir2005]

Your quotes are fine and all, but do not answer the question.

What is the question?

 

If you're talking about 'In which skandha does the non-conceptual ground of the mind stream belong?' -- I've replied that all five skhandas are Buddha-Nature, Buddha-Nature is all manifestations and yet isn't limited to any particular manifestations (such as the initial experience of I AM). Non-duality means there is no unchanging background container, Mind is actually all foreground phenomenon.

 

As Bodhidharma says its 'conditional functions are inexhaustible' -- buddha-nature is inseparable from conditions, and the conditions gives rise to different appearances and manifestations which are all buddha-nature.

Edited June 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[forestofclarity]

Repeating it doesn't make it true, or make it what the Buddha taught. DO is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is like grabbing the snake by the wrong end, or worshipping the Buddha rather than applying his practices.

 

I've talked with many Christians who repeat over and again, it's all God's will in much the same way.

 

Which is how the cosmos keeps going each infinite spectrum of moment dependent upon the previous, experiencing it either as it is self liberated or self bound in each and every conscious intwining.

 

There is only d.o.

 

Do... does and is goes... as there is only doing without a doer really, unless one wants to think of infinite doer's then, yes, that's true too.

 

No one, no two...

Ahhhh... the result, still D.O.'d

 

Never reify

[Vajrahridaya]

Repeating it doesn't make it true, or make it what the Buddha taught. DO is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is like grabbing the snake by the wrong end, or worshipping the Buddha rather than applying his practices.

 

I've talked with many Christians who repeat over and again, it's all God's will in much the same way.

 

Even after liberation one still expresses through what liberated one.

 

Also... the cosmos still is the net of dependent origination, just now experienced as Nirvana.

 

There is no end to dependent origination.