Running into walls again....ARGH!

[JustARandomPanda]

I am increasingly questioning everything...and find increasingly everything seems pointless.

 

 

I feel like I've crashed and burned...but what is burning...nothing...which is itself empty...

 

 

I find myself increasingly irritated with both handing out advice and being on the butt-end of receiving it...but again...what is being irritated..nothing...which is itself empty...

 

 

Which has lived a 1000000 x 1000000 eons and will do so again...

 

 

All to what purpose?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hi there,

 

You would like to study more Mahayana and even get into Myriad Worlds which is a book you can get on Amazon. You never stop the wheel really. That's figurative, you just stop seeing the wheel as being inherent. The cessation is the cessation of mis-cognition, that's it. Why do you think we offer all our merits after each practice? We offer the merits in order to build endless merit so that when we do attain realization we have endless merits to work from once the cessation of misunderstanding is realized. We keep going, working... never ceasing to be, we just be as free and give to the we.

 

There is no wheel is what I'm getting at. It is all in the Mind. All there ever was is the Mind. The wheel is created by the mind and destroyed by the mind.

 

We are rather creating a reality that resonates with characteristic of creation manifested by "other beings." They are imprints left by actualized possibilities. Like the possibility of "tree" comes true in your mind because...well...it is possible. You have simply become accustomed to its creation in your own consciousness. Kind of like dreaming again and again.

 

But due to the infinite number of consciousness beings and the variety of creation, it can be said that our ability to create is also infinite. It is therefore not realizing that you are the product of causes and conditions outside of you, but rather that everything you experience has come from your Mind's own illusion. It is created solely in your imagination with the limits of what it can imagine. In fact, there is no such thing as causes and conditions.

 

Yes, compassion and offering merits is very crucial because it cuts off our delusional grasping of identity as a created and not the creator. The more we open up to the possibility through selflessness, the greater our ability to access higher creation comes. But again, all this is the "undoing" of delusion since your pure state is that of being "uncreated." Unborn, totally free to be and not be, free to materialize within the frequency of other living being and what not. Come and go as you please. Create and destroy as you please.

 

Yet the Buddha or the totally enlightened is NOT virtuous in the sense that he feels the need to help others. He can, but that is not what the Buddha symbolizes. He IS the Truth. He IS the Dharma. He is unborn. He is uncreated.

 

The Way of Virtue is the path of the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva offers endless merits on his path to undoing past habits of the mind.

 

But the important part here is to realize that there is nothing but the mind. Others you see are simply your perceptions of their reflected selves. You can never truly "BE" with anyone as they are all conjured up in your mind. There is no one here but I.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

I am increasingly questioning everything...and find increasingly everything seems pointless.

I feel like I've crashed and burned...but what is burning...nothing...which is itself empty...

I find myself increasingly irritated with both handing out advice and being on the butt-end of receiving it...but again...what is being irritated..nothing...which is itself empty...

Which has lived a 1000000 x 1000000 eons and will do so again...

 

 

All to what purpose?

 

This is called the emptying of the ego. We have found meaning through grasping since beginningless time. Now we have come face to face with the falsehood of our previous intentions.

 

It's scary and it can be depressing. Great lightness of being and wonder is on the other side though... do not give up!!

[JustARandomPanda]

 

There is no wheel is what I'm getting at. It is all in the Mind. All there ever was is the Mind. The wheel is created by the mind and destroyed by the mind.

 

We are rather creating a reality that resonates with characteristic of creation manifested by "other beings." They are imprints left by actualized possibilities. Like the possibility of "tree" comes true in your mind because...well...it is possible. You have simply become accustomed to its creation in your own consciousness. Kind of like dreaming again and again.

 

But due to the infinite number of consciousness beings and the variety of creation, it can be said that our ability to create is also infinite. It is therefore not realizing that you are the product of causes and conditions outside of you, but rather that everything you experience has come from your Mind's own illusion. It is created solely in your imagination with the limits of what it can imagine. In fact, there is no such thing as causes and conditions.

 

Yes, compassion and offering merits is very crucial because it cuts off our delusional grasping of identity as a created and not the creator. The more we open up to the possibility through selflessness, the greater our ability to access higher creation comes. But again, all this is the "undoing" of delusion since your pure state is that of being "uncreated." Unborn, totally free to be and not be, free to materialize within the frequency of other living being and what not. Come and go as you please. Create and destroy as you please.

 

Yet the Buddha or the totally enlightened is NOT virtuous in the sense that he feels the need to help others. He can, but that is not what the Buddha symbolizes. He IS the Truth. He IS the Dharma. He is unborn. He is uncreated.

 

The Way of Virtue is the path of the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva offers endless merits on his path to undoing past habits of the mind.

 

But the important part here is to realize that there is nothing but the mind. Others you see are simply your perceptions of their reflected selves. You can never truly "BE" with anyone as they are all conjured up in your mind. There is no one here but I.

 

A fine exposition of the philosophy of Solipsism

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am increasingly questioning everything...and find increasingly everything seems pointless.

I feel like I've crashed and burned...but what is burning...nothing...which is itself empty...

I find myself increasingly irritated with both handing out advice and being on the butt-end of receiving it...but again...what is being irritated..nothing...which is itself empty...

Which has lived a 1000000 x 1000000 eons and will do so again...

 

 

All to what purpose?

 

Yes, I felt the same way.

 

No-self, just things being manifest, "I" as simple fragments and parts.

 

But then why do I feel as an existent entity??? Why do I feel alive? Why do I feel as if I can evolve, create, and do all these things? Where is the source, but the very experience itself?

 

Time is a total construction of the Mind as well as Emptiness from causes and condition you hear all the time about. Try to find a point where in a cause turns into an effect. No where can that distinction be found but in the subjectivity of perception.

 

 

A fine exposition of the philosophy of Solipsism

 

HAHA!

 

Yes, might as well be. .

 

The Mind is basically this artist. And there are an infinite number of audiences who are affected by your art. ( , no I'm not a failed and starving painter). And you can "unlearn" to realize that you can paint anything. You are the sole Creator of reality!

Edited October 16, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

There is no wheel is what I'm getting at. It is all in the Mind. All there ever was is the Mind. The wheel is created by the mind and destroyed by the mind.

 

Don't mistake your mind for all minds. No matter your perspective there will be endless beings who keep manifesting delusion.

 

We are rather creating a reality that resonates with characteristic of creation manifested by "other beings." They are imprints left by actualized possibilities. Like the possibility of "tree" comes true in your mind because...well...it is possible. You have simply become accustomed to its creation in your own consciousness. Kind of like dreaming again and again.

 

Yes, this is both the distraction, and wonder of samsara. If your realized, it's all quite wonderful!!

 

But due to the infinite number of consciousness beings and the variety of creation, it can be said that our ability to create is also infinite. It is therefore not realizing that you are the product of causes and conditions outside of you, but rather that everything you experience has come from your Mind's own illusion. It is created solely in your imagination with the limits of what it can imagine. In fact, there is no such thing as causes and conditions.

 

That would be the case if mind were inherent, but mind also originates dependently with all other minds. So... really it's an inter-relating factor here that reveals that you are not the only bee making the honey. So, your mind is also the product of other minds in a sense.

 

Yes, compassion and offering merits is very crucial because it cuts off our delusional grasping of identity as a created and not the creator. The more we open up to the possibility through selflessness, the greater our ability to access higher creation comes. But again, all this is the "undoing" of delusion since your pure state is that of being "uncreated." Unborn, totally free to be and not be, free to materialize within the frequency of other living being and what not. Come and go as you please. Create and destroy as you please.

 

Ok...

 

Yet the Buddha or the totally enlightened is NOT virtuous in the sense that he feels the need to help others. He can, but that is not what the Buddha symbolizes. He IS the Truth. He IS the Dharma. He is unborn. He is uncreated.

 

He is not, only the realization is. Are you saying that his being is a reflection of the realization? In that sense, yes. Which is why Guru Yoga works. But... he is not reified as a soul, just merely a reflection of our highest potential.

 

The Way of Virtue is the path of the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva offers endless merits on his path to undoing past habits of the mind.

 

Yes.

But the important part here is to realize that there is nothing but the mind. Others you see are simply your perceptions of their reflected selves. You can never truly "BE" with anyone as they are all conjured up in your mind. There is no one here but I.

 

Ok, that's my point. This is not so. I remember having these blissful experiences that kind of reify a Solipsist view of things. It's very powerful and seems to reify itself in the way that the outer world is mirroring our high powered level of concentration.

 

But, it's not a reflection of the Truth of the Bodhi of the Buddhas. There are infinite minds.

 

 

A fine exposition of the philosophy of Solipsism

 

Ah... exactly... Smarty pants got to it before me.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Don't mistake your mind for all minds. No matter your perspective there will be endless beings who keep manifesting delusion.

 

Other beings exist in their own dimensions. They are beyond my own concept of existence or non-existence.

 

That would be the case if mind were inherent, but mind also originates dependently with all other minds. So... really it's an inter-relating factor here that reveals that you are not the only bee making the honey. So, your mind is also the product of other minds in a sense.

My Mind does not originate from any other minds. Its contents may. It is the only true existence, as the only unchanging factor of existence, the act of "being"/creating itself.

 

He is not, only the realization is. Are you saying that his being is a reflection of the realization? In that sense, yes. Which is why Guru Yoga works. But... he is not reified as a soul, just merely a reflection of our highest potential.

 

The Buddha's consciousness is the Dharma. His realm is reflected in everyone because it symbolizes the true Nature of the Mind. Yes, so I think we agree here.

 

Ok, that's my point. This is not so. I remember having these blissful experiences that kind of reify a Solipsist view of things. It's very powerful and seems to reify itself in the way that the outer world is mirroring our high powered level of concentration.

 

There is no outer world. It neither exists or does not exist, because you have created it in your Mind. There are only imprints and reflections of other mind systems. These do not belong to them, but rather, they are simply created phenomena of a possibility.

 

There are infinite minds.

 

Yes, there are infinite minds. Infinite possibilities. Infinite modes of Creation. But the distance between each mind is non-existent in the sense that there IS only one's own Mind.

[Vajrahridaya]

My Mind does not originate from any other minds. Its contents may. It is the only true existence, as the only unchanging factor of existence, the act of "being"/creating itself.

 

mind does not inherently exist either.

 

The Buddha's consciousness is the Dharma. His realm is reflected in everyone because it symbolizes the true Nature of the Mind. Yes, so I think we agree here.

 

Except your reifying this. So we don't agree. The Buddha realm also does not have true inherent existence.

[Lucky7Strikes]

mind does not inherently exist either.

 

Actually it does. I'm not speaking of the thinking mind within the brain. I'm talking about the non-dual mind of experience. If this mind does not inherently exist, there is no Nirvana. It is actually the only thing exists as far as I am concerned. Why? Because it Is existence.

 

Except your reifying this. So we don't agree. The Buddha realm also does not have true inherent existence.

 

Yes I pay respect to the Buddha's world, for it is absolute perfection. But yes, I am reifying my own existence because it is the only thing that I am. It's nature is pure without causes and conditions.

 

When you talk about Dependent Origination, I would like you to tell me what it means to be "caused." What does it mean to rise "from" something, or "due" to something? Where exactly does your mind begin and end? How about its contents? And by exactly what criteria do you judge the cause and the effect? Where do the five sense perceptions begin and end?

 

Where is the mind?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually it does. I'm not speaking of the thinking mind within the brain. I'm talking about the non-dual mind of experience. If this mind does not inherently exist, there is no Nirvana. It is actually the only thing exists as far as I am concerned. Why? Because it Is existence.

 

You should read some Heart Sutra and prasangika madhyamaka. The Buddhas don't agree with you. Though, you are free to make up your own mind about that... that's mind's inherent non-existence at work there, to exist in whatever way it wishes to and manifest the conditions for itself as such, when it itself is not a condition of existence as well.

 

Yes I pay respect to the Buddha's world, for it is absolute perfection. But yes, I am reifying my own existence because it is the only thing that I am. It's nature is pure without causes and conditions.

 

Well... that's your choice to consider. I don't agree with you. For me purity is the non-inherent existence of mind/phenomena. Any reification of any sort is the cause for more impurity in experience.

 

When you talk about Dependent Origination, I would like you to tell me what it means to be "caused." What does it mean to rise "from" something, or "due" to something? Where exactly does your mind begin and end? How about its contents? And by exactly what criteria do you judge the cause and the effect? Where do the five sense perceptions begin and end?

 

Where is the mind?

 

You should read some Abhidharma. I wouldn't mind getting into this discussion, but your questions beacon more than I have time to offer at this moment.

 

All the best!

[Vajrahridaya]

I guess your saying that the formless experience of neither perception nor non-perception is the reality of the mind? That would be the 8th consciousness. Yogacara's break down of the mind from level of beyond object to objects is good as well. Of course all based on Abhidharma.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You should read some Heart Sutra and prasangika madhyamaka. The Buddhas don't agree with you. Though, you are free to make up your own mind about that... that's mind's inherent non-existence at work there, to exist in whatever way it wishes to and manifest the conditions for itself as such, when it itself is not a condition of existence as well.

 

Well... that's your choice to consider. I don't agree with you. For me purity is the non-inherent existence of mind/phenomena. Any reification of any sort is the cause for more impurity in experience.

 

You should read some Abhidharma. I wouldn't mind getting into this discussion, but your questions beacon more than I have time to offer at this moment.

 

All the best!

 

I cannot ask Avalokiteshvra or Candrakirti directly. I wish I could.

 

But my inquiry is very basic. According to your concept, the mind spimply works due to causes and conditions propelling itself to do so. Then how does one realize enlightenment except through pure chance? Was it simply destined to due so?

 

I've realized that the concept of free will is very much avoided by most Buddhists I ask. Why? Because to exert free will means to find a source that generates that will. And upon investigation, that source cannot be found. So according the principle of causes and conditions, one's suffering and enlightenment are simply that which happens. There is only the flow of events.

 

As for conditions, when one looks into where conditions are or how they are experienced, there will be no such thing as inside, outside, perciever, or percieved. That all things are experienced due to the conditioned state of our mind. But seeing into what drives this creation, I find nothing "in" my consciousness that drives it, that interacts with it. That truly, all phenomena is of the mind. It does not originate from anything for it is as beginingless and timeless as anything that can be said to exist.

 

 

 

I guess your saying that the formless experience of neither perception nor non-perception is the reality of the mind? That would be the 8th consciousness. Yogacara's break down of the mind from level of beyond object to objects is good as well. Of course all based on Abhidharma.

 

Do you know anything beyond the act of knowing?

 

Do you see anything beyond the act of seeing?

 

It is impossible.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[voidisyinyang]

Lucky7Strikes -- your doubts and questions indeed run up against the latest "theoretical" propaganda in the monastery meditation scene -- for example consider this recent expose in the Theravada scene:

 

I was made aware of an American who went to Burma as a monk and made the following discovery. Bhante Vimalaramsi has a monastery in Missouri and he just received high recognition by the World Buddhists, etc.:

 

Part 1

 

Now, about a thousand years after the Buddha died, there was another Brahmin by the name of Buddhagosa, and he had memorized all of the Vedic texts. A Buddhist monk came around, and he started talking about Buddhism, and he became real enthusiastic about Buddhism. Now Buddhagosa was an excellent scholar; he was really a top-notch scholar, very intellectual. He became so impressed with the Buddhist teaching that he took on the robes, and went to one of the Buddhist schools--they had colleges there at that time. But the only thing he really studied was the Pali language, and he became very proficient at that--very good Pali scholar. And he started getting a little bit prideful, and he started thinking, "You know, I bet I know Pali better than my teacher does now." And the teacher read his mind. And the teacher said, "Now you have to pay for that. Now, in Sri Lanka, they have been teaching and writing commentaries for five hundred years, but they're writing the commentaries in Sri Lankan; they're not writing them in Pali. I want you to go to Sri Lanka and change all those commentaries back into Pali."

 

Now he was a scholar and an intellectual and didn't know a thing about meditation. The first book he wrote when he went to Sri Lanka was the Visuddhimagga. The Visuddhimagga is called "The Path of Purification," and he wrote that the Buddha had forty different meditations. And this book was done in such a scholarly way. He divided it up into three different sections. First, is morality, and that's reasonably good. Then he wrote about concentration. Now here's a monk that doesn't know anything about meditation. And he starts thinking, "You know, I don't know what the Buddha taught about meditation, but I know what is says in the Vedas, and all meditation is the same, right? So he wrote about meditation by using the Vedas and mixing in Buddhist words. So it sounds right. He was very skillful at taking parts of a sutta that was just one line that made it sound perfect. Then he wrote another section on insight. And he divided the two kinds of meditation; he said, "This is one kind of meditation, this is another kind of meditation."

 

 

Now at the time, in Sri Lanka, the monks had been kind of lazy. They weren't very good at meditation; they didn't do it very much, and they didn't keep up their scholarship. Now he comes along with this book that's very scholarly, and they started reading that, and they started saying, "This is right! This is it!" And they went off, and they started practicing on their own. And because of the scholarship that he had and put in that book, they started picking up their scholarship and after ten or fifteen years, they started going, "Wait a minute. This isn't right. It says this in the text, and is says this here, and this is definitely not the same thing." But this book had become so popular that they couldn't stop it.

 

About this time, there was a real corrupt time in Burma for the monks. They were--monks were doing all kinds of things that they shouldn't have been doing. So they wanted to purify the sangha, so they had two boatloads of monks go to Sri Lanka and disrobe and re-ordain. Now they happened to run across this Visuddhimagga, and they got real excited because their sangha had been real corrupt--they hadn't been keeping their practices pure, they hadn't been doing much in the way of meditation--so they run across this, and now they're all excited about this Visuddhimagga, and they brought it back to Burma. And they've kept it in Burma for a thousand years--1500 years, something like that--I don't know how long it was. A real long time. And they've used that book as the basis of all meditation in Burma. But when you start looking at that as compared with the original suttas, you start seeing that they're not quite the same. They're not teaching quite the same thing that the Buddha was teaching. This is why it's real important to go back to the original texts.

 

Now, how did I find out about this? I'm a dumb American. I wanted to find out about meditation, and the first book I read about meditation was a Burmese book on meditation. It was real clear--do it this way. So that's what I picked up, and that's what I stuck with. And I got real interested in the Burmese and all of their forms of meditation. And that's why I went to Burma. I spent almost three years in Burma, and I practiced their form of meditation. And I went to the end of their meditation, and I found out this doesn't lead to the same place that the Buddha was talking about. So I became real disheartened.

 

And about that time, I was invited to go to a real big monastery in Kuala Lumpur. The head monk there had been real old--he was 75 or 76 years old--and he was used to giving two or three talks to three or four hundred people every time--every day. Two or three talks a week--I should say it that way. But every time he gave a talk, there was a lot of people that came, so he invited me to come there and to give dhamma talks and to teach meditation. And as it turned out, there was a Sri Lankan monk that came through, and he said, "Oh, I understand that you teach meditation. How do you teach it?" Now, I had given up on vipassana at that point, because I saw that it didn't lead to what I wanted it to lead to, or what I thought the Buddha was talking about. So I was teaching loving-kindness meditation, and I started telling him how I was teaching it, and he said, "You're teaching it just exactly right. The only thing you're doing is you're using the language of the Visuddhimagga. Throw the Visuddhimagga away. Just use the language of the suttas."

 

As soon as I did that--as soon as I let go of the Visuddhimagga--all of the suttas just--bang!--I could understand them. Now before, I was reading the Visuddhimagga, and I'd read the suttas, and I couldn't understand the suttas, so I put it down and went back to the Visuddhimagga. Now, I put down the Visuddhimagga and picked up the suttas, and it's plain what they're talking about. And I've tried to encourage as many teachers as possible to start using the original texts and let go of all of the ideas in the Visuddhimagga. Now Buddhagosa says that there's forty different meditations that the Buddha taught, and I've found fifty-two. So who am I going to believe?

 

So, I would very much like to encourage you to start practicing the way that the Buddha was talking about rather than people that have studied the Visuddhimagga. And there was a friend that came and listened to one of the dhamma talks, and I was going straight--it's not like we've talked tonight, it's like we talked last night when I was reading straight from the sutta. And they came to me--and they were a teacher--and they came to me after the dhamma talk, and they just kind of shook their head, and they said, "You know, I've been teaching a watered-down Buddhism." When you go back to the suttas themselves, and you start using the suttas, what happens is your teaching becomes much more systematic and easier to understand. And because of the attachment to the Visuddhimagga, that's hard for a lot of people to hear--unfortunately.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I've realized that the concept of free will is very much avoided by most Buddhists I ask. Why? Because to exert free will means to find a source that generates that will. And upon investigation, that source cannot be found. So according the principle of causes and conditions, one's suffering and enlightenment are simply that which happens. There is only the flow of events.

 

 

This is why Buddhas work so hard to generate the conditions for other beings liberation. Because beings cannot have the condition for liberation without there being a Buddha within conscious distance to help out. In Buddhism, liberation is a condition that is free from conditions in as much as dependent origination is not an intellectual musing anymore, but one activates through the accumulation of beneficial conditions, the liberated chain of originating dependently.

 

There are only causes and conditions, there is no brahman.

 

Do you know anything beyond the act of knowing?

 

Do you see anything beyond the act of seeing?

 

It is impossible.

 

In certain states of meditation, it can seem as so. The formless jhanas seem to be quite those states, because they are beyond time, thus beyond a center, beyond an object of perception. Yet, they are still conditions and relative, because it still takes a sentient to speak about the possibility of that experience. To reify these states means to absorb into them at the end of life, or at the end of a cosmic eon where the possibility of perception of the flow of time and it's things, including gross senses or refined senses are all repressed. These also are not the truth of the cessation of ignorance which the Buddha teaches. The formless Jhanas are hard to explain, but some beings have been able to explain them a bit it seems and create systems for breaking down from formless to form experience in a sequential pattern of beyond perception to perceiving and then the senses of perception. Seeing the emptiness of these even the act of seeing and knowing is considered emptying the base, and that base is mind, the 8th consciousness or the 8th jhana. That doesn't mean there is something beyond this, yes, there is only mind, but it's only the relativity of the relative and does not have inherent existence. But, there is no ultimate existence, and no inherent existence to be relative either... That's the pure cognition.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is why Buddhas work so hard to generate the conditions for other beings liberation. Because beings cannot have the condition for liberation without there being a Buddha within conscious distance to help out. In Buddhism, liberation is a condition that is free from conditions in as much as dependent origination is not an intellectual musing anymore, but one activates through the accumulation of beneficial conditions, the liberated chain of originating dependently.

 

There are only causes and conditions, there is no brahman.

 

Yes, that all sounds good. And you will also say that the Buddha is dependently originated, caused, by the very same nature Samsara works by. That these things simply happen on and on. There is no Buddha to work hard. He is, according to the very same concept, an element within the ride of causes and conditions.

 

I am primarily concerned here with the notion of the actor behind the proposed actions. Who is the one accumulating these merits?

 

I do not adhere to the concept of Brahman. But I also do not see where causes begin and end, or what exactly defines a "condition." I see no cause, no time, no distinction.

 

In certain states of meditation, it can seem as so. The formless jhanas seem to be quite those states, because they are beyond time, thus beyond a center, beyond an object of perception. Yet, they are still conditions and relative, because it still takes a sentient to speak about the possibility of that experience. To reify these states means to absorb into them at the end of life, or at the end of a cosmic eon where the possibility of perception of the flow of time and it's things, including gross senses or refined senses are all repressed. These also are not the truth of the cessation of ignorance which the Buddha teaches. The formless Jhanas are hard to explain, but some beings have been able to explain them a bit it seems and create systems for breaking down from formless to form experience in a sequential pattern of beyond perception to perceiving and then the senses of perception. Seeing the emptiness of these even the act of seeing and knowing is considered emptying the base, and that base is mind, the 8th consciousness or the 8th jhana. That doesn't mean there is something beyond this, yes, there is only mind, but it's only the relativity of the relative and does not have inherent existence. But, there is no ultimate existence, and no inherent existence to be relative either... That's the pure cognition.

 

I'm not talking about meditative states. Or the 8th jnana, or the perception/non-perception state. I'm talking about this. This, right now.

 

The creative content of the mind is "relative" only in the sense that it shares that characteristic with other minds. You and I can see a tree, but only the tree essence is shared. No tree is there to be seen, you and I, not "we" have simply created that being on a similar frequency of sorts. And it is created due to an evolved consciousness that sees more into the possibility of creation.

 

There is ultimate existence. But not as a form or a static phenomena. It is existence as a verb, of the Mind creating, destroying, formulating, as it habits and desires deem it to do so.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I am primarily concerned here with the notion of the actor behind the proposed actions. Who is the one accumulating these merits?

 

What was once brought together by the condition of I am, is now brought together by the condition of I am for all beings. The intention changes from self existence to universal existence without a clinging to a self. This is whats misunderstood about the Pari-nirvana sutra. When he say's, I have attained my true self. He is talking about a self that is still relative, but is the true self because it sees the nature of all things and offers from this realization. So... what was once coagulated by fear, is now coagulated by compassion. The condition of there being a self that acts and experiences still is, but from selfish to selfless.

 

I wonder if that explanation helps with the rest of the post?

[JustARandomPanda]

 

Actually it does. I'm not speaking of the thinking mind within the brain. I'm talking about the non-dual mind of experience. If this mind does not inherently exist, there is no Nirvana. It is actually the only thing exists as far as I am concerned. Why? Because it Is existence.

 

 

 

Actually it does not necessarily follow that just because a mind exists it therefore means it exists inherently. This is a leap in logic. It is also a leap in logic to say that if a mind doesn't inherently exist this ipso facto denies Nirvana. Nirvana doesn't necessarily rely on inherency of mind to go about 'nirvana-ing'.

 

I confess I am still confused about all of this. But I admit it is this lack of inherency of all things that has upset my ego-ic apple cart so to speak and has me a bit depressed. Just because we do not like something it doesn't follow it may not be true.

[Lucky7Strikes]

What was once brought together by the condition of I am, is now brought together by the condition of I am for all beings. The intention changes from self existence to universal existence without a clinging to a self. This is whats misunderstood about the Pari-nirvana sutra. When he say's, I have attained my true self. He is talking about a self that is still relative, but is the true self because it sees the nature of all things and offers from this realization. So... what was once coagulated by fear, is now coagulated by compassion. The condition of there being a self that acts and experiences still is, but from selfish to selfless.

 

I wonder if that explanation helps with the rest of the post?

 

Where is this self you speak of, making its own actions, decisions, realizations? In your view of reality, there is no Buddha, no I, no choice, no salvation. All things are generated through causes and conditions, no? Acting through the one law of dependence?

 

Actually it does not necessarily follow that just because a mind exists it therefore means it exists inherently. This is a leap in logic. It is also a leap in logic to say that if a mind doesn't inherently exist this ipso facto denies Nirvana. Nirvana doesn't necessarily rely on inherency of mind to go about 'nirvana-ing'.

 

I confess I am still confused about all of this. But I admit it is this lack of inherency of all things that has upset my ego-ic apple cart so to speak and has me a bit depressed. Just because we do not like something it doesn't follow it may not be true.

 

There is no Nirvana because there is no one to attain Nirvana. An experience you can label "Nirvana" can occur, but it is another part of existence acting itself out through conditions.

 

All things lack inherence, but they exist. Do you deny your present experience? And they exist where there are no distinctions between cause and effect.

 

So what can be said to cause another?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Where is this self you speak of, making its own actions, decisions, realizations? In your view of reality, there is no Buddha, no I, no choice, no salvation. All things are generated through causes and conditions, no? Acting through the one law of dependence?

 

Your having a hard time understanding the experiential meaning of my words. Your making the wrong conclusions here. I never said exactly that in the way you are meaning.

 

There is no Nirvana because there is no one to attain Nirvana. An experience you can label "Nirvana" can occur, but it is another part of existence acting itself out through conditions.

 

Yes. But it's deeply complicated and this reduction through words is limiting the scope of meaning.

 

All things lack inherence, but they exist. Do you deny your present experience? And they exist where there are no distinctions between cause and effect.

 

So what can be said to cause another?

 

Things arise due to other things, simply... But that chain is complex, yet nothing exists inherently only relatively.

 

Nirvana is just a condition that arises due to other causes and conditions, namely the 8 fold noble path.

[JustARandomPanda]

There is ultimate existence. But not as a form or a static phenomena. It is existence as a verb, of the Mind creating, destroying, formulating, as it habits and desires deem it to do so.

 

Something seems...wrong with this statement. I can't put my finger on it but it seems wrong. I don't know how to explain why I see this as a wrong statement.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Something seems...wrong with this statement. I can't put my finger on it but it seems wrong. I don't know how to explain why I see this as a wrong statement.

 

 

I think he's saying the flow of endless relative things as a whole is an ultimate existence. But, this is just saying that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. So, is not held as a true view in Buddhist consideration.

[JustARandomPanda]

Dependent Arising is the acid bath that breaks down everything it touches. There is nothing that could stop it from being true.

 

Notice I did not say it IS true. I have no idea if it is or not. I just said there's nothing that could stop it from being true all the way through.

 

That is what I find so disturbing about it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Your having a hard time understanding the experiential meaning of my words. Your making the wrong conclusions here. I never said exactly that in the way you are meaning.

 

Yes. But it's deeply complicated and this reduction through words is limiting the scope of meaning.

 

Things arise due to other things, simply... But that chain is complex, yet nothing exists inherently only relatively.

 

Nirvana is just a condition that arises due to other causes and conditions, namely the 8 fold noble path.

 

This and that. What constitutes this as "this" and that as "that"? The distinction is made only by the Mind.

 

Things don't arise due to other things. It only seems like that because your creative potential increases.

 

Nothing exists inherently nor do they exist relatively. Relativity only exists when one makes the distinction of this and that. So when this becomes this apart from that, only does this and that become relative.

[Vajrahridaya]

This and that. What constitutes this as "this" and that as "that"? The distinction is made only by the Mind.

 

Things don't arise due to other things. It only seems like that because your creative potential increases.

 

Nothing exists inherently nor do they exist relatively. Relativity only exists when one makes the distinction of this and that. So when this becomes this apart from that, only does this and that become relative.

 

Yes... a bit of prasangika there. But... mind does not exist on it's own, it only exists relative to it's content... either formless concepts, or form concepts. The cosmos would still be without your mind, but that's just saying... that's not actual.

 

Your mind is still dependently arisen and is not absolute. I think your still thinking that beyond perception and non-perception is some absolute non-dual core?

 

Think about what this means. Because neither perception nor non-perception is pretty much how your describing things.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think he's saying the flow of endless relative things as a whole is an ultimate existence. But, this is just saying that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. So, is not held as a true view in Buddhist consideration.

 

No that is not what I'm saying.

 

I'm asking who is there to attain liberation if all phenomena happens due to dependent rising relative to other creations.