Running into walls again....ARGH!

[doc benway]

 

BTW - what meditation technique does one use to investigate this I AM experience?

 

For a great treatment of this method check out Nisargadatta Maharaj or Sri Ramana Maharshi.

 

The basic method is this -

Ask yourself "Who Am I?"

Start by ruling out all the simple possibilities -

I am my name - wrong, you are still the same if you change your name

I am my profession - see above

.... my religion - ditto

.... my conditioning - conditioning can be overcome

..... my brain - you can have massive amounts of your brain removed or damaged and "you" are still there

... my heart - you could have a heart transplant

and so on until you completely run out of possibilities.

 

Then ask, who is it that is asking the question "Who Am I?"

Then, who or what is it that is aware that this question "Who Am I?" is being asked.

And so on...

this is like an infinite regression.

 

Whenever any other question comes up, inquire "to whom did this thought occur?"

Eventually you will answer "to me!" which leads back to "Who Am I?"

If you practice this with a great deal of patience and commitment, things will happen.

 

It is very simple but exceptionally difficult.

Good luck!

[goldisheavy]

Not sure I agree with you gold.

Isn't all insight experiential?

Insight, as I define it, goes beyond intellect and analysis.

 

All insight is indeed experiential. Thus claiming some insight as "experiential" is wrong, because you're implying that some other insight is non-experiential. And VH has indeed confirmed this when he said he used the word "experiential" to distinguish conceptual from non-conceptual insight.

 

My point was that insight is just insight. It's beyond categories. It shouldn't be labeled as "experiential" because what other kind is there? It's like saying "wet liquid water". What kind of other-than-wet liquid water is there? Isn't all liquid water wet? If yes, let's not call it wet liquid water. Let's just say "liquid water" and we're done.

[doc benway]

All insight is indeed experiential. Thus claiming some insight as "experiential" is wrong, because you're implying that some other insight is non-experiential. And VH has indeed confirmed this when he said he used the word "experiential" to distinguish conceptual from non-conceptual insight.

 

My point was that insight is just insight. It's beyond categories. It shouldn't be labeled as "experiential" because what other kind is there? It's like saying "wet liquid water". What kind of other-than-wet liquid water is there? Isn't all liquid water wet? If yes, let's not call it wet liquid water. Let's just say "liquid water" and we're done.

Now I am sure - I do agree with you, thanks for clarifying.

This is a great thread!

 

Steve, he said "in some way separate" not "separate". That gives him an edge because the more modest claim that you make, the more defensible it tends to be. He is saying that when we examine awareness as a fact of life, we find that we can discern some transcendent quality. As I read it, he's not saying that awareness is alone, and singularly separated and divorced from its artifacts.

 

On the other hand, when he says "we can't say that the unity is the true answer" I have no idea what he's talking about. It sounds like gibberish to me (perhaps due to a lack of context). I am too unmotivated/lazy to follow up the link.

If he stated that awareness was wholly divorced from phenomena, this would be a good question.

I get what you are saying. My point is that he claims awareness is separate, or more accurately "in some way separate" from phenomena then uses that assertion to make the substantial claim that "unity" is not "the true answer."

His argument here has no substance.

He does nothing to demonstrate that awareness is "in some way separate" and therefore has no basis for his second claim.

[goldisheavy]

For reference:

 

This is a Sutta and a commentary that describe how Buddha's conception of kamma differed from some other (simpler and more naive) ideas about kamma during Buddha's time.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html

[ralis]

I know that VH. I'm the same way. I believe there must be a spark in you somewhere to want to learn to write to clearly for others and not just for yourself if A) you plan on going to college and B ) you genuinely want to get these teachings out to other people.

 

*shrug*

 

I dunno...maybe check out that grammar book I linked to earlier? Surely it couldn't hurt? You might be able to find it in a local library or request it via Inter-Library Loan.

 

 

I have suggested several times for him to purchase, Strunk and White and William Zinssers "On Writing Well". Obviously, his sense of superiority will have no part in correct communication skills.

 

He insists on using fragmented thoughts, non-sequiturs and grammatical syntax that is chaotic at best. His attempts at using non-sequiturs to make it appear that his writing is well thought out, is the mark of a dilitant.

 

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

Luminosity arises from the fact of the empty quality of things and consciousness. It is not self supported or self originated.

 

I don't see how anything I've said contradicts Nagarjuna here.

 

Luminosity cannot arise from anything. That is like saying existence arises out of non-existence, which makes no sense because there non-existence means precisely that:

 

NON-EXISTENT

[ralis]

I find Thusness to have a subtler grasp than Danial, in conceptual formulation at least. But... I don't know either of them personally. I find ChNNR to be one of the most powerful Masters on the planet, and my girlfriend agrees because she had a direct experience of her luminosity and various other subtle metaphysical things just through the snap of his fingers and the sacred syllable... "phet".

 

I understand that my explanations are not perfect for everyone. I sometimes re-read my statements though and get high off them, as if I'm merely writing in a way that turns on my own light and works through my own personal set of conditionings??

 

I don't know... I don't try to be that selfish... that's not my intention at least? My intent is to get to the nuance of the direct experiencing as much as possible.

 

Bragging about experiences and that is all they are, helps no one. All that will accomplish is further inflate your fragile superior ego complex. You get high off your statements?

 

 

ralis

Edited October 18, 2009 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

He does nothing to demonstrate that awareness is "in some way separate" and therefore has no basis for his second claim.

 

I don't know. If he simply states that awareness is in some way separate from phenomena and just leaves it at that, I believe he's hoping that you will intuitively agree or agree based on your own prior analysis.

 

Awareness can be shown to have a non-fluctuating aspect to it. You can do that by examining fluctuations themselves and noticing that fluctuations have context and that context does not fluctuate relative to the fluctuation under examination. So for example, let's say you see a wave appear in the ocean, approach in your direction and collapse on the shore. You could say the wave arose and ceased. However, this cannot happen in vacuum. As it was about to arise, you had a proper context primed for such discernment. This context did not itself arise together with the wave. So the context is many many "things" (everything other than wave). It's things like you standing at the shore. You having your eyes open. You being in good health. You being not intoxicated. And so on. I just show a crude tip of the iceberg here.

 

Now, you can notice that contexts can change too. That's fine. So you can regard context as a phenomenon in and of itself. In that case you will have to recognize that context changes within a wider context. And so forth.

 

This is the endless contextuality of perception. There is no limit or boundary which you can reach whereupon you might proclaim, "I now know the context in full; I now have exhaustive knowledge of the context." This non-exhaustion of context is one of the reasons Buddhists talk about emptiness. Since you can always point to something unchanging during change, it is possible to see that change is not the ultimate nature of phenomena.

 

Buddha use references to change only to attack the idea that there is some unchanging substance. However Buddhas do not mean to propose change as a new kind of dogma because the aim is to combat all mental fixations rather than to develop a "correct" mental fixation.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Only if you don't get it.

 

As Nagarjuna said:

 

gal te stong min cung zad yod/ /

stong pa cung zad yod par 'gyur/ /

mi stong cung zad yod min na/ /

stong pa yod par ga la 'gyur/ /

If there were the slightest thing which were not empty,

Then there would be that much emptiness as well,

But if there is not the slightest thing which is not empty

How could emptiness exist?

Root Verses of the Middle Way, XIII, 7

 

gang phyir rten 'byung ma yin pa'i/ /

chos 'ga' yod pa ma yin pa/ /

de phyir stong pa ma yin pa'i/ /

chos 'ga' yod pa ma yin no/ /

There is not a single thing

That does not arise interdependently.

Therefore there is not a single thing

That is not empty.

Root Verses of the Middle Way, XXIV, 19

 

Thing. Thing. Thing. Thing is seen through distinction, a singularity. There needs to be a subject and the imagined object for there to be a "Thing." So yes, in the relative view of this and that, they arise interdependently.

 

Find your mind, see where it is, where is it located? It is no where. It does not arise. It does not cease. It simply is.

[Lucky7Strikes]

For a great treatment of this method check out Nisargadatta Maharaj or Sri Ramana Maharshi.

 

The basic method is this -

Ask yourself "Who Am I?"

Start by ruling out all the simple possibilities -

I am my name - wrong, you are still the same if you change your name

I am my profession - see above

.... my religion - ditto

.... my conditioning - conditioning can be overcome

..... my brain - you can have massive amounts of your brain removed or damaged and "you" are still there

... my heart - you could have a heart transplant

and so on until you completely run out of possibilities.

 

Then ask, who is it that is asking the question "Who Am I?"

Then, who or what is it that is aware that this question "Who Am I?" is being asked.

And so on...

this is like an infinite regression.

 

Whenever any other question comes up, inquire "to whom did this thought occur?"

Eventually you will answer "to me!" which leads back to "Who Am I?"

If you practice this with a great deal of patience and commitment, things will happen.

 

It is very simple but exceptionally difficult.

Good luck!

 

Yes! Self-inquiry destroys everything. It is not so different from the tool of Dependent Origination. All identity is destroyed, all previously held notions of self are gone.

 

In the end, you are left with I. And it continues on because you realize that you are. Why? Why are you, you? What is this awareness? Where is it? What is it? Where is it caused from?

 

Who am I? .

[Sunya]

Yes! Self-inquiry destroys everything. It is not so different from the tool of Dependent Origination. All identity is destroyed, all previously held notions of self are gone.

 

yep...but then how do you go from this to this next sentence?

 

In the end, you are left with I. And it continues on because you realize that you are. Why? Why are you, you? What is this awareness? Where is it? What is it? Where is it caused from?

 

Who am I? .

 

 

you haven't gone far enough if you are only left with I

 

non-dual presence is empty of I or any such labels. the feeling of 'I AM' is only perpetuated because of the consisting need to grasp and identify with a subject

 

see: 4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/

 

 

Self Inquiry as per Advaita and Ramana Maharshi ask "Who Am I" with the assumption that you will realize that there is indeed an I, its just of a different form, a much Grander form. Buddhist 'Anatta' has no such assumption. There is no I, period.

Edited October 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[Lucky7Strikes]

the point of Buddhist philosophy is not to explain conceptually the true nature of thing, that is impossible. the point is to question the one who questions. and to keep negating even the non-dual I AM-ness as there is still a subtle clinging to that state, since a conceptual barrier arises.

 

the purpose of Buddhist philosophy is to have purely non-conceptual vision. and all of Buddhist philosophy is a means to have that. any form of attachment to identity (such as I AM THAT) is seen as conceptual limitation

 

I want to know the true nature of existence as far as my being can know it. I would like to know precisely how this game is played. .

 

I don't care for attainments, I would like to know the Truth, the Dharma. Who cares about the jnanas, they are just tools to get you out of habitualized perception. They are there for you to question your view of reality.

 

 

 

yep...but then how do you go from this to this next sentence?

you haven't gone far enough if you are only left with I

 

non-dual presence is empty of I or any such labels. the feeling of 'I AM' is only perpetuated because of the consisting need to grasp and identify with a subject

 

see: 4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/

 

Because I realize that all distinctions, creations, perceptions are of the "I-ness." Of awareness and of its creation. Try as hard as you can to NOT-EXIST. HAHA, you can't. Keep telling yourself there is no you. That is just ridiculous, because if you succeed, you won't EXIST. Hence if there IS anything, it must be of awareness itself. It must be alive.

 

Non-dual presence of emptiness is nothing but state of dead intent. Your are a "dead" awareness stuck to the rising and fallings of your mind's own creations. You sit there and go, "Ah, look at all these causes and conditions rise and fall, and my existence must also be empty!" Your attainment is that of total detachment, believing yourself to be simply "going along" with whatever happens. This is again, deadness. You will simply cycle through again by the laws of the causes and conditions you adhere to.

 

By the way, I don't think this is what the Buddha meant.

 

Self Inquiry as per Advaita and Ramana Maharshi ask "Who Am I" with the assumption that you will realize that there is indeed an I, its just of a different form, a much Grander form. Buddhist 'Anatta' has no such assumption. There is no I, period.

 

Then who are you?

 

Are you causes and conditions acting itself out?

 

And how do you perceive these causes and conditions?

 

Isn't it totally subjective to your OWN judgment? And that in turn makes you believe and act accordingly to this perceived reality?

 

This is why Karma is nothing but a concept made in the mind. The mind makes it, judges it, adheres to it, suffers from it.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Further reference on Buddha's views on kamma:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...kammafruit.html

[voidisyinyang]

As far as the "subjective" issue it might be good to consider these issues from the perspective of "objective" science at least for some "balance" -- here's the "Journal of Consciousness Studies" featuring a top neuroscientist's essays:

 

http://www.imprint.co.uk/rama/#self

[JustARandomPanda]

Because I realize that all distinctions, creations, perceptions are of the "I-ness." Of awareness and of its creation. Try as hard as you can to NOT-EXIST. HAHA, you can't. Keep telling yourself there is no you. That is just ridiculous, because if you succeed, you won't EXIST.

 

Is it safe to say your meditation experiences have led you to agree with Dwai and the position he argued in the thread What the Self is and Is Not: Can Not Ignore the Most Basic Fact of Existence ?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Is it safe to say your meditation experiences have led you to agree with Dwai and the position he argued in the thread What the Self is and Is Not: Can Not Ignore the Most Basic Fact of Existence ?

 

No Dwai believes that there is one big existence of which we are a partial manifestation of.

 

I'm saying there is nothing beyond one's own Mind.

[JustARandomPanda]

Edited October 18, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Sunya]

Non-dual presence of emptiness is nothing but state of dead intent. Your are a "dead" awareness stuck to the rising and fallings of your mind's own creations. You sit there and go, "Ah, look at all these causes and conditions rise and fall, and my existence must also be empty!" Your attainment is that of total detachment, believing yourself to be simply "going along" with whatever happens. This is again, deadness. You will simply cycle through again by the laws of the causes and conditions you adhere to.

 

"dead" is a concept. why do you keep trying to apply concepts, which are themselves limiting, to infinity?

 

Then who are you?

 

loaded question, implying that an answer exists. there is no 'Who'

 

Are you causes and conditions acting itself out?

 

again, loaded question, there is no 'you'

 

And how do you perceive these causes and conditions?

 

there is perception, but no perceiver. and this perception is no separate from causes and conditions.

 

 

Isn't it totally subjective to your OWN judgment? And that in turn makes you believe and act accordingly to this perceived reality?

 

This is why Karma is nothing but a concept made in the mind. The mind makes it, judges it, adheres to it, suffers from it.

 

mind is not separate from karma. in fact - karma is mind.

 

 

 

 

I'm saying there is nothing beyond one's own Mind.

 

 

Mind is beyond concepts such as 'ones own' which arise due to attachment to a self

 

there is no 'you' that can own anything.

 

why are you enlarging your ego to encompass the cosmos? let it go man

 

 

 

btw Lucky, i really urge you to read the links I sent. specifically the ones written by Thusness, he's a very clear teacher and his articles are vastly more eloquent than anything I can communicate to you

Edited October 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited October 18, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

"You're trying to reduce Buddha's doctrine to a set of definitive statements. Basically I'm a moron when I quote the Buddha to support my view of an absolute substratum."

 

LOL

 

 

cmon guys lets be civil!

[Lucky7Strikes]

"dead" is a concept. why do you keep trying to apply concepts, which are themselves limiting, to infinity?

 

there is perception, but no perceiver. and this perception is no separate from causes and conditions.

 

Mind is beyond concepts such as 'ones own' which arise due to attachment to a self

 

there is no 'you' that can own anything.

 

Ok there is no "me" to own anything. And perception of emptiness is also from causes and conditions. We are forever bound by it. Even Nirvana is bound by Samsara, because both are of causes and conditions. All dependently originated from one element to another.

 

Yes?

 

btw Lucky, i really urge you to read the links I sent. specifically the ones written by Thusness, he's a very clear teacher and his articles are vastly more eloquent than anything I can communicate to you

 

I have read through many of his writings. He is a very good teacher indeed. Where's Xabir?? .

[ralis]

As in I feel my conditioning loosen and I experience rigpa. You could use some experiences... and more of them.

Your constant non-contributing prattle is the mark of a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

You make the incorrect assumption that I have no rigpa experience. Moron is defined as slightly retarded and that was a punch below the belt!!

 

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think Lucky... what your having a hard time understanding is that emptiness is the key liberating factor. Until one realizes emptiness fully, one's consciousness is bound by pre-determined conditions, which is why Bodhisattvas and Buddhas help set up conditions to cause positive pre-conditions that lead to the realization of emptiness. This is where consciousness becomes awareness and self transcends into the experience of luminosity... all through the condition of emptiness. You flip the 12 links from ignorance into wisdom.

 

There are no Bodhisattvas to set up anything. Their realization is due to causes and conditions. Suffering causes the conditions for Nirvana, and Nirvana helps those in Samsara. On and on and on. See, what is missing from this is the notion of free will. For there to be a choice, there also has to be one to make that choice. But upon investigation, there is no such thing as a "doer" or a "actor" in phenomena. So if every element in creation is dependently originated from pre-conditiong, including the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas and the criminals and the hell beings and what not,

 

There is simply causes and conditions acting themselves out. Is that your view of reality?

 

Your still ultimating awareness erroneously it seems.

 

Yes, you can say that. But the Awareness I am talking about it not the empty luminous awareness. It is not Oneness or Twoness. It is an every fluctuating, creating, and evolving Awareness. It's nature is creation.

[Vajrahridaya]

You make the incorrect assumption that I have no rigpa experience. Moron is defined as slightly retarded and that was a punch below the belt!!

ralis

 

Look, I can only assume from your posts that you think you have experienced Rigpa.

 

I would rather you not follow me around like an English school teacher. I'll get enough of that in school. Just let me be the me that I know how to be. I have improved my grammar over the years and my spelling has improved as well.

 

You are not making good karma between us if you are really a student of Rinpoche... just back off and do your own practice.

 

Rinpoche IS a Buddhist and he DOES believe in the 31 planes and the 6 realms. He is also a Madhyamaka master!! You have not answered if you have read Precious Vase, so I assume you have not. You have not answered if you have read his other books that I have mentioned, so I assume you have not.

 

I think you have no context for realizing what Rigpa actually is. You think it's an excuse to just do whatever you want and be as anti-Buddhist as you want. Rinpoche also thinks the Dalai Lama is a swell guy and a great being. The Dalai Lama and Rinpoche like each other.

 

I PM you to try to get this over with, but you ignore my PM's and keep taunting me like some school yard bully.

 

Your point of view is askew and heavily conditioned in a negative way.

 

I do not hear your advice at all. So... why not do you and me a favor and kick rocks.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Luminosity is a recognition of Buddha-nature, the awareness of the emptiness of your consciousness within the 12 links schematic.

 

Basically conscious emptiness.

 

Your still ultimating awareness erroneously it seems.

 

No, you are still making the distinction of the 12 links as something that is definite. It is not. To see dependent origination as absolute is to posit a cause and effect as an absolute law in an objective world outside of one's own awareness.

 

In fact, it is made up within the mind. The mind habits itself to it and makes it a reality, hence cycling you and you notion of body again and again, not necessarily because you want to, but because it is the only thing it knows how to.

 

I think GIH is somewhat right when he says that the doctrine taken to be the Truth can easily become a falsehood. The teaching are there to free the mind from illusions, not to create new ones.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes