Clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Well that is what I am trying to do. And so far I am not getting anywhere.

Look at the skin of your hands. Looks real? Touch it...feel it as much as you can. Can you don't think of a background, a watcher, or anything of that sort. And know that, that alone is awareness? Yet, those sensations, vivid as it is, is it in anyway permanent, having an independent essence of its own?

 

That is all.

 

Well that is what I am trying to do. And so far I am not getting anywhere.

Yes, luminosity is the magical display. The magical display is appearances is it not? What else would it be? So emptiness + appearances...?

 

If not, then what is luminosity to you? Maybe it would help if we defined our terms.

 

And I'm quoting what I said here again because I want you to speak to it and I think it may be near what you are saying...

 

"Awareness is not a source. It just IS everything. I did not mean by this that, for instance, trees are aware - that trees can think and feel. I meant that a tree's shape IS seeing awareness, the tree's sound IS hearing awareness. The tree is not aware, the tree IS awareness whether sentient beings are present or not.

 

As another example, my physical body is formed from various causes and conditions. But, it also cannot be without awareness. It's shape is seeing awareness, it's sound is hearing awareness, etc. These causes and conditions are also awareness."

Thusness: When there is simply a pure sense of existence;

When awareness appears mirror like;

When sensations become pristine clear and bright;

This is luminosity.

 

 

However, this clear, pristine, luminous awareness, is not in any separate from those appearances.

 

The causes and conditions may not be part of awareness but are the factors and conditions that give rise to a particular experience, like a sound is interdependent with a lot of unseen factors that gives rise to it. The sound itself is awareness.

 

Also, if sentient beings are not present, there is the absent of factors such as the person, the sense organs, to give rise to the experience of 'tree'.

 

Without the experience, there is no awareness. Awareness is the experience.

Edited November 1, 2009 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Without the experience, there is no awareness. Awareness is the experience.

So then, when you talk about non dual awareness, you are talking only about experiencing/experience? Non dual then would be that in the experience of a sentient being, the sound and hearing are one, inseparable? You are not saying that sound and hearing are actually one and the same as an ontological fact. Sound and hearing are still different and each originate dependently according to different causes and conditions. You are just saying that purely and only from the experience of sentients, thought thinks, scenery sees, etc?

Edited November 1, 2009 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

So then, when you talk about non dual awareness, you are talking only about experiencing/experience? Non dual then would be that in the experience of a sentient being, the sound and hearing are one, inseparable? You are not saying that sound and hearing are actually one and the same as an ontological fact. Sound and hearing are still different and each originate dependently according to different causes and conditions. You are just saying that purely and only from the experience of sentients, thought thinks, scenery sees, etc?

Yes.

 

In Buddhist contemplation we just look into our sensate reality.

 

As Buddha teaches:

 

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

 

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

 

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Edited November 1, 2009 by xabir2005

[C T]

Greetings everyone! Much have been learnt here, so thank you all for the questions and thoughts. Just want to include here an excerpt from *Rainbow Painting* (Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche) which i believe will further the understanding of liberation and mind essence to a small degree:

 

"Finally, the third analogy of the liberation of thoughts is described as being like a thief entering an empty house. This is called stability or perfection in training. A thief entering an empty house does not gain anything, and the house does not lose anything. All thought activity is naturally liberated without any harm or benefit whatsoever. That is the meaning of gaining confidence in liberation.

 

There is also what is called the four modes of liberation: self-liberated, liberated upon arising, directly liberated and primordially liberated. These are not exactly a direct sequence, but are more like different aspects or modes of how liberation is. For example, the fourth one, primordially free, refers to the awakened state of rigpa, that which is already free, it does not need (effort) to be liberated. Thats the idea. One of the lines in the 'Three Words to Strike the Vital Point' says: By recognizing dharmakaya in what is liberated, as in the analogy of drawing on water, there is unceasing self-occurring self-liberation.

 

'Primordially freed' means a state that does not have to be re-freed, because it is already free. With 'directly freed', 'directly' has the connotation of immediacy, meaning instantaneously. 'Naturally freed' means without an entity that needs freeing; there is no thing or essence or identity that needs to be liberated. Seeing this, it is naturally freed. 'Self-freed' means without even the need for a remedy. 'Freed upon arising' refers to thoughts that dissolve the moment you recognize the awakened state.

 

We could view these different types of liberation as a sequence of increasing subtlety. From another point of view, these are merely different modes, different expressions of the same face. Primordial liberation refers to the awakened state, but if you are talking about the dualistic mind, it is not primordially freed. It needs to be liberated. The moment of dualistic (arising) mind needs to be dissolved, purified. (I think he means purifying the clinging to, and aversion of - the illusion of separateness). The fully awakened state is not like this; it is already purified and fully perfected, so it does not need further perfection.

 

When a reflection appears in a mirror, you do not have to imagine it is there; it is vividly perceived. In the same way, you do not have to imagine basic wakefulness - it is naturally present. When a master perform the empowerment of enlightened mind, conferring the empowerment of non-dual wakefulness to your dualistic mind, your thought activity (at that moment) is seen as 'self-arising self-liberation'. All thought activity occurs as the expression of of awareness. By recognizing its source, it dissolves back into the state of awareness itself.

 

Thoughts occur as an expression of your essence, and not from anywhere else. They do not arise from the 5 elements, the 5 sense organs, from flesh, blood, temperature, the heat or breath of your body - not at all. Once you recognize your essence to be primordially pure, the thoughts that arise from yourself dissolve back into yourself, within the expanse of your own nature. They do not go anywhere else. This is what is meant by self-arising self-liberation. If you do not recognize your own essence, then what arises from yourself does not dissolve back within yourself. Rather than being liberated (instantaneously), it goes astray into the six realms of samsara.

 

This is really the key point here. The thinking of dualistic mind arises or takes place as the expression of [unrecognized] awareness. Once you recognize this basic awareness, the display of thoughts loses all power and simply dissolves into the expanse of buddha-nature. This is the reason to recognize mind essence.

 

(So what is mind essence?) Where does a thought come from? It occurs only as the display of your nature; it does not come from any other source. Look into this matter for a billion years, and you will never see a thought arise out of earth, water, fire or wind. Or out of a body - after all, even a corpse has flesh. There are cavities in the body, blood, heat and so forth, but these components do not give rise to thoughts. Neither do thoughts arise from the objects perceived, whether they be visual forms, sounds, smells, tastes or textures. We have the 5 sense objects, and our body's 5 senses acting as go-betweens. A corpse has sense organs - it has eyes, but it does not see, has ears, but does not hear, has tongue, but does not taste, has nose, but does not smell. It has a body, but it does not feel. A corpse notices nothing. So, can't we conclude that the basis for every experience is our own minds? Isnt it only mind which knows?

 

That which knows, is in essence, empty. It is cognizant by nature, and its capacity is unconfined. Try to see this for yourself and understand that this is how your mind essence is. Thoughts arise from yourself and dissolve into yourself; they do not arise from yourself and dissolve somewhere else. (Unless the mind functions dualistically). So, what is recognized, when we say 'recognize'? It means seeing that the nature of mind is unconfined(infinite) empty cognizance. This is the real condition, the natural state of the three 'kayas'.

 

Realize this to be the real condition of things as they actually are, not just how they seem. The seeming way is created by our normal, rigid and fixating thoughts. Recognize the real state, and this seeming way vanishes. These are the two aspects: the real and the seeming, the ultimate and the relative. The real is your essence; the seeming is your thoughts. Once you stabilize recognition of the real state, the seeming way vanishes without a trace. It collapses, dissolves, completely vanishes. This is what training the mind is all about".

 

Hope this can be helpful in some way.

 

Regards.

[Marblehead]

Hi xabir2005,

 

I enjoyed your post #168. Very well presented. You did very well with the concept of "awareness", I think.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

No, no truly existing mountains for me. I've seen through that. It's all empty, dependently originated, not truly existent and not non existent, not both and not neither. I've been through that. But there is something else here that you are talking about that I can't get.

 

Is the realization that emptiness is form or emptiness and appearances/phenomena are inseparable at all close to what you are saying?

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

While we are in this physical body we must look at the mountain.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

To add on to my previous posts...

 

Before we realise awareness, we think that objects have their own identity, and further, we identify ourselves with those objects -- body and mind. We roughly know that we are conscious beings with awareness, but we mistake awareness as something contained by an objective universe (our awareness being one thing among the others), contained by our bodies, and is somehow an illusory byproduct of this 'real' universe or body-mind. We do not have non-conceptual experience and realisation of what Awareness really is, hence the true face of awareness is obscured by our false concepts.

 

After realising the luminous source we realise all these objects (the phenomena we experience) have no 'objective existence' and are only illusory, impersonal happenings happening within Awareness, without any existence apart from Awareness, yet that practitioner clings tightly to that source, that ultimate Subject, and reify it into a source wherein everything manifests and dissolves. Nothing 'is' without the clear light of awareness shining and revealing everything. Thus, this is realised as the luminous source of all that is, however one easily reifies the luminosity into an essence apart from phenomena. At the initial stage, Consciousness seems to be the unchanging witness, while phenomena simply arise come and go within it. Hence duality remains. At this level, consciousness is seen as real, phenomena illusory. At this level you know without doubt and without concepts what 'You' are. This is an important step - to experience this 'I' non-conceptually. You'll see through the illusion of Awareness as being in the objects or being apart from You, it is You, no separation at all. The first step is to know what Awareness is (non-conceptually), to experience this I. At this stage one realises that I am not an object (apart from me) -- and the so called 'awareness' or 'non dual experience' is not what I experience, it is what one is, or rather what simply IS. It comes with a tacit realisation that you are not merely a lifeless corpse, body or a machine. You know that you are more than an insentient object. Can a corpse be capable of activities and cognizance? No. The body by itself is incapable of cognizance -- they are instead, objects cognized within Consciousness. I am not those objects. I am alive. I am Life, Consciousness, Being. I AM. This I AM is never doubtable because it is more real than real -- it is so real you can never deny your own being, nothing can be more real than the pure presence of Being. From the perspective of someone who realises the I AM which is so real, all other phenomena are like an illusion (But it is dualistic since there is a denial of transient phenomena and establishment of the reality of consciousness seen as unchanging). At any moment even if doubting arises, I AM that clear knowing/presence in which doubting is arising in. This I AMness is Self-Knowing, it is known only by BEING it, it is not an observer observing something. When the practitioner realises beyond a shadow of doubt that this is who he is (rather than interpreted as something 'he' experiences), then this is no longer seen as a mere transient experience but a permanent Realisation of the nature of one's being. To realise this it is important to use methods like contemplating on the koan, "Who am I"? However this is only a partial, not complete realisation, and many more stages of realisations must unfold to clarify the non-dual, anatta, empty nature of Awareness. But this realisation is the initial glimpse of what Awareness truly is beyond theories and concepts, one knows by realising/BEING IT. This is only possible by dropping all our mental chatterings, conceptual understandings and notions of what Awareness is, and simply drop everything else -- mind, body, etc... only contemplate 'Who am I', and allow ourselves to be filled with only this sense of existence or presence until one realizes what existence is.

 

Next, we realise that just manifestation alone is it, there is no other Subject or Source to fall back on. But at the same time we do not mistaken ourselves or awareness as located externally 'in objects' or 'in the objective universe' or being contained by this 6 foot body (cause the notion of yourself as being a tangible object of any sort is already thoroughly seen through in the 2nd step where we realise that the body and mind is 'contained' within this vast container-like awareness instead of being the other way around -- objects having their own objective existence and awareness being located in those objects. The 3rd step goes further and sees there is no container-contained dichotomy). At this level, consciousness is seen as not other than the illusion-like, dream-like display, which nevertheless is vivid and luminous. Consciousness 'feels' real and vivid but is without manifestation-transcendence essence or substance. Not only are you not separate from awareness (it is not an objective reality), awareness cannot be separated from all manifestations. The appearances are not seen as having objective reality apart from your awareness of it (it isn't 'yours', but language is dualistic), nor are they seen as manifestations of a pure subject, but rather, it is simply all non-dual awareness.

 

 

In short:

 

Sentient beings cling to/identify with objects.

 

Dualistic practitioners cling to/identify with Subject.

 

Enlightened practitioners cling to/identify with neither.

 

 

Marblehead mentioned the zen koan:

Before study and practise zen, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters.

 

When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters.

 

But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.

 

This is how I correspond it:

 

1) identification to objects

2) identification to subject, treating objects as illusion

3) no more subject/object, only pure manifestation as non-dual awareness

Edited November 2, 2009 by xabir2005

[rebelrebel]

Xabir, you constantly speak in cryptic language that is impenetrable to a common person such as myself. I'm sorry dude but I have not understood a word of what you have just said. Now you speak of all objects being within a container like awareness yet you constantly expressed to thuscomeone that he was wrong when he tried to explain things in the same way, when he basically said the same thing. I'm sorry man but just what in the hell are you on about?

Edited November 2, 2009 by rebelrebel

[xabir2005]

Xabir, you constantly speak in cryptic language that is impenetrable to a common person such as myself. I'm sorry dude but I have not understood a word of what you have just said. Now you speak of all objects being within a container like awareness yet you constantly expressed to thuscomeone that he was wrong when he tried to explain things in the same way, when he basically said the same thing. I'm sorry man but just what in the hell are you on about?

It is not the same, because our consciousness is not 'arisen' out of the universe of things. The universe of things arise out of consciousness. Consciousness does not exists 'everywhere in the universe', the 'everywhere' exists in consciousness. In other words, when you have a true experience and realisation of what Awareness is, you realise that this is what I/You truly are and always have been, and you no longer have any notions of awareness being located objectively 'in things'.

 

In fact I just found a quote today from a book I started reading last night which basically is saying what I have said there -- "It is not the world that contains the body, the mind and Consciousness. It is Consciousness that contains the world, the body and the mind, on an equal footing."

 

Next step is... consciousness is seen 'as' everything, instead of everything 'in' consciousness. However being everything means being all of our experience, only. You do not make the mistake of viewing awareness as being 'in objects'. (There is no more projection of objectivity or the objective universe as in the previous step. You have clearly seen through that in the first step through the initial glimpse of pure awareness.) Each consciousness/mindstream is non-dual, but individual and unique so to speak, though ultimately empty also since interdependently originated. But there is no universal awareness. There is no subjectivity to it (as in the dualistic practitioners who sees a universal subject containing or being one with all objects) nor is there objectivity to it (as in ordinary being's perspective).

Edited November 2, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Xabir, you constantly speak in cryptic language that is impenetrable to a common person such as myself. I'm sorry dude but I have not understood a word of what you have just said. Now you speak of all objects being within a container like awareness yet you constantly expressed to thuscomeone that he was wrong when he tried to explain things in the same way, when he basically said the same thing. I'm sorry man but just what in the hell are you on about?

 

It's all clear as a cloudless sun lit sky to me.

 

Go figure?

[goldisheavy]

This is only possible by dropping all our mental chatterings, conceptual understandings and notions of what Awareness is, and simply drop everything else -- mind, body, etc... only contemplate 'Who am I', and allow ourselves to be filled with only this sense of existence or presence until one realizes what existence is.

 

It's not that simple. One's way of life has a certain habit to it. Inertia. This inertia is lodged within each one of the many of interlocking and mutually supportive beliefs about reality. Therefore simply questioning "who am I" is not enough to address this tendency, because while you can have a taste of something interesting that way, the weight of the implication will not be heavy enough to move or transform the beliefs significantly.

 

The end result will be the same way of life as before, but only with an overarching feeling of "awareness" tacked on. In other words, this one's a dud batman.

 

Next, we realise that just manifestation alone is it, there is no other Subject or Source to fall back on.

 

Alone? What is alone? Your thought here seems to be deluded. Alone from what? It's not like awareness is understood to be separate from phenomena. It's impossible to realize awareness but at the same time to fail to realize its quality of living shimeringness. Awareness is never like some vacuous, dead and clinically sterile subject that is observing living and filthy dirty objects. It's not like that at all. Anyone who realizes awareness realizes this too. If you overcome seeing awareness as one of the objects, it is impossible then to see it as something with qualities of its own. Awareness is the fact that any qualities (including sometimes the quality of the absence of qualities) are experienced, but it's more than that too. It's the living field of meaning. Or you can say it's the field of living meaning. Not static meaning. Not dead meaning. Living meaning. Think of the implications. And this field's life is your life and is all life. And calling it a "field" is just a way to get started. Awareness is definitely not like a field, because that would be too limiting to say such a thing.

 

At this level, consciousness is seen as not other than the illusion-like, dream-like display, which nevertheless is vivid and luminous. Consciousness 'feels' real and vivid but is without manifestation-transcendence essence or substance.

 

This should be one single step. As a wise man said, "You cannot cross the chasm in two steps." It's a single step.

 

However this step is not real unless the implications of it are real in one's life. If your life before and after realization is the same, the realization is worthless. If you chop wood carry water before and after, the realization has been wasted on you.

 

If you realize something about wood and as a result you can build a better violin than before your realization, that's what I call a worthwhile realization. If your realization has no practical application, it's a waste.

Edited November 2, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

 

This is another one of those discussions where confusion is inherent at the very basic level.

 

The Buddhists speak from 'wu' and the Taoists speak from 'yo'.

 

It is difficult for us to understand each other because we are speaking fron different states (conditions) of existence (non-existence).

 

That is why I mentioned the saying above:

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no monutain, then there is.

 

Many Buddhists will remain with "there is no mountain" and speak from this level (wu) but most Taoists return to "then there is" and speak from this level (yo).

 

This will naturally cause confusion and misunderstanding.

 

I find that it is very difficult to speak from the state of 'non-existence' so I almost always speak from the state of 'existence'.

 

Many Buddhists find comfort in speaking from the 'non-existence' state and as long as they are speaking amongst themselves (note tht V. said that what Xabir said was crystal clear but Rebel said it was unintelligable) but when they speak with non-Buddhists it seems that they are speaking in a cryptic language.

 

This is where I too have my most difficulty when speaking with a Buddhist. I feel a need to bring them back to 'yo' so that the discussion can be had with understanding and that when others read the exchange they will be able to have an understanding of both perspectives.

 

Okay. I apologize for the interference. Please carry on.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Many Buddhists find comfort in speaking from the 'non-existence' state and as long as they are speaking amongst themselves (note tht V. said that what Xabir said was crystal clear but Rebel said it was unintelligable) but when they speak with non-Buddhists it seems that they are speaking in a cryptic language.

 

This is where I too have my most difficulty when speaking with a Buddhist. I feel a need to bring them back to 'yo' so that the discussion can be had with understanding and that when others read the exchange they will be able to have an understanding of both perspectives.

 

 

 

For us, Yo and Wu are the same... this is the greatness of the view that is dependent origination/emptiness.

 

It takes some study to get a conceptual grasp of what it means... it's not merely a cause and effect model view.

[Marblehead]

For us, Yo and Wu are the same... this is the greatness of the view that is dependent origination/emptiness.

 

It takes some study to get a conceptual grasp of what it means... it's not merely a cause and effect model view.

 

Hehehe. Yep. That's exactly what I was speaking to.

 

So in speaking so to those who have no study experience of the concept in their mind what you say will be lost in the wind - like the sound of a falling tree in the forest if there is no animal present to here the sound.

 

Almost like pissing into the wind.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. Yep. That's exactly what I was speaking to.

 

So in speaking so to those who have no study experience of the concept in their mind what you say will be lost in the wind - like the sound of a falling tree in the forest if there is no animal present to here the sound.

 

Almost like pissing into the wind.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Or like... shadow boxing, with yourself, in the dark.

[C T]

Or like... shadow boxing, with yourself, in the dark.

...or grasping at rainbows!

[Marblehead]

...or grasping at rainbows!

 

Hehehe. I'm sorry, I can't help myself.

 

... or like graping at emptiness.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Hehehe. I'm sorry, I can't help myself.

 

... or like graping at emptiness.

 

Peace & Love!

...only to get bitten in the backside!

[Marblehead]

...only to get bitten in the backside ... by the reality of fullness!

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Peace & Love!

...the reality of fullness which is full of emptiness!

[Vajrahridaya]

...the reality of fullness which is full of emptiness!

 

Ahahaha... oh you guys...!!

[C T]

Ahahaha... oh you guys...!!

Just being a kid V...just being a kid, waiting for Santa's Clause!

[Marblehead]

Just being a kid V...just being a kid, waiting for Santa's Clause!

 

Yeah

I enjoy letting the kid out now and then so he can play.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

 

This is another one of those discussions where confusion is inherent at the very basic level.

 

The Buddhists speak from 'wu' and the Taoists speak from 'yo'.

 

It is difficult for us to understand each other because we are speaking fron different states (conditions) of existence (non-existence).

 

That is why I mentioned the saying above:

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no monutain, then there is.

 

Many Buddhists will remain with "there is no mountain" and speak from this level (wu) but most Taoists return to "then there is" and speak from this level (yo).

 

This will naturally cause confusion and misunderstanding.

 

I find that it is very difficult to speak from the state of 'non-existence' so I almost always speak from the state of 'existence'.

 

Many Buddhists find comfort in speaking from the 'non-existence' state and as long as they are speaking amongst themselves (note tht V. said that what Xabir said was crystal clear but Rebel said it was unintelligable) but when they speak with non-Buddhists it seems that they are speaking in a cryptic language.

 

This is where I too have my most difficulty when speaking with a Buddhist. I feel a need to bring them back to 'yo' so that the discussion can be had with understanding and that when others read the exchange they will be able to have an understanding of both perspectives.

 

Okay. I apologize for the interference. Please carry on.

 

Peace & Love!

Buddhist Emptiness is not nothingness, because as the famous Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

[Marblehead]

Buddhist Emptiness is not nothingness, because as the famous Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

 

Hi Xabir,

 

I'm with you on this. I forced V. to make me understand what he meant when he said 'emptiness' and he did a very good job.

 

I agree, the word does not have the same meaning in Buddhism as it does in Taoism. So I'll continue using it as a Taoist would and y'all continue using it the way y'all do and the word can always be discussed whenever there is a need.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Xabir,

 

I'm with you on this. I forced V. to make me understand what he meant when he said 'emptiness' and he did a very good job.

 

I agree, the word does not have the same meaning in Buddhism as it does in Taoism. So I'll continue using it as a Taoist would and y'all continue using it the way y'all do and the word can always be discussed whenever there is a need.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Wonderful Marble. I'm all gushy inside thinking about how our relationship has evolved!

 

You're a good open hearted dude. I like that in a guy...

Edited November 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya