Clearing up Buddhism by the thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Edited October 21, 2009 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Good job for 8 months. See, doesn't take long to get some type of comprehension of clarity when one is using dependent origination as the tool for insight.

 

Wonderful.

 

I'm on my way to sleep now, but I will come back tomorrow when I get up and we can discuss some of the aspects that you are not completely clear on and maybe we can help each other?

 

Nice post though. Some Prasangika and Dzogchen. I like how you just go right to the truth of integration skipping the two truths model of Madhyamaka. That's Dzogchen.

 

It's good you understand that non-duality in Buddhism is not because everything is one substance, or arising from a single substratum or source, but rather that all the multitudes of things are just empty of inherent existence, so it's a non-substantial non-duality.

 

Ok, the typing is waking my GF... better go to sleep. Talk tomorrow for sure. I'm impressed!

[thuscomeone]

yes I'll certainly be back at some point tomorrow. Right now, it's sleep time.

[nightwatchdog]

You have a solid foundation here. Now it is time to set aside the discussion, and take action. The thinking mind is very aware of what we are trying to accomplish, and a wonderful road map has been drawn up. All of your questions have already been answered. Everything changing, nothing solid, like the scenery passing by as you go your Dharma way.

 

Where are you now?

[Marblehead]

Interesting thread. I will try to keep my mouth shut and just read.

 

Peace & Love!

[Encephalon]

I would agree with everyone - you've got a good foundation. The only suggestion I would make is to supplement your studies with a couple of titles that address dependent origination from a western perspective.

 

The Dharma of Natural Systems: Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory by Joanna Macy.

Cool title, eh? Once we discover that the Paticca Samupadda, the doctrine of dependent origination, is a doctrine that is utterly consistent with ecology and general systems theory, we discover the element of the real world that supports our awakening.

http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Causality-Bud...4417&sr=1-1

 

Fritjof Capra's 25th anniversary edition of his masterpiece "The Tao of Physics" also includes his update regarding the essential consistency of eastern thought and ecology as well. We are all connected, even to inanimate processes like the rock cycle and the water cycle. Once we acquire a deep awareness of our connectedness and participation in Indra's Web, our identity becomes extremely stable, insofar as an ecosystem brimming with biodiversity is stronger and more stable than an ecosystem that has suffered a blow to its biodiversity.

 

I realize this is tangential to what you have introduced (we always are) but I have yet to discover a lucid discussion about the ecological and environmental consequences of eastern thought, particularly Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. We are so self-absorbed in here about how powerful and wise we are becoming, rather than acknowleging the reality and implications of our essential unity.

 

We live one life.

[nightwatchdog]

For more mind-food on interdedpendant co-origination (a more precise term according to my understanding), try "Each Moment Is The Universe" by Dainin Katagiri, Roshi. His words are clear as a bell. Gassho.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Great post! .

 

On "awareness." In my lurking this forum, I have come across one user Xabir2005 (?) who seems to always say that awareness and phenomena are inseperable. Or "awareness is the manifestation", "there is nothing but awareness", etc. I have no idea what this means to be honest. Perhaps he means that awareness and phenomena are inseparable in the sense that they both have the same characteristics (impermanent, empty, dependent). Emptiness, as far as I know, does not take away the obvious natural diversity of things. Mind and external phenomena are not "one" in the same after one realizes emptiness. They are still distinct. Appearances and awareness are obviously diverse and distinct. Just like my hand is not a tree and a tree is not my hand. It always gives me the idea that he is reifying some sort of super awareness which everything "is." Well anyway Xabir, if you read this let me know what's up. Maybe you have some insight that I have not stumbled upon.

 

Existence is Awareness because nothing could be said to exist without the awareness of it. The tree and the hand comes about due to your mind's distinctions of something being a tree and some other thing being a hand. Not at all different from how your thoughts function.

 

On Rebirth and Karma. This is the basic reasoning I have come up with for rebirth. Consciousness can not possibly end after death. To say it could, would be to say it could be non existent. But, since consciousness has never been truly existent, it can never be non existent. Again, since there are no "things" to begin with, there can be no absence of those things. Therefore, consciousness cannot just end and become non existent at death. It must go on infinitely, constantly changing and arising dependently.

 

I have a very hard time understanding karma and rebirth (karma moreso) and the specifics of how they work. For instance, does an enlightened being have karma? Why/how is karma just intentional action? Why doesn't non intentional action leave seeds as well? Well I would appreciate if perhaps the Buddhists on this forum could help me get a clear, concise and correct understanding of rebirth and karma, the specifics of each and how they work together and are interrelated...

 

Karma is a made up habit of your mind identifying causes and conditions to have object truths to them. You make them up, habit it, then suffer in it. The enlightened being has completely exhausted all bounds of karma because he sees that all causes and conditions arise from grasping of "this" causing "that." He is no longer the prisoner to his minds workings. But the process of liberation itself can be said to be an enlightened act.

 

By the way, I'm not a "seasoned" Buddhist. I don't even know if I'm Buddhist. So don't take my words at face value. .

Edited October 21, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[tumoessence]

Great post thuscomeone, and great work for eight month's!

I have a naive question here.

When did and where did

"Actual existents must be constants" become a standard for saying and measuring whether something is real or not?

For example if a plant grows dies, yet reappears next spring over and over and then over time the plant changes its form as adaptation to a changing environment does that mean it doesn't exist? Even if its environment were to disappear has that plant fully disappeard?

And for something to "exist" does it only exist if it is separate? I often hear something is not real because it has no separate existence. Of course things don't have separate existence. Everything is embedded in an environment of things that "appear" to be separate. Does that mean those elements don't exist? Does rhythm exist? Does energy exist? Is rhythm constant?

Sorry if I go a little off topic here.

[MudLotus]

Good work, keep going.

 

You touch on non-duality at the end and it sounds like you will be exploring advaita type teachers like Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi if you have not already. With all of the work you are putting into your studies they may now resonate for you. You'll find so often phrasings like:

 

Suchness

I Am That

So It Is

 

and what sometimes feels so simple may other times capture the flavor of the processes you are describing.

 

Per karma, the best word I've heard is everything gets recycled, from the most evolved to the most debased levels of sentience. If you consider time and space to become more perceivable as elastic at higher and higher states of awareness, then it might make sense that if this recycling process is ongoing even the most awake of beings residing in dharma fields for eons are subject to these processes of creation and destruction. If just may take thousands or millions of equivalents to our life spans to occur at higher levels. If there is a true hierarchy of being, then all things are phasing through the chain of being according to their karmic unfolding, either stepping up or stepping down, but essentially moving in some direction of evolution or de-evolution.

 

How you are reconstituted (recycled) then probably has to do with the sustainability of your awareness and the quality of your intent. Attaining Buddhahood implies being a virtuous being, but that doesn't mean you sit in the pure lands forever if you stop working at cultivation. Just because you are enlightened doesn't mean you deserve an eternal free ticket and don't have to work at anything or just lounge about in bliss and not help any other beings now that you think you are off the meat wheel.

 

As I understand it, there are many realms and liberating yourself from human reincarnation is not really the point. First, you can reincarnate as a lower being so being human is a great privilege and not to be taken for granted. Second, just because you are awakened enough to pass into a non-flesh form of consciousness and reside in a higher realm you can still be bound to conceptual states and ever more refined distinctions of beingness and form. So, liberation from physical reincarnation is not the ne plus ultra of cultivation and liberation from death, it is merely a step up the ladder of the cosmic dice table and you have perhaps even more responsibility for your thoughts and actions at a higher evolutionary state. Or you could reincarnate consciously as a human again to help people learn the dharma too.

 

A dung beetle is probably less directed in their intentions than a dolphin or a man and so their bodily death and recycling of their consciousness is probably less influenced by the actions in their lifetime. When a being becomes aware of the dharma, they are essentially being given the keys to the car in some ways and now can drive their vehicle during their lifespan with a far greater capacity to influence how they end up being processed in that endless cosmic food chain called reincarnation. I ain't dead yet (this time), so just some ideas, not doctrine.

Edited October 21, 2009 by MudLotus

[xabir2005]

Edited October 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[MudLotus]

As part of the digestion of the terms and concepts under discussion, I'd like to throw into the hat this one:

 

En-Joy-Ment

 

which I do believe is something that occurs when truly at ease with things as they are.

 

I believe it is an important notion that allows for pleasure and happiness to be fruits of attaining higher degrees of awareness.

 

It is important in my estimation to be able to enjoy life and to take some of the weight of seeking and inquiring off your back so that as you become more at peace with your status as a human being seeking equanimity you also do not slip into the traps of nihlism or narcissism.

 

It is of no help to you or of any service to others if you try to obliterate your SELF in your quest to awaken. You are still as you are and your value to others can usually be measured pretty accurately by your gratitude for being alive and ability to experience and share that which you enjoy. So surrendering yourself to some void or whatever people may fantasize is never necessary to be who you are. Nihlism does not take you very far and it certainly is not enjoyable.

 

And becoming overly obsessed with the how or why or proving the efficacy of pursuing awakening may find you falling in love with your answers, with your supposed accomplishments and while your energy may be soaring and you think you're in love with the cosmos, you may just be so vain as to develop a god complex and who is going to enjoy you then? Maybe your groupies, but then you'll have to keep them in line when the natives get restless.

 

Just some thoughts on the en-joy-ment of What You Are and What Is. I believe you may wake up and lose identification with your self, but it may help to enjoy the process of being and inquiring along the way rather then gripping your mind and heart too tightly in the quest for gnosis. Push and glide is what I say. Push hard to know, then relax into it and glide for a bit.

[thuscomeone]

Great post thuscomeone, and great work for eight month's!

I have a naive question here.

When did and where did

"Actual existents must be constants" become a standard for saying and measuring whether something is real or not?

For example if a plant grows dies, yet reappears next spring over and over and then over time the plant changes its form as adaptation to a changing environment does that mean it doesn't exist? Even if its environment were to disappear has that plant fully disappeard?

And for something to "exist" does it only exist if it is separate? I often hear something is not real because it has no separate existence. Of course things don't have separate existence. Everything is embedded in an environment of things that "appear" to be separate. Does that mean those elements don't exist? Does rhythm exist? Does energy exist? Is rhythm constant?

Sorry if I go a little off topic here.

Constants was not the right word to use here. I shouldn't have used it. What I meant by something that truly exists has to be constant is that it has to have a stable/fixed identity or essence. So it essentially has to be unchanging aka constant.

 

 

Now.... we can explore what we call 'sensation', 'tree', etc further. Looking at a tree, there is no observer 'in here' separate and looking 'out there' at the tree... the observer is the observed and there is only just the suchness of the tree revealing itself with 0 distance, the suchness of tree is itself consciousness.

 

See Xabir, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean consciousness and the tree are both empty? Is that the "suchness" you describe?

Edited October 21, 2009 by thuscomeone

[MudLotus]

Constants was not the right word to use here. I shouldn't have used it. What I meant by something that truly exists has to be constant is that it has to have a stable/fixed identity or essence. So it essentially has to be unchanging aka constant.

See Xabir, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean consciousness and the tree are both empty? Is that the "suchness" you describe?

 

Hmmm, maybe it is important to acknowledge that discernment is always an important part of any advanced practice, is it not?

 

If in your state you start to lose referentiality such as to what is Tree or You and what is Mind or Observing Mind, does that become evidentiary proof that you are empty, have experienced emptiness or that things are inherently empty?

 

Are these still conceptions?

 

Is not inquiry always dependent on some degree of witnessing mind?

 

So WHO is the perceiver of these THINGS or NON-THINGS?

 

If it is nobody, is that a NOBODY with any singularity of mind at all?

 

I'd say so.

 

And if that witnessing mind, the discernment to purify consciousness and transcend to higher states is actively engaged, will it dissolve upon reaching some Omega point?

 

I doubt it.

 

So if everything is in flux and not really there, but just so then how is it a conscious entity persists beyond bodily and egoic formations?

 

I don't know if there a provable answer to any of this. Perhaps something in the universe is conscious and transmutable.

 

WHO IS THAT?

Edited October 21, 2009 by MudLotus

[Lucky7Strikes]

WHO IS THAT?

 

ME! .

 

I am that I am.

[Marblehead]

ME! .

 

I am that I am.

 

That you are!

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Edited October 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[voidisyinyang]

[xabir2005]

Hmmm, maybe it is important to acknowledge that discernment is always an important part of any advanced practice, is it not?

 

If in your state you start to lose referentiality such as to what is Tree or You and what is Mind or Observing Mind, does that become evidentiary proof that you are empty, have experienced emptiness or that things are inherently empty?

 

Are these still conceptions?

 

Is not inquiry always dependent on some degree of witnessing mind?

 

So WHO is the perceiver of these THINGS or NON-THINGS?

 

If it is nobody, is that a NOBODY with any singularity of mind at all?

 

I'd say so.

 

And if that witnessing mind, the discernment to purify consciousness and transcend to higher states is actively engaged, will it dissolve upon reaching some Omega point?

 

I doubt it.

 

So if everything is in flux and not really there, but just so then how is it a conscious entity persists beyond bodily and egoic formations?

 

I don't know if there a provable answer to any of this. Perhaps something in the universe is conscious and transmutable.

 

WHO IS THAT?

I have to say... the Witnessing Mind or the Eternal Witness is not yet the realisation of non-duality.

 

Before the true experience of non-duality, one may come upon a state of a non-judgmental presence that is witnessing the thoughts. This is not the stage of non-dual realisation yet.

 

At non-dual, there is no subject-object division. This means that no one is acting upon actions. Many people talk about non-duality but is really not understanding the subject clearly. Non-duality does not postulate a true self... that is why in Buddhism there is the teaching of no-self. True-self is most probably at the stage of a 'witnessing self'.

 

The tricky part of this journey is that desire can be very subtle. For example, the desire for non-duality is still a desire and will prevent the actual experience of it. Wanting to be desireless is also a desire. Desirelessness and thus non-dualty can only be spontaneous without the 'sense of self' interfering or pretending to be a witness.

 

.......

 

'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.

 

However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.

 

 

Also see: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

[thuscomeone]

alright Xabir, I think I may have gotten this non duality thing down. Ok, so we can say that all there really is is this flow. And consciousness/awareness is just another part of the flow (?). It is just another happening or manifestation of this flow. In this sense, awareness and phenomena are not seperate. As everything, awareness and phenomena, is just the flow there can be no separation between observer and observed. They are both the same flow that is all there is. I don't really know how to address what I'm trying to get across accurately. It seems hard to express it...

 

But that also couldn't mean that there is no distinction or obvious diversity/difference of awareness and phenomena. Just that they are inseparable in the sense that they are part of the same process/flow...

Edited October 21, 2009 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

alright Xabir, I think I may have gotten this non duality thing down. Ok, so we can say that all there really is is this flow. And consciousness/awareness is just another part of the flow (?). It is just another happening or manifestation of this flow. In this sense, awareness and phenomena are not seperate. As everything, awareness and phenomena, is just the flow there can be no separation between observer and observed. They are both the same flow that is all there is. I don't really know how to address what I'm trying to get across accurately. It seems hard to express it...

 

But that also couldn't mean that there is no distinction or obvious diversity/difference of awareness and phenomena. Just that they are inseparable in the sense that they are part of the same process/flow...

That is closer... but not quite it. Because awareness is not even 'part of the flow', it is all of the flow, there is not even a 'thing' called awareness other than the bird chirping, the scenery, the thoughts arising and passing, the sensations... there is just that, there is no other thing called 'awareness'. Rather, all phenomena is self-aware, and this is what non-duality truly means (however not everyone will understand the term in the same way, there's a lot of subtleties there too...)

 

Awareness is truly not an separate entity, it has no existence apart from everything, but even the 'everything' is empty, as I told lucky and isn't 'inherent existence' (but mirage-like, dependently originated appearances). However this is not the denial of the vivid non-dual luminosity/awareness. The clear vivid awareness which is non-dual must be realised and experienced. Just that it's empty nature must be understood.

 

The phenomena are diverse, yet never has awareness ever been separated from all phenomena/the flow, as it is. Never has an observer been separated from an observed. This fact will always be so.

Edited October 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[MudLotus]

Drew.

 

No need to parse arrogance and patronization from a compliment. Isn't there room for exchanging thoughts without attributing inflated egos to those who respond? Is this not a place to have dharma discussions? Maybe it is not my predisposition to assume what you imply, but I did not see any claims of perfect wisdom being offered, just genuine responses.

 

Regards,

ML

[Encephalon]

Personally I would stick with the Lama Yeshe quote and ignore all the people on this website who are self-proclaimed Buddhism experts waiting to strike you down as "nice start kid, keep at it!" Those kind of patronizing comments do nothing to help you but only put you down to feed their egos! Don't let them do that B.S. cult-trip on you! haha.

 

Here's a new post on various interpretations of Buddhism by a monk in Burma you might find interesting -- just for the record the monk emailed me this yesterday or the day before in regards to me seeking ordination. But I still turned down the offer ---

 

http://bhantedogen.blogspot.com/2009/10/ma...-teachings.html

 

It's possible, Drew, that Thus could have unselfconsciously accepted those "left-handed encouragements" as sincere "Bravo"s! accorded by others on the path. Although I concur with you that there seem to be far more Captains in here than crewmembers. We've all been guilty of it.

 

That being said, the following presentation of dependent co-arising by Joanna Macy is just too good to pass up.

 

"The Buddhist vision of interdependence, presenting reality as a dynamic interaction of mutually conditioning events, posits no prime cause or unconditioned absolute to which occurrences can be traced in a linear fashion.

 

This causal vision, known as paticca samuppada, or dependent co-arising, underlies the Buddhist perception of the human predicament and of the liberation that is possible. It constitutes the intellectual content of the 'Buddha's enlightenment - that part of his transforming, intuitive realizaiton that can be expressed in conceptual terms. It represents that character of reality, that truth about the universe, to which Gotama awoke. It is, therefore, accorded prarmount importance in scripture; its understanding considered requisite to release from suffering and basic to the moral and meditative practices which the Buddhist path upholds. Upon occasion it was identified with the Dharma itself, the order of things, the saving truth. 'Whoever sees paticca samuppadda sees the dharma, whoever sees the dharma sees paticca samuppadda.' It is hard to find another faith or value system where a doctrine of causality holds so explicit and so central a position."

 

I realize that the psychological manifestations of this awareness are given the most attention in TTB, but amongst the Buddhist/general systems theory/deep ecology dialogue, it is the environmental connectivity that is accorded most attention. The beauty of Taoism is the centrality of the role of the physical body in giving us the visceral, living experience of being connection (IMHO).

Edited October 21, 2009 by Blasto

[MudLotus]

I have to say... the Witnessing Mind or the Eternal Witness is not yet the realisation of non-duality.

 

Before the true experience of non-duality, one may come upon a state of a non-judgmental presence that is witnessing the thoughts. This is not the stage of non-dual realisation yet.

 

At non-dual, there is no subject-object division. This means that no one is acting upon actions. Many people talk about non-duality but is really not understanding the subject clearly. Non-duality does not postulate a true self... that is why in Buddhism there is the teaching of no-self. True-self is most probably at the stage of a 'witnessing self'.

 

The tricky part of this journey is that desire can be very subtle. For example, the desire for non-duality is still a desire and will prevent the actual experience of it. Wanting to be desireless is also a desire. Desirelessness and thus non-dualty can only be spontaneous without the 'sense of self' interfering or pretending to be a witness.

 

.......

 

'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.

 

However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.

Also see: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

 

Thanks, yes OK. I am not really meaning to say there is a result and a true self and that is eternal, so on and so forth. I was merely reflecting on the continuation of presence as it is experienced when you meet someone awakened. And then when they are dead and gone and perhaps it persists. Not just for them, but for you.

 

I was alluding more to the aspect of something along the lines of Will that directs consciousness even after liberation from all forms personal Self-Identification.

 

Can not a person achieve realization of non-duality and still continue to be Acting consciously to do things such as fulfilling Vows?

 

Just curious, because sometime I read comments such as yours and wonder if the implication is once one realizes there is no real self that that somehow means there is no doer. And I'd say there is still a doer of things, just one not self-identified with it as self. But there are still actions and values emanating from a specific source of awareness, some kind of individualized consciousness, just one more unified with the All.

[xabir2005]

Edited October 21, 2009 by xabir2005