"there is such a self"

[Lucky7Strikes]

Regarding free will and determinism, Daniel Ingram addressed this before:

I am a pragmatist, so I think that concept that help people are key.

 

Tbe Buddha addressed this topic, and I agree with his answer. He said that when training in Morality assume free will, as it helps. Thus, you presume that you can make healthy choices about how to speak and act and think, and so you proceed with the notion that you are in control and can make yourself and your world better.

 

When doing Insight practices, you do the complete opposite as much as possible. You assume that sensations arise on their own in a causal, natural way and as much as possible you try to see that aspect of things. That said, until concentration, mindfulness, and continuity of practice are strong, one makes a lot of effort to see things as they are and stay with the natural arising and vanishing of sensations.

 

From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.

 

YOUR ENTIRE PARADIGM OF REALITY DENIES FREE WILL.

 

Ok so he says that there is not free will. Great. HAHAHHA JUST A ROLLING PILE OF DIRT. Your Buddhism reifies the manifest. Advaitan reifies awareness as independent "thing." Both are extremes.

 

Denying free will just defeats the whole purpose of attaining enlightenment. You and your teachers are wrong.

 

 

 

I think that this is important and it is also consistent with Taoist Philosophy. The only time there is a condition of 'one' is when a person is totally in the state of 'yo' - that is, the Manifest. The only time there is a condition of 'not-one' is when a person is totally in the state of 'wu' - the is, the Mystery. It is rare for either of these conditions to last very long.

 

Generally, a person is in some state of 'yo'/'wu', that is, living in the Manifest (or the physical) while holding to the center, the Mystery (or the spiritual, if you will). This is where we experience the one and the not-one simultaneously.

 

And I agree, for the individual, there is absolutely nothing outside awareness. But each individual has their own awareness so even if 'I' were not aware this has absolutely nothing to do with another's awareness. But I would also like to poin out that there are other animals beside humans that have the ability for awareness. Awareness is not unique to humans although ours seems to be evolved to a 'higher' level.

 

Peace & Love!

 

This it wonderful. Thank you Marblehead! .

 

I would say that the mystery is the awareness, consciousness.

 

Where do I find this in Taoist texts?

[xabir2005]

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Peace is wonderful Marblehead. Thats why you never read posts by Buddhists arrogantly belittling Taoism or any other worthwhile philosophies. Disagreeing, yes - can be constructive, though not always. By all means point out the reasons for disagreeing. where is the justification for belittling and demeaning the man behind the most peaceful religion ever? was he feeling bored or what? utter nonsense. and its not the first time too, btw.

 

Hi CowTao,

 

I will not attempt to justify anyone else's actions. I do take full responsibility for my own.

 

Yes, I have done what you suggested I have done. And I am proud of it. But I really tried hard to not offend Buddha or his teachings even though I do not necessarily hold all of them as valid. His basic intention was to help people - I admire that.

 

I will always try to foster peace even after a very vigorous arguement. Sometimes it is not possible. In those cases I just walk away. I have done that with a couple threads here now.

 

Yes, disagreeing can be good if it is done respectfully. All too often I have seen that when logical arguements do not work a member will resort to personal attacks.

 

A number of Taoists here have been subjected to that and some of the Buddhists have had the same experience. As long as we continue to do that it will continue to happen. Duh.

 

And you can't really single out TzuJanLi, even though it may be true, for his action when there are a number of members here who do the same thing on a regular basis. It almost seems as if doing so is generally accepted but I suggest the if it is it should not be so.

 

Again, I cannot speak more to the occasion in question but then how can anyone say that what is okay for one member to do isn't okay for any member to do? It would take both hands and probably both feet to count all the times I have been personally insulted just because I disagreed with a fellow member.

 

So all I am saying is that if we continue insulting each other there will be no end to the insults and in my mind this is counter-productive.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

What was spoken was from direct experience.

You need to define more clearly what you mean by 'that which is aware'. Do you mean sensory organs?

 

In Buddhism, sensory consciousness dependently originates. We can use the words 'consciousness' and 'awareness' synonymously here, though in other contexts they usually mean different things. What we see, hear, feel, that is pure awareness. Whatever is seen, heard, etc, that dependently originates, for example if your eye faculty were slightly different from others, you may see colours and forms in a different way. The 18 dhatus, the sense objects, organs and consciousness are mutually dependent in this way. Our experience dependently originates. The essence of whatever is experienced is pure awareness, but at the same time nothing solid, permanent, independent can be found -- the point of luminous clarity, the appearance, dependently originates.

 

And what experiences the eye?

 

However, at no time can we state that the sense organs is an 'experiencer'. Sense organs are a condition for experience, but in direct experience, there is just IT, whatever is experienced -- an experiencer is just conceptual. Sense organs are not 'that which is aware' -- corpses have sense organs but clearly there are no consciousness. If we ponder on the fact that we are not just mere byproducts of the body, corpses, or machines, but there is something clearly present and cognizing, and inquire 'What is it that is aware?' or 'Who am I?', we may then then have the vivid intuition and realisation that we are the consciousness which seems like is a spirit-like entity or a soul or an Eternal Witness, that which is truly aware of everything, and for a while it may appear that way but if we investigate further, consciousness is actually not a separate entity or Subject experiencing things, but rather, everything is just one seamless experience in/as consciousness/awareness without subject/object duality. This, too, can be directly experienced as I and many others have.

 

Read this paragraph from beginning. And if awareness has always been one seamless experience undifferentiated from phenomena, are you saying phenomena experiences itself? That sentience and insentience are one? That's ridiculous. It CAN be experienced that way, but that is not ultimate.

 

Whatever experienced, that is consciousness. And whatever that is experienced dependently originates. A distance, distinction, between 'experiencer' and 'experience' is merely conceptual where there are only in direct experience just scenery, sounds, thoughts, everything 'aware where they are'. In seeing this the sense of being an observer inside the head looking outwards just fall away, leaving everything shining as pure presence awareness.

 

Space and time are paticularities the mind creates to see itself in relation to phenomena. This is how existence is seen, a self-awarness arisen. Play around with your awareness throughout the body. You can put it here, there, give it a source, make it be everything, and even make it nothing for a while.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[rex]

It really is easy for a Taoist and a Buddhist to come to agreements on nearly all aspects of the philosophies. I have had very productive discussions with Buddhists elsewhere. I know it is possible. But if we continue to discuss the extremes we will never gain agreement.

 

Be peaceful and loving Y'all!!!

 

Where is Matt????? He is a peaceful Buddhist. Sure would be nice if he came around more often to mellow things out now and then.

Liberty and piss taking can't go unchallenged and folks do tend to take umbridge when it's countered.

[Marblehead]

 

This it wonderful. Thank you Marblehead! .

 

I would say that the mystery is the awareness, consciousness.

 

Where do I find this in Taoist texts?

 

Oh My Goodness. My man wants me to do some work. Hehehe. All I can say at the moment is that it is not Lao Tzu so it has to be Chuang Tzu. Wait! It might be from Dr Wang in his "Dynamic Tao" because in his discussion/interpretation he ventured into these areas.

 

I have made a note to myself to research that and I will post it as soon as I find it. Don't hold your breath waiting, Okay?

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 8, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

And where does my attention come from. Where is this "attention"?

Attention doesn't 'come from' somewhere. Attention is a mental factor, that can be cultivated, sustained in meditation. It is important for meditations like vipassana and for daily work. This attention dependently originates, and isn't located 'somewhere', it is clearly present in our experience but also empty of any inherency or location, just like any thought... a thought though experienced clearly isn't located anywhere inherently out there or inside, and change from moment to moment. When we look for the place it comes from, the place it abides, the place it goes to, we find nothing, just emptiness. Same for attention. It is a mental phenomena. Yet we can't deny that is a vivid presence (though empty).

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicara

There us no such entity called the mind. The mind is not a inherent thing within phenomena. It is NOT the same thing as phenomena either. Also, the body is simply a result of past habits of the mind. Our very presence here is the byproduct of intent.

Agree here. As for 'body', if you mean physical body, in a sense it is true because the sense of body having a shape or being a solid object is also just more reification, whereas in reality and direct experience there are just points of bodily sensations.

 

As for intent, Please clarify more on this and which is which: Intent and effort are two different things. There is positive, an active intent, and also the negative, a process of letting go, letting phenomena be.

All this is hard to explain because you can't pin awareness into a relative location of entity from experience. It takes multiple forms: as a source, a location, as motion, as phenomena, as itself and so forth.

 

Bodily motions are product of intent. It is the movement of awareness from locality A to B.

 

And again, I'm going to make this clear to you.

 

YOU ARE A DETERMINISTIC MATERIALIST.

Movement is a notion arising from relativity, having two points such as A and B while A moves to B.

 

In direct experience however, there is no movement. There is change, but the change is non moving because the recollection of a previous experience is simply a presently arising thought, and does not mean that point A moved to point B. In direct experience, just this One Sound, One Thought.

 

It's hard to describe this but if you experience non dual, you'll literally feel like you aren't moving anywhere even though change is constantly occuring. At the same time it is not the same as the perspective of an Eternal Witness. If you experience it you'll know.

 

Related article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...irect-path.html

 

 

Also, that I am a materialist is a gross misunderstanding since I do not have a view of universe as inherently existing objectively while I am part of this objective universe.

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Again you miss my point. My point is that non-duality is not one particular experience you enter into in meditation, but rather, every experience is non-dual pure perceivingness.

 

For example, in seeing form, what is seeing form is actually the form itself, as J Krishnamurti states - the observer is the observed, because the form itself is made of the same substance of consciousness/perceivingness. It is not the case that there is an observer watching from a distant at an object.

 

This applies to every single experience, everything that we experience, that is awareness cognizing itself in the form of sounds, shapes, sensations. Everything is clearly vivid and aware where they are.

 

I understand your point that the sense of 'me' arises especially for those who hasn't given rise to anatta insight. And I should state, as I explained earlier, the goal is not to obliterate the 'me' in deep meditation but to realise that there is no separate 'me' to be obliterated.

 

When the sense of 'me' arises, it is merely a thought, impression, sensation, perhaps of bodily contraction and tightness, a sense of being located in the head. Whatever our experience is, if we look closely at our experience without labelling or interpreting what it is, it is just a point of luminous clarity that is aware 'where they are'. And when we look at say, a tree, it is in fact the same luminous clarity 'aware where they are'. So where does 'me' begin and end?

WE LOOK AT CLOSELY. Now you have to look at closely. You need to have the intent to look closely to notice all these things. That's conditional.

 

"Me" does not begin or end. It is unborn. It is the very basis of all existence. Existence cannot be without consciousness. It CAN be localized, it can also be delocalized.

 

Sensations of 'me' manifest, but its essence as luminous clarity, and the sensation of 'tree' is actually the same sensation. It is not the case that the sensation of me is looking at the sensation of tree. Everything is clearly vividly aware where they are effortlessly in direct experience. When this is seen absolutely clearly, the self-contraction may dissolve, and even if it doesn't, it won't matter. Because it doesn't change the fact of non-duality, the sense of a centerpoint or the sense of contraction is actually the same feeling, same vivid presence and clarity as the sensation of the tree or a sound of bird chirping. This sense of presence and clarity has no center, no boundaries, no distance.

 

Never at any time am I saying that there is anything static. What I am saying is that awareness is the nature of all transient experience, for there cannot be a single experience without awareness, and not 'made of' awareness.

lol I was just using this analogy for TzuJanLi and realised you used the same analogy.

 

Yes, consciousness is clearly not a mere byproduct of sense organs. It does not originate from the body. In fact, awareness has no origin. However, awareness is the manifestation that dependently originates. There is a vast difference between origination and dependent origination. It is diametrically opposite. Whatever manifest interdependently originates, but it is not created by something else. It is a new phenomenon though inseparable from all conditions.

 

Dependent origination as in: Awareness and phenomena, the objective aspect in the subject/object experience are both dependent. You can't be aware without something to be aware "of" Nor can anything be said to exist without being aware of it. If awareness and the existent were one, non-dual, as you put it, they wouldn't dependently originate, they would be ONE.

 

Hear a sound deeply. Don't interprete. Don't try to be a watcher, witness, or background. Just feel and sense openly and unreservedly. What is it? Feel it until you rest with conviction that sound is not 'out there' but actually the same perceiving awareness. The experience is the awareness itself.

Sounds are effortlessly arising, the ear is the condition. There is a lot of stress on naturalness in Taoism. Dependent Origination is the law of naturalness. Because when This Is, That Is. When This Arises, That Arises. When This Ceases, That Ceases.

 

Again, all these insights require the intentions of awareness. When it is dual, it is dual. When it is non-dual, it is non-dual. But at the end of the day it returns to a state of duality, of subject and object relation because one needs to reflect on the experience in order to perceive it. Can you perceive without a perceiver and the perceived?

 

Just because attention is wavering, thoughts are churning, doesn't mean sounds are not arising. It just means you aren't paying attention because your focus is elsewhere. Attention is a required element to capture and remember things, without which, awareness is aware but doesn't recall anything. This element of the mind is absent in deep sleep. Yet, when a person shouts, your mind immediately wakes up from its dormant state. This means awareness is still functioning though mind is dormant.

 

You can only perceived the state of deep sleep as a past experience later on in time. Again, time is a particularity created by the mind, a subject/object relationship in order for it to be aware of itself. That;s right awareness can seemingly, only seemingly, disappear when the manifest phenomena merges into it, the things perceived to be "not-I." Sound cannot be said to arise if you are not aware of it.

 

Try this exercise, without exerting any effort at doing or achieving anything - Let everything go. Let all fixation go. Open up in vast spaciousness unreservedly, a space which is totally undivided with all appearances. See how it effortlessly 'awares' of everything even without your intention to do it. How the knowingness effortlessly appears as the bird chirping, music playing, words appearing on the screen. To say 'it awares of everything' is not exactly right since there is no 'subject' that is awaring of everything, rather just ISness of everything. Everything IS, whether you want it or not, whether you know it or not. Reality is not a subjective knowing, not attention.

 

NOOOOOOO. WITHOUT EXERTING!! That is effort. Effortlessness is effort. It is intention. Letting go is an intention it is movement of awarness.

 

Reality IS subjective knowing. I interact in the world, I can change it, change my perceptions of it. Co-create it with others.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Also, that I am a materialist is a gross misunderstanding since I do not have a view of universe as inherently existing objectively while I am part of this objective universe.

 

I like that statement. I don't understand it but I still like it.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

It's serious man, very, very serious. I have yet to hear you own opinions on any of this. So please share.

I think the trouble comes from trying to designate awareness. It isn't a field, or a source, or a all encompassing thing. It can be all these things. For example, you can aware of parts of your body, but on another level the wholeness of it. Awarness can also move through a perceived space, or time, but at the same instance see the totality of it. It's something to be experimentally realized to see how it works. It's quite fascinating. It is truly without a self.

 

 

What I am saying is to relax and not take it too seriously. Relaxation is part of the process of being in Rigpa. Don't take my word for it, go ask Namkai Norbu. He will confirm what I just stated.

 

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

Agree here. As for 'body', if you mean physical body, in a sense it is true because the sense of body having a shape or being a solid object is also just more reification, whereas in reality and direct experience there are just points of bodily sensations.

Those sensations aren't "real" or established either.

 

As for intent, Please clarify more on this and which is which: Intent and effort are two different things. There is positive, an active intent, and also the negative, a process of letting go, letting phenomena be.

Movement is a notion arising from relativity, having two points such as A and B while A moves to B.

Positive intent is active interaction from which one's awareness is localized. It's like moving from point A to point B. Relativity is consciously shifted from a focal point of awareness, the body, in a seemingly unmoving "objective" world. Negative intent in he whole letting go process where awareness is decentralized. You don't have a sense of "I" anymore in extreme states of letting go because no center is held.

 

 

But Xabir, again....

 

What about free will?

 

Is the Buddha just a rolling pile of dirt?

 

Why do you practice if you deny free will? Is it just...destined?

 

 

I like that statement. I don't understand it but I still like it.

 

Peace & Love!

 

It's a beautiful statement!

 

What I am saying is to relax and not take it too seriously. Relaxation is part of the process of being in Rigpa. Don't take my word for it, go ask Namkai Norbu. He will confirm what I just stated.

ralis

 

SHUDDUP RALIS!!

.

[ralis]

Those sensations aren't "real" or established either.

Positive intent is active interaction from which one's awareness is localized. It's like moving from point A to point B. Relativity is consciously shifted from a focal point of awareness, the body, in a seemingly unmoving "objective" world. Negative intent in he whole letting go process where awareness is decentralized. You don't have a sense of "I" anymore in extreme states of letting go because no center is held.

But Xabir, again....

 

What about free will?

 

Is the Buddha just a rolling pile of dirt?

 

Why do you practice if you deny free will? Is it just...destined?

It's a beautiful statement!

SHUDDUP RALIS!!

.

 

I think the moderators need to get involved here! You asked for my participation then you tell me to shut up. Amazing!

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think the moderators need to get involved here! You asked for my participation then you tell me to shut up. Amazing!

 

ralis

[xabir2005]

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Those sensations aren't "real" or established either.

Yes, but they are the same non-dual perceiving awareness. It is not the case that Awareness is real while objects are unreal. Rather, it is Awareness is the sensations and phenomena itself, but though appearing vividly is empty of inherent existence.

But Xabir, again....

 

What about free will?

 

Is the Buddha just a rolling pile of dirt?

 

Why do you practice if you deny free will? Is it just...destined?

When our mind and experienced are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. We think that the ability of a Subject to control Objects is freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. That everything is freely manifesting and dissolving (including intentions and actions) without a separate doer or subject is freedom, whereas the sense of a subject needing to manipulate and control things, or a subject that is seeking or avoiding an object, is what is called 'bondage'.

 

But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes.

 

Things do not happen by chance or randomly or determined, but due to conditions. So there is no control, but there is influence by intentions and imprints. They dependently originate.

 

On the level of intentions and motivations, we walk to get to the supermarket, we practice to get enlightened. In practice, we just be fully present practicing, walking, sitting, etc, without seeking for meaning and purpose, and see how everything "arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality." including thoughts of 'me getting somewhere'.

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Again, all these insights require the intentions of awareness. When it is dual, it is dual. When it is non-dual, it is non-dual. But at the end of the day it returns to a state of duality, of subject and object relation because one needs to reflect on the experience in order to perceive it. Can you perceive without a perceiver and the perceived?

Pause all thoughts, all intentions, all effort.

 

In the gap between two thoughts, two intentions, two efforts, is it a dead nothingness or is there something alive, present and cognizing?

 

In this presence-awareness in the gap of two thoughts, is there a split between a knower and known, or just a sheer sense of existence and knowing you cannot separate from?

 

Can you see that awareness is not dependent on intentions and thoughts, otherwise in that gap it would have been a dead nothingness?

 

Yet looking at a visual form, a sound, a thought, is it made out of something other than non-dual awareness? Is there a truly existing division between knower and known or is everything just self-knowing presence?

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Pause all thoughts, all intentions, all effort.

 

This happens through intent. It is effort.

 

 

Yes, but they are the same non-dual perceiving awareness. It is not the case that Awareness is real while objects are unreal. Rather, it is Awareness is the sensations and phenomena itself, but though appearing vividly is empty of inherent existence.

When our mind and experienced are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. We think that the ability of a Subject to control Objects is freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. That everything is freely manifesting and dissolving (including intentions and actions) without a separate doer or subject is freedom, whereas the sense of a subject needing to manipulate and control things, or a subject that is seeking or avoiding an object, is what is called 'bondage'.

 

But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes.

 

Things do not happen by chance or randomly or determined, but due to conditions. So there is no control, but there is influence by intentions and imprints. They dependently originate.

 

On the level of intentions and motivations, we walk to get to the supermarket, we practice to get enlightened. In practice, we just be fully present practicing, walking, sitting, etc, without seeking for meaning and purpose, and see how everything "arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality." including thoughts of 'me getting somewhere'.

 

Your only argument against determinism...is that it is extreme. If conditioned are caused by previous conditions, and choices are made by these conditions, that is determinism.

 

"arise and vanish on their own": that is determinism. Xabir this is so blatantly clear. Why don't you see it. This means that enlightenment happens by causes and conditions. It is another "arising" and "vanishing."

 

This is a wrong view.

 

 

Pause all thoughts, all intentions, all effort.

 

In the gap between two thoughts, two intentions, two efforts, is it a dead nothingness or is there something alive, present and cognizing?

 

In this presence-awareness in the gap of two thoughts, is there a split between a knower and known, or just a sheer sense of existence and knowing you cannot separate from?

 

Can you see that awareness is not dependent on intentions and thoughts, otherwise in that gap it would have been a dead nothingness?

 

Yet looking at a visual form, a sound, a thought, is it made out of something other than non-dual awareness? Is there a truly existing division between knower and known or is everything just self-knowing presence?

 

And the dead nothingness is recognized in the later arising of awarness that makes the paticular distinction of "then" and "now." There is no "gap" in intentions. Intention and change are simultaneous, it's the interplay of "I" and the "other."

 

NO there is no true division, but the characteristic of division. You are seeing things in extremes.

 

The bondage comes in designating awareness, attaching it to a certain experience or a locality, like I Amness or I Am NOTness.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Pero]

This means that enlightenment happens by causes and conditions. It is another "arising" and "vanishing."

 

This is a wrong view.

 

Hehe, Namdrol on E-Sangha liked to mention that Sakya Pandita said that Buddhahood doesn't happen without causes because if it did people would be becoming Buddhas spontaneously all over the world all the time (or something in that sense). In any case it is hardly a wrong view since this is what Buddhism is about.

[xabir2005]

This happens through intent. It is effort.

Even if you do not make the intent to stop all thoughts, presence-awareness is effortlessly present. It requires no effort.

 

Usually in meditation we have an intention to stop thinking, and due to the intention, all other thoughts are dropped, including the original intention. However if it goes the wrong way, like 'me' trying to force out all thoughts, that is just more thoughts. However if we make no attempt at manipulating and just relax in Presence without attempting to do anything or manipulate thoughts (whether to stop it, analyze it, control it, etc), and at the same time make no attempt to chase after thoughts, eventually thoughts stop on its own accord.

Your only argument against determinism...is that it is extreme. If conditioned are caused by previous conditions, and choices are made by these conditions, that is determinism.

Conditions are not pre determined by a previous condition. It interdependently originates with present conditions as well. Your intention to do something is not due to fate, but could be due to a reaction to your circumstances. Intention can manifest in any way and there is no fixed way it must go, but whatever arise, it does not arise independently apart from conditions but interdependently.

 

"arise and vanish on their own": that is determinism.

No, arise and vanish on their own just means there is no person behind the thought, there is just the thought, arising and vanishing by itself. It does not mean it is determined by some other thing or some God or whatever. Nothing is determined. But they arise by itself without a separate controller. Thought makes descisions and thinks that there is a thinker that made it. A descision-thought could arise based on reflection on a previous thought or event and it appears as if there is a permanent agent behind and controlling the thoughts all along, but all there is is arising thoughts and never a thinker. Not sure if you get what I mean. Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

The appearance of duality couldn't take place if it wasn't for awareness, which at an earlier stage (Thusness Stage 1) is experienced as an Eternal Witness of things but at non-dual insight (Thusnes Stage 4) is realised as the essence and substance of all appearance, whether it is the appearance of duality, of a thought, or of a tree. Because everything is awareness and there is no ultimately existing observer apart from whatever is experienced, that is the meaning that Awareness is by nature non-dual. Even if the thought or sense 'I am' arise, that too is just a self-luminous thought without a perceiver.

 

Awarness can be localized. But finding it, you won't find anything there. It is like going from point A to point B to find point B. And getting at point B, you'll go, huuuuh, where is point B? There's nothing there! So when you say that the sense I am arise, that is stupid. YOU ARE THAT ARISING. And when you say I sense and I, that is also purely nonsensical.

[dwai]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hehe, Namdrol on E-Sangha liked to mention that Sakya Pandita said that Buddhahood doesn't happen without causes because if it did people would be becoming Buddhas spontaneously all over the world all the time (or something in that sense). In any case it is hardly a wrong view since this is what Buddhism is about.

 

And so Pero, how does one reach Buddha hood when one is just the passing of causes and conditions? How does one reach there when there was never a "you"?