"there is such a self"

[3bob]

Greetings..

 

The notion that 'You', the indiviual, do not choose is without any pragmatic basis.. it is the domain of incompetence at the art of Living being masked as wisdom or Sagehood.. it is conceptual folly to 'Choose' to believe that you don't 'Choose'.. You are not a meat-puppet of the Universe, you are tasked with Living Well.. freely choosing your way, and in doing so demonstrating the nature of Consciousness to itself.. You ARE Consciousness, in the same way a raindrop is separate from the ocean, and.. both are the same 'Water'.. the Human experience is defined by its freewill, there is no other meaning.. the denial of freewill is no more than the fear of its responsibility..

 

Be well..

 

Hello TzuJanLi,

 

More or less agreed with your statement above in relation to the relative worlds. (which includes all the realms and souls that are woven together under the One) Thus a weaving of light existing as an individual soul someplace in time and space under the One has relative will within the worlds that it is interacting with.... But consciousness in and as a particular being and will (or even as the One) is not the Tao that can not be named which is what we ultimately are or no-thing which beyond even its first born or consciousness. Btw, consciousness may not be ready to give up its grand consciousness for no-thing unless it has reached the point of desire for more than consciousness, and at that point it can then surrender itself to that which is unknownable to it.

 

Om

[xabir2005]

Then that's not a decision. It's just a rolling of events and actions.

There is intention and decision, which is itself an phenomenon appearing without a thinker. It cannot be denied that the thought or intent "I think I will go to the party tonight" has arisen. However, even that thought, is itself an arising thought and there is no thinker or controller apart from that thought/intention/decision. That decision is often preceded by a process of analysis and judging before a final 'decision' to follow a particular course of action is made. Everything is just 'being done', but there is no doer. Even the sense of a doer is the 'being done'.

Your usage of the word "hence" is out of place here. It makes no sense to drive a causal relationship from "nothing is random" to "there is no control" I'm just pointing out how messed up your logic is all the way through. The "but" in the second sentence is a blatant contradiction, if there is no controller, then there is also no one who has intention. The two cannot be used together, it's like saying rabbits are all white, but they are all blue also.

I am trying to point out that randomness, chances, and control, these are both two ends of the extreme. I am denying these two extremes, I am not saying these extremes are equivalent, just as for example nihilism and eternalism are both extremes but different extremes. And as explained above, intentions and thoughts arise, but there is no controller. Just because there is no thinker doesn't mean there is no thoughts!

 

There is no control as control implies a controller controlling things. There are however influences and conditions, and one thought can become an influence and result in action etc. However that one thought is itself simply an arising thought and is not a 'thinker' or a 'controller'. A controller apart from arising thought cannot be found. The apparent sense of controllership, of self, etc, are simply presently arising sensations and thoughts.

You denied volition, also known as free will. You said that we are the universe.

Yes and by universe I include things like individual action and thoughts. Individual here does not mean a separate thinker apart from thought. Individual as in, relatively speaking, my psycho physical combination and actions and thoughts are different from say, Jesus's, or Hitler, or Buddha, whatever. Our mindstream, karma, etc, are different.

 

Next, I don't deny volition. In Buddhism, volition arises when there is ignorance (there still a sense of doer seeking something). Otherwise there is just spontaneous action. Whether it is volition or spontaneous action (like wu wei), they are still more thoughts and actions arising without thinker and doer. There is no free will in the sense of a controller, however there is always manifestation.

First off, you need to look into what "pre determined" means. Pre determined does not mean that there is a greater God making things happen (as your paranoia often seems to center around), it simply means that causes and conditions are established in objectivity so that no one can be exempt from it. For example, if we take the universe to have objective laws and that the human psyche is also limited to a set of chemical conditions, one can theoretically deduce every event and choice by factoring in all the established causes and events from the past. There is also no free will in this paradigm.

Intentions arise according to conditions, but intentions are not 'controlled' or 'limited' by external causes and influences. For that would imply there is a controller, who is being limited by and in opposition with external causes and influences, each fighting for control. No such subjective controller apart from an objective universe can be found. Reality is never split up in this way. It is not that the controller has no free will over objective causality, rather it is that there is no controller to begin with. Rather, there is just will, intention itself, which manifests and is dependently originated. There is no freedom in the sense of subjective controller. There is no bondage either in the sense of a controller being 'not free to do what it wants'. There is no controller. However, influences and conditions can be changed due to intention. Effort, intention, aspiration, all these are necessary. Do not give a nihilistic idea "oh there's nothing I can do about enlightenment since theres no self" which is simply a poor understanding of what this is about, and for practical purposes you need to give rise to aspiration for enlightenment, you need to practice and so on. It does not require a controller, it does require intention, aspiration, effort, investigation, mindfulness, etc, all part of the practice.

No you see, you are being inconsistent with your ideology.

 

By the way, you completely missed the point of that example. I didn't write it for you to consider the purpose of blaming or praising someone, but the disappearance of values with the extinction of a true choice or a self.

 

In the context of your explanation above, an isolated mindstream is a self. Purely by definition, because it is clearly distinguished from another element (other mindstreams), and uncaused by them, it is itself. But again we run into an inconsistency, since you have equated consciousness with phenomena, and phenomena is by nature impermanent, we can't have impermanent factors create a permanent continuation. It also makes no sense to say that there is the individualization of "no self hood." If phenomena has no self and is the arising of disjointed appearances as consciousness, there is no continuation found in the universal manifestation of that very event. It is simply arising and vanishing like the wind blowing by.

Mindstream is not isolated but interdependent, like the net of indras, each node reflecting every other node and is thus seamlessly interconnected. Yet each node is individual.

 

Next, impermanent factors in one mindstream does have eternal continuation though not in the sense of permanent eternality, but impermanent eternality, like a river flows endlessly but is not a static locatable graspable 'thing'. The mindstream continues as a process due to a continuing flow of causality.

 

This can also explain what I mean:

 

 

In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:

 

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

 

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

 

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

 

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."

Edited January 20, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is intention and decision, which is itself an phenomenon appearing without a thinker. It cannot be denied that the thought or intent "I think I will go to the party tonight" has arisen. However, even that thought, is itself an arising thought and there is no thinker or controller apart from that thought/intention/decision. That decision is often preceded by a process of analysis and judging before a final 'decision' to follow a particular course of action is made. Everything is just 'being done', but there is no doer. Even the sense of a doer is the 'being done'.

Right, that's not what a decision is. Decision and choice demands an active controller.

 

I am trying to point out that randomness, chances, and control, these are both two ends of the extreme. I am denying these two extremes, I am not saying these extremes are equivalent, just as for example nihilism and eternalism are both extremes but different extremes. And as explained above, intentions and thoughts arise, but there is no controller. Just because there is no thinker doesn't mean there is no thoughts!

 

Extremity is a subjective notion. Using it to legitimize a point is stupid. If there is no thinker, there can be just thoughts. But if there is no controller, we can't say there is an decision or a choice being made in the truest sense of those two terms.

 

There is no control as control implies a controller controlling things. There are however influences and conditions, and one thought can become an influence and result in action etc. However that one thought is itself simply an arising thought and is not a 'thinker' or a 'controller'. A controller apart from arising thought cannot be found. The apparent sense of controllership, of self, etc, are simply presently arising sensations and thoughts.

Yes and by universe I include things like individual action and thoughts. Individual here does not mean a separate thinker apart from thought. Individual as in, relatively speaking, my psycho physical combination and actions and thoughts are different from say, Jesus's, or Hitler, or Buddha, whatever. Our mindstream, karma, etc, are different.

 

Next, I don't deny volition. In Buddhism, volition arises when there is ignorance (there still a sense of doer seeking something). Otherwise there is just spontaneous action. Whether it is volition or spontaneous action (like wu wei), they are still more thoughts and actions arising without thinker and doer. There is no free will in the sense of a controller, however there is always manifestation.

If volition is the result of ignorance and there was never a self or free will to begin with, volition is denied. Volition connotes free will, a controller, you deny it.

 

Intentions arise according to conditions, but intentions are not 'controlled' or 'limited' by external causes and influences. For that would imply there is a controller, who is being limited by and in opposition with external causes and influences, each fighting for control. No such subjective controller apart from an objective universe can be found. Reality is never split up in this way. It is not that the controller has no free will over objective causality, rather it is that there is no controller to begin with. Rather, there is just will, intention itself, which manifests and is dependently originated. There is no freedom in the sense of subjective controller. There is no bondage either in the sense of a controller being 'not free to do what it wants'. There is no controller. However, influences and conditions can be changed due to intention. Effort, intention, aspiration, all these are necessary. Do not give a nihilistic idea "oh there's nothing I can do about enlightenment since theres no self" which is simply a poor understanding of what this is about, and for practical purposes you need to give rise to aspiration for enlightenment, you need to practice and so on. It does not require a controller, it does require intention, aspiration, effort, investigation, mindfulness, etc, all part of the practice.

Volition is the freedom of the subjective controller. Illusory volition is then not volition. The terms: "will" "volition" "intention" in the context of their use all imply a doer. For example, we do not say the earth willed gravity, or the bed had intention, because those are without a conscious self acting as an agent.

 

No, according to you, intentions are just another manifesting thought, another manifesting condition.

 

No it is not a poor understanding, I'm seeing right through all the bullshit complexities, all the "buts," "howevers," you have constructed to not fully face the consequences of declaring your "no-self" doctrine. It is nihilistic. Whether I practice or not, that is as same as the universe scrubbing the toilet ey? Just as it rains there and it snows somewhere else and trees planted and trees fallen.

 

Mindstream is not isolated but interdependent, like the net of indras, each node reflecting every other node and is thus seamlessly interconnected. Yet each node is individual.

 

Next, impermanent factors in one mindstream does have eternal continuation though not in the sense of permanent eternality, but impermanent eternality, like a river flows endlessly but is not a static locatable graspable 'thing'. The mindstream continues as a process due to a continuing flow of causality.

Actually no. You need to look into what reflection means. If there is each node, that node is separate. If each node only exists as a reflection, then that node is not a separate entity but a continuation of the reflecting material, a pathway of single light. If a river flows endlessly, then there is eternity of the flowing water, its path and its characteristics. SO we can ascribe an identity to this stream, a self. Your examples are very flawed.

 

 

In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:

 

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

 

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

 

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

 

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."

 

We are not arguing about whether the sky is blue or not.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[voidisyinyang]

You all are sitting in full-lotus while having these discussions right?

[Lucky7Strikes]

You all are sitting in full-lotus while having these discussions right?

 

Yes sir, we are masturbating each others brains off too. .

[xabir2005]

Whether I practice or not, that is as same as the universe scrubbing the toilet ey? Just as it rains there and it snows somewhere else and trees planted and trees fallen.

Whether you practice or not is of vast practical importance to attaining enlightenment. Contrary to some people who think 'there's nothing I can do since there is no self' which is a very confused view, if you want to attain enlightenment, you practice. Just as if you want to master music, you practice. You want to score As in exams, study hard. Of course enlightenment isn't exactly the same as that, but the point is practice is important. That there is no 'self' does not deny dependent origination. Just because there is no 'self' doesn't practice cannot be done. (And ultimately as Zen teaches, every ordinary action can be factored into practice so every doing becomes part of the practice: when walking just walk (no walker, universe walking), when sitting just sit, sitting quietly, spring comes, grass grow by itself.) The Buddha taught the View and Path that leads to the Fruition in a very systematic manner.

 

We aspire to attain enlightenment for ourselves and others, out of compassion to end ours' and others' suffering, even though we understand clearly that there is no self and others. This sounds apparently paradoxical in theory but is actually not so in direct experience. When we say 'ours' and 'mine', it is simply out of conventions and does not refer to an ultimate entity. Furthermore, there are individual mindstream, but no separate and permanent perceiver or agent behind the stream (flow) of consciousness.

 

As Diamond Sutra states:

 

"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

 

"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."

Edited January 21, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

 

Actually no. You need to look into what reflection means. If there is each node, that node is separate. If each node only exists as a reflection, then that node is not a separate entity but a continuation of the reflecting material, a pathway of single light. If a river flows endlessly, then there is eternity of the flowing water, its path and its characteristics. SO we can ascribe an identity to this stream, a self. Your examples are very flawed.

 

Everything is interdependent and arise seamlessly/inseparably but at the same time individual and different. The sound of bell ringing is not the same as the bell or the stick, but is interdependent with that.

 

The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that:

 

* at each juncture there lies a jewel;

* each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix.

* Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness.

* Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others;

* thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others.

 

This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ...".

 

The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction.

Edited January 21, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Whether you practice or not is of vast practical importance to attaining enlightenment. Contrary to some people who think 'there's nothing I can do since there is no self' which is a very confused view, if you want to attain enlightenment, you practice. Just as if you want to master music, you practice. You want to score As in exams, study hard. Of course enlightenment isn't exactly the same as that, but the point is practice is important. That there is no 'self' does not deny dependent origination. Just because there is no 'self' doesn't practice cannot be done. (And ultimately as Zen teaches, every ordinary action can be factored into practice so every doing becomes part of the practice: when walking just walk (no walker, universe walking), when sitting just sit, sitting quietly, spring comes, grass grow by itself.) The Buddha taught the View and Path that leads to the Fruition in a very systematic manner.

No. In your paradigm, non-practicing is the only way to practice. Conscious meditation or practice are all ego clinging activities of "I" meditating, practicing, etc. as in all those other activities you listed above. No one attains enlightenment in your reality, reality is already enlightened and without a self. This is not achieved by any practice but realized spontaneously. The point of practice is absolutely irrelevant in your interpretations. If there is no self, practice cannot be done by anyone, it is just performed as the rain falls, and enlightenment (your definition) simply comes about like the clouds floating by. Do not cling to practicing, it is counter intuitive to your philosophy of "rolling on."

 

But of course, I don't think that.

 

We aspire to attain enlightenment for ourselves and others, out of compassion to end ours' and others' suffering, even though we understand clearly that there is no self and others. This sounds apparently paradoxical in theory but is actually not so in direct experience. When we say 'ours' and 'mine', it is simply out of conventions and does not refer to an ultimate entity. Furthermore, there are individual mindstream, but no separate and permanent perceiver or agent behind the stream (flow) of consciousness.

Do not glorify your desire for enlightenment. Do not glorify your compassion for others and to end other's suffering. Do not glorify your definition of enlightenment. It is just something that arises and passes away, just like desires, just like hatred, just like suffering. You do not own any of these, because there is no "you" to speak of here, everything happening through causes and conditions giving rise to appearances and events.

 

It sounds paradoxical because it is contradictory. Your indoctrinated faith and immovable respect for Thusness and Longchen are the only things letting you accept the inconsistencies in their ideology.

 

As Diamond Sutra states:

 

"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

 

"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."

This quote makes perfect sense under my interpretations.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Everything is interdependent and arise seamlessly/inseparably but at the same time individual and different. The sound of bell ringing is not the same as the bell or the stick, but is interdependent with that.

The stick does not begin or end anywhere, the sound does not begin or end anywhere, the bell does not begin or end anywhere. Every disparity made is false, non of these are individual.

 

The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that:

 

* at each juncture there lies a jewel;

* each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix.

* Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness.

* Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others;

* thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others.

 

This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ...".

 

The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction.

 

Individual unit of consciousness. I like that.

 

There is no universe but individual consciousness entities. The universe is not acting out through me. You and I are the creator of our experiences and the universe.

[xabir2005]

No. In your paradigm, non-practicing is the only way to practice. Conscious meditation or practice are all ego clinging activities of "I" meditating, practicing, etc. as in all those other activities you listed above. No one attains enlightenment in your reality, reality is already enlightened and without a self. This is not achieved by any practice but realized spontaneously. The point of practice is absolutely irrelevant in your interpretations. If there is no self, practice cannot be done by anyone, it is just performed as the rain falls, and enlightenment (your definition) simply comes about like the clouds floating by. Do not cling to practicing, it is counter intuitive to your philosophy of "rolling on."

 

But of course, I don't think that.

Meditation are just means. After enlightenment the need for meditation takes a very different role, meditation becomes something like exercising in gym - just for keeping a healthy body and mind. Thusness seldom meditates now because effortless self-liberation is in his every moment experience (though partly it's because of his current busy lifestyle). However for unenlightened persons, practice, meditation is very important. Mindfulness and investigation of our experience, or self inquiry, both are different types of practices but results in certain insights on the nature of reality. In the end, practice becomes effortless, but only after the arising of insight. Even though there never was a self to begin with, this basic fact of reality will not be realised until you do practice and investigation of your own to ascertain these in your own experience, to give rise to insight.

 

There is a good article by Daniel Ingram - http://www.interactivebuddha.com/bullshit.shtml

Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

 

There was a guy on a blogsite to which I sometimes post who kept inserting comments in our discussion such as you can not become what you already are, awakening is not about more knowledge but instead about less knowledge, and that awakening happens regardless of study and meditation. I have encountered this vile point of view and its variants before, and so replied as follows, in slightly edited form:

 

Dear [delusional view-poster],

 

Somehow I just cannot resist countering your point of view with every bit of rhetorical force I have despite the fact that I am afraid the number who listen will be few.

 

Here is a detailed analysis of what is wrong with that perspective on a number of fronts:

 

The notion that you cannot become what you already are implies a whole host of conceptual problems that I will claim do not lead to much that is good that cannot be attained by conceptual frameworks that are not so problematic. Here is a list of the problems:

 

1) This notion encourages people to not practice. You can say what you like, but again and again I see people who subscribe to this and similar notions resting on their cleverness and grand posteriors and not actually getting it in the same way that my accomplished meditator friends get it. It seems so comforting, this notion that you are already something that you, in fact, are not. This brings us to the question of what you are and are not.

 

2) This notion solidifies a True Self teaching almost by definition. From any cursory analysis, what we are from an insight point of view is an extrapolation of continuity from a pattern of utterly fresh, transient, ephemeral, causal sensations. Anything added to this is extraneous from an insight point of view. Try as people might, a True Self in an experiential sense cannot be found. Thus, the notion that people already are something begs the question: What are they? It tends to imply that they are already something such as perfect, enlightened, realized, awakened, or something even worse such as Awareness, Cosmic Consciousness, The Atman, an aspect of The Divine, etc. all of which cannot actually be found. While Buddhism does sometimes go there, such as using terms such as Dharmakaya and Buddha Nature, these are very slippery, high concepts that were added later and require a ton of explanation and practice experience to keep them from becoming the monsters they nearly always become in less experienced hands.

 

3) Awakening involves clearly perceiving universal characteristics of phenomena. While one can attempt to rest comfortably in the notion that as these universal characteristics are there anyway, the whole, core, essential, root point of all this is that there is something to be gained by becoming one of the people that can actually directly perceive this clearly enough to fundamentally change the way reality is perceived in real-time. The straight truth is that the vast majority of people do not start out being able to do this at all. The notion that everyone already is someone who can perceive reality this way without effort in real-time is a fantastic falsehood, lie, untruth, and in short, one great load of apathy-creating bullshit. Said another say, your notion, namely that one cannot become one of the people who can perceive this because everyone already is a clear perceiver of highest caliber, is a profound delusion and simply does not hold up to reality testing.

 

If one goes around asking people without very good insight into these things, i.e. the unenlightened, about basic dharma points, points that are obvious to those who have learned to pay attention well, one does not find that everyone already is a person who is perceiving things at the level that makes the difference the dharma promises. Further, even those of lower levels of enlightenment generally have a hard time saying they really are able to perceive the emptiness, luminosity, selflessness, causality, transience, ephemerality, etc. of reality in real-time at all times without having to really do anything. In short, your notion that this is as easy as just being what you already are is wildly off the mark, as the vast majority of people are woefully underdeveloped on the perceptual front in question.

 

Thus, all reality testing reveals that your notion is missing a very fundamental point: while the universal characteristics are always manifesting in all things and at all times, there are those that can perceive this well and those that cannot, and meditative training, conceptual frameworks, techniques, teachers, texts, discussions and the like can all contribute to developing the internal skills and wiring to be able to fully realize what is possible, as thousands of practitioners throughout the ages have noticed.

 

I have no idea where you are getting this bizarre notion, except that perhaps you are reading The Power of Now, following Adiashanti, or some other tradition that for reasons completely beyond me assumes that everyone already has the powers of perception of the rarest perceptual superstars.

 

I myself have known before and after, meaning that I know what I was capable of perceiving and understanding before I underwent meditative training and after, and no amount of being fed the concept that I was already as developed as I could be, was already enlightened, was already there, had nothing to do, nothing to develop, was already as clear as I could be, was already perfectly awake, etc. was going to make the difference that the thousands of hours over years of increasing my ability to perceive things clearly did.

 

It would be like saying: you are already a concert pianist, you just have to realize it, or you already are a nuclear physicist, you just have to realize it, or you already speak every language, you just have to realize it.

 

It would be like saying to a two-year old: you already understand everything you need to know so stop learning new things now, or to a severe paranoid schizophrenic: you already are as sane as anyone and do not need to take your meds and should just follow the voices that tell you to kill people, or to a person with heart disease: just keep smoking and eating twinkies and you will be healthy, or to an illiterate person with no math skills who keeps having a hard time navigating in the modern world and is constantly disempowered and ripped off: no need to learn to read and do math, as you are just fine as you are, or saying to a greedy, corrupt, corporate-raiding, white-collar criminal, Fascist, alcoholic wife-beater: hey, Dude, you are a like, beautiful perfect flower of the Now Moment, already enlightened [insert toke here], you are doing and not-doing just fine, like wow, so keep up the good work, Man.

 

Would you let a blind and partially paralyzed untrained stroke victim perform open-heart surgery on your child based on the notion that they already are an accomplished surgeon but just have to realize it? Would you follow the dharma teachings of people who feed other people this kind of crap? In short, are you completely out of your mind?

 

Those who imagine that everyone somehow in their development already became as clear and perceptive as they could be just by being alive is missing something very profound. Do you imagine that you can just remind people of these things and suddenly all wisdom and clarity will suddenly just appear? This mind-bogglingly naive. I simply have to ask: from where did you attain this fantastic fixed delusion?

 

I have gained so much that is good and lost so much that is bad by learning to practice well, learning to concentrate, learning the theory, learning insight practices, going through the organic process of the stages over decades, reading the stories, reading about the lives of the great practitioners, having dharma conversations with dharma friends, debating points, wrestling with difficult concepts and how to apply them to my actual life, teaching, learning, studying, playing with the powers, writing, realizing how things are, and delving deeply into the sensate world that I am astounded that anyone would want to try to reduce something so grand, wonderful, deep, rich, amazing and profound to such a paltry, ridiculous concept as the notion that all that is already in place in everyone regardless of what they have done or not done. All those benefits, skills, abilities, powers, states, stages, experiences, insights, and fundamental perceptual changes simply were not available until I did the work, took the time, participated in the process, and no amount of anyone telling me it was otherwise would have helped or made it so.

 

This is an organic, causal process. I know of no examples where the necessary and sufficient causes did not involve some kind of work rather than a mere concept that somehow all those benefits and abilities have magically appeared already and they somehow just did not notice until you told them they had.

 

In short: STOP IT! You are spreading craziness, and this is craziness that many people will not be able to tell is craziness, including, it seems, yourself. While I usually do not go so far as to tell people that there is something so deeply wrong with what they think and how they communicate it that they should stop it immediately and forever, this particular point is a great example of something I consider abhorrent and worthy of profound revision.

 

Regardless of any kind intentions, the teachings that you perpetuate take a half-truth that seems so very nice and seductive to us neurotic Americans who just can barely stand another achievement trip and have such a hard time with self-acceptance and turn it into sugary poison.

 

There is no need to tie the three useful concepts of 1) no-self, 2) self-acceptance in the ordinary sense, and 3) the notion that the sensations that lead to understanding if clearly perceived over and over again are manifesting right here, right now, to such a perversely twisted yet seemingly benign and similar concept as the one you unfortunately promote. While they look the same, careful examination will reveal why your way of stating things is so deeply flawed.

 

P.S. For those not used to this sort of hard-hitting rhetoric, check out texts where the Buddha took on some dogmas he considered useless or harmful and see if he wasn*t even more forceful than me at points.

Do not glorify your desire for enlightenment. Do not glorify your compassion for others and to end other's suffering. Do not glorify your definition of enlightenment. It is just something that arises and passes away, just like desires, just like hatred, just like suffering. You do not own any of these, because there is no "you" to speak of here, everything happening through causes and conditions giving rise to appearances and events.

It is precisely because suffering is impermanent that one must work to end suffering. If suffering were permanent, it could not be ended. Impermanence and emptiness has absolutely no contradictions with compassion. The common misunderstanding that there is no self = there cannot be compassion is just a total misunderstanding of what no-self means, i.e. misunderstanding it as nihilism. To be a Buddha, give rise to great compassion. Someone can attain liberation but without the great compassion of Buddha simply attains personal liberation like an arhat, though this is not the same as saying arhats are not compassionate.

 

Next, enlightenment is eternal, not in the sense that there is a permanent unmoving self that is enlightened, but the continuum of wisdom is unceasing like river. Once awakened you cannot become asleep again.

It sounds paradoxical because it is contradictory. Your indoctrinated faith and immovable respect for Thusness and Longchen are the only things letting you accept the inconsistencies in their ideology.

I see no contradictions at all, it is due to your misunderstandings that you see contradictions. Edited January 21, 2010 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

The stick does not begin or end anywhere, the sound does not begin or end anywhere, the bell does not begin or end anywhere. Every disparity made is false, non of these are individual.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? So a stick is the same as the sound of a bell? You, a human, are the same as a tree? No distinction can be made between either of these? There is no difference between my mind and your mind? If you try to play this card, you are really just going to end up in a senseless position. Come on now, don't be stupid. There is a phenomenal world of appearances out there which is dependently arisen which labels like same and different apply to and point to. It's just that all the things that same and different and such and such point to are dependently arisen and thus empty. Everything is contained within and interdependent with everything else yet everything is individual. In my mind, denying distinctions means denying the phenomenal world and denying the phenomenal world means nihilism. Then there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That is not where you want to be. You really need to study the difference between the relative and absolute. I see you are still going on about the no doer thing. And I see that you have still not addressed my point I made a while ago. Is there a seer apart from seeing, hearer apart from hearing, etc.? That is, can seeing and the seer be separated so that there are TWO things - a seer OUTSIDE of the seeing which controls and manipulates that seeing and the seeing itself? Or is the seer contained within that very seeing itself?

Edited January 21, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Meditation are just means. After enlightenment the need for meditation takes a very different role, meditation becomes something like exercising in gym - just for keeping a healthy body and mind. Thusness seldom meditates now because effortless self-liberation is in his every moment experience (though partly it's because of his current busy lifestyle). However for unenlightened persons, practice, meditation is very important. Mindfulness and investigation of our experience, or self inquiry, both are different types of practices but results in certain insights on the nature of reality. In the end, practice becomes effortless, but only after the arising of insight. Even though there never was a self to begin with, this basic fact of reality will not be realised until you do practice and investigation of your own to ascertain these in your own experience, to give rise to insight.

There are no unenlightened persons. There is just unenlightenedness. There are no persons, but only sensory awareness arising and falling. Rolling on. Earth spinning, wind blowing, a body meditating, sounds arising, insight practices being done, insight practices not being done.

 

There is a good article by Daniel Ingram - http://www.interactivebuddha.com/bullshit.shtml

Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

It's a terrible article by Daniel Ingram.

 

There was a guy on a blogsite to which I sometimes post who kept inserting comments in our discussion such as you can not become what you already are, awakening is not about more knowledge but instead about less knowledge, and that awakening happens regardless of study and meditation. I have encountered this vile point of view and its variants before, and so replied as follows, in slightly edited form:

 

Dear [delusional view-poster],

 

Somehow I just cannot resist countering your point of view with every bit of rhetorical force I have despite the fact that I am afraid the number who listen will be few.

 

Here is a detailed analysis of what is wrong with that perspective on a number of fronts:

 

The notion that you cannot become what you already are implies a whole host of conceptual problems that I will claim do not lead to much that is good that cannot be attained by conceptual frameworks that are not so problematic. Here is a list of the problems:

 

1) This notion encourages people to not practice. You can say what you like, but again and again I see people who subscribe to this and similar notions resting on their cleverness and grand posteriors and not actually getting it in the same way that my accomplished meditator friends get it. It seems so comforting, this notion that you are already something that you, in fact, are not. This brings us to the question of what you are and are not.

The whole point of the guy was to let people know that their notion of practice is counter productive to the doctrine itself.

2) This notion solidifies a True Self teaching almost by definition. From any cursory analysis, what we are from an insight point of view is an extrapolation of continuity from a pattern of utterly fresh, transient, ephemeral, causal sensations. Anything added to this is extraneous from an insight point of view. Try as people might, a True Self in an experiential sense cannot be found. Thus, the notion that people already are something begs the question: What are they? It tends to imply that they are already something such as perfect, enlightened, realized, awakened, or something even worse such as Awareness, Cosmic Consciousness, The Atman, an aspect of The Divine, etc. all of which cannot actually be found. While Buddhism does sometimes go there, such as using terms such as Dharmakaya and Buddha Nature, these are very slippery, high concepts that were added later and require a ton of explanation and practice experience to keep them from becoming the monsters they nearly always become in less experienced hands.

No, it does not solidify a True Self teaching. It can, but not necessarily so. No self can simply mean that everything is just "fresh, transient, ephemeral, causal sensations." So this is what people already are. They are already thus. They can only be thus, whether they practice or not.

 

I don't actually believe this.

3) Awakening involves clearly perceiving universal characteristics of phenomena. While one can attempt to rest comfortably in the notion that as these universal characteristics are there anyway, the whole, core, essential, root point of all this is that there is something to be gained by becoming one of the people that can actually directly perceive this clearly enough to fundamentally change the way reality is perceived in real-time. The straight truth is that the vast majority of people do not start out being able to do this at all. The notion that everyone already is someone who can perceive reality this way without effort in real-time is a fantastic falsehood, lie, untruth, and in short, one great load of apathy-creating bullshit. Said another say, your notion, namely that one cannot become one of the people who can perceive this because everyone already is a clear perceiver of highest caliber, is a profound delusion and simply does not hold up to reality testing.

No, awakening IS a universal phenomena. It's not about perceiving reality this way or that, it is that the way everyone is IS already reality. It is apathy creating bullshit, because your entire paradigm is an apathy creating bullshit. Daniel misses the point of that guy. That guy is not saying that everyone is enlightened or everyone already sees the world this way or that, he was probably saying that reality already is the way it is, and that prescribing someone as enlightened, when they are simply a no-self phenomena arising and falling, is ridiculous.

 

If one goes around asking people without very good insight into these things, i.e. the unenlightened, about basic dharma points, points that are obvious to those who have learned to pay attention well, one does not find that everyone already is a person who is perceiving things at the level that makes the difference the dharma promises. Further, even those of lower levels of enlightenment generally have a hard time saying they really are able to perceive the emptiness, luminosity, selflessness, causality, transience, ephemerality, etc. of reality in real-time at all times without having to really do anything. In short, your notion that this is as easy as just being what you already are is wildly off the mark, as the vast majority of people are woefully underdeveloped on the perceptual front in question.

He again misses the point by adhering to concepts of developed and underdeveloped. Reality simply IS in that person's state of being. It is neither better or worse, just as the sky is neither better or worse than the earth.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Thus, all reality testing reveals that your notion is missing a very fundamental point: while the universal characteristics are always manifesting in all things and at all times, there are those that can perceive this well and those that cannot, and meditative training, conceptual frameworks, techniques, teachers, texts, discussions and the like can all contribute to developing the internal skills and wiring to be able to fully realize what is possible, as thousands of practitioners throughout the ages have noticed.

 

I have no idea where you are getting this bizarre notion, except that perhaps you are reading The Power of Now, following Adiashanti, or some other tradition that for reasons completely beyond me assumes that everyone already has the powers of perception of the rarest perceptual superstars.

 

I myself have known before and after, meaning that I know what I was capable of perceiving and understanding before I underwent meditative training and after, and no amount of being fed the concept that I was already as developed as I could be, was already enlightened, was already there, had nothing to do, nothing to develop, was already as clear as I could be, was already perfectly awake, etc. was going to make the difference that the thousands of hours over years of increasing my ability to perceive things clearly did.

 

It would be like saying: you are already a concert pianist, you just have to realize it, or you already are a nuclear physicist, you just have to realize it, or you already speak every language, you just have to realize it.

 

It would be like saying to a two-year old: you already understand everything you need to know so stop learning new things now, or to a severe paranoid schizophrenic: you already are as sane as anyone and do not need to take your meds and should just follow the voices that tell you to kill people, or to a person with heart disease: just keep smoking and eating twinkies and you will be healthy, or to an illiterate person with no math skills who keeps having a hard time navigating in the modern world and is constantly disempowered and ripped off: no need to learn to read and do math, as you are just fine as you are, or saying to a greedy, corrupt, corporate-raiding, white-collar criminal, Fascist, alcoholic wife-beater: hey, Dude, you are a like, beautiful perfect flower of the Now Moment, already enlightened [insert toke here], you are doing and not-doing just fine, like wow, so keep up the good work, Man.

 

Would you let a blind and partially paralyzed untrained stroke victim perform open-heart surgery on your child based on the notion that they already are an accomplished surgeon but just have to realize it? Would you follow the dharma teachings of people who feed other people this kind of crap? In short, are you completely out of your mind?

 

Those who imagine that everyone somehow in their development already became as clear and perceptive as they could be just by being alive is missing something very profound. Do you imagine that you can just remind people of these things and suddenly all wisdom and clarity will suddenly just appear? This mind-bogglingly naive. I simply have to ask: from where did you attain this fantastic fixed delusion?

I have no idea why Daniel is being so ignorant. It's not about "those that can perceive this" or not. Perception and non-perception are just rising universal characteristics at that moment, same with meditative training, frameworks, teachers, etc. He must believe that his perceptions were somehow earned by him or is a superstar, when there was no one ever to earn anything in the first place, the yearning for enlightenment simply arose, then the thought to meditate, then meditation, than whatever newly developed perception. These are all just simply happenings without a doer, the universe just rolling on, rain is falling again on the other side.

 

I have gained so much that is good and lost so much that is bad by learning to practice well, learning to concentrate, learning the theory, learning insight practices, going through the organic process of the stages over decades, reading the stories, reading about the lives of the great practitioners, having dharma conversations with dharma friends, debating points, wrestling with difficult concepts and how to apply them to my actual life, teaching, learning, studying, playing with the powers, writing, realizing how things are, and delving deeply into the sensate world that I am astounded that anyone would want to try to reduce something so grand, wonderful, deep, rich, amazing and profound to such a paltry, ridiculous concept as the notion that all that is already in place in everyone regardless of what they have done or not done. All those benefits, skills, abilities, powers, states, stages, experiences, insights, and fundamental perceptual changes simply were not available until I did the work, took the time, participated in the process, and no amount of anyone telling me it was otherwise would have helped or made it so.

Daniel didn't do any of this. There was never a Daniel to begin with. Anyways, he seems to be clinging to experiences, which one shouldn't do when investigating into the nature of reality. It's another thing to develop skills to navigate through reality, but seeing into its foundations is different.

 

In short: STOP IT! You are spreading craziness, and this is craziness that many people will not be able to tell is craziness, including, it seems, yourself. While I usually do not go so far as to tell people that there is something so deeply wrong with what they think and how they communicate it that they should stop it immediately and forever, this particular point is a great example of something I consider abhorrent and worthy of profound revision.

Daniel is scared. He is scared that all those experiences and insights and effort actually means absolutely nothing under his own view of reality. He can't face his own truth.

 

It is precisely because suffering is impermanent that one must work to end suffering. If suffering were permanent, it could not be ended. Impermanence and emptiness has absolutely no contradictions with compassion. The common misunderstanding that there is no self = there cannot be compassion is just a total misunderstanding of what no-self means, i.e. misunderstanding it as nihilism. To be a Buddha, give rise to great compassion. Someone can attain liberation but without the great compassion of Buddha simply attains personal liberation like an arhat, though this is not the same as saying arhats are not compassionate.

WHAT? What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote above?

 

I never said there cannot be compassion. What I wrote above has nothing to do with arhats or arising compassion. Compassion was just an example of the three I used to illustrate another point.

 

I also never mentioned suffering being permanent or impermanent.

 

Your no-self and denial of free will is precisely nihilistic.

 

Next, enlightenment is eternal, not in the sense that there is a permanent unmoving self that is enlightened, but the continuum of wisdom is unceasing like river. Once awakened you cannot become asleep again.

I see no contradictions at all, it is due to your misunderstandings that you see contradictions.

This is not true under your own ideology. Because there is no-self but only arising sensations and appearances and thoughts all at expense of no doer but the universe manifesting, enlightenment, the view and realization of no self (which comes about without a doer) can simply fade away as the rain evaporated back into the sky.

 

I see contradictions everywhere. Is is due to your clinging to Thusness's teachings without personal courage to re digest and re investigate them. But it is also due to your tendency to jumble together illogical ideas and random terms/quotes based on seeming similarities to give yourself a sense of understanding and confirmation when it isn't there at all.

[thuscomeone]

I have no idea why Daniel is being so ignorant. It's not about "those that can perceive this" or not. Perception and non-perception are just rising universal characteristics at that moment, same with meditative training, frameworks, teachers, etc. He must believe that his perceptions were somehow earned by him or is a superstar, when there was no one ever to earn anything in the first place, the yearning for enlightenment simply arose, then the thought to meditate, then meditation, than whatever newly developed perception. These are all just simply happenings without a doer, the universe just rolling on, rain is falling again on the other side.

 

 

Daniel didn't do any of this. There was never a Daniel to begin with. Anyways, he seems to be clinging to experiences, which one shouldn't do when investigating into the nature of reality. It's another thing to develop skills to navigate through reality, but seeing into its foundations is different.

 

 

Daniel is scared. He is scared that all those experiences and insights and effort actually means absolutely nothing under his own view of reality. He can't face his own truth.

 

 

WHAT? What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote above?

 

I never said there cannot be compassion. What I wrote above has nothing to do with arhats or arising compassion. Compassion was just an example of the three I used to illustrate another point.

 

I also never mentioned suffering being permanent or impermanent.

 

Your no-self and denial of free will is precisely nihilistic.

 

 

This is not true under your own ideology. Because there is no-self but only arising sensations and appearances and thoughts all at expense of no doer but the universe manifesting, enlightenment, the view and realization of no self (which comes about without a doer) can simply fade away as the rain evaporated back into the sky.

 

I see contradictions everywhere. Is is due to your clinging to Thusness's teachings without personal courage to re digest and re investigate them. But it is also due to your tendency to jumble together illogical ideas and random terms/quotes based on seeming similarities to give yourself a sense of understanding and confirmation when it isn't there at all.

 

Once again you miss the point. There is not and never has been a "daniel" as a controller outside of the controlled, a seer outside of the seeing. But there IS a "daniel" as an individual human body and individual mindstream which is simply present. For godsakes, read some of what xabir is posting for you. He is giving you gold and you are shitting all over him.

 

The way I see the whole "you are already enlightened, you don't have to practice thing" is that everyone already has the potential for enlightenment. Just like you have the potential to punch someone in the face. Yet just having that potential doesn't mean that you will actualize that potential, which is what enlightenment is.

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

There are no unenlightened persons. There is just unenlightenedness.

This is true in the ultimate sense, but in terms of conventions, it is fine to talk about persons - as Buddha said, Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.1 That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.2

 

Next thing is you must also understand that while there is no permanent self that is separate from experiencer or is the controller of experience, there are individual mindstreams with different set of conditions and karma. For example he smokes, I don't. Or Buddha is enlightened, but not Joe. Of course ultimately there is no 'self' that is smoking, smoking is happening, but relatively speaking you have to speak like because we have to follow the conventions - obviously Buddha's mindstream is Buddha's mindstream, and is not Joe's. Even though there is no self entity to be found in or apart from the manifesting stream of consciousness.

 

In short, there is no self within nor apart from the psycho physical combination, but each psycho physical combination is unique and cannot be switched. In terms of conventional language, I am not you, you are not me, I cannot become you, you cannot become me.

No, it does not solidify a True Self teaching. It can, but not necessarily so. No self can simply mean that everything is just "fresh, transient, ephemeral, causal sensations." So this is what people already are. They are already thus. They can only be thus, whether they practice or not.

Yes, but whether this is realised is another case.

No, awakening IS a universal phenomena. It's not about perceiving reality this way or that, it is that the way everyone is IS already reality.

No. Awakening means realising the universal characteristic of phenomena. Awakening is opposed to ignorance, which means ignorant of the universal characteristic of phenomena. The nature of reality is always so, but there is ignorance (in some, conventionally speaking), and there is awakening (in some).

It is apathy creating bullshit, because your entire paradigm is an apathy creating bullshit.

That is your misconception, not my paradigm.

Daniel misses the point of that guy. That guy is not saying that everyone is enlightened or everyone already sees the world this way or that, he was probably saying that reality already is the way it is, and that prescribing someone as enlightened, when they are simply a no-self phenomena arising and falling, is ridiculous.

There is no self all along, but whether this is realised is a different matter. There is no self but there is ignorance of that, of course, even the ignorance is of the same nature, just karmic propensities and ignorance playing out as a sense of self and even that is just happeing without a real separate self, but ignorance precisely means not realising the nature of mind and experience and thus suffering as a result.

He again misses the point by adhering to concepts of developed and underdeveloped. Reality simply IS in that person's state of being. It is neither better or worse, just as the sky is neither better or worse than the earth.

Reality always IS, but whether it is perceived as it is, is a different matter. The ability to perceive reality as it is must be developed through insight meditation, resulting in insight and awakening. Edited January 22, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Once again you miss the point. There is not and never has been a "daniel" as a controller outside of the controlled, a seer outside of the seeing. But there IS a "daniel" as an individual human body and individual mindstream which is simply present. For godsakes, read some of what xabir is posting for you. He is giving you gold and you are shitting all over him.

 

The way I see the whole "you are already enlightened, you don't have to practice thing" is that everyone already has the potential for enlightenment. Just like you have the potential to punch someone in the face. Yet just having that potential doesn't mean that you will actualize that potential, which is what enlightenment is.

Read my post again. Don't get wrapped up in personal bias.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? So a stick is the same as the sound of a bell? You, a human, are the same as a tree? No distinction can be made between either of these? There is no difference between my mind and your mind? If you try to play this card, you are really just going to end up in a senseless position. Come on now, don't be stupid. There is a phenomenal world of appearances out there which is dependently arisen which labels like same and different apply to and point to. It's just that all the things that same and different and such and such point to are dependently arisen and thus empty. Everything is contained within and interdependent with everything else yet everything is individual. In my mind, denying distinctions means denying the phenomenal world and denying the phenomenal world means nihilism. Then there is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. That is not where you want to be. You really need to study the difference between the relative and absolute. I see you are still going on about the no doer thing. And I see that you have still not addressed my point I made a while ago. Is there a seer apart from seeing, hearer apart from hearing, etc.? That is, can seeing and the seer be separated so that there are TWO things - a seer OUTSIDE of the seeing which controls and manipulates that seeing and the seeing itself? Or is the seer contained within that very seeing itself?

 

Did you read anything I've written in the past threads carefully?

 

Obviously not.

 

Where is outside, where is inside? Where does one thing begin and end? What does it mean to distinguish? What does it mean for a thing to arise? What is interdependence? What is individuality? What is phenomena? You have to go back to ABC, and see what A, B, and C are.

 

I have addressed your question over and over.

 

Space and matter are not one not two. It is as with consciousness and manifestation. Awareness and phenomena therefore are dependent. Hearing arises in consciousness, as the ear arises, and the brain arises, due to past intentions and habits. All creation and experience come about due to a cyclical nature (habits) or a spontaneous will (free will). The interplay of consciousness and matter create the experience of "I" ness, of identification with that immediate experience, such as the body, and consequently arises the "other". Ignorance is believing in an inherent identity, clinging, to a phenomena as the origin of consciousness, this is where the slave becomes the master.

 

The exchange of "I" and "other" is where intentions arise.

 

You see, consciousness does not create any of these things out of thin air, but rather orders the void together into a coherent experience, creating distinctions in the process. Light separates from darkness, sound from silence, etc.

 

The trick to thinking the way you do: "when I investigate the seer, there is no one there but seeing" is that you are consciously moving your awareness, the "I" ness into the seeing. It is like a man who tries to find point B, and upon arriving at point B and looking out from it, wrongly concludes "there is no point B" or "I am point B." Moreover, there is no such distinguishable experience of "seeing." in the first place. There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits.

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is true in the ultimate sense.

Good.

Next thing is you must also understand that while there is no permanent self that is separate from experiencer or is the controller of experience, there are individual mindstreams with different set of conditions and karma. For example he smokes, I don't. Or Buddha is enlightened, but not Joe. Of course ultimately there is no 'self' that is smoking, smoking is happening, but relatively speaking you have to speak like because we have to follow the conventions - obviously Buddha's mindstream is Buddha's mindstream, and is not Joe's. Even though there is no self entity to be found in or apart from the manifesting stream of consciousness.

Nice. Bunch of cockroaches.

 

In short, there is no self within nor apart from the psycho physical combination, but each psycho physical combination is unique and cannot be switched. In terms of conventional language, I am not you, you are not me, I cannot become you, you cannot become me.

Yes, but whether this is realised is another case.

Realization is another "happening" in all this chain of events.

 

There is no self all along, but whether this is realised is a different matter. There is no self but there is ignorance of that, of course, even the ignorance is of the same nature, just karmic propensities and ignorance playing out as a sense of self and even that is just happeing without a real separate self, but ignorance precisely means not realising the nature of mind and experience and thus suffering as a result.

Reality always IS, but whether it is perceived as it is, is a different matter. The ability to perceive reality as it is must be developed through insight meditation, resulting in insight and awakening.

Good. All just playing out. Rolling on. Perception or non-perception are all simply happening. Ignorance or enlightenment. The ability to perceive reality also just happening.

[xabir2005]

Nice. Bunch of cockroaches.

Your post here obviously has no relation to what I said. Here I am, explaining how each psycho physical combination is unique, and you are saying everyone is like cockroaches. No link. A cockroach is a different and unique combination from Buddha and from you and me.

Realization is another "happening" in all this chain of events.

All there is is happenings, but realization is not just one happening in the chain of events. Realisation is on-going. Every experience is immediately recognised as it is in its true nature.

 

Thusness:

Joan Tollifson once asked Toni Packer if she'd ever had one of those big awakenings where life turns inside out and all identification with the body-mind ceases.

 

Toni replied, "I can't say I had it," she replied. "It's this moment, right now."

Edited January 22, 2010 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Did you read anything I've written in the past threads carefully?

 

Obviously not.

 

Where is outside, where is inside? Where does one thing begin and end? What does it mean to distinguish? What does it mean for a thing to arise? What is interdependence? What is individuality? What is phenomena? You have to go back to ABC, and see what A, B, and C are.

 

I have addressed your question over and over.

 

Space and matter are not one not two. It is as with consciousness and manifestation. Awareness and phenomena therefore are dependent. Hearing arises in consciousness, as the ear arises, and the brain arises, due to past intentions and habits. All creation and experience come about due to a cyclical nature (habits) or a spontaneous will (free will). The interplay of consciousness and matter create the experience of "I" ness, of identification with that immediate experience, such as the body, and consequently arises the "other". Ignorance is believing in an inherent identity, clinging, to a phenomena as the origin of consciousness, this is where the slave becomes the master.

 

The exchange of "I" and "other" is where intentions arise.

 

You see, consciousness does not create any of these things out of thin air, but rather orders the void together into a coherent experience, creating distinctions in the process. Light separates from darkness, sound from silence, etc.

 

The trick to thinking the way you do: "when I investigate the seer, there is no one there but seeing" is that you are consciously moving your awareness, the "I" ness into the seeing. It is like a man who tries to find point B, and upon arriving at point B and looking out from it, wrongly concludes "there is no point B" or "I am point B." Moreover, there is no such distinguishable experience of "seeing." in the first place. There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits.

There is no distinguishable act of seeing? I'm sorry...but are you a moron? You are so caught up in intellectual games that you can't see what is right in front of your face. I honestly cannot understand three quarters of what you are spewing out here. You see, I like to cut through the bullshit. And I can tell by scanning your posts that there is a lot of bullshit. And honestly, the fact that I cannot understand what you are saying is your problem, not mine. So you're watching TV using your eyes right now. That is not a distinguishable act of seeing? Really?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Of course, whether ignorant or awakened, the universal characteristics are still present. But awakening makes the difference in ending suffering and ignorance of that universal characteristic.

Ultimately speaking there is no attainment and no ultimate self to attain, but what he said is conventionally true. Enlightened persons use conventions but knows reality.

 

Daniel is not a self that did that. Rather, daniel is a convention for the Doing, the psycho physical combination that is never static but ever changing and evolving.

 

Daniel is not clinging to any experience since realising the nature of reality is not one particular experience as contrasted to other experiences, rather it just means perceiving the nature and universal characteristic of ALL experiences.

Well, he has a wrong perception of reality that is due to clinging to experiences and wrongly interpreting them.

 

Actually, it does mean everything to Buddhism: the end of suffering and ignorance. Which conventionally speaking, he has achieved.

The high wears off eventually after this life. He will cycle again according to past karma and habits for he has sold himself to the arisings of an objective world which is nonetheless his own making. A coward at best.

 

No. It is not nihilistic. It does not deny action, intention, sensory awareness, it does not deny nirvana, enlightenment, even though there is no separate doer, perceiver, agent behind these.

 

No. When there is insight, the condition for the arising of ignorance is simply gone forever. Just like one day you realised santa claus has never existed, you will forever put to rest any expectation that a real santa claus will deliver you presents on christmas. Similarly when you realise no self, you can never be deluded into being a self ever again.

Actually this is false. Consciousness recycles from complete "I"ness to complete "I" am not ness. It is in itself a cosmic cycle of creation and destruction. Adherence and identification to "all subject" or "all object" will simply create a new cycle of existence where new distinctions are made, or a self awareness arises. Why? because consciousness and phenomena dependently originate. And because no consciousness is in itself completely separated from the influence of other conscious minds. Like your Indra's net. So it is wise to take the middle road.

 

No, I absolutely see no contradictions.

Count how many times you make exceptions, "buts" "even thoughs" and "howevers."

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is no distinguishable act of seeing? I'm sorry...but are you a moron? You are so caught up in intellectual games that you can't see what is right in front of your face. I honestly cannot understand three quarters of what you are spewing out here. You see, I like to cut through the bullshit. And I can tell by scanning your posts that there is a lot of bullshit. And honestly, the fact that I cannot understand what you are saying is your problem, not mine. So you're watching TV using your eyes right now. That is not a distinguishable act of seeing? Really?

There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits.

 

Now close your eyes. There is darkness you see. But we can't really call this the same "seeing" as when you have your eyes open. So what can we say is seeing and what can we say is not seeing?

 

The experiences of seeing are hence different.

 

I'm sorry this is a bit beyond you. I try to be as concise as possible. There are no difficult sentence structures or vocabulary used. You are just caught up in your admiration for Xabir to give effort to understanding what I write.

 

Also, you shouldn't just scan through people's posts, complain about not understanding it, call them a moron or expect to understand clearly, citing it as the author's fault and not yours.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Well, he has a wrong perception of reality that is due to clinging to experiences and wrongly interpreting them.

There is no wrong perception of reality.

The high wears off eventually after this life. He will cycle again according to past karma and habits for he has sold himself to the arisings of an objective world which is nonetheless his own making. A coward at best.

No. An arhat will no longer cycle through rebirths. He has ended all ignorance and conditions for rebirth. If you don't believe Daniel is an arhat, that's your problem. In Buddhism, cessation of suffering means cessation of suffering, there is no chance you will ever get back to suffering or ignorance.

Actually this is false. Consciousness recycles from complete "I"ness to complete "I" am not ness. It is in itself a cosmic cycle of creation and destruction. Adherence and identification to "all subject" or "all object" will simply create a new cycle of existence where new distinctions are made, or a self awareness arises. Why? because consciousness and phenomena dependently originate. And because no consciousness is in itself completely separated from the influence of other conscious minds. Like your Indra's net. So it is wise to take the middle road.

No, there never was a self, and this has nothing to do with cycles. It is either realised, or not.

 

Experience dependently originates, but there never was any experiencer apart from experience.

Count how many times you make exceptions, "buts" "even thoughs" and "howevers."

It is in fear that you misunderstand (and you did) that I did extra clarifications.

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is no wrong perception of reality.

Of course there is a wrong perception of reality. There is no wrong "experience" of reality.

 

No. An arhat will no longer cycle through rebirths. He has ended all ignorance and conditions for rebirth. If you don't believe Daniel is an arhat, that's your problem. In Buddhism, cessation of suffering means cessation of suffering, there is no chance you will ever get back to suffering or ignorance.

No an arhat comes back. We established this a while back when Vajra was here.

 

No, there never was a self, and this has nothing to do with cycles. It is either realised, or not.

 

Experience dependently originates, but there never was any experiencer apart from experience.

It is in fear that you misunderstand (and you did) that I did extra clarifications.

 

I understand everything about your view and see clearly that it is flawed. I did not misunderstand. I know your position very well. You do not understand mine, because at some point in all this you have ceased trying to understand my view.

 

You've been caught up in simply re confirming your views to yourself afraid that you, Thusness, Longchen, Dan, are all wrong. You do not know and have forgotten how to listen.

 

I will write it out for your if you want, it really doesn't take pages as you often do:

 

All experiences and phenomena dependently originate from causes and conditions from beginingless time. When there is an event or an element, another event or element is originated and so on. And because of dependence of phenomena, we find no inherent self-existence to any material or immaterial existence or event, since all are arising by the arising of another.

 

Ignorance is the thought that gives reality to a dual perspective of a separate entity experiencing or witnessing phenomena, when in truth awareness is the manifestation of appearances themselves in the form of the senses and thought function.

 

Enlightenment is the experience of reality as it arises spontaneously, where in the thought and habitual clinging to a separate oberserver or a doer apart from momentary phenomenal manifestation, the Presence, is no longer experienced or seen as a findable self. Everything, the universe, is experienced "as is" as conditions and causes make it so, and because there is no longer a conscious habit of "I," or "Mine," each moment is perfected in itself without fragmentation or friction of opposing wills and desires. Harmony is instantaneously realized. It is moreover seen that reality has always been this way, this very insight solidifies the experience of anatta. The illusion of a separate self within phenomena, or a higher Self controlling events and actions, had simply clouded this very experience of arising "now," which is the true nature, the true workings, of the dependently originating universe.

 

The continuation of a specific chain, a disjointed flow of consciousness and action, of dependently originating events and causes can be called the flow of a "mindstream."

 

Now tell me what I don't get.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes