"there is such a self"

[Lucky7Strikes]

I didn't want to get back into this discussion but I can't resist. You can't even find your own mind? How pathetic. You shouldn't be arguing with anybody about anything if you don't even know that you have a mind. Your mind is what is communicating with me right now. Your mind is what is seeing the words on your screen. Your mind is undeniably present, it is just ever changing, a series of mind moments rather than a solid thing and it is dependently arisen. Guess what? Do you know what you are using to ask me where my mind is? YOUR MIND. It sees forms right now dependently on the eyes, on the computer in front of it, on you and the words that you are typing, on this website and all the people who have created it, on a million different conditions and causes.

Yea I can't find it. Where is it?

 

People like you laugh at the most basic questions such as "who am I?" not realizing their pinnacle importance to deconstructing basic assumptions such as "this is my mind." Or even when we say "I am using my mind?" or that my mind is communicating, or that the mind dependently originated, we have to look at with how the mind, an immaterial existence, comes about from material causes such as the eye, computer, words, and actions, moreover we must ask who is "using" the mind" whether the mind is thoughts or intentions, whether thoughts and intention are different, and so on. The entire book of Bodhidharma is actually an exploration into the concept of mind, it is not something to be easily glanced over. You still have much to learn, don't be so arrogant.

 

"who believes he has understood." I can cite find you numerous article, numerous books, numerous quotes straight from the mouths of Buddhist masters from all different traditions that all agree with my spin on dependent arising and impermanence and no separate self. This is not something I take lightly. I know that I have the correct understanding of these things from the Buddhist perspective because I have spent days and days, hours upon hours confirming these insights. Please don't try to tell me what I don't know. You really have no idea.

Words such as "dependent arising" "impermanence" and "no-self" are incredibly flexible in their use when we begin to actually apply them to reality. Use "nature" along with those words and you have more flexibility and the terms themselves seem equally interchangeable. I've given my own interpretations of them over and over, and even recently to you which you do not understand due to laziness, shrouded by emotions.

 

If this is not something you take likely, you would not be overcome with personal bias. Come here to learn.

 

HAHHAHAHAHHA! YOU'VE SPENT DAYS AND DAYS HOURS AND HOURS!!!!

 

MY GOD!! HAHAHAHHAAHAAHA!

 

DAYS AND HOURS???? :lol: :lol:

 

Sure there are different interpretations of Buddhism but I can guarantee you that 95% of them - zen, dzogchen, theravada, mahayana, vajrayana - agree that things like impermanence, dependent arising and no separate self are the basic facts of reality. Know why? Because these are the basic teachings of the buddha. So any school which calls themselves buddhist is going to have these. It just so happens that thusness and xabir talk about all these things (in the correct way).

This is precisely the kind of attitude you should warn yourself against. Again, concepts of impermanence, dependent arising, and no separate self can all be used to arrived at a different conclusion when deciphering reality. If you've been cheerleading correctly, you'd know that Xabir and I are not arguing about the correctness of these concepts, but rather slightly differing interpretations of them.

 

Remember that Buddhism is not reality, but that there is reality which Buddhism tries to understand, as with all traditions of insight.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's a USERNAME! What is with people on this board thinking that I think I am better than other people because of my username? I like the name, it sounds cool! I like the avatar, it looks cool in my mind! Get over it already. Good lord. I like how anybody who claims that they understand the way things are is on a "guru trip." I'm so sick of this mentality. Like this pseudo zen "true knowing is not knowing" stuff. That shtick is outdone and it's tired - get over it.

You chose that name fully aware of what it means. You insulting Zen actually makes a lot of sense.

 

And Lucky as regards your subtle jab at my crying over dependent arising thing, if you truly knew what it meant in regards to suffering and end of suffering, you would see the beauty of it. To be in the world at the same time you are out of it. To be completely present yet completely unaffected and unmoved by events around you. Now I don't claim to be unmoved all the times but the implications of seeing dependent arising in ever experience are to be unmoved. I am not at the level of mindfulness yet where I can see it in every situation. It is as if you go back to where you always were but now it is as if there is a shield around you protecting you from all harm. I wish you could know, I really do.

This is the falsity of falling into emotions arising from a self confirmed "insight." Dependent origination goes into much subtler insights, it dives into the subconscious to slowly undo many attachments one has built.

 

Do not glorify these moments of "eureka" you will have many of them and every time you will realize that your feelings are self created precisely by the question you have put forth as first. These are all clinging to answers which have not much to do with actual insight. It's like asking how many horns a rabbit has, and finding the "answer" one become ecstatic.

 

And

 

It's not about having a shield around you you fool. It's not about being unmoved. It's being able to be moved and unmoved, so concepts such as "moved" and "unmoved" are all transcended.

 

As I said before, I do not usually insult people on forums. This time I just absolutely could not resist. Xabir and Lucky have been arguing for 14 pages and it's obvious that lucky7strikes is just not getting it. Or I should say that he is very confused, in one post it seems like he almost gets it and yet in another it seems like he is further away than ever.

 

I do get it. I perfectly explained Xabir's position twice to which he agreed that I understood. Why don't you and Xabir try to understand my position, because I don't think either of you do. My approach is always to understand first, digest it, see if it's applicable to reality, see the varying consequences. For months I was in complete agreement with everything Xabir put forth (you weren't here for that), I've learned much from him.

 

But for the reasons I've outlined in this thread multiple times, his paradigm is flawed.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Yea I can't find it. Where is it?

 

People like you laugh at the most basic questions such as "who am I?" not realizing their pinnacle importance to deconstructing basic assumptions such as "this is my mind." Or even when we say "I am using my mind?" or that my mind is communicating, or that the mind dependently originated, we have to look at with how the mind, an immaterial existence, comes about from material causes such as the eye, computer, words, and actions, moreover we must ask who is "using" the mind" whether the mind is thoughts or intentions, whether thoughts and intention are different, and so on. The entire book of Bodhidharma is actually an exploration into the concept of mind, it is not something to be easily glanced over. You still have much to learn, don't be so arrogant.

 

 

Words such as "dependent arising" "impermanence" and "no-self" are incredibly flexible in their use when we begin to actually apply them to reality. Use "nature" along with those words and you have more flexibility and the terms themselves seem equally interchangeable. I've given my own interpretations of them over and over, and even recently to you which you do not understand due to laziness, shrouded by emotions.

 

If this is not something you take likely, you would not be overcome with personal bias. Come here to learn.

 

HAHHAHAHAHHA! YOU'VE SPENT DAYS AND DAYS HOURS AND HOURS!!!!

 

MY GOD!! HAHAHAHHAAHAAHA!

 

DAYS AND HOURS???? :lol: :lol:

 

 

This is precisely the kind of attitude you should warn yourself against. Again, concepts of impermanence, dependent arising, and no separate self can all be used to arrived at a different conclusion when deciphering reality. If you've been cheerleading correctly, you'd know that Xabir and I are not arguing about the correctness of these concepts, but rather slightly differing interpretations of them.

 

Remember that Buddhism is not reality, but that there is reality which Buddhism tries to understand, as with all traditions of insight.

I just told you. When you said "where is it?", it is right there. It is that which knows, it is that knowingness, that awakeness. It is formless, that is you cannot see that basic illuminating quality of awareness yet, really, it is also all forms. Because there is no seeing apart from the seen, hearing apart from the sound, etc. I'll quote Bodhidharma for you in his "Bloodstream Sermon"

 

"Student: But if they don't define it, what do they mean by mind?

 

Bodhidharma: You ask. That's your mind. I answer. That's my mind. If I had no mind how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas" without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real buddha. This mind is the buddha" says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature the absence of cause and effect, is what's meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a Buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind', but such a place doesn't exist."

 

Got it?

 

If you deny that you have a mind, you are a nihilist and you are not following any tradition of Buddhism. As I've said numerous times, the mind is obviously present. For instance, in order to deny you had a mind, you would have to use your mind thereby refuting your own position. The mind may be the one and only thing that we absolutely cannot doubt the existence of because it as sensations, thoughts, etc. is the first and final basis of our reality. It is present but it just that it is dependently arisen and impermanent (always changing). Dependent arising means that there is something (well not a "thing") present. That is what it implies. There is something there that is arising dependently. That is why it avoids nihilism. This "something" is sometimes called a "clearly apparent non existent" or a "mere appearance." It is clearly apparent because you can't deny that there is something there yet it is not truly existent.

 

I don't laugh at the question of "who am I?." I've thoroughly investigated that and I have found that "I" am a individual mindstream which has currently taken the form of a human being and which continuously changes and arises dependently and is thus empty. This mindstream is not nothing but it is not something (truly existent). It is beginningless and endless. There is no controller in this mindstream which is outside of the sensations manipulating the sensations. Any supposed controller would be inseparable from the sensations themselves. That is, there are not "two" things in this mindstream - a hearer and hearing. There is just one happening in which the hearer and hearing are undivided. Now I don't know everything about who "I" am yet but I do know some very very important things. And I am not going to deny that.

 

No, no, no no, those words are not flexible at all. They have very precise meanings within Buddhism. Dependent arising can't be used to mean independent and impermanence cannot be used to mean permanence. You can't just have words mean whatever you want them to mean. You will get absolutely nowhere and will only confuse yourself.

 

As to how the mind "comes" from immaterial things, you have to understand that at the deepest level, the mind and material things are said to be undivided. There is no border between them. You can see this for yourself if you investigate deeply. Now this particular area - the "all is mind" stuff is something that I'm just getting into right now. So bear with me here. The ways I see this is that the mind is the all and the mind has parts and whatever has parts if empty. For instance, the mind as hearing is the all - yet that mind as hearing has parts - the person, the stick, the bell, the ears, etc. So it is empty because that mind does not have own being apart from all those parts. The whole which is the mind does not have independent being apart from the parts which make it up and the parts do not have independent being apart from other parts. Thus the parts and whole (the mind) are both empty.

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

You chose that name fully aware of what it means. You insulting Zen actually makes a lot of sense.

 

 

This is the falsity of falling into emotions arising from a self confirmed "insight." Dependent origination goes into much subtler insights, it dives into the subconscious to slowly undo many attachments one has built.

 

Do not glorify these moments of "eureka" you will have many of them and every time you will realize that your feelings are self created precisely by the question you have put forth as first. These are all clinging to answers which have not much to do with actual insight. It's like asking how many horns a rabbit has, and finding the "answer" one become ecstatic.

 

And

 

It's not about having a shield around you you fool. It's not about being unmoved. It's being able to be moved and unmoved, so concepts such as "moved" and "unmoved" are all transcended.

 

 

 

I do get it. I perfectly explained Xabir's position twice to which he agreed that I understood. Why don't you and Xabir try to understand my position, because I don't think either of you do. My approach is always to understand first, digest it, see if it's applicable to reality, see the varying consequences. For months I was in complete agreement with everything Xabir put forth (you weren't here for that), I've learned much from him.

 

But for the reasons I've outlined in this thread multiple times, his paradigm is flawed.

Sure we can "transcend" concepts. But don't let that make you think that you can't make clear distinctions. This is a huge error I see with a lot of people. They seem to think that "nirvana" or whatever is a state in which you are incapable of discrimination or conceptual thought. I said it before and I'll say it again, that is not where you want to be. The shield thing is just a metaphor. When you realize the fact that all things are present yet completely ungraspable you realize that you can be in the world yet completely unmoved by it - by unmoved I mean that if you see dependent arising in every moment (something which I am not able to do yet) your anger will fade away. But you do not make a conscious effort and say "I must get rid of anger." No, you let it arise naturally and see it's emptiness in that moment. Then it fades away and you are unmoved by it by not reacting to it.

 

For the last time, I did not choose this username because I think I am better or smarter than anybody. Get over it, move on. I chose it because I like the sound of it. It sounds cool to me. It sounds badass to me

 

By the way, I'm not insulting Zen. I'm insulting people who think that Zen is about just having a blank state of mind in which all thoughts must be shunned and being incapable of conceptual thought and discrimination should be glorified.

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I just told you. When you said "where is it?", it is right there. It is that which knows, it is that knowingness, that awakeness. It is formless, that is you cannot see that basic illuminating quality of awareness yet, really, it is also all forms. Because there is no seeing apart from the seen, hearing apart from the sound, etc. I'll quote Bodhidharma for you in his "Bloodstream Sermon"

Where is right there? Is awareness one with the sound? Is sound awareness? Is there a sound awareness and non-sound awareness? Then how can we say there is such thing as awareness in the first place?

 

"Student: But if they don't define it, what do they mean by mind?

 

Bodhidharma: You ask. That's your mind. I answer. That's my mind. If I had no mind how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas" without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real buddha. This mind is the buddha" says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature the absence of cause and effect, is what's meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a Buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind', but such a place doesn't exist."

How does this questing "I" arise? How does the mind arise? What is the nature of the questioning mind and awareness?

 

If you deny that you have a mind, you are a nihilist and you are not following any tradition of Buddhism. As I've said numerous times, the mind is obviously present. For instance, in order to deny you had a mind, you would have to use your mind thereby refuting your own position. The mind may be the one and only thing that we absolutely cannot doubt the existence of because it as sensations, thoughts, etc. is the first and final basis of our reality. It is present but it just that it is dependently arisen and impermanent (always changing). Dependent arising means that there is something (well not a "thing") present. That is what it implies. There is something there that is arising dependently. That is why it avoids nihilism. This "something" is sometimes called a "clearly apparent non existent" or a "mere appearance." It is clearly apparent because you can't deny that there is something there yet it is not truly existent.

I never denied I had a mind. Please go re read my posts and try to actually understand what I've been saying. I've replied thoughtfully to every point and logic Xabir has made, and considered them carefully (which I don't see the point of repeating it with you), I expect the same out of Xabir and anyone who wants to assert their own positions, otherwise this ceases to be a genuine discussion. SO you are arguing with a misguided concept of my position.

 

I never said there was nothing or anything about nihilism in the sense of a extreme skepticism. This isn't a discussion about ontological existence or non-existence.

 

"Dependent arising means there is something (well not a "thing" present." No. Dependent arising means that any experience or event arises due to another condition, hence that it cannot stand on its own or be eternal. I know what it means, and I've stated it so.

 

I don't laugh at the question of "who am I?." I've thoroughly investigated that and I have found that "I" am a individual mindstream which has currently taken the form of a human being and which continuously changes and arises dependently and is thus empty. This mindstream is not nothing but it is not something (truly existent). It is beginningless and endless. There is no controller in this mindstream which is outside of the sensations manipulating the sensations. Any supposed controller would be inseparable from the sensations themselves. That is, there are not "two" things in this mindstream - a hearer and hearing. There is just one happening in which the hearer and hearing are undivided. Now I don't know everything about who "I" am yet but I do know some very very important things. And I am not going to deny that.

The question of who am I is a technique also, which you have yet explored. It is not simply a conceptual questioning, but a phenomenal change of awareness.

 

No, no, no no, those words are not flexible at all. They have very precise meanings within Buddhism. Dependent arising can't be used to mean independent and impermanence cannot be used to mean permanence. You can't just have words mean whatever you want them to mean. You will get absolutely nowhere and will only confuse yourself.

Actually they are very flexible. Let's look at the meaning of impermanence. When we say phenomena is impermanent, then there is permanence to that impermanence, a permanent characteristic and quality to that impermanence. When we look at dependent origination, we must look at how one thing arises from one another without a cause, which challenges the very meaning of conceptual "oneness" and "twoness." Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements.

 

You must look at the purpose of the word's usage and their grounded meaning in reality. Abstract concepts like "dependent origination" and "impermanence/permanence" are more so geared towards deconstructing formulated opinions and views.

As to how the mind "comes" from immaterial things, you have to understand that at the deepest level, the mind and material things are said to be undivided. There is no border between them. You can see this for yourself if you investigate deeply. Now this particular area - the "all is mind" stuff is something that I'm just getting into right now. So bear with me here. The ways I see this is that the mind is the all and the mind has parts and whatever has parts if empty. For instance, the mind as hearing is the all - yet that mind as hearing has parts - the person, the stick, the bell, the ears, etc. So it is empty because that mind does not have own being apart from all those parts. The whole which is the mind does not have independent being apart from the parts which make it up and the parts do not have independent being apart from other parts. Thus the parts and whole (the mind) are both empty.

Good. Mind and phenomena are not one, not two. I've made the same point over and over again.

 

But you have to further look into what "all" means and what "parts" means. Hearing is not all when one sees the person and the stick. Then suddenly the all includes the hearing of sound and also the vision of the stick hitting the drum.

 

You must also look further into the difference of actual content (stick, bell, etc) and the content"ness" (the existence of material stick, phenomena of soundness). The stick and the bell do not give rise to the sentient mind, but the sentient mind, as you have pointed out, necessitates the experience of stick, the bell, and the sound, to be.

 

Keep going. Keep questioning, the more you question, the less obvious all this becomes.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Sure we can "transcend" concepts. But don't let that make you think that you can't make clear distinctions. This is a huge error I see with a lot of people. They seem to think that "nirvana" or whatever is a state in which you are incapable of discrimination or conceptual thought. I said it before and I'll say it again, that is not where you want to be. The shield thing is just a metaphor. When you realize the fact that all things are present yet completely ungraspable you realize that you can be in the world yet completely unmoved by it - by unmoved I mean that if you see dependent arising in every moment (something which I am not able to do yet) your anger will fade away. But you do not make a conscious effort and say "I must get rid of anger." No, you let it arise naturally and see it's emptiness in that moment. Then it fades away and you are unmoved by it by not reacting to it.

I did not use the word "transcend" that way. Again you are assuming my meaning without careful consideration.

 

Well, it was a bad metaphor then. Your anger does not fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Your anger doesn't fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Anger, fear, suffering, loneliness, are all very useful feelings navigating through our lives. Once you have seen though all these phenomena as you have said through awareness, you have complete choice to utilize "anger" or not, one has complete knowledge of oneself and one's state of being. Hence these feelings are transcended.

 

For the last time, I did not choose this username because I think I am better or smarter than anybody. Get over it, move on. I chose it because I like the sound of it. It sounds cool to me. It sounds badass to me

 

By the way, I'm not insulting Zen. I'm insulting people who think that Zen is about just having a blank state of mind in which all thoughts must be shunned and being incapable of conceptual thought and discrimination should be glorified.

 

Zen is the living sutra. Zen is not conceptualization or idealization, that is why you find its abstract koans not so...valuable. They are there to destroy your mental formulations.

 

The wrong approach to all this is "I will get the ideology down, all the words in the right place, in the right order. I will know all the definitions as such and then apply it to practice." I find this to be Xabir's main problem. Practice and insight must arise on their own and not by a set blueprint. The words must be your own words. The trouble comes when one begins to force ideology into reality believing in that that ideology is supreme, and abstract terms such as "no-self" become imbedded in wrong experience.

 

Whatever you learn as Buddhism is only second hand to your current experience at the moment. Trust in your own intelligence and logic. So forget all these when you sit to meditate/contemplate. Look into it yourself.

 

Something like...be a light onto yourself?

Edited January 23, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

All that you can say.. about all that you believe.. pales in comparison with a single moment of Life..

 

Read back over these pages, it's a mockery of Taoist Philosophy.. shameful in its display of juvenile pride and arrogance, and i do except myself from the admonishment.. i can only resolve to improve.

 

Be well..

[thuscomeone]

Where is right there? Is awareness one with the sound? Is sound awareness? Is there a sound awareness and non-sound awareness? Then how can we say there is such thing as awareness in the first place?

 

 

How does this questing "I" arise? How does the mind arise? What is the nature of the questioning mind and awareness?

 

 

I never denied I had a mind. Please go re read my posts and try to actually understand what I've been saying. I've replied thoughtfully to every point and logic Xabir has made, and considered them carefully (which I don't see the point of repeating it with you), I expect the same out of Xabir and anyone who wants to assert their own positions, otherwise this ceases to be a genuine discussion. SO you are arguing with a misguided concept of my position.

 

I never said there was nothing or anything about nihilism in the sense of a extreme skepticism. This isn't a discussion about ontological existence or non-existence.

 

"Dependent arising means there is something (well not a "thing" present." No. Dependent arising means that any experience or event arises due to another condition, hence that it cannot stand on its own or be eternal. I know what it means, and I've stated it so.

 

 

The question of who am I is a technique also, which you have yet explored. It is not simply a conceptual questioning, but a phenomenal change of awareness.

 

 

Actually they are very flexible. Let's look at the meaning of impermanence. When we say phenomena is impermanent, then there is permanence to that impermanence, a permanent characteristic and quality to that impermanence. When we look at dependent origination, we must look at how one thing arises from one another without a cause, which challenges the very meaning of conceptual "oneness" and "twoness." Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements.

 

You must look at the purpose of the word's usage and their grounded meaning in reality. Abstract concepts like "dependent origination" and "impermanence/permanence" are more so geared towards deconstructing formulated opinions and views.

 

Good. Mind and phenomena are not one, not two. I've made the same point over and over again.

 

But you have to further look into what "all" means and what "parts" means. Hearing is not all when one sees the person and the stick. Then suddenly the all includes the hearing of sound and also the vision of the stick hitting the drum.

 

You must also look further into the difference of actual content (stick, bell, etc) and the content"ness" (the existence of material stick, phenomena of soundness). The stick and the bell do not give rise to the sentient mind, but the sentient mind, as you have pointed out, necessitates the experience of stick, the bell, and the sound, to be.

 

Keep going. Keep questioning, the more you question, the less obvious all this becomes.

No, I would say that that is wrong. The more you question, the more obvious things become. You see, things are pretty simple. Not simplistic, but simple. It's we who make them complex.

 

Your continuous questioning of where your mind was led me to believe that you were confused if you had one or not. For instance, if I can't find my keys when looking in a certain spot, I'm probably going to conclude that they aren't there. It's so obvious where it is, I really don't know how it would be hard for you to find it.

 

No? Dependent arising doesn't mean that something is present? So what is it that is arising dependently? Nothing? Arising is the arising of something hence the term mere appearance or clearly apparent non existent.

 

I've had a phenomenal change of awareness already from questioning "who am I?" so don't presume that I haven't and I know nothing about that.

 

Impermanence and dependent arising are NOT abstract concepts. Don't make them into abstractions. They are facts about reality. For instance, you can look anywhere and see that it is a fact that there is change. But we must remember that change is not a "thing." Language makes it seem as if one is reifying change but in actuality it is never reified as a solid thing. It is emptiness and thus it is ungraspability itself.

 

"Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements."

 

I really don't know what you are saying here. Could you please expand? You seem to be saying that no connection can be found within dependent elements? That's what dependent arising means, that there IS a connection. Unless you are saying that all things are connected yet are individual (a tree is not a human is not a car, etc.) The latter makes sense, the former not so much.

 

"All" is the totality, the total field of experience of an individual mindstream. "Part" is all of those individual things which make up the totality of the field of experience of an individual mindstream.

 

Look, this is it basically. First, all is mind. This means that if we really look into our own experience, all we can find is the mind. There is actually no border or division between mind and matter at the deepest level. So we can say "all is mind". Yet this mind is empty because it is always changing and because it arises dependently. What does it depend on? Take a moment of hearing for instance. In that moment, the stick, bell, a previous moment of mind, etc. are conditions for (or parts that make up) that total moment of experience of mind. Without these things, that moment of mind could not be. Thus it and all other moments of mind come about dependently on parts, causes and conditions. So the mind is not truly existent. Yet it is also not non existent. This is because there is obviously something present. And it is because without a "thing" (existence) there cannot the absence of a thing (non existence). In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent. This is why the term unborn is sometimes used. If something has never been born, it cannot be absent. It has never been there to be absent in the first place! Because there is not existence or non existence, there is also not both. How could there be both? That is just taking two wrong views and putting them together. So not both. Then we can't say neither either. For to say neither existence or non existence we would still be presuming that there is existence and non existence both of which we have previously refuted. So we can't say neither.

 

So the mind (or mindstream) is undeniably present yet it is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. In the end, it is ultimately ungraspable. Yet we can still talk about it's presence validly on the relative level. And actually the relative and absolute are the same. I should mention here that the relative is dependently arisen phenomena and the ultimate is emptiness. The relative and absolute are actually the same because whatever is dependently arisen is empty and vice versa. So in the end, the mind's undeniable dependently arisen relative presence is it's ultimate ungraspability. Strange huh? This is why I talked about being in the world and out of it at the same time. Being in the world IS being out of the world (unaffected by it). It is really the best of both worlds. That's it, a very very basic summary of the mind's nature. This is certainly not all there is to the mind. Not by a long shot. But as to the whole thing about the stick, the bell, immaterial, material, arising, etc. this is basically it.

Edited January 23, 2010 by thuscomeone

[3bob]

Greetings..

 

All that you can say.. about all that you believe.. pales in comparison with a single moment of Life..

 

Read back over these pages, it's a mockery of Taoist Philosophy.. shameful in its display of juvenile pride and arrogance, and i do except myself from the admonishment.. i can only resolve to improve.

 

Be well..

 

"All that you can say.. about all that you believe.. pales in comparison with a single moment of Life.." ...and that is right on the mark

[thuscomeone]

I did not use the word "transcend" that way. Again you are assuming my meaning without careful consideration.

 

Well, it was a bad metaphor then. Your anger does not fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Your anger doesn't fade away in the sense that you no longer become angry. Anger, fear, suffering, loneliness, are all very useful feelings navigating through our lives. Once you have seen though all these phenomena as you have said through awareness, you have complete choice to utilize "anger" or not, one has complete knowledge of oneself and one's state of being. Hence these feelings are transcended.

 

 

 

Zen is the living sutra. Zen is not conceptualization or idealization, that is why you find its abstract koans not so...valuable. They are there to destroy your mental formulations.

 

The wrong approach to all this is "I will get the ideology down, all the words in the right place, in the right order. I will know all the definitions as such and then apply it to practice." I find this to be Xabir's main problem. Practice and insight must arise on their own and not by a set blueprint. The words must be your own words. The trouble comes when one begins to force ideology into reality believing in that that ideology is supreme, and abstract terms such as "no-self" become imbedded in wrong experience.

 

Whatever you learn as Buddhism is only second hand to your current experience at the moment. Trust in your own intelligence and logic. So forget all these when you sit to meditate/contemplate. Look into it yourself.

 

Something like...be a light onto yourself?

I never said that you never become angry. Anger arises, sure. But if you see the emptiness of it's arising, it will dissipate. Or rather it will change into a calm state of mind. And if you continue to see the emptiness of your anger, you will naturally be less and less angry and you will experience a calm state of mind more often. That's it.

 

Sure, trust your own experience over the words of the Buddha. I know. It just so happens that the words of the Buddha correctly describe my own experience.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, I would say that that is wrong. The more you question, the more obvious things become. You see, things are pretty simple. Not simplistic, but simple. It's we who make them complex.

 

Your continuous questioning of where your mind was led me to believe that you were confused if you had one or not. For instance, if I can't find my keys when looking in a certain spot, I'm probably going to conclude that they aren't there. It's so obvious where it is, I really don't know how it would be hard for you to find it.

Are you stupid? If you look for your keys, then you know your keys exist. It's all simple to me yes, but perhaps not to you.

 

No? Dependent arising doesn't mean that something is present? So what is it that is arising dependently? Nothing? Arising is the arising of something hence the term mere appearance or clearly apparent non existent.

Contemplation of dependent origination is not for you to see something present. You used it in a wrong context. It was like saying, "the eye means walking."

 

I've had a phenomenal change of awareness already from questioning "who am I?" so don't presume that I haven't and I know nothing about that.

 

Impermanence and dependent arising are NOT abstract concepts. Don't make them into abstractions. They are facts about reality. For instance, you can look anywhere and see that it is a fact that there is change. But we must remember that change is not a "thing." Language makes it seem as if one is reifying change but in actuality it is never reified as a solid thing. It is emptiness and thus it is ungraspability itself.

You say all is mind. Well, then reality is itself an abstraction.

 

"Then suddenly dependence can also connote independence of the dependent variables in the boundaries of their existence, for no findable relation, transition,or connection is seen in those dependent elements."

 

I really don't know what you are saying here. Could you please expand? You seem to be saying that no connection can be found within dependent elements? That's what dependent arising means, that there IS a connection. Unless you are saying that all things are connected yet are individual (a tree is not a human is not a car, etc.) The latter makes sense, the former not so much.

Why don't you go think about it a bit more, give it a day or two, then decide whether you understand it or not. Dependent origination is not limited to cause and effect, nor a connective transition (connection is a vague word, that was my fault) from A to B. A and B arise, but that is not A becoming B and so forth.

[Lucky7Strikes]

"All" is the totality, the total field of experience of an individual mindstream. "Part" is all of those individual things which make up the totality of the field of experience of an individual mindstream.

 

Look, this is it basically. First, all is mind. This means that if we really look into our own experience, all we can find is the mind. There is actually no border or division between mind and matter at the deepest level. So we can say "all is mind". Yet this mind is empty because it is always changing and because it arises dependently. What does it depend on? Take a moment of hearing for instance. In that moment, the stick, bell, a previous moment of mind, etc. are conditions for (or parts that make up) that total moment of experience of mind. Without these things, that moment of mind could not be. Thus it and all other moments of mind come about dependently on parts, causes and conditions. So the mind is not truly existent. Yet it is also not non existent. This is because there is obviously something present. And it is because without a "thing" (existence) there cannot the absence of a thing (non existence). In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent. This is why the term unborn is sometimes used. If something has never been born, it cannot be absent. It has never been there to be absent in the first place! Because there is not existence or non existence, there is also not both. How could there be both? That is just taking two wrong views and putting them together. So not both. Then we can't say neither either. For to say neither existence or non existence we would still be presuming that there is existence and non existence both of which we have previously refuted. So we can't say neither.

What is mind? Is the experience of another person than also in the mind? What of the thing not within the mind, but in another mind? Is that also a "all" or is that not "all"?

 

If mind is "all" then it doesn't arise from anything can it? How can an "all" arise from something?

 

If you say that "all" is dependent on parts, if we take a part out of the all, then there is a new "all," so the "all"ness is still intact without that part. So we can't say mind is dependent on a specific part, the characteristic of all"ness" might change, but there is still the "all." So say that the moment of mind is dependent, but the "mind"ness carries on.

 

How does it arise? From the stick, bell, ear, the brain? How does sentience arise from insentient factors? How has your mindstream come about?

 

We not talking about a moment of mind, but mind"ness," its very experience.

 

"In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent." Actually this is stupid. There are a lot of things absent, the "unmanifest" that exist as potential. But it is not something, it is unimagined, it is non-existent. This is precisely what gives creation its infinite potential.

 

So it is better to think that there is cognition of non-existence from the perspective of existence, just as there is cognition of existence from the perspective of that which does not exist. This is precisely the way consciousness and phenomena both arise.

 

So the mind (or mindstream) is undeniably present yet it is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. In the end, it is ultimately ungraspable. Yet we can still talk about it's presence validly on the relative level. And actually the relative and absolute are the same. I should mention here that the relative is dependently arisen phenomena and the ultimate is emptiness. The relative and absolute are actually the same because whatever is dependently arisen is empty and vice versa. So in the end, the mind's undeniable dependently arisen relative presence is it's ultimate ungraspability. Strange huh? This is why I talked about being in the world and out of it at the same time. Being in the world IS being out of the world (unaffected by it). It is really the best of both worlds. That's it, a very very basic summary of the mind's nature. This is certainly not all there is to the mind. Not by a long shot. But as to the whole thing about the stick, the bell, immaterial, material, arising, etc. this is basically it.

 

What is the mind? Please define the way you are using mind.

 

Do you mean thoughts? Do you mean consciousness? Do you mean intent? Do you mean movement? (these are all different things)

 

That's not it. Go do some more thinking, you have ways to go.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I've had a phenomenal change of awareness already from questioning "who am I?" so don't presume that I haven't and I know nothing about that.

 

No you have not. I can see it and you have only broken through the gate of certainty that once was "I am the body/brain."

 

You are now at the door possibility, where awareness has seen a renewable possibility in its relationship to phenomena. You have yet to experience expanding Clarity, a return to the source that is yourself.

 

The question "who am I" must become an active process of undoing, and one gains the ability to return to primordial awareness in which everything else returns to potential existence (but this is not enlightenment, it is simply another state of being).

Edited January 23, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Are you stupid? If you look for your keys, then you know your keys exist. It's all simple to me yes, but perhaps not to you.

 

 

Contemplation of dependent origination is not for you to see something present. You used it in a wrong context. It was like saying, "the eye means walking."

 

 

You say all is mind. Well, then reality is itself an abstraction.

 

 

Why don't you go think about it a bit more, give it a day or two, then decide whether you understand it or not. Dependent origination is not limited to cause and effect, nor a connective transition (connection is a vague word, that was my fault) from A to B. A and B arise, but that is not A becoming B and so forth.

I said that is was my fault for calling you an idiot. I admitted that it was me at fault not you. Now you come back and insult me?

 

Contemplation of dependent arising is precisely to see that something is present and yet to see that what is present is not truly existent. Contemplation of dependent arising is to see the middle way between the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. Dependent arising IS the middle way. It's just how things are.

 

No, reality is very real. It's just that mind is really all there is. Reality is certainly not an abstraction. If you kick a rock that pain you feel is not an abstraction, it is very real. Thinking like this is going into more nihilism, saying that everything is just an abstraction.

Edited January 23, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

What is mind? Is the experience of another person than also in the mind? What of the thing not within the mind, but in another mind? Is that also a "all" or is that not "all"?

 

If mind is "all" then it doesn't arise from anything can it? How can an "all" arise from something?

 

If you say that "all" is dependent on parts, if we take a part out of the all, then there is a new "all," so the "all"ness is still intact without that part. So we can't say mind is dependent on a specific part, the characteristic of all"ness" might change, but there is still the "all." So say that the moment of mind is dependent, but the "mind"ness carries on.

 

How does it arise? From the stick, bell, ear, the brain? How does sentience arise from insentient factors? How has your mindstream come about?

 

We not talking about a moment of mind, but mind"ness," its very experience.

 

"In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent." Actually this is stupid. There are a lot of things absent, the "unmanifest" that exist as potential. But it is not something, it is unimagined, it is non-existent. This is precisely what gives creation its infinite potential.

 

So it is better to think that there is cognition of non-existence from the perspective of existence, just as there is cognition of existence from the perspective of that which does not exist. This is precisely the way consciousness and phenomena both arise.

 

 

 

What is the mind? Please define the way you are using mind.

 

Do you mean thoughts? Do you mean consciousness? Do you mean intent? Do you mean movement? (these are all different things)

 

That's not it. Go do some more thinking, you have ways to go.

I told you what mind is already. I just wrote you a long answer. Go back a page and there is more.

 

When I talk about mind as the all, I'm talking about mindstreams. Individual mindstream not a universal cosmic substance or something. YOUR mind is the totality of YOUR experience. MY mind is the totality of my experience. We have different minds. Your mind is the all in your unique experience, my mind is the all in my experience. But our minds are not the same. I already told you how the mindstream arises. The moment of individual mindstream needs certain conditions and has parts. So it is empty but present. There is no contradiction between the mind being the all in one's experience and the mind arising dependently (or being empty). If you find one, you have not looked deep enough. For instance, in this moment of your seeing, in YOUR own unique experience, the mind is the all there is yet this moment of seeing arose didn't it? This moment wasn't always there was it? No, it arose. And whatever arises is empty, not truly existent. Why would an existent thing need to arise? It exists. True existents don't need to arise because they exist. So the mind is empty and there is no contradiction.

 

I would say that "the unmanifest" is emptiness because emptiness is that "which gives creation it's infinite potential" as you say. Without emptiness, nothing could happen. Nothing could change or arise because all things would be fixed, static and truly existent. Without emptiness, you could not become enlightened. You could not change. Emptiness is that potential and I already told you that emptiness is not non existence. Emptiness IS impermanent and dependent phenomena.

 

The mind is consciousness, the mind is thoughts, the mind is intent (intent is just an arising thought such as "I will do this"). As for movement, I'm not quite sure but you mean by movement but I would say that is the mind too. The mind is constantly moving and changing. So the mind is all these things.

 

As for "cognition of existence from the perspective of non existence, etc." I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain and don't cop out this time. Please actually explain what you mean.

Edited January 23, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

No you have not. I can see it and you have only broken through the gate of certainty that once was "I am the body/brain."

 

You are now at the door possibility, where awareness has seen a renewable possibility in its relationship to phenomena. You have yet to experience expanding Clarity, a return to the source that is yourself.

 

The question "who am I" must become an active process of undoing, and one gains the ability to return to primordial awareness in which everything else returns to potential existence (but this is not enlightenment, it is simply another state of being).

Oh you see? You know where I'm at? Ok...

 

Lucky, what is enlightenment in your mind? Who are you? What is "yourself?" What is "expanding clarity"? What is this source that is yourself? Please answer all of these questions for me as I have taken time out my day to write long winded answers to your questions. I would really like to know if, deep down, you actually have anything of substance to back up your authoritative, condescending tone.

Edited January 23, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I said that is was my fault for calling you an idiot. I admitted that it was me at fault not you. Now you come back and insult me?

 

Contemplation of dependent arising is precisely to see that something is present and yet to see that what is present is not truly existent. Contemplation of dependent arising is to see the middle way between the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. Dependent arising IS the middle way. It's just how things are.

 

No, reality is very real. It's just that mind is really all there is. Reality is certainly not an abstraction. If you kick a rock that pain you feel is not an abstraction, it is very real. Thinking like this is going into more nihilism, saying that everything is just an abstraction.

It's ok to insult as long as intentions are good. It makes the discussion more personal.

 

Abstract means precisely "of the mind."

 

Nihilism and eternalism are not extremes. People love tossing around the concept of nihilism because of its negative connotation.

 

Nihilism can mean two things. One regards to morality, where all moral values are rejected because they are seen to be completely subjective, and other to extreme skepticism of the validity of everything.

 

Materialism is the word you are looking for on the opposite of eternalism. Buddhist eternalism is that there is an unchanging self, a soul, which is not what I'm saying. But Xabir's "all is object" is exactly the opposite extreme of eternalism, that the self is based on objective phenomena.

 

Why don't you look into these concepts more carefully before simply adhering to doctrine?

 

You need to be insulted. I don't like insulting people when it's out of place. But you need it.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I told you what mind is already. I just wrote you a long answer. Go back a page and there is more.

You simply wrote out the functions of mind, but not what mind is or how it arises. You best answer was..."oh look it's right here."

 

When I talk about mind as the all, I'm talking about mindstreams. Individual mindstream not a universal cosmic substance or something. YOUR mind is the totality of YOUR experience. MY mind is the totality of my experience. We have different minds. Your mind is the all in your unique experience, my mind is the all in my experience. But our minds are not the same. I already told you how the mindstream arises. The moment of individual mindstream needs certain conditions and has parts. So it is empty but present. There is no contradiction between the mind being the all in one's experience and the mind arising dependently (or being empty). If you find one, you have not looked deep enough. For instance, in this moment of your seeing, in YOUR own unique experience, the mind is the all there is yet this moment of seeing arose didn't it? This moment wasn't always there was it? No, it arose. And whatever arises is empty, not truly existent. Why would an existent thing need to arise? It exists. True existents don't need to arise because they exist. So the mind is empty and there is no contradiction.

How does the mindstream arise? How does this experience arise?

 

Tell me how sentience arises from non sentience. If you say "oh I just experience my mind in phenomena called sound, so my mind must be sound," you are giving sentience to the phenomena of sound and the conditions that produced it.

 

There is difference between "certain" conditions and "condition"ness. Look into the difference.

 

You have not yet understood the difference between momentary phenomena and continuation of the characteristic of phenomena.

 

I would say that "the unmanifest" is emptiness because emptiness is that "which gives creation it's infinite potential" as you say. Without emptiness, nothing could happen. Nothing could change or arise because all things would be fixed, static and truly existent. Without emptiness, you could not become enlightened. You could not change. Emptiness is that potential and I already told you that emptiness is not non existence. Emptiness IS impermanent and dependent phenomena.

 

The mind is consciousness, the mind is thoughts, the mind is intent (intent is just an arising thought such as "I will do this"). As for movement, I'm not quite sure but you mean by movement but I would say that is the mind too. The mind is constantly moving and changing. So the mind is all these things.

 

As for "cognition of existence from the perspective of non existence, etc." I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain and don't cop out this time. Please actually explain what you mean.

No, the unmanifest is not the ideology of emptiness. Emptiness is the doctrine of impermanence and non-inherent nature. The umanifest is simply that which has not manifested yet.

 

The fallacy of your logic is in creating a "God" terminology, that "everything is this" sort of thinking. Mind is not existence, or else all that is existent would be sentient.

 

The mind is not inside or outside. It is not this or that. It is not all or part. It can be all these things, but it is not because it has no fixed entity. This is the true meaning of "no-self."

Edited January 23, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh you see? You know where I'm at? Ok...

 

Lucky, what is enlightenment in your mind? Who are you? What is "yourself?" What is "expanding clarity"? What is this source that is yourself? Please answer all of these questions for me as I have taken time out my day to write long winded answers to your questions. I would really like to know if, deep down, you actually have anything of substance to back up your authoritative, condescending tone.

You should've spent that time contemplating what I said instead.

 

I have typed through 15 pages in this thread. I've repeated my ideas over and over again. Yet you and Xabir cannot get around your own doctrines and never fully make the effort to challenge held beliefs or listen to others, like a bunch of religious fanatics. Xabir often comes to this forum, cuts and pastes like a robot, because he has forgotten to investigate for himself. He's forgotten how to listen, how to rethink, how to consider newer potentials.

 

I am insulting you so that you'd become angry enough to actually reconsider your ideals (not likely to happen) or begin to see the faults in them when you re emphasize them over and over to yourself. You don't have a teacher unlike Xabir, so you still have room for personal analysis. Xabir's cup's already too full.

 

Go back and read from page 5 if you want details. I will briefly answer the questions above.

 

Enlightenment is complete freedom of will. All habits, causes, and conditions are seen through as unestablished and falsely clung to as real. Consciousness is free to create its own experiences according to the conditions it decides to see, it can be everything but then it can be nothing. It can be dual and not dual, because all states are seen to be subjectively created. All experiences are transcended this way. Moreoever omniscience and reached through the ability of awareness to pervade through all modes of creations. Every possible manifestation and movement of consciousness is immediately realized.

 

I am the interplay of consciousness and phenomena. I am that which consciousness is at the moment. I can be my body, not be my body, be light, be rain, be hand, be anything, be sound, not be sound.

 

The expanding clarity is actually everything dissolving back into primordial awareness, wherein creation simply exists as potential. It is not complete subjectivity, but of luminous quality, a being of light, as consciousness and light, their dependence, define this state. This state is not enlightenment, it is simply a tool just as all states. True wisdom is seeing through all these states as mere plays of consciousness so that one does not fall into identifying consciousness with phenomena.

 

So unlike some who think that a certain state of being is the "true" experience of reality, one should never fall into completely adherence to any states. This is the true middle road, rejection of both "all is subject" and "all is object" views.

[thuscomeone]

It's ok to insult as long as intentions are good. It makes the discussion more personal.

 

Abstract means precisely "of the mind."

 

Nihilism and eternalism are not extremes. People love tossing around the concept of nihilism because of its negative connotation.

 

Nihilism can mean two things. One regards to morality, where all moral values are rejected because they are seen to be completely subjective, and other to extreme skepticism of the validity of everything.

 

Materialism is the word you are looking for on the opposite of eternalism. Buddhist eternalism is that there is an unchanging self, a soul, which is not what I'm saying. But Xabir's "all is object" is exactly the opposite extreme of eternalism, that the self is based on objective phenomena.

 

Why don't you look into these concepts more carefully before simply adhering to doctrine?

 

You need to be insulted. I don't like insulting people when it's out of place. But you need it.

Oh I need it? You are quite the guy you know that? Nihilism in Buddhism has two meanings. Rejection of all moral values which leads to meaninglessness AND it means nothingness, stating that nothing exists. Nihilism and materialism are pretty much equated in Buddhism since a materialist would say that there is just nothing after death. The rejection of nihilism is precisely the rejection of these two views.

 

Eternalism has to do with true existence and the whole soul thing. That is some people have always thought that there is an unchanging core to their being that live forever. The rejection of eternalism is precisely the rejection of this view.

[thuscomeone]

You simply wrote out the functions of mind, but not what mind is or how it arises. You best answer was..."oh look it's right here."

 

 

How does the mindstream arise? How does this experience arise?

 

Tell me how sentience arises from non sentience. If you say "oh I just experience my mind in phenomena called sound, so my mind must be sound," you are giving sentience to the phenomena of sound and the conditions that produced it.

 

There is difference between "certain" conditions and "condition"ness. Look into the difference.

 

You have not yet understood the difference between momentary phenomena and continuation of the characteristic of phenomena.

 

 

No, the unmanifest is not the ideology of emptiness. Emptiness is the doctrine of impermanence and non-inherent nature. The umanifest is simply that which has not manifested yet.

 

The fallacy of your logic is in creating a "God" terminology, that "everything is this" sort of thinking. Mind is not existence, or else all that is existent would be sentient.

 

The mind is not inside or outside. It is not this or that. It is not all or part. It can be all these things, but it is not because it has no fixed entity. This is the true meaning of "no-self."

I told you that mind is awareness, mind is that knowingness, that illuminating quality that is both formless and in forms. I think you are looking for how the mind itself was created. There is no answer to that in Buddhism because there is no first cause, there was never a beginning to the mind. There are just endless manifestations of mind arising from moment to moment due to conditions, causes and parts.

 

As for the continuation of the characteristic of phenomena, if you mean how can things have characteristics when they are empty? They have relative identities. Not identities in themselves. These relative identities persist through causal continuity.

 

Where have I created a god terminology? You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said anything about God. Emptiness is not god. Mind is not god. I told you that I am just getting into this "all is mind" stuff and in fact I am reading a book right now which I think is going to really expand my knowledge on the subject. But even without reading the book, I can pretty much tell that all is mind. I don't really care for your arguments like "all existence would be sentient" because right now in my own experience and in others experience I know that there is only the mind, there are only sensations as the first and final basis of reality. Do I know all the implications of that yet? Certainly not. But I do know that is true from my own personal experience. Just please, look into your experience and see if you can find anything other than sensations.

 

Well when you talk about the unmanifest as "a creative potential" that sure sounds a lot like emptiness. When you use that term, I don't see that it is wrong to equate the two.

[thuscomeone]

You should've spent that time contemplating what I said instead.

 

I have typed through 15 pages in this thread. I've repeated my ideas over and over again. Yet you and Xabir cannot get around your own doctrines and never fully make the effort to challenge held beliefs or listen to others, like a bunch of religious fanatics. Xabir often comes to this forum, cuts and pastes like a robot, because he has forgotten to investigate for himself. He's forgotten how to listen, how to rethink, how to consider newer potentials.

 

I am insulting you so that you'd become angry enough to actually reconsider your ideals (not likely to happen) or begin to see the faults in them when you re emphasize them over and over to yourself. You don't have a teacher unlike Xabir, so you still have room for personal analysis. Xabir's cup's already too full.

 

Go back and read from page 5 if you want details. I will briefly answer the questions above.

 

Enlightenment is complete freedom of will. All habits, causes, and conditions are seen through as unestablished and falsely clung to as real. Consciousness is free to create its own experiences according to the conditions it decides to see, it can be everything but then it can be nothing. It can be dual and not dual, because all states are seen to be subjectively created. All experiences are transcended this way. Moreoever omniscience and reached through the ability of awareness to pervade through all modes of creations. Every possible manifestation and movement of consciousness is immediately realized.

 

I am the interplay of consciousness and phenomena. I am that which consciousness is at the moment. I can be my body, not be my body, be light, be rain, be hand, be anything, be sound, not be sound.

 

The expanding clarity is actually everything dissolving back into primordial awareness, wherein creation simply exists as potential. It is not complete subjectivity, but of luminous quality, a being of light, as consciousness and light, their dependence, define this state. This state is not enlightenment, it is simply a tool just as all states. True wisdom is seeing through all these states as mere plays of consciousness so that one does not fall into identifying consciousness with phenomena.

 

So unlike some who think that a certain state of being is the "true" experience of reality, one should never fall into completely adherence to any states. This is the true middle road, rejection of both "all is subject" and "all is object" views.

Sounds like your cup is pretty full as well. You think you know everything and that you have all the answers too. Don't be a hypocrite. I'll just start with that first sentence. "Enlightenment is complete freedom of will" Lucky, who is the one who wills? What and where is the "I" that wills? Is this "I" in control? Is there an "I" in control and then that which it controls as two different things? Because this is usually what will implies. An "I" which is outside of sensations, manipulating sensations. A "I" which is going to "get this" or "get rid of that."

 

One more question, where have you gotten your views from? Yourself? I'm not saying that they don't have validity because you learned them yourself. I'm just saying that if you are going to call some of the stuff that you write Buddhism, you should think twice and you should really look into confirming your views with a teacher, if you really want to know if what you know is Buddhism or not.

Edited January 23, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh I need it? You are quite the guy you know that? Nihilism in Buddhism has two meanings. Rejection of all moral values which leads to meaninglessness AND it means nothingness, stating that nothing exists. Nihilism and materialism are pretty much equated in Buddhism since a materialist would say that there is just nothing after death. The rejection of nihilism is precisely the rejection of these two views.

 

Eternalism has to do with true existence and the whole soul thing. That is some people have always thought that there is an unchanging core to their being that live forever. The rejection of eternalism is precisely the rejection of this view.

 

You use the term "nothingness" so casually here without ever understanding or considering its meaning. Nihilism is not the same as materialism as I noted above.

 

Why don't you actually read what I write.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

I'm a little busy these days, just doing a short reply. To say that 'I' can do things, or can become something, is to reify it as something real, as an entity.

 

D.O. rejects all substantialist views. If what we call "I", is something that dependently originates, that mean precisely it is just a sensation that appears -- it is just an appearance with nothing inherent, like a mirage. Something that dependently originated is empty, thereby, cannot become something else -- for 'it' to 'become something else' would necessarily imply it is inherently existing. Therefore as what Nagarjuna said, what is D.Oed has "no-cessation, no-origination, no-annihilation, no-abiding, no-one-thing, no-many-thing, no-coming-in, no-going-out". And you cannot say that a previous appearance is similar nor different from the current appearance, because they have no identity! So with regards to apparent continuity, of something becoming something else, Zen Master Dogen said,

 

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

 

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

 

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

 

One appearance cannot control another appearance. They aren't truly existing, just appearances that dependently originate. You cannot know what your next thought is, and if you can't even know what your next thought is, how can you possibly control your next thought. It just spontaneously appears on its own according to conditions. There is absolutely no controller, thinker.

 

There is no subject and no object, only appearances which are empty, dependently originated and without identity.

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I told you that mind is awareness, mind is that knowingness, that illuminating quality that is both formless and in forms. I think you are looking for how the mind itself was created. There is no answer to that in Buddhism because there is no first cause, there was never a beginning to the mind. There are just endless manifestations of mind arising from moment to moment due to conditions, causes and parts.

There is an answer in Buddhism. You just haven't looked enough.

 

What is awareness? What is knowingness? What is this illuminating quality? Where is it? How does it arise? Why does it arise?

 

As for the continuation of the characteristic of phenomena, if you mean how can things have characteristics when they are empty? They have relative identities. Not identities in themselves. These relative identities persist through causal continuity.

 

Where have I created a god terminology? You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said anything about God. Emptiness is not god. Mind is not god. I told you that I am just getting into this "all is mind" stuff and in fact I am reading a book right now which I think is going to really expand my knowledge on the subject. But even without reading the book, I can pretty much tell that all is mind. I don't really care for your arguments like "all existence would be sentient" because right now in my own experience and in others experience I know that there is only the mind, there are only sensations as the first and final basis of reality. Do I know all the implications of that yet? Certainly not. But I do know that is true from my own personal experience. Just please, look into your experience and see if you can find anything other than sensations.

"god" terminology was not used to have anything to do with God you idiot. You need to read carefully instead of skimming.

 

You have a wrong interpretation of experience because your method of investigation is flawed. I pointed this out in detail several times previously.

 

Sensations are just creations of the mind, they are not established reality. Your experiences at the moment are limited so you don't have enough tools to contemplate this with.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes