"there is such a self"

[xabir2005]

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?

Awareness is empty, has no location, does not come from somewhere and does not go somewhere [see Nagarjuna]. Because 'it' dependently originates, therefore is just aware where it is, as the sensation, the thought, etc. The sound of 'tongg' is different from the bell, the stick, etc, it is a new and complete-in-itself reality. It does not come from the ears, from the bell, or anywhere. There is no other awareness to speak of other than these self-aware sensations. Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Who? Whatever consciousness clings to as the source of action at a given moment.

 

What and where? It can be here, there, everywhere, nowhere. No fixed entity, no self.

 

In control? In control of what consciousness identifies as the "body" (not necessarily material or form). In control of its own manifestation.

 

The "I" is not outside of sensations, nor is it sensations. It can be experienced as both, because "I" has no fixed location or existence. It is free to be what it wants to be. There is the relationship of the controller and controlled, but no established controller or controlled in phenomena. Only the relative relationship exists, but the actual content being subject or object is illusory.

 

As long as the logic is sound and the interpretation is in line with my experiences and experiences of others, I will gladly say that I am wrong. If my tone of conviction bothers you, it is because I approach all this with good intensity.

 

I got my views from Xabir . From Taoist princples, Sutras, my own insight, from people here and there, and the varieties of accounts people regarding reality.

 

The paradigm I have found for myself fits so perfectly with everything I experience that I haven't yet found anything wrong with it.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

It is free to be what it wants to be.

This is the false substantial view of being. There is no such thing as something becoming something as I explained. As Dogen explained.

 

Furthermore, the sense of 'me', is just an appearance. The thought 'I did this' isn't the real actor of that. In actuality, body acts. Intentions is another arising that conditions the action. Intention isn't a real subject, it simply is another arising. However you cannot say the source of body's action is intention, just as you cannot say the sound of bell ringing comes from the bell, or the ear, or somewhere else. It has no origin. It does not come from somewhere, does not go somewhere, and has no location. It is a new phenomenon complete in itself, self-luminous and empty [ungraspable, unlocatable, interconnected].

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Um, no. Look more into the sense of "I" ness.

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, 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.

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me anything that which I have explained to you.

 

I've heard this doctrine now for a million times. I get it. Now try to get what I've been saying to you.

 

Because I honestly think you don't give a shit about what other people say, their own insights or views. Just like a fanatic yelling GOD GOD GOD.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Um, no. Look more into the sense of "I" ness.

 

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me anything that which I have explained to you.

 

I've heard this doctrine now for a million times. I get it. Now try to get what I've been saying to you.

 

Because I honestly think you don't give a shit about what other people say, their own insights or views.

Basically your view is that subject and object are relative, and being relative they are empty, but you fail to understand the implications of emptiness.

 

For example when you say: "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."

 

How can there be an "I" that is a body, a light, a rain, etc. Any sense of "I" means continuity, identity, and hence not emptiness. What is empty does not have identity and continuity. It is like what Dogen said. You cannot become anything. There is becoming, but no 'something' becoming 'something'.

 

Another thing is, you see consciousness as something separate from phenomena. This is what I have rejected which you claimed to understand but fail to grasp in your own experience because of your clinging to consciousness as separate. I think so far thuscomeone is one of the few that has quite a clear understanding of what I am talking about.

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

double...

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Basically your view is that subject and object are relative, and being relative they are empty.

And what did I mean by "relative"?

 

What a half assed reply. I never mentioned emptiness as in relation to subject object.

 

Try a bit harder.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Another thing is, you see consciousness as something separate from phenomena. This is what I have rejected which you claimed to understand but fail to grasp in your own experience because of your clinging to consciousness as separate. I think so far thuscomeone is one of the few that has quite a clear understanding of what I am talking about.

 

No I don't see consciousness as separate from phenomena. I see them dependently existent. Not one, not two.

 

Do you know what that means?

 

What the hell have you been reading so far?

 

Yes, idiots do think alike.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Why don't you first tell me what my views are. I don't think you understood anything I wrote, but just blabbered your own point of views and cut and pasted random quotes.

 

I am fully realizing that you were never here to discuss, learn, investigate. You are and always were here to be a bigot.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

No I don't see consciousness as separate from phenomena. I see them dependently existent. Not one, not two.

 

Do you know what that means?

 

What the hell have you been reading so far?

 

Yes, idiots do think alike.

If consciousness dependently originates, then it is a manifestation, and not a real subject. Everything that is in our field of experience, is a manifestation that is dependently originated. And it is clear, luminous, knowing. There would be no consciousness to speak of apart from conditions, and based on the condition of sense organs and auditory object, the act of sound consciousness arise. Same goes to other sensory consciousness. It is just a manifestation.

 

Experientially you cannot find a boundary between consciousness and phenomena, otherwise that would be reification. You cannot say 'consciousness is over here, phenomena are over there'. The consciousness of 'TONGG' is just present where it is, the TONGG is the consciousness, without consciousness there cannot be the sound heard 'TONGG'. But even to speak of consciousness as something is to reify it, there experientially just 'TONGG', just that is auditory consciousness. There is no distance at all, you cannot find a distance between a truly existing subject and object. There is just everything, sounds being heard, scenery being seen, though the 'everything' is empty and dependently originated.

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Since you are so stuck up on your own views and your cup is empty, why don't you read some of what Buddha taught:

 

I never said my cup was empty. See, again you don't read or listen.

[xabir2005]

I never said my cup was empty. See, again you don't read or listen.

Full, sorry.

[Lucky7Strikes]

If consciousness dependently originates, then it is a manifestation, and not a real subject. Everything that is in our field of experience, is a manifestation that is dependently originated. And it is clear, luminous, knowing. There would be no consciousness to speak of apart from conditions, and based on the condition of sense organs and auditory object, the act of sound consciousness arise. Same goes to other sensory consciousness. It is just a manifestation.

 

Experientially you cannot find a boundary between consciousness and phenomena, then that would be reification. You cannot say 'consciousness is over here, phenomena are over there'. There is no distance at all, you cannot find a distance between a truly existing subject and object. There is just everything, sounds being heard, scenery being seen, though the 'everything' is empty and dependently originated.

 

Again, just try to write out my view first instead of arguing your own point and assumed understanding of my use of words like "consciousness" and "dependent origination"

 

I've done it twice already, and pretty extensively for your views to show that I understand what you are saying and how you use language and concepts.

 

See, I'm pretty sure you can't, because you've just been yelling out your own views. Never with the ear to listen. And really this whole thing is turning out to be a great error in communication.

 

You just can't listen for gods sakes.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"

 

"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

 

"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.

 

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

 

"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."

 

"Bhikkhus, when you are not sure whether something has arisen do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir." "When you are not sure why something has arisen, do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, when you are not sure that with ceasing of a certain support, that the arisen too would cease, do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir."

 

 

 

 

---- in this scripture, the Buddha clearly explained how consciousness is a manifestation based on conditions. Do you agree or disagree with it?

 

Auditory consciousness, visual consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness.

 

So of course, consciousness is not the same as the ear, or the soundwaves, nor do they 'come from there', but when all these conditions come together, auditory consciousness manifest. And there is no conceptual distance between a 'consciousness in here, watching the sound out there', which would be duality. There is just auditory consciousness manifesting. It is non-dual because it is just manifesting in its suchness, without requiring a conceptual hearer. Even if the sense of duality creeps in, or the thought "I am hearing it", that thought "I am hearing" isn't the real act of hearing. The thought "I hear" cannot hear. The actual act of hearing is non-dual. Of course, even that thought is arising non-dually.

 

Your view is that there is a consciousness inherently existing but cannot cognise anything or itself [which already implies duality: itself, and everything] unless there is an object, which is why subject and object relatively arise to experience, which is a false understanding of D.O., and is still seeing consciousness as inherent and not as manifestation. - I also see nothing from which awareness arises. Awareness has always been eternal, but then again you will believe that I am speaking as if it is a substratum of awareness separate from phenomena. There is never a pure subjective awareness because all these states return to a dualistic state of reflection. Awareness needs the experience of phenomena to be self-aware. - Lucky Again, correct me if I am wrong in what I said.

 

Your view of awareness existing apart from phenomena and conditions, and yet relatively arising with phenomena is due to conceptual fabrication. You cannot separate awareness apart from phenomena except through your own conceptual analysis. Our experience has always always been non-dual. Awareness is eternal but you cannot speak of Awareness apart from the the manifesting consciousness that dependently originates as the Buddha taught to Sati. Hence Awareness is eternal in the sense like a river stream ceaselessly flowing, but there is no identity or continuity as a persisting entity, nothing locatable, graspable, with essence. You cannot speak of an awareness apart from the awareness of sound, sights, etc. There is no 'awareness requiring objects to experience itself' which would imply awareness inherently existed prior to objects, rather than as a happening -- there is just awareness of sound, sight, happening, you cannot separate 'sound' from 'awareness' as that act of 'awareness of sound' is one single experience happening without subject-object, no 'awareness' and 'sounds'.

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

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.

I JUST TOLD YOU IT'S MEANING. It can mean either complete nothingness, the extreme of non existence or it can mean rejection of all moral values (the more traditional meaning of it). Buddhists would say that it is nihilistic to think that there is nothing after death. Materialists believe there is nothing after death. So nihilism and materialism are equated. Jesus Christ on the cross (sorry).

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

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?

 

 

"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.

You are such an arrogant know it all little you know what. If I said the last word, I would most likely be banned. You really don't know shit about my experiences so I wouldn't talk about them with authority if I were you. My "method of investigation"? I don't have a specific "method". I just look at things and try to figure out how they work. I look for facts about reality. I try to find the way things truly are. For instance, somebody tells me that things are always changing. So in order to see if they are correct, I observe the world and see that yep, they are always changing. It is not that difficult. And that is it. No special method. I just observe. If what I find has a basis in reality, I accept it. If it doesn't, I reject it.

 

Why is a creation of mind not an established reality? At this point, I would say that creations of mind are the ONLY established reality. I think you are thinking that if there is truly only the mind, then the world is actually unreal. No, as I said before, the world is very real. It is not a nothingness.

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

You are such an arrogant know it all little you know what. If I said the last word, I would most likely be banned. You really don't know shit about my experiences so I wouldn't talk about them with authority if I were you. My "method of investigation"? I don't have a specific "method". I just look at things and try to figure out how they work. I look for facts about reality. I try to find the way things truly are. For instance, somebody tells me that things are always changing. So in order to see if they are correct, I observe the world and see that yep, they are always changing. It is not that difficult. And that is it. No special method. I just observe. If what I find has a basis in reality, I accept it. If it doesn't, I reject it.

 

Why is a creation of mind not an established reality? At this point, I would say that creations of mind are the ONLY established reality. I think you are thinking that if there is truly only the mind, then the world is actually unreal. No, as I said before, the world is very real. It is not a nothingness.

 

You investigate awareness with awareness, the "I" with the "I," trying to see the eye.

 

You have to investigate investigation.

 

Why is creation of mind not an established reality? Because all phenomena is dependently originated.

[thuscomeone]

Who? Whatever consciousness clings to as the source of action at a given moment.

 

What and where? It can be here, there, everywhere, nowhere. No fixed entity, no self.

 

In control? In control of what consciousness identifies as the "body" (not necessarily material or form). In control of its own manifestation.

 

The "I" is not outside of sensations, nor is it sensations. It can be experienced as both, because "I" has no fixed location or existence. It is free to be what it wants to be. There is the relationship of the controller and controlled, but no established controller or controlled in phenomena. Only the relative relationship exists, but the actual content being subject or object is illusory.

 

As long as the logic is sound and the interpretation is in line with my experiences and experiences of others, I will gladly say that I am wrong. If my tone of conviction bothers you, it is because I approach all this with good intensity.

 

I got my views from Xabir . From Taoist princples, Sutras, my own insight, from people here and there, and the varieties of accounts people regarding reality.

 

The paradigm I have found for myself fits so perfectly with everything I experience that I haven't yet found anything wrong with it.

So would you say that you are that "I" that you describe here? "It is not outside of sensations nor is it sensations." So where is it then? Point it out for me. If I am going to believe that what you say saying is legit, I have to be able to find that thing which are talking about within my own experience. Otherwise, it has no basis in reality. It is an illusion. You see, for me, I can find the "I." I know where it is in my own experience. So since I can find that thing and point directly to it in my own direct experience, I know the "I" I am talking about is not an illusion. I find the "I" contained within all sensations - it is in fact, not other than all those sensations and it can never be separated from them.

[thuscomeone]

You investigate awareness with awareness, the "I" with the "I," trying to see the eye.

 

You have to investigate investigation.

 

Why is creation of mind not an established reality? Because all phenomena is dependently originated.

Oh sure creations mind are non inherently existent, but as I've said multiple times, that does not connote non reality or nothingness. No, dependently arisen phenomena are very real. Emptiness is not non reality though it may seem like it. It is actually a deep affirmation of reality. See, I get the feeling that when you talk about no established reality, you are not just talking about things being like an illusion like the buddha said but you are talking about things literally being illusions or abstractions or literally not real. Not actually present.

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

So would you say that you are that "I" that you describe here? "It is not outside of sensations nor is it sensations." So where is it then? Point it out for me. If I am going to believe that what you say saying is legit, I have to be able to find that thing which are talking about within my own experience. Otherwise, it has no basis in reality. It is an illusion. You see, for me, I can find the "I." I know where it is in my own experience. So since I can find that thing and point directly to it in my own direct experience, I know the "I" I am talking about is not an illusion. I find the "I" contained within all sensations - it is in fact, not other than all those sensations and it can never be separated from them.

 

You are the movement which tries to find the "I." You are the awareness and thought. Just as we can say matter is because of matter and space. They can't be separated, but they are not one. Space is not matter, and matter is not space.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh sure creations mind are non inherently existent, but as I've said multiple times, that does not connote non reality or nothingness. No, dependently arisen phenomena are very real. Emptiness is not non reality though it may seem like it. It is actually a deep affirmation of reality. See, I get the feeling that when you talk about no established reality, you are not just talking about things being like an illusion like the buddha said but you are talking about things literally being illusions or abstractions or literally not real.

 

If all is illusion, then all is reality. If all is reality, then all is also illusion.

[thuscomeone]

If all is illusion, then all is reality. If all is reality, then all is also illusion.

Hmmm, expand.

[thuscomeone]

You are the movement which tries to find the "I." You are the awareness and thought. Just as we can say matter is because of matter and space. They can't be separated, but they are not one. Space is not matter, and matter is not space.

"The movement which tries to find the I." Are you separating awareness and thought here? Are they different? In my own experience, the movement which tries to find the I is itself a thought. So the I is that thought which tries to find the I. So the "I" is trying to find the "I"! The I is not other than thought! It is not something else than thought itself. Like right now, we are analyzing in order to find the "I" right? And all that analyzing is movement of thought isn't it?

 

If this movement is not thought, then where is it?

 

One more thing, I think you may be actually talking about the alaya - the 8th consciousness, when you speak of this I which is not sensations but which is not outside of sensations either. The alaya travels from birth to birth with a non substantial continuity so in that sense it can be considered outside of sensations. Yet it is also the basis for all sensations and the basis of mind itself so it can be said to pervade all sensations. The alaya is frequently mistaken as an "I", as this separate, divided controller. I know that it is said that the 7th consciousness taking the alaya for an "I" in this sense is one of the main causes of samsara. But I'm not quite sure here. Maybe Xabir can expand.

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

The movement is itself a thought and thuscomeone elucidated well.

 

As for Alaya, this is not a self but is simply a momentary consciousness and is the reason why there is continuity of consciousness. This continuity is mistaken to be a self, whereas, continuity of a process of the alaya does not actually imply an inherently existing self.

*Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas.

 

The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind.

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005