"there is such a self"

[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.

Another thing here. I think you are making the same mistake that I made for a long time. You are talking about two things that can't be separated but they are not one. This is what I thought non duality meant for the longest time. I thought that it meant the coming together, the union of two different things. Actually that is not non duality at all. Non duality is not a union of two different things. It is precisely that there are not two things to begin with. It is not the merging of "mind" and "phenomena" or "matter" as two different things. The merging of two different things still presumes duality. Instead, non duality is just one indivisible happening.

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Awareness is not a thing. It is a process. Like a river.

 

Just like there is no wind to speak of apart from 'blowing'.

 

There is no awareness to speak of apart from the hearing/sound as one happening, or the seeing/scenery as one happening, which is changing ceaselessly.

 

If awareness is not a thing, but a process like wind, how can it become something. It IS the becoming, it is not something that becomes something. How can you say that the blowing becomes the wind. The wind is the blowing and vice versa. The blowing does not merge with the wind, the wind does not merge with blowing. There never was two conceptual entity in the beginning, just one experience, which you can call wind, or whatever, the word is not the actuality.

[Lucky7Strikes]

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?

He explains that there are types of consciousness based on phenomena. I have stated multiple times that consciousness and phenomena arise dependently.

 

You see, consciousness is NOT phenomena.

 

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.

Good. Consciousness does not arise "from." Yes, "auditory" consciousness. Auditory consciousness is not phenomena. It is also a characteristic, a variety of taste, of consciousness itself. I agree with most of this.

 

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'.

This is pretty good. But you haven't fully understood yet.

 

I never said awareness was separate. Like matter and space, both exist dependently.

 

No, consciousness is not inherently existing. How many times have I written: the relationship between subject and object exist, as in awareness is not sound and sound is not awareness, but that there is no established or inherent subject and object as in that awareness is not an entity and that sound is not existent by itself.

 

We must conceptually distinguish awareness and sound, because there can be awareness besides the experience of sound, and there can be sound without it being aware.

 

Awareness is dependent on phenomena.

 

"awareness requiring objects to experience itself" is precisely the nature of awareness. Requiring something does not necessarily mean that it exists prior to phenomena. You see, you make all these assumptions and argue against them. We could've saved so much time if you just listened.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Another thing here. I think you are making the same mistake that I made for a long time. You are talking about two things that can't be separated but they are not one. This is what I thought non duality meant for the longest time. I thought that it meant the coming together, the union of two different things. Actually that is not non duality at all. Non duality is not a union of two different things. It is precisely that there are not two things to begin with. It is not the merging of "mind" and "phenomena" or "matter" as two different things. The merging of two different things still presumes duality. Instead, non duality is just one indivisible happening.

This is irrelevant. Re read the quote you quoted.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

 

This is pretty good. But you haven't fully understood yet.

 

I never said awareness was separate. Like matter and space, both exist dependently.

 

No, consciousness is not inherently existing. How many times have I written: the relationship between subject and object exist, as in awareness is not sound and sound is not awareness, but that there is no established or inherent subject and object as in that awareness is not an entity and that sound is not existent by itself.

 

We must conceptually distinguish awareness and sound, because there can be awareness besides the experience of sound, and there can be sound without it being aware.

 

Awareness is dependent on phenomena.

 

"awareness requiring objects to experience itself" is precisely the nature of awareness. Requiring something does not necessarily mean that it exists prior to phenomena. You see, you make all these assumptions and argue against them. We could've saved so much time if you just listened.

Awareness is sound, as in the experience of sound is awareness. I am not talking about the drum, the ear, the soundwaves, etc. For example the same soundwaves, but different animals may have different experience of sound. Same soundwave, dog hears but human may not. When I say sound, I mean the experience of sound. The experience of sound in one's individual mindstream is non-dual without subject and object duality. And the hearing/sound/awareness arise dependent with all those various conditions. It is not that there is awareness like a mirror reflecting things, rather, awareness is the arising sound, that dependently originates. There is no subject nor object, only ISness.

[xabir2005]

We must conceptually distinguish awareness and sound, because there can be awareness besides the experience of sound, and there can be sound without it being aware.

No.

 

You must read what Buddha said to Sati carefully.

 

He clearly said, there is no consciousness apart from conditions, and based on various conditions, auditory, visual, etc, consciousness may arise.

 

There is no 'awareness' and 'sound'.

 

There is just sound-awareness, sight-awareness, etc, which dependently originate. You cannot separate them.

 

If you say there is awareness apart from sound, that knows sound, you fall into Sati's view which the Buddha reprimanded him for.

[Lucky7Strikes]

"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?

Awareness is not thought. Just as brain is not consciousness.

 

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

Go through this process again. Seek the source of the "I" thought and when it arises. The sense of "I."

 

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.

No, the alaya is simply another taste of consciousness, another habitual state of being.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No.

 

You must read what Buddha said to Sati carefully.

 

He clearly said, there is no consciousness apart from conditions, and based on various conditions, auditory, visual, etc, consciousness may arise.

 

There is no 'awareness' and 'sound'.

 

There is just sound-awareness, sight-awareness, etc, which dependently originate. You cannot separate them.

 

If you say there is awareness apart from sound, that knows sound, you fall into Sati's view which the Buddha reprimanded him for.

You are right that there is no such thing as objective sound. There is sound"ness."

 

I never said awareness is apart from sound. Awareness CAN be apart from sound. Sound can be experienced by the ear, by the body, by the heart. But when you investigate sound-awaerness, then sound and awareness can be experienced as if there is only that sound. This is a new state of awareness. Like space seen with matter and so it is seen as if there is only that matter.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Awareness is sound, as in the experience of sound is awareness. I am not talking about the drum, the ear, the soundwaves, etc. For example the same soundwaves, but different animals may have different experience of sound. Same soundwave, dog hears but human may not. When I say sound, I mean the experience of sound. The experience of sound in one's individual mindstream is non-dual without subject and object duality. And the hearing/sound/awareness arise dependent with all those various conditions. It is not that there is awareness like a mirror reflecting things, rather, awareness is the arising sound, that dependently originates. There is no subject nor object, only ISness.

 

Experience of sound is sentience. Sentience is not phenomena, it comes from awareness and phenomena.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hmmm, expand.

Why don't you go think for yourself?

 

It's pretty straight forward.

[xabir2005]

Experience of sound is sentience. Sentience is not phenomena, it comes from awareness and phenomena.

Define phenomena. If by phenomena you mean insentience, that is clearly not what I mean.

 

I say all sentience is phenomena and as phenomena is marked by the 3 characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-selfness.

 

No manifestation/sentience is permanent. And being dependently originated, it is empty.

 

Sentience does not come from somewhere. It does not 'come from'. It has no coming, no going, it just IS and is interdependent with all the factors and conditions. See Nagarjuna. The experience of sound, or sentience, itself is awareness, is a phenomena.

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Define phenomena. If by phenomena you mean insentience, that is clearly not what I mean.

 

I say all sentience is phenomena and as phenomena is marked by the 3 characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-selfness.

 

No manifestation/sentience is permanent. And being dependently originated, it is empty.

 

Sentience does not come from somewhere. It does not 'come from'. It has no coming, no going, it just IS and is interdependent with all the factors and conditions. See Nagarjuna. The experience of sound, or sentience, itself is awareness, is a phenomena.

Phenomena is that which can be located in the physical world and the formless state of being. Matter, time, space, light, all these things are phenomena. It is anything that be construed as "isness"

 

Consciousness is not phenomena.

 

Don't play language games here. You knew what I meant. Sentience is awareness and phenomena.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Awareness is sound, as in the experience of sound is awareness. I am not talking about the drum, the ear, the soundwaves, etc. For example the same soundwaves, but different animals may have different experience of sound. Same soundwave, dog hears but human may not. When I say sound, I mean the experience of sound. The experience of sound in one's individual mindstream is non-dual without subject and object duality. And the hearing/sound/awareness arise dependent with all those various conditions. It is not that there is awareness like a mirror reflecting things, rather, awareness is the arising sound, that dependently originates. There is no subject nor object, only ISness.

Space is not matter, and matter is not space.

 

Is space a thing?

 

Is it by definition apart from matter?

 

Yes.

[xabir2005]

You are right that there is no such thing as objective sound. There is sound"ness."

 

I never said awareness is apart from sound. Awareness CAN be apart from sound. Sound can be experienced by the ear, by the body, by the heart. But when you investigate sound-awaerness, then sound and awareness can be experienced as if there is only that sound. This is a new state of awareness. Like space seen with matter and so it is seen as if there is only that matter.

No, sound cannot be experienced by the ear. Ear cannot experience. Ear is just a condition for the arising of the various consciousness. Just like the drum cannot hear. But with the combination of the conditions of ear, drum, etc, auditory-consciousness manifest.

 

With certain conditions, auditory consciousness manifest. With certain conditions, visual consciousness manifest. And so on. Awareness is not something that can be identical to, nor separate from, those manifestation. Awareness is not a thing, just as wind is not a thing and cannot be separated from 'blowing', it is a process. Awareness is like the quality in all manifestation in one's mindstream, like the experience of sound, sight, etc, nothing can arise without the quality of awareness.

[xabir2005]

Phenomena is that which can be located in the physical world and the formless state of being. Matter, time, space, light, all these things are phenomena. It is anything that be construed as "isness"

 

Consciousness is not phenomena.

 

Don't play language games here. You knew what I meant. Sentience is awareness and phenomena.

No, the way I use the word phenomena is totally different from yours. I use the word phenomena to mean the experience of sounds, the experience of sights, etc, arising within one's mindstream since that is all that can be known or experienced. All there is, is mind, consciousness, phenomena, which I use synonymously.

 

And this is the only basis we can investigate on and attain enlightenment, because that is all there is to experience.

 

As Buddha said:

 

 

SN 35.23

PTS: S iv 15

CDB ii 1140

Sabba Sutta: The All

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 2001–2010

 

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

 

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

 

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Space is not matter, and matter is not space.

 

Is space a thing?

 

Is it by definition apart from matter?

 

Yes.

No, awareness is not some superspace and I think Daniel Ingram explained very eloquently here:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/rigpa-and-aggregates.html

 

Rigpa and Aggregates

(Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination)

 

From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram):

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, sound cannot be experienced by the ear. Ear cannot experience. Ear is just a condition for the arising of the various consciousness. Just like the drum cannot hear. But with the combination of the conditions of ear, drum, etc, auditory-consciousness manifest.

 

With certain conditions, auditory consciousness manifest. With certain conditions, visual consciousness manifest. And so on.

Insentient conditions cannot produce sentient results.

 

Awareness is not something that can be identical to, nor separate from, those manifestation. Awareness is not a thing, just as wind is not a thing and cannot be separated from 'blowing', it is a process.

 

Awareness is like the quality in all manifestation in one's mindstream, like the experience of sound, sight, etc, nothing can arise without the quality of awareness.

Awareness is not a phenomenal thing. You are getting confused by the usage of language.

 

Good, now look into why that experience is experienced by insentient phenomena.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, awareness is not some superspace and I think Daniel Ingram explained very eloquently here:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/rigpa-and-aggregates.html

 

Rigpa and Aggregates

(Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination)

 

From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram):

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

 

Look into the nature of relationship between space and matter.

 

The metaphor had nothing to due with super awareness of some sorts.

[xabir2005]

[Lucky7Strikes]

No. There is no unseen seer apart from seen. There is just sensation, sound, cognition. Your statement means you fail to see what the Buddha taught, where you stop construeing an object seen nor an unseen seer:

Just like space and matter the seer and seen are not two, and not one.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html

 

"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

 

...Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime."

There are no established seer, seen, unseen, or to be seen. There is no findable seer in experience because the seer and seen are already creating the experience of "beingness." They are indistinguishable like time and events, but time is not events, and events are not time.

 

We can also interpret this as the Buddha describing the body of Dharmakaya, which is one of three manifestation of awareness. It embodies truth of beingness of presence, of being manifestation itself. There is no higher state of existence than this state, because the Thathagata has gone beyond higher and lower here since there is no self. It is the very experience of everything that is, the see able "truth." (the way truth is used in this context is different than the way I will use it in the next paragraph. Make note of this.), but it is not the creation from the "unmanifest" for that requires duality, a struggle between the separation of "I" and "other."

 

This is a state of being simply that which is, and should not be taken as the "truer" experience of reality, because there is no such thing as "truer" reality and "false" reality. Duality and nonduality are neither reality, because both are experienced (samsara should not be denied). By seeing the emptiness of both states and being able to transverse from one to another is true freedom. Don't get stuck in "suchness."

 

By the way,

 

Your understanding of my viewpoints missed some key insights, please re address the points I have made regarding that post.

------------

 

The Eternal Witness is experienced as a formless crystal clear mirror reflecting all phenomenon existence. There is a clear knowledge that ‘self’ does not exist but the last trace of the karmic propensity of ‘self’ is still not completely eliminated. It resides in a very subtle level. In no mirror reflecting, the karmic propensity of ‘self’ is loosen to a great extend and the true nature of the Witness is seen. All along there is no Witness witnessing anything, the manifestation alone is.

 

There is no mirror reflecting

All along manifestation alone is.

The one hand claps

Everything IS!

This is a state of being, not a true insight into reality.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

This is a state of being, not a true insight into reality.

When one experiences unity, a sort of merging of subject and object in meditation, or it could be when one hears a beautiful music or sees a sunset or a tree, suddenly there is just the experience in all its vividness and majesty without an experiencer.

 

This is just an experience of unity, but it is not the insight into the nature of reality as non-dual. A person who experiences unity (and unity experiences are far more, far more common than a realising the nature of reality as non-dual) may say 'I and music have become one' or 'I become the music'. This is not an insight, it is merely a temporary experience, when one completely surrenders to whatever one is perceiving or doing. Like being submerged in the experience of music, or dance, or watching sunset, until the duality of subject and object temporarily dissolves.

 

For example Michael Jackson wrote his experience:

Consciousness expresses itself through creation. This world we live in is the dance of the creator. Dancers come and go in the twinkling of an eye but the dance lives on. On many an occasion when I'm dancing, I've felt touched by something sacred. In those moments, I've felt my spirit soar and become one with everything that exists. I become the stars and the moon. I become the lover and the beloved. I become the victor and the vanquished. I become the master and the slave. I become the singer and the song. I become the knower and the known.I keep on dancing and then, it is the eternal dance of creation. The creator and creation merge into one wholeness of joy.I keep on dancing and dancing...and dancing, until there is only...the dance.

 

Even Michael Jackson experienced that temporarily while dancing, but he is not enlightened.

 

However it is very different when one realises "All along there is no Witness witnessing anything, the manifestation alone is." -- the realisation of the nature of reality, which is Always So, is what liberates.

 

There is no 'I' to become 'everything', all there always is, is manifestation.

 

As Thusness said before, please read the highlighted part:

 

http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/173915

 

Yes LongChen,

 

I agree with what you said. There shouldn’t be a separation. There are 2 seeds that I sense lying deep in Galen’s Consciousness:

 

1. The meditative experience he gained on the aspect of 'No-Self'

2. The meditative experience of the 'ISness Presence, Knowingness Presence

 

However the imprint of the Knowingness Presence' is stronger than the understanding of 'No-Self' and serves as the seed that makes Galen remarked 'We are the Watcher, not the thinker, or the doer, or the experiencer', thus, creating separation.

 

The meditative experience of “AMness” is a very powerful one. It creates the impression of Certainty, Absoluteness and Realness. It creates the impression that we have touched the innermost reality of our own core being where thoughts play absolutely no role in that moment of experience. This is a very unique and sacred experience but is a double edge sword. It must be cleansed with the “Emptiness” truth otherwise there will always be separation.

What is the ultimate nature of this “ISness” Presence? Is the “ISness” Presence still the “Presence” when there is separation? When we are listening to a piece of music, where and what is this Ultimate Presence right at that moment? During meditation or when one is totally submerged in appreciating the piece of music, he might exclaim, “I become the music”, “I am the listening itself” or “I am the music itself”. The Presence is the Music is the Awareness is the ‘I’. Does it mean that the subject, the object and the action have suddenly become one? Or is there really no separation from beginning?

 

Separation is often the result of wrong identification, labeling and attachment. This is the problem of language and attachment. When one is free from labeling and experience is direct, there is really only listening, there is no ‘I’. This is what really is happening if we are not hypnotized and deceived by thoughts and labeling -- One complete co-arising emptiness flow, ever present and ever clear. There is no ‘ghost’ and ‘shadow’ in between, the ‘I’ is unnecessary and separation is illusionary.

 

 

There is no ‘Watcher’ apart from the watching. There is no doer apart from the doing and ‘own will’apart from the volition. The ‘watching’, ‘doing’ and ‘action’ refer to the same process. This same process flows and continues life after life. The process reaps its own fruit. There is no escape.

Edited January 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

So which of the 8 liberations are false? Why this constant dichotomy between illusion and reality? There really is no dichotomy except in the mind of dichotomy. And in using the tools of dichotomy one will only find dichotomy.

 

Good luck

 

Om

[thuscomeone]

Awareness is not thought. Just as brain is not consciousness.

 

 

Go through this process again. Seek the source of the "I" thought and when it arises. The sense of "I."

 

 

No, the alaya is simply another taste of consciousness, another habitual state of being.

So then there is an awareness and then there is thought? These are separate? But isn't thought awareness itself? Isn't a thought/thinking a form of awareness just like seeing is? Where is this awareness that is not thought? Point it out for me. And don't cop out again by telling me to think for myself. That is just an tactic that you use to take the burden of explanation off of yourself. I think you are going to eventually tell me that this awareness is the gap between two thoughts. That is what YOU really are is that awareness which is the gap and as that awareness you are NOT thoughts, sensations, etc.

 

Again, you avoid my question. Don't put it on me. I asked you where this movement that you claim you are is. So point it out for me. "The source of the "I" thought?" The "I" thought is a thought thus it is mind/awareness whatever you want to call it and that "I" thought comes about through causes and conditions. That's it. There is no other "source" of the "I" thought. If you have found one, tell me.

[thuscomeone]

Why don't you go think for yourself?

 

It's pretty straight forward.

No I want you to tell me. But since you probably don't even know what that means yourself and you are going to spew out some garbage at me that you just made up on the spot in response to this post, maybe I can help YOU make sense of it.

 

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

 

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

 

These are just word games. Look, there is a reality out there. There is something present that doesn't just vanish when you approach it. Now what is present is ungraspable but it is not a nothingness. Like take a mirage for instance. That is a perfect example of an actual illusion. When you approach and investigate that mirage, it dissapears. That means there was never anything there to begin with. It was actually just a nothingness that you were tricked into believing was something actually present. Now if I am looking at this chair and I find that the chair cannot be said to exist, not exist, both or neither then the chair still doesn't disappear does it? Now, there is still a dependently arisen chair obviously present. Yet as is said, the chair is like an illusion because it is always changing and it has no self substance. But it not actually an illusion because it isn't actually just a nothingness. It doesn't vanish like a real illusion that I described would. So the chair is both real and like

an illusion but not an illusion.

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone