"there is such a self"

[thuscomeone]

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

Um because there is a difference between an illusion and reality? That's why one is always careful to say that things are like illusions and not actually illusions. Because there is a difference/ an important division between those two - like an illusion and actually an illusion. Now difference and sameness are not inherent in things, they arise dependently like everything else. But they are present nonetheless. This whole point and the whole path of Buddhism is built on stressing duality. Sure there is non duality at a certain level. But you won't get anywhere without duality. You know, knowing the difference between "Right view" and "wrong view"? Between "true existence" and "non true existence"? etc etc. Here we go again with this attack on discrimination.

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone

[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.

Yet without even bothering with what awareness is or isn't, lets look again at your statement, "you are the movement which tries to find the "I." Isn't that movement, that analysis which tries to find the "I" a series of thoughts? I asked you this before and you didn't answer. Please answer me.

 

The sense of "I" is a thought. Right? Like when I say "I will go to the park" or "I will do my homework." That's all thought, isn't it?

Edited January 24, 2010 by thuscomeone

[3bob]

Um because there is a difference between an illusion and reality? That's why one is always careful to say that things are like illusions and not actually illusions. Because there is a difference/ an important division between those two - like an illusion and actually an illusion. Now difference and sameness are not inherent in things, they arise dependently like everything else. But they are present nonetheless. This whole point and the whole path of Buddhism is built on stressing duality. Sure there is non duality at a certain level. But you won't get anywhere without duality. You know, knowing the difference between "Right view" and "wrong view"? Between "true existence" and "non true existence"? etc etc. Here we go again with this attack on discrimination.

 

Again, which of the 8 liberations are false? (besides skirting around with "at a certain level"?)

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yet without even bothering with what awareness is or isn't, lets look again at your statement, "you are the movement which tries to find the "I." Isn't that movement, that analysis which tries to find the "I" a series of thoughts? I asked you this before and you didn't answer. Please answer me.

 

The sense of "I" is a thought. Right? Like when I say "I will go to the park" or "I will do my homework." That's all thought, isn't it?

 

No it's not thought.

 

The movement is not thought. True inquiry takes place without thought. It is the movement of that which gives rise to thought (thought includes language and emotions).

 

Seek into the source of thought without thought.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

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:

 

I suddenly began to see the world through my belly. And from my belly I saw the weird way I saw the world beforehand, which was through the eye.

 

I wrongly conclude that I've always seen through the belly, so that belly-seeing become a permanent habit as the eye-seeing once was.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

 

Illusion and reality are opposing terms. If all is one opposing term, then the other term ceases to have meaning, and so do both concepts lose their meaning.

 

At a certain level of practice, the world disappears. Then your body disappears. All is seen as a dream like manifestation of the mind.

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Awareness and thought are not separate, nor are they the same. Awareness is a primordial dimension that is basis ("basis" NOT as is ground of experience like Advaita) of phenomenal existence.

 

Like time and space, they are not things. I can't point out to you what time is or what space is, or where it is. I can tell you how it is through the contents and characteristics of time and space. It wouldn't be wrong to say that the source of matter is space, but the source of space is also matter. It is same with consciousness and phenomena.

 

"I" thought is not thought as you'd imagine.

 

You keep thinking awareness is some sort of "thing" that is like the table, or body.

 

I'm not coping out by telling you to think for yourself. You really need to think for yourself, so I keep saying it. You also need to seriously meditate to have some more tools to think with. You lack experience that comes without conceptual insight. Let insight arise from experience instead.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[3bob]

Holy cow guys! Just imagine what we could do with all this energy, like build another bridge in New York or San Francisco...

 

Om

[thuscomeone]

Again, which of the 8 liberations are false? (besides skirting around with "at a certain level"?)

I would say that none of them are false. They are just different levels of experience. I'm just trying to tell you that if you believe that we can't make distinctions or that there is no actual difference between illusion and reality, you are in a senseless position.

[thuscomeone]

No it's not thought.

 

The movement is not thought. True inquiry takes place without thought. It is the movement of that which gives rise to thought (thought includes language and emotions).

 

Seek into the source of thought without thought.

What? Tell me where that which gives rise to thought is. Where is this source of thought without thought? I've asked you several times and you still avoid the question. Point it out for me. I don't think you know.

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Illusion and reality are opposing terms. If all is one opposing term, then the other term ceases to have meaning, and so do both concepts lose their meaning.

 

At a certain level of practice, the world disappears. Then your body disappears. All is seen as a dream like manifestation of the mind.

What do you mean? Disappears as in become nothingness? What do you mean by disappears?

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Awareness and thought are not separate, nor are they the same. Awareness is a primordial dimension that is basis ("basis" NOT as is ground of experience like Advaita) of phenomenal existence.

 

Like time and space, they are not things. I can't point out to you what time is or what space is, or where it is I can tell you how it is through the contents and characteristics of time and space. It wouldn't be wrong to say that the source of matter is space, but the source of space is also matter. It is same with consciousness and phenomena.

 

"I" thought is not thought as you'd imagine.

 

You keep thinking awareness is some sort of "thing" that is like the table, or body.

 

I'm not coping out by telling you to think for yourself. You really need to think for yourself, so I keep saying it. You also need to seriously meditate to have some more tools to think with. You lack experience that comes without conceptual insight. Let insight arise from experience instead.

I don't think that awareness is a thing, but I still know where "it" is and that it is present. Otherwise, I would have no basis for talking about it. And I CAN find that which I believe to be the "I." So I accept that it is there. But for you, why talk about something that you can't even find? If you can't even point it out to yourself, how do you accept that it is there? Then you are just accepting something on faith.

 

I can find everything that I talk about. I can find dependent arising, I can find impermanence, I can find awareness (though it's not a "thing"), I can find sensations, I can find the "I." Do you know why I talk about these things AT ALL? BECAUSE I CAN FIND THEM IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE. The only thing I can't find and that you can't find is this elusive "I" which you continue to talk about. And I'm sorry, I don't accept that something is there on faith.

 

I told you before that awareness is both formless and in all forms. That is you can see it in all forms since it is actually not separate from all forms yet you can't see it's basic quality of illumination - that is formless.

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

No it's not thought.

 

The movement is not thought. True inquiry takes place without thought. It is the movement of that which gives rise to thought (thought includes language and emotions).

 

Seek into the source of thought without thought.

See this is why I think you are talking about the alaya and you are grasping at it as a separate controller or separate self without really knowing it. The alaya is the basis for all thought (or that which "gives rise" to all thought) since it is the basis of the mind itself and it is that which travels from birth to birth as a non substantial, impermanent and dependently arisen continuity. When you talk about the difference between awareness and thought, would you say that that is analogous to the relationship between space and matter? Here I would be equating the alaya with space and thought with matter. Since the alaya (or space) is the basis of mind itself, it obviously pervades all thoughts (or matter). And you cannot actually separate space and matter, or the alaya and thoughts. There is no space apart from matter. And there is no matter apart from space. So at any given moment when a thought arises, the alaya or space is contained within that and there are not two divided things in that moment. There is not "the source which gives rise to the "I thought" and "the I thought" as two separate/divided things at that moment. Let me ask you and please answer this, when a thought arises, at that moment is there the source which gives rise to the thought or the basis for that thought AND is there the thought itself? Are these two divided things in that moment? This is what I think you are thinking. The way I see it, the "source" that gives rise to, or the basis for that thought itself is not apart from that thought at that moment. It is contained within and it pervades that thought. It is that thought!

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[3bob]

I would say that none of them are false. They are just different levels of experience. I'm just trying to tell you that if you believe that we can't make distinctions or that there is no actual difference between illusion and reality, you are in a senseless position.

 

interesting how you contradict yourself in one short paragraph.

[thuscomeone]

interesting how you contradict yourself in one short paragraph.

Please explain. Basically all I've said is that there is both duality and non duality. And duality shouldn't be forgotten or seen as not important.

 

edit: oh nevermind, I see it. my bad.

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

interesting how you contradict yourself in one short paragraph.

Oops my bad, I did contradict myself. Sorry

 

Actually I would say that the eight liberations are all partly true. They are all pieces of the big picture. In different levels of experiences, one acquires different pieces of the whole truth. So those experiences are not completely true but they are not false either. So if you can't see that one level has more truth to it or is more real than a previous level, and hence if you can't properly discriminate between reality and illusion, you are in a senseless position like I said.

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

What? Tell me where that which gives rise to thought is. Where is this source of thought without thought? I've asked you several times and you still avoid the question. Point it out for me. I don't think you know.

Awareness.

[xabir2005]

I suddenly began to see the world through my belly. And from my belly I saw the weird way I saw the world beforehand, which was through the eye.

 

I wrongly conclude that I've always seen through the belly, so that belly-seeing become a permanent habit as the eye-seeing once was.

This is a wrong analogy. First of all, a switch of identity from head to belly, is simply an experience. Just like out of body experience is just an experience.

 

When you have a realisation, it is a realisation that does not come from conclusion, but is a very clear seeing that 'this has always been the case' and leaves no doubt, and requires no interpretation. It is just always and already so, the practitioner understands 'how' reality has always been nondual from beginning(less).

 

The next thing is, you are still talking about switch in identity. I am talking about anatta and non-dual, where there is no identity at all. One realises there is no identity from the beginning as all sensations are simply present and aware where it is. One doesn't just 'experience a state of selflessness', rather one sees how there never was a true identity or self from the beginning, even during times when the person is still 'unenlightened' and holding false identification.

 

The realisation and experience of true anatta and non-duality is as described by daniel and tarin:

 

Daniel Ingram:

 

Let's nail down some various meanings of the word "emptiness" just to try to clarify what we are talking about.

 

These uses are in no particular order:

Emptiness can mean that phenonema, all of them, arise on their own, vanish on their own, and, as they occur as just a part of the universe unfolding and doing its thing, rather than some separate self creating them or being them, they are empty of a permanent, separate self, and instead are just a part of natural reality.

 

Emptiness can mean that as phenomena are aware, which is to say simply manifest, where they are, there is no separate observer of them, and thus are empty of being observed or being an observer.

 

Emptiness can mean Fruition: that gap that is discovered in stream entry and repeated thereafter. This is sometimes purported to be some mysterious well of potential, like the source of all things, but this is pure speculation. Such a thing is not experienced, being a complete discontinuity of the space-time continuum, a complete vanishing and re-appearing of the entire field of reality, including all of space and anything that seems to be self or other, so nothing can be said of it, and all such statements about it being this well of potential or the source of all things can't be substantiated and are pure untested and untestable theory.

 

As the first two definitions are simply ways of rephrasing the universal truths of the two of the Three Characteristics, and the second is an unknowable though attainable entity, does that help clarify the debate or your question?

 

The first two apply to all sensation equally. The second is its own category.

 

Helpful?

 

Daniel

 

Lloth _:

I have an interesting theory, and to get some data points, I would like for people who are along the path tell me where the emptiness seems to reside in their awareness. Is there any specific spot that seems to be the source of the various vibratory sensations. Where does it seem to be located? Does it lean towards a specific side?

 

Tarin:

 

hi lloth,

as, from a vipassana perspective, all sensations can be seen directly as being vibratory, then they, the various vibratory sensations, emanate directly 'from' wherever it is they are/they occur; that is to say, they don't emanate from anywhere *else* at all, they just happen where they do.

however, there is another sense in which i'm aware of vibratory sensations, which is the energetic/affective quality of experience, which i also call the somatic charge. i have found the existence of this affective, or feeling-felt, quality of experience to be clearly dependent on the experience of being (the feeling of being), and i find these sensations (of which the charge is composed) to emanate from a few inches below and behind my navel - the same place i locate the feeling of being.

 

what is your interesting theory?

 

tarin

 

Now, the Buddha had actually said similar things, that everything is AS IT IS and nothing actually emanates from something else, like either the head or the belly or anywhere. There is only ISness of every manifestation which is aware where they are and happening on its own accord without a separate self, agent, or observer, or source. Any sensation that pretends to be an observer split up from another sensation is simply another sensation aware where they are, and everything else is also just more sensations aware where they are, happening on its own accord, without a truly existing self or agent, and nothing can be said (whether head or belly or whatever) to be me or mine, because everything simply sensations manifesting and aware where it is, so it's impossible to separate inner and outer, subject and object, observer and observed.

 

The Buddha said:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

 

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

 

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

 

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of passion, he is devoid of passion, I tell you.

 

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of passion, he is devoid of passion, I tell you.

 

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.

 

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.

 

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

 

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

Edited January 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't think that awareness is a thing, but I still know where "it" is and that it is present. Otherwise, I would have no basis for talking about it. And I CAN find that which I believe to be the "I." So I accept that it is there. But for you, why talk about something that you can't even find? If you can't even point it out to yourself, how do you accept that it is there? Then you are just accepting something on faith.

 

I can find everything that I talk about. I can find dependent arising, I can find impermanence, I can find awareness (though it's not a "thing"), I can find sensations, I can find the "I." Do you know why I talk about these things AT ALL? BECAUSE I CAN FIND THEM IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE. The only thing I can't find and that you can't find is this elusive "I" which you continue to talk about. And I'm sorry, I don't accept that something is there on faith.

 

I told you before that awareness is both formless and in all forms. That is you can see it in all forms since it is actually not separate from all forms yet you can't see it's basic quality of illumination - that is formless.

Why talk about time?

 

Is time faith?

 

Can you find time?

[thuscomeone]

Why talk about time?

 

Is time faith?

 

Can you find time?

I can see time as change, from day to night, as the body getting older, etc.

[thuscomeone]

Awareness.

Ok...in a moment of thought, is there awareness which is the source of thought and then the thought itself? Are there two divided things at that moment?

[Lucky7Strikes]

See this is why I think you are talking about the alaya and you are grasping at it as a separate controller or separate self without really knowing it. The alaya is the basis for all thought (or that which "gives rise" to all thought) since it is the basis of the mind itself and it is that which travels from birth to birth as a non substantial, impermanent and dependently arisen continuity. When you talk about the difference between awareness and thought, would you say that that is analogous to the relationship between space and matter? Here I would be equating the alaya with space and thought with matter. Since the alaya (or space) is the basis of mind itself, it obviously pervades all thoughts (or matter). And you cannot actually separate space and matter, or the alaya and thoughts. There is no space apart from matter. And there is no matter apart from space. So at any given moment when a thought arises, the alaya or space is contained within that and there are not two divided things in that moment. There is not "the source which gives rise to the "I thought" and "the I thought" as two separate/divided things at that moment. Let me ask you and please answer this, when a thought arises, at that moment is there the source which gives rise to the thought or the basis for that thought AND is there the thought itself? Are these two divided things in that moment? This is what I think you are thinking. The way I see it, the "source" that gives rise to, or the basis for that thought itself is not apart from that thought at that moment. It is contained within and it pervades that thought. It is that thought!

Thought is not separate from awareness. But thought is not awareness. Space is not matter. Matter is not space. When there is space, there is matter. When there is matter, there is space. Change happens by matter or space.

 

Thought arises due to patterning of awareness and manifestation's interplay.

 

Alaya is another form of awareness. A habit, a formulation.

 

Not one, not two.

 

I'thought' is not thought. It is I"ness." Whether that I"ness" is in the body, or the mind, a false attachment to inherence, is another story.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I can see time as change, from day to night, as the body getting older, etc.

 

Where is it?

[thuscomeone]

Thought is not separate from awareness. But thought is not awareness. Space is not matter. Matter is not space.

 

Thought arises due to patterning of awareness and manifestation's interplay.

 

Alaya is another form of awareness. A habit, a formulation.

 

Not one, not two.

 

I'thought' is not thought. It is I"ness." Whether that I"ness" is in the body, or the mind, a false attachment to inherence, is another story.

Ok, that's why I'm asking you, at the moment of an arising thought, are there two divided things? The source of the thought itself and the thought? Thought is not thought? So now you are talking about a free floating "I"?

[xabir2005]

Awareness.

Excerpt from http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html

(Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence)

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

..."He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.

Rob Burbea in Realizing the Nature of Mind:

One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

 

This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

 

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

 

The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or classification school.

 

This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha.

 

Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate.

 

However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.

 

If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.

 

Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.

 

Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.

 

p.s. With due respects to Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is a venerable from the Theravadin tradition of Buddhism, his comments on "the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa" is not in accord with what is taught in the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions, since in these traditions the Dharmakaya (dharma body)/Buddha Nature/Rigpa is explained as empty as well. It is however a common misunderstanding even among Buddhists.

 

Also see: Rigpa and Aggregates

 

As my friend Vajrahridaya said:

Ah, but this is not at all what Rigpa or Dharmakaya means. Rigpa is basically the consciousness of emptiness of dependent origination, so also originates dependently and is not some self supporting universal awareness. But since all aspects of the so called "universe" are inherently empty always, so Rigpa is always, only in as much as it is recognized.

 

p.s. Namdrol could clear this up, as he has access to untranslated Tibetan texts and could talk about what Rigpa means. He has said that it is not established as well. Rigpa is only inherent in the sense that all compounded things are inherently empty always. Just like the Buddhas first statement. "Mind and it's phenomena are luminous, uncompounded and free since beginningless time." Or something to that effect in maybe not that order. If someone has the quote?

Edited January 25, 2010 by xabir2005