"there is such a self"

[Marblehead]

Fine quotes Xabir,

I submit a further extrapolation for any interested:

 

Through the examination of luminosity we see the un-nameable,

and through the examination the un-nameable such talk ends.

 

Om

 

Nice, Bob. Except I would use the word 'realize' instead of 'see'.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Fine quotes Xabir,

I submit a further extrapolation for any interested:

 

Through the examination of luminosity we see the un-nameable,

and through the examination the un-nameable such talk ends.

 

Om

Very good. Indeed luminosity can only be 'touched' directly without analysis and inference and anything secondary. It is just this direct naked perception of innate aliveness and knowing. However after recognising the luminosity in the gap between thoughts, we can too examine the luminosity and emptiness of thoughts and speech, which means to directly recognise the nature of thoughts 'nakedly' and 'directly'. Then we will see that as Thusness puts it in the past, To know the pathless, see words and wordlessness as one. Non-conceptuality is just the beginning, it is far from the totality of our marvelous nature's manifestation. Use words and engage in speeches, dirty your hands and walk on!

 

We will also understand what Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra is conveying with the excerpt:

 

Then the venerable Sariputra said to the goddess, "Goddess, how long have you been in this house?"

 

The goddess replied, "I have been here as long as the elder has been in liberation."

 

Sariputra said, "Then, have you been in this house for quite some time?"

 

The goddess said, "Has the elder been in liberation for quite some time?"

 

At that, the elder Sariputra fell silent.

 

The goddess continued, "Elder, you are 'foremost of the wise!' Why do you not speak? Now, when it is your turn, you do not answer the question."

 

Sariputra: Since liberation is inexpressible, goddess, I do not know what to say.

Goddess: All the syllables pronounced by the elder have the nature of liberation. Why? Liberation is neither internal nor external, nor can it be apprehended apart from them. Likewise, syllables are neither internal nor external, nor can they be apprehended anywhere else. Therefore, reverend Sariputra, do not point to liberation by abandoning speech! Why? The holy liberation is the equality of all things!

 

Sariputra: Goddess, is not liberation the freedom from desire, hatred, and folly?

 

Goddess: "Liberation is freedom from desire, hatred, and folly" that is the teaching of the excessively proud. But those free of pride are taught that the very nature of desire, hatred, and folly is itself liberation.

 

Here's an excerpt that Thusness was impressed with and told me that it is conveying the same message he was telling me after I wrote my experience in 'certainty of being'.

 

From http://www.scribd.com/doc/14021456/Thrangu-RinpochePointing-Out-of-Dharmakaya-of-IX-Karmapa

 

Thrangu Rinpoche:

....Although one recognizes the cognitive lucidity or the lucidity of awareness within emptiness, there are different ways that this might be recognized. For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish.

 

The word naked is used a great deal at this point in the text. And the word naked here has a very specific and important meaning because it is used to distinguish between understanding and experience, that is to say, understanding and recognition. it is very easy to confuse one's understanding for an experience or a recognition. One might understand something about the mind and therefore think that one had recognized it directly. Here, the use of the term "naked" means "direct;" that is to say, something that is experienced nakedly or directly in the sense that the experience is free from the overlay of concepts.

 

Whereas normally we have the attitude that thought is something we must get rid of, in this case it is made clear that it is important not to get rid of thought, but to recognize its nature, and indeed, not only the nature of thought but the nature of stillness must be recognized. In particular, with regard to thought, as long as we do not recognize its nature, of course thought poses a threat to meditation and becomes an impediment. But once the nature of thought has been correctly recognized, thought itself becomes the meditative state and therefore it is often said that "the root of meditation is recognizing the nature of thought."

 

There lived in the eighteenth century a great Gelugpa teacher named Changkya Rolpe Dorje, who from his early youth displayed the signs of being an extraordinary person. He became particularly learned and also very realized, and at one point he composed a song called 'Recognizing Mother.' 'Mother' in his song is the word he uses to refer to dharmata or the nature of one's mind. This song was so extraordinary that a commentary was written about it by Khenchen Mipam Rinpoche. In this song, Changkya Rolpe Dorje makes a very clear distinction between recognizing and not recognizing the nature of one's mind. In one part of the song he says, "Nowadays we scholars of the Gelugpa tradition, in discarding these appearances of the mind as the basis for the realization of emptiness and of the basis for the negation of true existence, and in searching for something beyond this to refute, something beyond this to negate in order to realize emptiness, have left our old mother behind; in other words, we have missed the point of emptiness."

 

Changkya Rolpe Dorje gives another image for this mistake that we tend to make. he says that we are like a small child who is sitting in his mother's lap but forgetting where he is, looks for his mother everywhere; looks above, below, left and right and is unable to see his mother and becomes quite agitated. Along comes the child's older brother, and the image the older brother represents is both the understanding of interdependence and the recognition of the nature of thought. The older brother reminds the child by saying, "Your mother is right here, you are in her lap." In the same way, the nature of our mind or emptiness is with us all the time, we tend to look for it indirectly; we look for it somewhere outside ourselves, somewhere far away. And yet we do not need to look far away if we simply view the nature of thought as it is."...

Edited March 27, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Can't exactly fault what you said here, as it is true that both subject and object are equally empty.

 

However I would also add that 'No I' does not deny Witnessing consciousness, and 'No Phenomena' does not deny Phenomena. (not that Witnessing Consciousness and Phenomena are two different poles, anyway) The teaching of 'No I', 'No Phenomena' is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs, it does not deny the experience of 'witnessing consciousness'/'phenomena'/'aggregates'.

I don't see a difference between mental constructs and reality. The habits generated from attachments to an "I" is why this world is experience by a particular min-stream. It isn't that there is an objective world "out there" or any established aggregates. The basis for creation is precisely the simultaneous rising (this is not a good word here, because nothing can be said to have "risen," the very nature of existence is the relationship between the subject and object (like a formula), but both are empty because both have no findable reality or substance to them. Chandrakirti delves into this as he disproves the reality of phenomena and the meaning of production, and likewise the falsity of finding an "I."

 

When you experience what is called Witnessing Consciousness, commonly reified as the Eternal Witness or I AM, the experience itself is undeniable. You cannot deny that the Witnessing is present. There is an undeniable certainty of being beyond all mental constructs. Those who experience it, which I think you did, will not be able to deny it. Even as a Buddhist, I cannot deny this (and Buddha too have not denied this), as I too have witnessed with undeniable certainty, or rather a natural certainty and confidence and trust is present in the fundamental sense of being. That is why dwai is so adamant that beyond all mental constructs there is something undeniably present which he clearly experienced.

Yes, the fundamental "beingness" can never be denied because it is a crucial element ot any sort of existence. It can't be said that there is existence without the "beingness," but the great thing about Buddhism is, as you say, this is not attributed to a form or a formless manifestation, but rather a "dependent" manifestation on non other than form. So its nature of existence is not any different than form or formless, in that it is also empty. It is like a Law that there is this luminous clear witnessing, but at once there is that which is witnessed, (both are verbs, not nouns) and I see no other way to see existence.

 

So if regards to 'arising and passing phenomena' there is the sensation of certain and unshakable confidence just as one previously had with the I AM experience or in other words seeing all experience as having One Taste, and as such the aggregates cannot be denied, what is it we are denying? It is the mental constructs that we impose on this. Very subtle mental constructs, which is to subjectify and objectify our experience. To reify something into something solid, permanent, independent, ultimate, etc.

 

Similarly the Buddha never denied the aggregates. He just denied the selfhood and the inherency of those aggregates. The problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature of phenomena and 'I'. This is to be contemplated on.

The aggregates are not denied because they are real conventionally, I agree with that. But they also have no reality to them except that is given by the illusional sense of "I" and the part karmic imprints (such as this body) let happen.

 

I have found are difference in regards to this very concept. When there is a delusional "self" there is free will, because the "I," in its delusioned existence continues to create form, take new form, and by the very nature of "reaction" karma is implanted in existence. Karma is created again and again by the delusional "I"'s actions and wills, and it suffers from the risings and fallings of its own, self. Hence this is how suffering comes about: it's not that there is free will or no free will, it's that free will is like the "aggregates" and "self" in that it is a conventional, but non the less dependently established concept.

 

Now then,

 

When one investigates into reality and sees that there is no self established, no aggregates established, and the luminosity and form, and their manifestation (but in reality, both have given "rise" to another, both are unborn, empty imputations), are all imputations of dependence, the past Karmic imprints are played out. This is why they often say the Sage fulfills his destiny, one's existence is itself the Path into the pathless land. One's life simply plays itself out, as a perfect harmony between the luminous Being and its Form are complete (Buddhahood), one with the Way (Way is used as a verb here!)

 

There two guidelines really sums things up:

 

1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.

 

2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

When the 'idea' of Taoism, gave rise to the idea of 'Taoists', the 'ideas' became fertilizer for so much nonsense disguised as 'Taoism'.. Before there were Taoists, there were people that represented the 'Way',and.. the respect for their Clarity, spontaneity, gusto, and sincerity for Life gave rise to the ideas that became the fertilizer.. and, the best fertilizer is usually 'manure'.. below, is some of the best fertilizer i've observed in a while..

When one investigates into reality and sees that there is no self established, no aggregates established, and the luminosity and form, and their manifestation (but in reality, both have given "rise" to another, both are unborn, empty imputations), are all imputations of dependence, the past Karmic imprints are played out. This is why they often say the Sage fulfills his destiny, one's existence is itself the Path into the pathless land. One's life simply plays itself out, as a perfect harmony between the luminous Being and its Form are complete (Buddhahood), one with the Way (Way is used as a verb here!)

 

There two guidelines really sums things up:

 

1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.

 

2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.

 

I hope i don't need to be more clear, as gentleness suits the occasion, but.. this sort of delusionary thought is an aspect of Tao that a self-respecting 'Bum' would cover-up with dirt or 'dispose of properly'..

 

So, if you 'still the mind'.. the conceptual babble quoted above simply vanishes, revealing Life, clearly..

 

Be well..

[dwai]

I don't see a difference between mental constructs and reality. The habits generated from attachments to an "I" is why this world is experience by a particular min-stream. It isn't that there is an objective world "out there" or any established aggregates. The basis for creation is precisely the simultaneous rising (this is not a good word here, because nothing can be said to have "risen," the very nature of existence is the relationship between the subject and object (like a formula), but both are empty because both have no findable reality or substance to them. Chandrakirti delves into this as he disproves the reality of phenomena and the meaning of production, and likewise the falsity of finding an "I."

 

 

Yes, the fundamental "beingness" can never be denied because it is a crucial element ot any sort of existence. It can't be said that there is existence without the "beingness," but the great thing about Buddhism is, as you say, this is not attributed to a form or a formless manifestation, but rather a "dependent" manifestation on non other than form. So its nature of existence is not any different than form or formless, in that it is also empty. It is like a Law that there is this luminous clear witnessing, but at once there is that which is witnessed, (both are verbs, not nouns) and I see no other way to see existence.

 

The subject exists without an object, because the subject is self-aware, self-luminous and has no need for objects. It is not possible to know "Why" then objects arise....because the Subject is beyond the realm of objective analysis.

 

 

The aggregates are not denied because they are real conventionally, I agree with that. But they also have no reality to them except that is given by the illusional sense of "I" and the part karmic imprints (such as this body) let happen.

 

I have found are difference in regards to this very concept. When there is a delusional "self" there is free will, because the "I," in its delusioned existence continues to create form, take new form, and by the very nature of "reaction" karma is implanted in existence. Karma is created again and again by the delusional "I"'s actions and wills, and it suffers from the risings and fallings of its own, self. Hence this is how suffering comes about: it's not that there is free will or no free will, it's that free will is like the "aggregates" and "self" in that it is a conventional, but non the less dependently established concept.

 

Now then,

 

When one investigates into reality and sees that there is no self established, no aggregates established, and the luminosity and form, and their manifestation (but in reality, both have given "rise" to another, both are unborn, empty imputations), are all imputations of dependence, the past Karmic imprints are played out. This is why they often say the Sage fulfills his destiny, one's existence is itself the Path into the pathless land. One's life simply plays itself out, as a perfect harmony between the luminous Being and its Form are complete (Buddhahood), one with the Way (Way is used as a verb here!)

 

There two guidelines really sums things up:

 

1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.

 

2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.

 

All this is simply an elaborate hoax to delude oneself into adhering with misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what tries to pass off as Buddhism. It is sad that Buddhists don't understand what Buddha said...they cling to words merely.

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Sunya]

The subject exists without an object, because the subject is self-aware, self-luminous and has no need for objects. It is not possible to know "Why" then objects arise....because the Subject is beyond the realm of objective analysis.

 

 

 

All this is simply an elaborate hoax to delude oneself into adhering with misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what tries to pass off as Buddhism. It is sad that Buddhists don't understand what Buddha said...they cling to words merely.

 

[xabir2005]

The subject exists without an object, because the subject is self-aware, self-luminous and has no need for objects. It is not possible to know "Why" then objects arise....because the Subject is beyond the realm of objective analysis.

In that case, rest in objectless Self. Edited March 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I don't see a difference between mental constructs and reality. The habits generated from attachments to an "I" is why this world is experience by a particular min-stream. It isn't that there is an objective world "out there" or any established aggregates. The basis for creation is precisely the simultaneous rising (this is not a good word here, because nothing can be said to have "risen," the very nature of existence is the relationship between the subject and object (like a formula), but both are empty because both have no findable reality or substance to them. Chandrakirti delves into this as he disproves the reality of phenomena and the meaning of production, and likewise the falsity of finding an "I."

Let's examine this a bit.

 

The vision of colours, shapes, (not that they are in any way inherent) cannot be denied. For example if we hear a sound, and then perceive it as an object out there separate from us as a separate observer, the sound being an object that exists 'objectively in the world' at a distance so the speak, then that is the result of mental constructs. The subject-object and inherency construct is so deeply embedded in our consciousness that we will not be able to know how to let go of it, or even that it is affecting us in so many ways every moment of our lives, until insight into the nature of reality arises.

 

However in direct non-conceptual perception, a separate observer, nor a thing observed cannot be found. If we deconstruct the deep held mental constructs of subject, object, distance, etc, the experience will be that "these coloured shapes present themselves in all its simplicity, without any such complications as near or far, this or that, mine or not mine, seen-by-me or merely given. All twoness -- all duality of subject and object -- has vanished: it is no longer read into a situation which has no room for it"

 

But mental constructs go deeper than subject-object duality. For if you experience non-duality, you still may be attached to inherency. For example, in the non-conceptual, direct and non-dual experience of "redness of a flower", the "redness" is vividly clear. Yet there is also a belief that 'redness' is real, true, inherent. Doesn't it?

 

'Redness' is similar to 'self'. Both 'redness' and 'self' are equally certain, doubtless and vividly clear from a direct, non-conceptual, non-dual mode of perception, yet they are empty, like the explanation I gave previously regarding the red flower:

 

Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena.

 

As you've seen, there is no ‘The Flowerness’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). ‘'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This is the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attributelessness of our nature.

 

So anyway, a practitioner may have a non-dual, non-conceptual experience yet still have an inherent view. The experience however cannot be denied though.

 

As the Buddha puts it: ..."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.

 

"When hearing...

 

"When sensing...

 

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

 

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...

 

 

The experience of seeing, sensing, hearing, all are not denied. What is denied is a cognizer and an object cognized. What is denied is selfhood. What is denied is things existing inherently. However it would be too much to say that aggregates are denied... with regards to the experience of aggregates, selfhood is clearly denied to exist in or apart from aggregates, and the aggregates are further emptied (heart sutra), but that does not mean they are non-existent in experience. Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

 

Anyway, you're right, there is seeing/perceptions, but there is no seer and no world seen.

 

p.s. You are right and a practitioner must clearly understand how the entire experience is shaped and also the implications if such dualistic and inherent perception is gone.

 

Mental constructs is part of experience affecting us almost every moment of our unawakened lives, blinding us, like a spell. However it is possible to experience life without the filtering of mental constructs or concepts. That is direct experience. Eventually though we will be able to perceive directly both non-conceptual and conceptual thoughts as of equal nature and essence, and there is no binding quality to them.

 

Also, there are other aspects of mental constructs I have not discussed, for example seeing a tree unlike hearing a sound or 'redness of flower' involves other aspects related to the 'spatial or inherent' aspect of mental constructs, hence having direct and non-dual experience of 'sound' does not imply that one will also have direct and non-dual experience of viewing a 'tree'.

I have found are difference in regards to this very concept. When there is a delusional "self" there is free will, because the "I," in its delusioned existence continues to create form, take new form, and by the very nature of "reaction" karma is implanted in existence. Karma is created again and again by the delusional "I"'s actions and wills, and it suffers from the risings and fallings of its own, self. Hence this is how suffering comes about: it's not that there is free will or no free will, it's that free will is like the "aggregates" and "self" in that it is a conventional, but non the less dependently established concept.

Yes. Free will and determinism are deeply held mental constructs with relation to a self, and once seen as 'void', there won't be attachment to such concepts. For conventional purposes we continue to speak and act as if there is free will, but our experience will be ongoing authentication with reality, there will be very little thoughts and thoughts that arise will not bind. One knows conventions but perceives reality. Edited March 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

 

When the 'idea' of Taoism, gave rise to the idea of 'Taoists', the 'ideas' became fertilizer for so much nonsense disguised as 'Taoism'.. Before there were Taoists, there were people that represented the 'Way',and.. the respect for their Clarity, spontaneity, gusto, and sincerity for Life gave rise to the ideas that became the fertilizer.. and, the best fertilizer is usually 'manure'.. below, is some of the best fertilizer i've observed in a while..

 

 

I hope i don't need to be more clear, as gentleness suits the occasion, but.. this sort of delusionary thought is an aspect of Tao that a self-respecting 'Bum' would cover-up with dirt or 'dispose of properly'..

 

So, if you 'still the mind'.. the conceptual babble quoted above simply vanishes, revealing Life, clearly..

 

Be well..

It will be a mistake to think that a practitioner has not directly experienced non-conceptuality. It is more appropriate to see from the angle that those practitioners that are discussing this have quite thorough experience of non-conceptuality, and for Lucky he has had direct experience and insight into the luminous nature. They are saying the subtle tendencies continue to have influence over a practitioner that has matured his non-conceptual experience. As I wrote in my previous post, ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state. Edited March 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[Athanor]

Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the "redness" only appears to "belong" to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the "redness" an attribute of the mind. If given a "quantum eyesight" to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute "redness" anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or "redness" -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena.

Let us not forget what makes a color in reality. Although "red" is a concept we create, it refers to a real phenomenon. Red is a light wave that has a frequency of approximately 430–480 THz. Although what we call "red" may be perceived differently in case of each individual, the red is generally this specific frequency of the light.

What gives a color to something is none other than the atomic structure of the surface of the very thing itself, collided by photons. When photons hit the surface of the thing, the light wave's wavelength (and the frequency) alters according to the atomic structure. This makes it possible that the same light can show something red, while another thing blue, or whatsoever color.

 

I just want to say with this that although color is not the parameter of the thing perceived, it is still a parameter of something. It's just that the something is not the observed thing but the medium, the information channel which makes it possible to perceive: light itself.

 

We should not leave the medium of perception out of the equation.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Athanor

[xabir2005]

Let us not forget what makes a color in reality. Although "red" is a concept we create, it refers to a real phenomenon. Red is a light wave that has a frequency of approximately 430–480 THz. Although what we call "red" may be perceived differently in case of each individual, the red is generally this specific frequency of the light.

What gives a color to something is none other than the atomic structure of the surface of the very thing itself, collided by photons. When photons hit the surface of the thing, the light wave's wavelength (and the frequency) alters according to the atomic structure. This makes it possible that the same light can show something red, while another thing blue, or whatsoever color.

 

I just want to say with this that although color is not the parameter of the thing perceived, it is still a parameter of something. It's just that the something is not the observed thing but the medium, the information channel which makes it possible to perceive: light itself.

 

We should not leave the medium of perception out of the equation.

And what light is is another issue, if you investigate light, you will probably be able to say things about it but what we observe about light is also dependently originated and empty, and depends on the way you investigate it. There is nothing inherent to light as well.

 

I like the explanation of rizenfenix, a very experienced yogi whose explanation on this matter is very similar to Thusness's:

 

Emptiness and the Middle Way

 

An object is seen by a hundred different people like a hundred reflections in a hundred mirrors. But is it the same object? As a first approximation, it’s the same object, but one that can be perceived in completely different ways by different beings. Only one who has attained enlightenment recognizes the object’s ultimate nature – that it appears, but is devoid of any intrinsic existence – as the direct contemplation of absolute truth transcends any intellectual concept, any duality between subject and object.

 

Buddhism’s position is that of the ‘Middle Way: the world isn’t a projection of our minds, but it isn’t totally independent of our minds, either – because it makes no sense to speak of a particular, fixed reality independent of any concept, mental process, or observer. Rather there is interdependence. In this manner, Buddhism avoids falling into either nihilism or eternalism. Phenomena arise through a process of interdependent causes and conditions, but nothing exists in itself or by itself.

 

Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it.

Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way.

 

That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.

Edited March 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

In that case, rest in objectless Self.

 

A why? For without Love this is all more or less the, "Vanity of vanities"

 

Om

Edited March 28, 2010 by 3bob

[Athanor]

And what light is is another issue, if you investigate light, you will probably be able to say things about it but what we observe about light is also dependently originated and empty, and depends on the way you investigate it. There is nothing inherent to light as well.

You might be right.

 

the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we'd all perceive it in the same way.

Like Einstein said: "You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew."

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It will be a mistake to think that a practitioner has not directly experienced non-conceptuality. It is more appropriate to see from the angle that those practitioners that are discussing this have quite thorough experience of non-conceptuality, and for Lucky he has had direct experience and insight into the luminous nature. They are saying the subtle tendencies continue to have influence over a practitioner that has matured his non-conceptual experience. As I wrote in my previous post, ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state.

The perspective of the 'stilled mind' reveals the pride of intellectualism.. which is an aspect of 'Tao' at odds with its own 'nature'.. but, that's 'Tao'..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

 

 

The perspective of the 'stilled mind' reveals the pride of intellectualism.. which is an aspect of 'Tao' at odds with its own 'nature'.. but, that's 'Tao'..

 

Be well..

There is often the perspective that spirituality should remain simple, that it's about cultivating simple mindedly, being detached, stilling mind, etc. Though developing stillness or samadhi is important, by itself it does not result in liberating insights.

 

As Thusness puts it to one of the forummers in my Buddhist forum: I see it otherwise. Dharma is deep and profound.

 

Even if we were to search the entire globe, still it is hard to find one that can be completely detached. Try as we may, ‘attachment’ continues to arise. The reason being detachment is not a matter of ‘will’, it is a matter of prajna wisdom and only in Buddhism this is pointed out and for this I am grateful to Buddha.

 

Although it is not right to spout high views, it is also important not to over simplify matters. In my view, if our mind is filled with ‘dualistic and inherent thoughts’, even with utmost sincerity and honesty in practice, there is still no true ‘detachment’.

 

 

I often see a reluctance to grapple with issues related to developing insights/wisdom. Of course such discussions should not be discussed for purely intellectual purposes, but should relate to our direct experience -- emptiness/dependent origination is not just a concept but can be directly realised. But if we are inclined to be too simplistic and disregard the view, then insights also cannot develope, or rather one might be able to have some insights but will be unable to give rise to the insight of emptiness/"non-inherent existence". Understanding the teachings of emptiness is an important antidote to our deeply rooted inherent/dualistic tendencies, and will not be up-rooted by simply being 'naked in awareness' or in 'stillness' (but may be temporarily suppressed). Insight however is what liberates. Understanding is not the insight, but it is important firsthand to establish the view. Then through investigating directly our experience, insight can arise.

 

I like what meditation teacher Rob Burbea says about this in Realizing the Nature of Mind:

 

...Last thing I want to say, I’m aware talking about these stuff, that it lands in very different places for very different reasons for people. And it could seem, I hope it didn’t, but it could seem that all these is almost an hour's worth of quibbling, an hour's worth of sort of petty wrangling about some kind of intellectual something or rather it might seem that way.

 

But one of the things I want to say is, it’s very easy in the Dharma after a long time of practice, to sort of hear this kind of talk and say, “well, I don’t want to quibble. Does it really matter? It’s all good, you say this, you say that, he says that, it’s all good. Let’s all be friends, and we can all be happy together.” And that kind of attitude again is very popular. I think it’s quite popular in the west. I think contrary to the self-image that we have, we actually don’t like debating with each other and wrangling out these points, we actually don’t like it. We prefer this kind of “it’s all good”, but there’s something that happens if I don’t grapple with these questions. When people in the Dharma look at me from the outside, and if my attitude is you know, “all this is the mind getting into complications and arguing”, if that’s what I say and it’s like I’m not gonna get into that, what it’s gonna look like, what it can look like from the outside is, “there’s someone really peaceful and wise and not engaging in da da da…”

 

But if I’m not grappling with these questions, although it might look like there’s some peace and freedom here, I don’t think that the deeper level of freedom will be arrived at. Like I said, I think it’s almost inevitable that at points in the unfolding of insights there’s going to be agitation. There’s going to be difficulty, there’s going to be frustration, there’s going to be confusion, there’s going to be a wrestling with these things. That deep freedom won’t be discovered unless we grapple with these stuff at some point in our practice whenever that is. And I hope it doesn’t sound intellectual tonight, it might have, I hope it didn’t. And that’s really not the point. What I really wanted to unfold is something we can see in practice through developing practice in the right ways.

 

There’s not one way of going about this but there’s ways that will unfold this. And what one sees is that different levels of freedom, unmistakably different levels of freedom open up in one’s experience. Different levels of freedom and release. And going through that, one sees, one understands this building process. Oh, goodness me, this whole structure of reality, what seemed to be a self, and a world and things, and time, and awareness, everything in space, everything I took for granted, is actually built. And I’ve understood that because I’ve gone through it and kind of unbuild it, and unbind it. And then one realizes almost in hind sight that one was either consciously or unconsciously giving things – the things of this world, subtle things and gross things, giving them an inherent existence, seeing them as possessing inherent existence. Ascribing to them an inherent existence.

 

Usually we unwittingly do that. So a good rule of thumb, (you know we talk about the emptiness of this, the emptiness of that, and the emptiness of all things and blah blah blah) to actually safely assume that you are giving something an inherent existence – in other words not seeing it’s empty, unless you’re really deliberately seeing it's empty. In other words the default mode the mind gives inherent existence to things all the time, and that’s what the Buddha called delusion, the fundamental level of delusion.

 

The thing I really want to emphasize is the possibility of practice to actually discover this in a real way, a way that can be brought into the life and have an enormous impact in our sense of freedom in life. That’s possible and developable for us in this room as practitioners. It’s just a matter of finding the way for that unbuilding, that unpacking, that seeing of emptiness to happen. That is possible, there’s no reason why it cannot be or shouldn’t be. If we care deeply, as I said if we don’t really want to grapple with it, it’s not like it’s like it’s suddenly gonna be known to us at a heart level. So it’s something really possible for us as practitioners.

Edited March 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

For some unknown reason I just feel like saying this:

 

I like Dwai's understanding of Buddhism.

 

No, I am not going to become a Buddhist - I will remain a Taoist.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

As Thusness puts it to one of the forummers in my Buddhist forum: I see it otherwise. Dharma is deep and profound.

I do not disagree. but, i see no need for complexity or intellectualism to reveal the depth or profundity.. what i see/experience in forums such as this, are intellectual battles over conceptual territory.. which can be greatly rewarding to one's self-image if one is successful at defending their conceptual territory, or destroying an opponent's conceptual territory.. but, Life, the Universe, and our local environment continues, unconcerned with great battles when the battles are waged on imaginary battlefields..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

 

 

I do not disagree. but, i see no need for complexity or intellectualism to reveal the depth or profundity.. what i see/experience in forums such as this, are intellectual battles over conceptual territory.. which can be greatly rewarding to one's self-image if one is successful at defending their conceptual territory, or destroying an opponent's conceptual territory.. but, Life, the Universe, and our local environment continues, unconcerned with great battles when the battles are waged on imaginary battlefields..

 

Be well..

I see what you mean. What you said is true but pointing out the differences between non-duality, non-conceptuality and emptiness is important. There maybe better, simple and more direct way but at present, I am still unable to find a short cut. However there is no such intentions here to engage in 'battles' but I'm not sure if it may appear that way to some people.. Edited March 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[ralis]

[Marblehead]

Your use of the pronouns "we and you" to posit a common unifying absolute experience i.e, a Buddhist experience, that you assume all humans must share can be very patronizing.

 

ralis

 

Yep. Any time we use the words "You" and "I" we are speaking from the Taoist Manifest whether we like it or not.

 

And if we use the word "We" what follows must be so for everyone the statement is directed toward so the use of "We' in these type of discussions would be very, very limited.

 

"You" and "I" are two distinctly separate objects.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Yep. Any time we use the words "You" and "I" we are speaking from the Taoist Manifest whether we like it or not.

 

And if we use the word "We" what follows must be so for everyone the statement is directed toward so the use of "We' in these type of discussions would be very, very limited.

 

"You" and "I" are two distinctly separate objects.

 

Peace & Love!

 

And may I add, unique objects.

 

Some of the Buddhists that post here never define who their audience is. Are they writing from an editorial perspective? An editor can use "we" in place of "in my opinion". If not,then it comes across as proselytizing and spreading the Dharma. I would define that as fundamentalism.

 

ralis

Edited March 28, 2010 by ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

Your use of the pronouns "we and you" to posit a common unifying absolute experience i.e, a Buddhist experience, that you assume all humans must share can be very patronizing.

 

ralis

I just copied and pasted a quote of Thusness Xabir posted earlier because I thought it was a good reply to TzuJanLi's emphasis on stillness/non-conceptual thought.

 

I believe Thusness wrote that directed to a student.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Edited March 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

In that case, rest in objectless Self.

 

Thank you. Wish you the same