More nails in the Coffin of the non-existent Self

[3bob]

The Theravadin Maha-parinibbana Sutta, you mean?

 

Well, he was still not an Arhant then - he only becomes an Arhant 3 weeks after Buddha's passing.

 

Anyway, different schools arose due to many reasons, not just one.

 

Yes Sir, the Theravadin Maha-parinibbana Sutta.

 

"Anyway, different schools arose due to many reasons, not just one." Agreed, we could name the reason the law of permutations... which apply to all things in time and space.

 

Om

btw, I mostly like short posts, no way in heck can I keep up with you guys and the vast amount of goings on.

[3bob]

We have discussed the difference between states and insights. But you have obviously missed it. .

 

I didn't read all of the back and forth along these lines but I'll barge in here and say that enlightenment is also the natural nature spoken of in the Upanishads and other Vedic/Hindu teachings... as to defining "enlighenment" that is a big nut to try and crack conceptually which often ends up in butting heads. (and often in breaking the foundational law of non-violence common to both traditions)

 

Om

Edited August 3, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

I didn't read all of the back and forth along these lines but I'll barge in here and say that enlightenment is also the natural nature spoken of in the Upanishads and other Vedic/Hindu teachings... as to defining "enlighenment" that is a big nut to try and crack conceptually which often ends up in butting heads. (and often in breaking the foundational law of non-violence common to both traditions)

 

Om

 

 

The Buddha didn't subvert the Vedas for no reason, which he did plenty of times in the Suttas. Study up!

 

The Upanishads state that enlightenment is a continual state of absorption and integration with absorption, rather than a cutting through as in the Buddhas teaching.

 

Hindu and Buddhist traditions do not at all agree on what Moksha actually is. The subtlety of the Buddhas approach is the reality of his transcendent insight. It's not as simple as quieting the mind and freeing it from concepts, that's merely a formless absorption which the Buddha warned more than a few times against identifying with as absolute "Truth." It's about knowing directly how exactly the cosmos works and comes into expression each and every moment, not merely living from a state of seemingly free bliss that lasts only till the end of this cosmic eon. When the Buddha talked about omniscience, he was truly talking about knowing directly and always how nature works, not merely falling into some space of empty illumination as an identity.

 

Keep at your studies though... they always bare fruit. But, remember that the seeds you plant reflect the fruit they deliver... as dependent origination demands.

[3bob]

The Buddha didn't subvert the Vedas for no reason, which he did plenty of times in the Suttas. Study up!

 

The Upanishads state that enlightenment is a continual state of absorption and integration with absorption, rather than a cutting through as in the Buddhas teaching.

 

Hindu and Buddhist traditions do not at all agree on what Moksha actually is. The subtlety of the Buddhas approach is the reality of his transcendent insight. It's not as simple as quieting the mind and freeing it from concepts, that's merely a formless absorption which the Buddha warned more than a few times against identifying with as absolute "Truth." It's about knowing directly how exactly the cosmos works and comes into expression each and every moment, not merely living from a state of seemingly free bliss that lasts only till the end of this cosmic eon. When the Buddha talked about omniscience, he was truly talking about knowing directly and always how nature works, not merely falling into some space of empty illumination as an identity.

 

Keep at your studies though... they always bare fruit. But, remember that the seeds you plant reflect the fruit they deliver... as dependent origination demands.

 

VJ, Are you compelled to butt heads no matter what? You silly wabbit.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I didn't read all of the back and forth along these lines but I'll barge in here and say that enlightenment is also the natural nature spoken of in the Upanishads and other Vedic/Hindu teachings... as to defining "enlighenment" that is a big nut to try and crack conceptually which often ends up in butting heads. (and often in breaking the foundational law of non-violence common to both traditions)

 

Om

You're right. It was a bit irrelevant and a whole another topic.

 

Haha, that was short enough!

Edited August 3, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

VJ, Are you compelled to butt heads no matter what? You silly wabbit.

 

No, I just disagree with your experiential excuse for a conclusion of everything.

 

So yes... I will state as such. Probably with much less tact than the Buddha. Excuse me for such.

[xabir2005]

I hope this now ends any further discussions regarding Self and non-Self teachings with you. Your position is now clear. You will not change or consider changing your views and have never considered to do so. You seldom share from experience and respond not in a critical manner, because you simply cannot, holding to the conviction that these anonymous internet users do not deserve a place in consideration compared to your real life teachers. I will now keep my thoughts to myself, because you have cut off your ears here. "Sharing" is not the correct word in this case.

Often, a teacher is useful in the path and leads you a step forward. But at the same time, total faith in a teacher often prevents/limits progress. Thusness had to break Longchen/Simpo's (who was at the I AM stage at that time) faith in a particular teacher for him to progress to Anatta and Emptiness realization. Even though Thusness and Longchen never met, Longchen was able to put aside his belief and investigate for himself... this is how he gained a higher level of realization and now has experiential insight of anatta and D.O./emptiness.

 

Thusness also had to break my faith in a particular teacher some years ago for me to have a better understanding of the maps - he later admitted that he was in fact, trying to 'break' my faith. (well, he didn't really 'break' my faith so to speak, but lift the veils so that I can see how the insights progress and not be blinded by faith on what a particular teacher says) *update: see bottom of post*

 

I was dis-illusioned by the 'grandeur' of guru types on a high pedestal, so to speak. They are simply ordinary beings like us who have some insights and realizations, that's all, we too can gain these insights ourselves. Furthermore being a guru by no means mean they are perfect beings, or have perfect enlightenment - there is always room for improvement. Nevertheless they may have valuable insights to share or learn from. I do not believe in a 'perfect guru', but I simply learn what I can from those teachers and even ordinary forummers and practitioners, I still have teachers, but I don't have blind faith.

 

This is why I like Dharma Overground:

 

In general our basic principles and attitudes favor:

 

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest

 

* pragmatism over dogmatism: what works is key, with works generally meaning the stages of insight, the stages of enlightenment, jhanas, etc.

* diligent practice over blind faith: this place is about doing it and understanding for yourself rather than believing someone else and not testing those beliefs out

* openness regarding what the techniques may lead to and how these contrast or align with the traditional models

* person responsibility: you take responsibility for the choices you make and what you say and claim

* a lack of taboos surrounding talking about attainments

* the assumption that the various aspects of meditative development can be mastered in this life

* the spirit of mutual, supportive adventurers on the path rather than rigid student-teacher relationships

* and the notion that the collective wisdom of a group of strong practitioners at various stages and from various traditions and backgrounds is often better than following one guru-type.

Edited August 3, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

No, I just disagree with your experiential excuse for a conclusion of everything.

 

So yes... I will state as such. Probably with much less tact than the Buddha. Excuse me for such.

 

The only tact VJ understands are the ones he uses to stick a piece of paper on a wall.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Lucky7Strikes:

 

After considering many aspects of Buddhist thought I discarded it for the dual model of Consciousness and Object because of the problem of "free will" (but that is another discussion). Like you, I tried to make sense of it, which was a mistake and when it didn't make "sense" to my liking, I couldn't agree with it. But during meditation, Kunlun, etc, I realized that the very concept of Background or Watcher was very detrimental to exploring and evolving into newer ground of experience that my body (I was not consciously doing this) was trying to break through (Kunlun does this through two aspects). It was as if I had let go of thoughts, but then clung to a state of consciousness that was supposedly behind those thoughts, a new "entity" of sorts. There was a dropping of thoughts only to come to another level of "thoughts." I felt that the progress I was making through Kunlun and meditation was continually shifting and challenging this "ground."

 

So for sometime I gave to the mantra "thinking, but no thinker, sound but no hearer on and on, free will be damned " And immediately everything fell into alignment. There was nothing holding my practice in the sense of "goals" (higher state, purer state of consciousness and such) or a crash between through/ground, evolution/identity. The act itself was all there was. Really all aspect of practice changed when I delved into this switch in perception, and not only was there no longer a division between me "practicing" and not practicing, but every waking hour was truly practice itself! There was no need to "stabilize" any state, but simply recognize thoughts and thoughts, walking as walking, wanting to sit as sitting, sitting as sitting, etc.

Hi I got a few questions for you.

 

Does your experience become vividly clear and transparent?

Has such mode of perception become seamless and effortless now or are you at a noting level?

How long have you been experiencing this way?

Also do you have a link for your kunlun practice?

Edited August 3, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

I hope this now ends any further discussions regarding Self and non-Self teachings with you. Your position is now clear. You will not change or consider changing your views and have never considered to do so. You seldom share from experience and respond not in a critical manner, because you simply cannot, holding to the conviction that these anonymous internet users do not deserve a place in consideration compared to your real life teachers. I will now keep my thoughts to myself, because you have cut off your ears here. "Sharing" is not the correct word in this case.

 

You have no argument, because you leave no room for true argument or discussion, calling people frauds who do not fall into your interpretations.

 

"I have clearly and succinctly articulated what my position." Exactly, you make your stance and that's that. It shows in the responses as they are seldom a reply, or a articulated criticism, but a re phrasing of your own stance over and over. This is precisely communication with you regarding these manners is fruitless.

 

I'm sad you say "evils." This isn't about Vaj, Xabir, or Buddhists, and I think it's foolish to judge one in relation to other "evils." This is about you. No one is here to show any way. I'm exercising my own flaw, as I am clear that what I'm doing here is absolutely foolish, self serving, and ego-driven. But I have to do it, because I see the same flaws in you that I see in me. I am criticizing you and me both because what I see I feel needs to be criticized. So this isn't really about anyone else but me and you. Take from it what you will because I've gotten what I wanted and seen why this "discussion" will never end.

 

I am sure you are a sincere practitioner and I am certain we both share a mutual respect for one another. So I have to be critical with what you write.

 

Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

 

you surely reflect your level of "achievement"...wow! you are one enlightened being, aren't you?!?

[Lucky7Strikes]

you surely reflect your level of "achievement"...wow! you are one enlightened being, aren't you?!?

Sorry! I was a bit over my head with that reply!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hi I got a few questions for you.

 

Does your experience become vividly clear and transparent?

Has such mode of perception become seamless and effortless now or are you at a noting level?

My experience is much more direct--I don't return to the the thought of I, so there no fluctation in perception, much less reflection. I don't know about transparent but yes, every perception is THERE. But it is not as effortless or continuous, as in it does not follow into dream states, and at times my thoughts, or more of a feeling (I noticed that even dual thoughts can be perceived directly, and it dissipates upon the moment of simple noticing), arise forming a memory of "me" and "you." I did noting for a while, and it was really helpful for dissolving a sense of "I" behind thoughts, and still devote time to it, but often found it could lead to fragmenting experiences too much, and takes away the directness. So I'm still at the mantra of "sound but no hearer"

 

How long have you been experiencing this way?

...I was actually thinking when my perceptions began to shift, and to be honest, I don't know, because I know I really didin't want to do this. I really wanted my theory of simultaneous arising of consciousness and a creator and phenomena as its object to be right.

 

And a few years back, while reading though Neo-Advaita stuff, I had a tremendous opening with the words "things are just happening without a doer!" Something in my heart just exploded that night and I remember sitting in full lotus for over an hour when before I couldn't do that for more than 2-3 minutes due to knee problems (so I guess there is something to that posture). But that experience fell away because I was still at the time very much into Maharshi and tried to fit everything together by his teachings. And I really clung to...free will and the story of individual spiritual struggle and enlightenment. I reanalyzed and discarded all this "no doer" crap because the face of the no doer crap was the arrogant Neo-Advaita people who seemed to take great pleasure in mocking other's spiritual practice (of course, this perception wasn't entirely accurate, and Neo-Advaita is still very entrenched in Consciousness teachings).

 

As I stated above, it is only recently in the past few months, when I was almost forced to begin to see things "as they are" because of Kunlun (http://www.kunlunbliss.com/). (I think you know AugustLeo, he is an advanced practitioner in the art). But I don't think Kunlun has much to do with what we've discussed here, although it does challenge the body and mind's stability. It pushes at the ego to let go, and let go , and let go....but it became apparent that only a groundless mindset was the perfect surrender, and when I started doing this, my practice became incredibly fluid and natural! It brings amazing bliss and clarity to perception than before, but a fleeting clarity with the knowing that it is not graspable, so the "transparency" you mentioned is perhaps this, that upon noticing it, it is gone! The practice most of the time brings everything into view with a complete opening, like seeing a continuum of objects in completely vacuum space, completely vulnerable to whatever arises, and of course, there is nothing but whatever that arises. But it is not effortless, this state, at least not yet, even if I am naturally beginning to see that this is how reality truly is .

 

Even though I talked all that about Kunlun, I have mixed feelings about it. I try to let the practice, and more importantly the urge to practice it come more naturally rather than from a self-driven point of view. So usually I have a time for general meditation and see what practice I want to engage in at that moment.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

My experience is much more direct--I don't return to the the thought of I, so there no fluctation in perception, much less reflection. I don't know about transparent but yes, every perception is THERE. But it is not as effortless or continuous, as in it does not follow into dream states, and at times my thoughts, or more of a feeling (I noticed that even dual thoughts can be perceived directly, and it dissipates upon the moment of simple noticing), arise forming a memory of "me" and "you." I did noting for a while, and it was really helpful for dissolving a sense of "I" behind thoughts, and still devote time to it, but often found it could lead to fragmenting experiences too much, and takes away the directness. So I'm still at the mantra of "sound but no hearer"

 

 

...I was actually thinking when my perceptions began to shift, and to be honest, I don't know, because I know I really didin't want to do this. I really wanted my theory of simultaneous arising of consciousness and a creator and phenomena as its object to be right.

 

And a few years back, while reading though Neo-Advaita stuff, I had a tremendous opening with the words "things are just happening without a doer!" Something in my heart just exploded that night and I remember sitting in full lotus for over an hour when before I couldn't do that for more than 2-3 minutes due to knee problems (so I guess there is something to that posture). But that experience fell away because I was still at the time very much into Maharshi and tried to fit everything together by his teachings. And I really clung to...free will and the story of individual spiritual struggle and enlightenment. I reanalyzed and discarded all this "no doer" crap because the face of the no doer crap was the arrogant Neo-Advaita people who seemed to take great pleasure in mocking other's spiritual practice (of course, this perception wasn't entirely accurate, and Neo-Advaita is still very entrenched in Consciousness teachings).

 

As I stated above, it is only recently in the past few months, when I was almost forced to begin to see things "as they are" because of Kunlun (http://www.kunlunbliss.com/). (I think you know AugustLeo, he is an advanced practitioner in the art). But I don't think Kunlun has much to do with what we've discussed here, although it does challenge the body and mind's stability. It pushes at the ego to let go, and let go , and let go....but it became apparent that only a groundless mindset was the perfect surrender, and when I started doing this, my practice became incredibly fluid and natural! It brings amazing bliss and clarity to perception than before, but a fleeting clarity with the knowing that it is not graspable, so the "transparency" you mentioned is perhaps this, that upon noticing it, it is gone! The practice most of the time brings everything into view with a complete opening, like seeing a continuum of objects in completely vacuum space, completely vulnerable to whatever arises, and of course, there is nothing but whatever that arises. But it is not effortless, this state, at least not yet, even if I am naturally beginning to see that this is how reality truly is .

 

Even though I talked all that about Kunlun, I have mixed feelings about it. I try to let the practice, and more importantly the urge to practice it come more naturally rather than from a self-driven point of view. So usually I have a time for general meditation and see what practice I want to engage in at that moment.

I see, thanks for sharing, it's wonderful how you are quick to come so far and very willing to let go of deeply held beliefs

[dwai]

I didn't read all of the back and forth along these lines but I'll barge in here and say that enlightenment is also the natural nature spoken of in the Upanishads and other Vedic/Hindu teachings... as to defining "enlighenment" that is a big nut to try and crack conceptually which often ends up in butting heads. (and often in breaking the foundational law of non-violence common to both traditions)

 

Om

 

Indeed...words cannot express that which cannot be grasped with the normal sense organs (including the mind).

[dwai]

Sorry! I was a bit over my head with that reply!

 

no worries...I realized that you were just blowing your steam a bit

[adept]

Don't bother with him Hari, it's not worth it.

 

Looks like I've rustled a few Buddhist feathers.

[dwai]

I hope this now ends any further discussions regarding Self and non-Self teachings with you. Your position is now clear. You will not change or consider changing your views and have never considered to do so. You seldom share from experience and respond not in a critical manner, because you simply cannot, holding to the conviction that these anonymous internet users do not deserve a place in consideration compared to your real life teachers. I will now keep my thoughts to myself, because you have cut off your ears here. "Sharing" is not the correct word in this case.

 

You have no argument, because you leave no room for true argument or discussion, calling people frauds who do not fall into your interpretations.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you wish?

 

Anonymous internet users naturally do not hold as high a place in my books as my teachers do. Why? Because I interact with my teachers regularly in person and their knowledge and wisdom is evident in their conduct and behaviour. That unfortunately cannot be said about most anonymous users, albeit I have had personal interaction with a few on TTB and in my opinion they are excellent individuals. Can they be as good if not better than my teachers? Maybe, may be not...I haven't studied with them personally to know. That's why Internet users aren't the best teachers for me, because for me, a teacher is a person I have access to and can meet periodically, be in their presence and learn from them in different ways (not only their spiritual wisdom and knowledge, but how they relate to other people and me and so on and so forth).

[Vajrahridaya]

The only tact VJ understands are the ones he uses to stick a piece of paper on a wall.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Also the one I put on your chair before you sit down.

[xabir2005]

And a few years back, while reading though Neo-Advaita stuff, I had a tremendous opening with the words "things are just happening without a doer!" Something in my heart just exploded that night and I remember sitting in full lotus for over an hour when before I couldn't do that for more than 2-3 minutes due to knee problems (so I guess there is something to that posture). But that experience fell away because I was still at the time very much into Maharshi and tried to fit everything together by his teachings. And I really clung to...free will and the story of individual spiritual struggle and enlightenment. I reanalyzed and discarded all this "no doer" crap because the face of the no doer crap was the arrogant Neo-Advaita people who seemed to take great pleasure in mocking other's spiritual practice (of course, this perception wasn't entirely accurate, and Neo-Advaita is still very entrenched in Consciousness teachings).

Here's neo advaita for you

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UuaOye9VyI