How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Aha! You admit it. Finally.

 

Then I quote myself from before:

 

If you are honest, you will say yes. And if you say yes, you will admit that you prefer one thought to another. And if you prefer that thought to the others, you want it to be permanently in your mind.

 

Ergo, you are clinging to a subtle permanence.

 

Goodnight.

I understand your ego has taken some damage throughout this thread from being pointed out certain errors in your logic, but your behavior towards Xabir is silly. You are going for the extremities of "yes" and "no" which is precisely what the Buddha warned against, since that is how the conceptual mind sees things: as an absolute "this" and "that." Your entire conversation with Xabir's been purposefully in the line of "just say this, ha! you said it! gotcha! I'm right!"

 

This is why shamatha jhanas are cultivated along with vipassana inquiry so you get an understanding of how to see things, and to see that seeing clearly without preconceived notions/habits.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

I understand your ego has taken some damage throughout this thread from being pointed out certain errors in your logic, but your behavior towards Xabir is silly. You are going for the extremities of "yes" and "no" which is precisely what the Buddha warned against, since that is how the conceptual mind sees things: as an absolute "this" and "that." Your entire conversation with Xabir's been purposefully in the line of "just say this, ha! you said it! gotcha! I'm right!"

 

This is why shamatha jhanas are cultivated along with vipassana inquiry so you get an understanding of how to see things, and to see that seeing clearly without preconceived notions/habits.

No, my ego hasn't taken damage. But your right, my logic has. I was trying go point out a tendency to xabir, but he was dodging my questions and refusing to see it.

And yet you see things as an absolute yes or no as well. You're right and I'm wrong.

 

You guys do not understand this simple explanation I am giving you.

 

Let me ask you. Do you find comfort in certain thoughts?

 

Do you understand that thoughts change?

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Nope - I did not say I prefer one thought to another.

 

I said, I see those thoughts to be baseless and illusory, therefore there is no basis for them to be clung to - what basis is there to cling to the notion of santa claus, or even whether he exists or not? Likewise for rabbits with horns, self, inherent existence, etc.

 

Good night.

 

I will be booking in back to camp tonight, enjoy your discussion with Lucky7Strikes and others.

So you prefer the thought that they are baseless and illusory to the thought that they are real! The thought gives you comfort. Otherwise you wouldn't argue for it.

 

Maybe this quote from Shunryu Suzuki'sZen Mind Beginner's Mind will help illustrate what I am tryin to say:

"As long as you are concerned about what you do, that is dualistic. If you are not concerned about what you do you will not say so. When you sit, you will sit. When you eat you will eat. That’s all. If you say it doesn’t, it means that you are making some excuse to something by your own way. It means you are attached to something especially. That is not what we mean, but just to sit, or whatever you do that is zazen. Whatever we do that is zazen. If it is so there is no need to say so. So when you sit you will just sit without being disturbed by your painful legs or sleepiness. That is zazen.

 

But at first it is very difficult to accept things as they are. You feel some…you will be annoyed by the feeling your have in your practice. When you can do everything, whether it is good or bad, you can do it without disturbance or without being annoyed by the feeling that is actually what we mean by form is form and emptiness is emptiness.

 

Suppose you suffer from an illness like cancer and you realize you cannot live more than two or three years. Then you will start practice because it is difficult to rely on something. And someone may rely on the help of God. Someone may start the practice of zazen and his practice will be concentrated on obtaining the emptiness or all things. We naturally…originally we are empty beings. That means he is trying to be free from the suffering of duality (this life, or next life, or this life). This is the practice of form is emptiness or emptiness is form. Because that is true so we want to have that actual realization in our life. But of course this practice will help you and if you practice it and believe in it that is true, and if you…and realizing that to be concerned about this life or that life is wrong, still you are making effort. That is, maybe, that will help you, of course, but that is not perfect practice.

 

 

Knowing that his life is just two or three years time to enjoy day after day, moment after moment that is the life is form is form and emptiness is emptiness. When Buddha comes you will welcome him; when devil comes you will welcome him. Like Woman said, ‘Sun-faced Buddha, and Moon-faced Buddha.” When he was ill someone asked him, “How about you?” And he said, “Sun-faced Buddha and Moon-faced Buddha”. That is the life of form is form and emptiness is emptiness. There is no problem. One year of his life is good. One hundred years of life is good. If you continue our practice you will attain this stage. But at first you will have various problems in your practice and it necessary for you to make some effort to continue our practice. Practice without effort is not true practice for the beginner. For the beginner the practice needs effort. So whatever we do that is practice-- that is Zen. So it does not matter whether you practice or not…that kind of understanding is completely mistaken. If you continue, whatever you do, that is practice. If you do it everything with this purpose and this idea that is practice."

 

My whole point is that xabir is relying on his realizations of emptiness or "ultimate truth" as a basis for peace in his life.

 

What he does not understand is that even his realizations that he clings to are impermanent and inconstant. They are just as subject to change as everything else is. And what did the Buddha say about that which is impermanent? It should not be clung to. Xabir does not fully understand impermanence.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, my ego hasn't taken damage. But your right, my logic has. I was trying go point out a tendency to xabir, but he was dodging my questions and refusing to see it.

And yet you see things as an absolute yes or no as well. You're right and I'm wrong.

 

You guys do not understand this simple explanation I am giving you.

 

Let me ask you. Do you find comfort in certain thoughts?

 

Do you understand that thoughts change?

That's not what I meant by seeing things as absolutes. Seeing things as absolutes is a tendency. Ultimately there is no real seeing of absolutes.

 

A deluded person seeing things in cyclical relativity, he/she is trapped in a circle of what he wrongly perceives to be absolutes. Like you are pointing out (but don't understand) is: the mind says "let's not cling" and when some troubling thought occurs, the mind says "let's not cling," in which case you have appeases clinging with clinging. It's taking a medicine again and again without knowing how it is supposed to cure you.

 

I think you understand this aspect, but what you are doing is another "neti neti," which is ok, "no view." Then you have a view of "no view," so you again go "no view." It is a neurotic cycle of absolutes again ("no view of no view is a view, oh no view, another view..etc). The view is there, but realization has not arisen.

 

So the insight must arise, as Xabir put it in his monster example, is that there has never been clinging in the first place. That experience has always been liberated from beginning, just the recognition has not been there.

 

Imo, you need to deepen your shamatha meditation by learning to be aware without thoughts.

 

Realization doesn't happen in thought. It happens with the quality of awareness of thoughts. Not by throught themselves. Meditate on the concept of awareness so that the luminous aspect of experience is seen. This can't be related to you through conceptual understanding, but through direct experience. That's why meditation is important and not just sorting stuff through conceptual logic.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

No, my ego hasn't taken damage. But your right, my logic has. I was trying go point out a tendency to xabir, but he was dodging my questions and refusing to see it.

And yet you see things as an absolute yes or no as well. You're right and I'm wrong.

 

You guys do not understand this simple explanation I am giving you.

 

Let me ask you. Do you find comfort in certain thoughts?

 

Do you understand that thoughts change?

 

You'll never get xabir to admit to having preferences. He wants to be seen as perfect. So just give up. Yes, of course we prefer certain ideas to others. For example, Buddha preferred to eat once a day at noon instead of 3 times and so on. Everyone has countless preferences. One time Buddha got tired of living together with the monks and nuns and finding them annoying, ran away to the forest to be by himself. Etc. Everyone has preferences. If you equate preferences with clinging (which is not entirely unreasonable) then everyone experiences clinging, even the historical Buddha as we know him. Even the wisest person is going to be an idiot from a certain point of view, but you'll never get free admissions of this from people. So why waste your time asking more than a few times? If you ask twice and fail to get an admission, forget about it.

 

Just imagine how miserable you'd be if you walked up to Buddha Gotama and asked him to admit to some flaws. He'd never admit to anything of the sort. Not only that, but thousands of monks in his attendance would scorn you as well, since they are all his groupies.

Edited July 3, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

That's not what I meant by seeing things as absolutes. Seeing things as absolutes is a tendency. Ultimately there is no real seeing of absolutes.

 

A deluded person seeing things in cyclical relativity, he/she is trapped in a circle of what he wrongly perceives to be absolutes. Like you are pointing out (but don't understand) is: the mind says "let's not cling" and when some troubling thought occurs, the mind says "let's not cling," in which case you have appeases clinging with clinging. It's taking a medicine again and again without knowing how it is supposed to cure you.

 

I think you understand this aspect, but what you are doing is another "neti neti," which is ok, "no view." Then you have a view of "no view," so you again go "no view." It is a neurotic cycle of absolutes again ("no view of no view is a view, oh no view, another view..etc). The view is there, but realization has not arisen.

 

So the insight must arise, as Xabir put it in his monster example, is that there has never been clinging in the first place. That experience has always been liberated from beginning, just the recognition has not been there.

 

Imo, you need to deepen your shamatha meditation by learning to be aware without thoughts.

 

Realization doesn't happen in thought. It happens with the quality of awareness of thoughts. Not by throught themselves. Meditate on the concept of awareness so that the luminous aspect of experience is seen. This can't be related to you through conceptual understanding, but through direct experience. That's why meditation is important and not just sorting stuff through conceptual logic.

But you yourself have an absolute view that there are no absolutes! Can't you see that?

 

Yes I am aware of the circular tendency to cling. You accuse me of this, yet you do the same thing. You are looking for something to cling to to cease your clinging I.e. some ultimate answer. We all are. My question is: how do we get out of that vicious cycle?

 

The answer I have found is to try to not cling to an answer. That is what I was trying to tell xabir. But you will say again that I am clinging to another answer. But actually I am not.

 

The way out of the cycle isn't through finding truth and clinging to it. Believe me. It is through simply being aware of the tendency in real time without trying to change it. Because if you wish to change it, you get caught in it again.

 

And there is no awareness that is aware. It is thought that is aware of thought. I have been through that, looking for some kind of super awareness, and seen it for what it is. If this other awareness exists, where is it?

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[lino]

To find out if somebody is actually "learned" or awakened, I ask them what

exactly happened to Lucifer/Prometheus/Varuna.

 

I also ask how a person gains the nine ray crown.

Edited July 3, 2011 by lino

[thuscomeone]

You'll never get xabir to admit to having preferences. He wants to be seen as perfect. So just give up. Yes, of course we prefer certain ideas to others. For example, Buddha preferred to eat once a day at noon instead of 3 times and so on. Everyone has countless preferences. One time Buddha got tired of living together with the monks and nuns and finding them annoying, ran away to the forest to be by himself. Etc. Everyone has preferences. If you equate preferences with clinging (which is not entirely unreasonable) then everyone experiences clinging, even the historical Buddha as we know him. Even the wisest person is going to be an idiot from a certain point of view, but you'll never get free admissions of this from people. So why waste your time asking more than a few times? If you ask twice and fail to get an admission, forget about it.

 

Just imagine how miserable you'd be if you walked up to Buddha Gotama and asked him to admit to some flaws. He'd never admit to anything of the sort. Not only that, but thousands of monks in his attendance would scorn you as well, since they are all his groupies.

Right. Everyone has preferences. I don't believe that we can or should do away with them. Suffering comes, I believe, from our refusal to accept that one day we will inevitably have to encounter what we don't prefer. Xabir, for instance, clings to his realizations and his wisdom and doesn't seem to understand that some day he will have to encounter ignorance and confusion. And he doesn't want to admit that because he is afraid of those things. Thus, for all his quoting the Buddha, he doesn't really understand impermanence or dependent arising.

 

I don't believe the Buddha was perfect at all. He was imperfect like we all are. These stories about Buddha as some sort of super human perfect god being are bullshit because they still show ignorance of the Buddha's most basic teachings of inconstance.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

But you yourself have an absolute view that there are no absolutes! Can't you see that?

 

Yes I am aware of the circular tendency to cling. You accuse me of this, yet you do the same thing. You are looking for something to cling to to cease your clinging I.e. some ultimate answer. We all are. My question is: how do we get out of that vicious cycle?

 

The answer I have found is to try to not cling to an answer. That is what I was trying to tell xabir. But you will say again that I am clinging to another answer. But actually I am not.

 

The way out of the cycle isn't through finding truth and clinging to it. Believe me. It is through simply being aware of the tendency in real time without trying to change it. Because if you wish to change it, you get caught in it again.

 

And there is no awareness that is aware. It is thought that is aware of thought. I have been through that, looking for some kind of super awareness, and seen it for what it is. If this other awareness exists, where is it?

Yes! Good! You're getting somewhere.

 

You can't find some super awareness apart from phenomena right? Look more into it. When we say seeing is not separate from awareness, does that mean that the eye is aware of itself? Because that would mean dead people would have eye-awareness! Same applies to sensations, perceptions, thoughts, etc. Investigate more into the nature of this awareness!

[goldisheavy]

Xabir, for instance, clings to his realizations and his wisdom and doesn't seem to understand that some day he will have to encounter ignorance and confusion.

 

I don't think so. Almost every time xabir appears he posts long posts full of quotes and he's constantly going on "thusness this, Namdrol that, etc." He's always quoting someone or something. He's not behaving like someone with a realization because he can't speak plainly, from his own person, in his own words, to the point, etc. He's just ranting.

 

Of course just as I said in the beginning, that's simply my impression, that's how xabir appears to me. It's not an absolute estimate of xabir. For all I know he's enlightened 100%, but his behavior and topics of conversation are not helpful or inspiring to me.

 

I don't believe the Buddha was perfect at all. He was imperfect like we all are. These stories about Buddha as some sort of super human perfect god being are bullshit because they still show ignorance of the Buddha's most basic teachings of inconstance.

 

Well, I can guarantee you that if you met historical Buddha and told him this, he'd tell you to get lost. Buddha was very proud from all the accounts we have of him. In fact, I remember reading when he met his 4 (or was it 5?) friends after a long absence, he insisted that they stop calling him "Gotama" and call him "Lord" instead. There are other accounts of Buddha's haughty behavior in the Suttas. If you read lots of Suttas you'll find them.

 

Anyway, don't worry about other people's subtle hang-ups too much. Just worry about your own. If you disagree, it's best to disagree on something more gross and thus more obvious, like logic, or things that bring about social ills, etc... there is no point to dig at subtle fears and whatnot. It's a waste of time.

Edited July 3, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

I don't think so. Almost every time xabir appears he posts long posts full of quotes and he's constantly going on "thusness this, Namdrol that, etc." He's always quoting someone or something. He's not behaving like someone with a realization because he can't speak plainly, from his own person, in his own words, to the point, etc. He's just ranting.

 

Of course just as I said in the beginning, that's simply my impression, that's how xabir appears to me. It's not an absolute estimate of xabir. For all I know he's enlightened 100%, but his behavior and topics of conversation are not helpful or inspiring to me.

 

 

 

Well, I can guarantee you that if you met historical Buddha and told him this, he'd tell you to get lost. Buddha was very proud from all the accounts we have of him. In fact, I remember reading when he met his 4 (or was it 5?) friends after a long absence, he insisted that they stop calling him "Gotama" and call him "Lord" instead. There are other accounts of Buddha's haughty behavior in the Suttas. If you read lots of Suttas you'll find them.

 

Anyway, don't worry about other people's subtle hang-ups too much. Just worry about your own. If you disagree, it's best to disagree on something more gross and thus more obvious, like logic, or things that bring about social ills, etc... there is no point to dig at subtle fears and whatnot. It's a waste of time.

I know it's pointless to jab at people's fears. I just tend to get frustrated when they are so blatant and the person that I am arguing with can't bring him self to admit them. Not to sound condescending, but I wanted to help Xabir because I saw a tendency to crave permanence that he has which is going to bring a lot of pain into his life.

 

I think the Buddha was probably full of himself at times. But if he was really enlightened as to the nature of suffering (which I think he was), I think he was probably pretty humble too.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Yes! Good! You're getting somewhere.

 

You can't find some super awareness apart from phenomena right? Look more into it. When we say seeing is not separate from awareness, does that mean that the eye is aware of itself? Because that would mean dead people would have eye-awareness! Same applies to sensations, perceptions, thoughts, etc. Investigate more into the nature of this awareness!

Look, it's pointless to try and teach me this. I've been all through Xabir's blog -- through all seven stages in fact in about two and a half years time. I have been in the frame of my mind where I have believed Xabir's writings to be true, and I have been in the frame of mind of believing them to be false. Do I believe them to be true? Some yes and some no. One thing that was clear after all the ontological and metaphysical speculation, after I traversed the 7 stages, was that I was still suffering. The truths on his blog did not set me free. They only binded me further and confused me more. In the end, Xabir's blog did nothing to relieve my suffering. So you can speculate about the nature of awareness all you want, but it is ultimately not what is important.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't believe the Buddha was perfect at all. He was imperfect like we all are. These stories about Buddha as some sort of super human perfect god being are bullshit because they still show ignorance of the Buddha's most basic teachings of inconstance.

Throughout this thread we have shown shortcomings in your view of impermanence and constancy. How can you say you want to "help" other people when you haven't enough inquiry into your own views? This is a discussion. No one is trying to help anyone in the sense of teaching.

 

Since you seem prone to Buddhism, it's a bit of a head scratcher when you say stuff like this. You've often quoted Buddhist scriptures out of context. You've denied the basic teachings of the Buddha (conditional/dependent arising) which was the insight that arose when he awakened, at least according to the suttas. Annica is only an aspect of a wide range of teachings in Buddhism. The view that all things are impermanent is not that special at all. Many wise people can tell you that. It's like a fortune cookie phrase.

 

How can you say you understand the Buddha's teachings more or less declare whether the Buddha was like this, like that?

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

The problem I have with the idea that the truth itself will be set you free and end your suffering is that the truth may be unpleasant. As in Sisyphus who was doomed to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity. No, the truth is simply there. The truth could be anything -- It is one's reaction to the truth that causes suffering.

[thuscomeone]

Throughout this thread we have shown shortcomings in your view of impermanence and constancy. How can you say you want to "help" other people when you haven't enough inquiry into your own views? This is a discussion. No one is trying to help anyone in the sense of teaching.

 

Since you seem prone to Buddhism, it's a bit of a head scratcher when you say stuff like this. You've often quoted Buddhist scriptures out of context. You've denied the basic teachings of the Buddha (conditional/dependent arising) which was the insight that arose when he awakened, at least according to the suttas. Annica is only an aspect of a wide range of teachings in Buddhism. The view that all things are impermanent is not that special at all. Many wise people can tell you that. It's like a fortune cookie phrase.

 

How can you say you understand the Buddha's teachings more or less declare whether the Buddha was like this, like that?

As far as I can see, I made two errors regarding impermanence and dependent arising in the beginning of the thread. And I admitted both of them.

 

I said that the Buddha denied dependent arising. I have admitted my mistake already, as you can see if you actually have been reading my posts.

 

You have been avoiding talking about suffering every time I try to bring up the topic. It has been all I have been trying to do. You have not pointed out any flaws so far in my view of impermanence as it relates to suffering. You continue to linger on errors which I have already admitted.

 

Impermanence is a very simple view. So simple that you would think it is too simple. Most people know it, but they don't really know it -- within the context of their own suffering. You want the Buddha to be some almighty being, so you can't possibly believe his insight all came down to the phrase "things change."

 

You'd be surprised.

 

I'll tell you how I can declare the Buddha was like this or that. The Buddha's teachings on suffering are exactly correspondent to the things I have discovered in my own life.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Look, it's pointless to try and teach me this. I've been all through Xabir's blog -- through all seven stages in fact in about two and a half years time. I have been in the frame of my mind where I have believed Xabir's writings to be true, and I have been in the frame of mind of believing them to be false. Do I believe them to be true? Some yes and some no. One thing that was clear after all the ontological and metaphysical speculation, after I traversed the 7 stages, was that I was still suffering. The truths on his blog did not set me free. They only binded me further and confused me more. In the end, Xabir's blog did nothing to relieve my suffering. So you can speculate about the nature of awareness all you want, but it is ultimately not what is important.

Sorry if that sounded a bit too preachy. I can see how you could've read it like that, but sometimes I get excited about contemplation...I talk to myself like that too as a form of encouragement and it sort of seeps out towards others..

 

I am a bit confused when you say you've been through the 7 stages...the 7 stages are the experiences of Thusness, not you or me. If you read it carefully, Thusness acknowledges that certain insights can arise before the other. It should serve as points of inquiry and not some map wherein you go, "ok, I'm gonna go to level 1 and to level 2, and then I'll be enlightened and understand all this" especially if you don't have access to Thusness like Xabir does. The understanding must come from your own inquiry and meditation.

 

I asked you about the I AM realization and you didn't know what it was...in Thusness's stages, if you were following it like a map, it's stage 1. The experience/recognition of presence doesn't disappear at stage 2, stage 3...etc. It deepens, there is understanding of that experience throughout.

 

It's not Xabir's blog that's at fault here.

 

Awareness is important. You are aware now aren't you? Isn't that why you suffer? Since you are so concerned with suffering you should see that you being aware of it has some significance.

 

But as Gold said, Thusness said this, Buddha said that, ultimately doesn't matter at all. Sit down yourself and contemplate reality. It's simple...move your hand, look at it. How is that experience? Don't just say "Impermanence!" because it's not as simple as a word or a concept.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Sorry if that sounded a bit too preachy. I can see how you could've read it like that, but sometimes I get excited about contemplation...I talk to myself like that too as a form of encouragement and it sort of seeps out towards others..

 

I am a bit confused when you say you've been through the 7 stages...the 7 stages are the experiences of Thusness, not you or me. If you read it carefully, Thusness acknowledges that certain insights can arise before the other. It should serve as points of inquiry and not some map wherein you go, "ok, I'm gonna go to level 1 and to level 2, and then I'll be enlightened and understand all this" especially if you don't have access to Thusness like Xabir does. The understanding must come from your own inquiry and meditation.

 

I asked you about the I AM realization and you didn't know what it was...in Thusness's stages, if you were following it like a map, it's stage 1. The experience of presence doesn't disappear at stage 2, stage 3...etc. It deepens, there is understanding of that experience throughout.

 

It's not Xabir's blog that's at fault here.

 

Awareness is important. You are aware now aren't you? Isn't that why you suffer? Since you are so concerned with suffering you should see that you being aware of it has some significance.

 

But as Gold said, Thusness said this, Buddha said that, ultimately doesn't matter at all. Sit down yourself and contemplate reality. It's simple...move your hand, look at it. How is that experience? Don't just say "Impermanence!" because it's not as simple as a word or a concept.

I never said that I went through the 7 stages in succession -- one right after the other. I completely went out of order, but I did go through all of them. You don't think the understanding came from my own inquiry and meditation? You have no idea.

 

Yes, it is his blog that is at fault.

 

Are you not concerned with suffering?

 

"How is that experience?" I don't care. The reason I am so concerned with impermanence is that is deeply related to suffering.

 

To understand suffering, you only need to know a few facts about life. Impermanence is one of them.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I never said that I went through the 7 stages in succession -- one right after the other. I completely went out of order, but I did go through all of them. You don't think the understanding came from my own inquiry and meditation? You have no idea.

First of all they are not something you go through and then come out of, at least according to what is written. They are realizations as Xabir pointed out repeatedly in his examples about the Santa Claus.

 

There are certain mental and physical changes that begin to take place when these realization take place. I highly doubt you experience much because your tendency to circulate everything into conceptual pinnings and extremes. I have only briefly glanced at what Thusness has gone through because there is less emphasis on these experiences due to tendency of practitioners to get attached to it.

 

From my experience the realizations, even if partially seen, bring about transformative changes in how we perceive reality. Of course they are different from person to person, but my reading of various practitioner's accounts show similarities.

 

For instance when there was a partial insight into I Am, the sense of presence became very powerful I lost sense of my local body. The central channel opened and it felt as if everything within this state of being melted into a sense of oneness. I was aware in deep sleep states, so I didn't really know when I was asleep or not. I spent about 1 to 2 hours in bed a day for a whole week and never felt more awake than ever. I ate like a loaf of breAd a day. I felt my inner dan tien light up and time was not much linear anymore. There was a never felt sense of bliss awareness pervading throughout everything seen, heard, touched...A tremendous energy was everywhere.

 

This is just an instance of something I went through due to rising of insight of presence.

 

Yes, it is his blog that is at fault.

The blog doesn't demand anything from you. You take what you want from it. It's not like the blog stands over you and go "I am your Guru! Listen to me!" And in fact Thusness says it everywhere that "its a sharing."

 

Are you not concerned with suffering?

 

"How is that experience?" I don't care. The reason I am so concerned with impermanence is that is deeply related to suffering.

 

To understand suffering, you only need to know a few facts about life. Impermanence is one of them.

I am concerned about suffering. And to understand suffering impermanence is important, as well as awareness that you dismissed. I did address your inquiries about suffering by stating that ontology directly affects suffering. Our view of reality conditions how we experience and suffering is one of them.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

First of all they are not something you go through and then come out of, at least according to what is written. They are realizations as Xabir pointed out repeatedly in his examples about the Santa Claus.

 

There are certain mental and physical changes that begin to take place when these realization take place. I highly doubt you experience much because your tendency to circulate everything into conceptual pinnings and extremes. I have only briefly glanced at what Thusness has gone through because there is less emphasis on these experiences due to tendency of practitioners to get attached to it.

 

From my experience the realizations, even if partially seen, bring about transformative changes in how we perceive reality. Of course they are different from person to person, but my reading of various practitioner's accounts show similarities.

 

For instance when there was a partial insight into I Am, the sense of presence became very powerful I lost sense of my local body. The central channel opened and it felt as if everything within this state of being melted into a sense of oneness. I was aware in deep sleep states, so I didn't really know when I was asleep or not. I spent about 1 to 2 hours in bed a day for a whole week and never felt more awake than ever. I ate like a loaf of breAd a day. I felt my inner dan tien light up and time was not much linear anymore. There was a never felt sense of bliss awareness pervading throughout everything seen, heard, touched...A tremendous energy was everywhere.

 

This is just an instance of something I went through due to rising of insight of presence.

 

 

The blog doesn't demand anything from you. You take what you want from it. It's not like the blog stands over you and go "I am your Guru! Listen to me!" And in fact Thusness says it everywhere that "its a sharing."

 

 

I am concerned about suffering. And to understand suffering impermanence is important, as well as awareness that you dismissed. I did address your inquiries about suffering by stating that ontology directly affects suffering. Our view of reality conditions how we experience and suffering is one of them.

I never said I came out of them in the sense that I don't believe them to be true anymore. I came out of them in the sense that I saw they they didn't end suffering.

 

I've had transformative changes too. If I told you that they included clairvoyance at times, you probably wouldn't believe me. I've had the extreme bliss as well. Were these experiences from the insights on the blog, or just from strong focus in meditation? I don't know. Either way, they weren't that important anyway. As they are all impermanent.

 

Sure it's a sharing. And it's a nice sharing. But it doesn't give the full answer to the most important question that the Buddha asked.

 

Impermanence is not an ontological statement. It is not a statement about any "objective reality", but about what we experience.

 

Right, our view of reality. And if we see the real cause of suffering (craving permanence), we can stop it.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

I know it's pointless to jab at people's fears. I just tend to get frustrated when they are so blatant and the person that I am arguing with can't bring him self to admit them. Not to sound condescending, but I wanted to help Xabir because I saw a tendency to crave permanence that he has which is going to bring a lot of pain into his life.

 

I think the Buddha was probably full of himself at times. But if he was really enlightened as to the nature of suffering (which I think he was), I think he was probably pretty humble too.

 

It could be honest misunderstanding too. For example, I don't think I have a huge tendency to view things as solid objects, and yet you chided me for viewing things in that manner. I admit there must be some of that tendency left over from my earlier days, but at the same time, I think you selected a poor example of those substantialist tendencies in my post. You picked precisely those posts where I am not so substantialist to call me out on my substantialism, so your criticism did not sound authentic to me. It was like hit and miss. That doesn't mean you're completely wrong, but you have to catch me in my weakest moment, in a moment when I am obviously relating to things as if they were substantial in the most crass and offensive manner possible (for me). Then you might have something.

 

I think xabir honestly believes he holds no position, just like Nagarjuna, so when you tell him about his tendencies being a sort of a position, he's not going to agree with you. He thinks positions are only things you argue about and not mental constructs deep in the psyche (which is what they really are). Since he's not arguing for a specific position, he thinks he has no position. This is a kind of superficial behavioral liberation, which is better than nothing, but still it's shallow. Because if you really understand the voidness of positions, then you'll have no trouble taking a position from time to time. If you are very consistent in refusing to take a position no matter what, well... that's hypocritical, isn't it? Because the words say "no position" but the behavior says otherwise. But none of this means xabir wants to deceive us on purpose. It's just how he thinks and we can't help it. If Thusness or Namdrol told xabir that he's stuck in a position, he would listen, but even then he wouldn't really understand because he'd just be slavishly following trusted advisors instead of independently understanding things for himself. It's just our luck that he's slavishly following Thusness and not Osama bin Laden or some such.

[xabir2005]

You'll never get xabir to admit to having preferences. He wants to be seen as perfect. So just give up. Yes, of course we prefer certain ideas to others. For example, Buddha preferred to eat once a day at noon instead of 3 times and so on. Everyone has countless preferences. One time Buddha got tired of living together with the monks and nuns and finding them annoying, ran away to the forest to be by himself. Etc. Everyone has preferences. If you equate preferences with clinging (which is not entirely unreasonable) then everyone experiences clinging, even the historical Buddha as we know him. Even the wisest person is going to be an idiot from a certain point of view, but you'll never get free admissions of this from people. So why waste your time asking more than a few times? If you ask twice and fail to get an admission, forget about it.

 

Just imagine how miserable you'd be if you walked up to Buddha Gotama and asked him to admit to some flaws. He'd never admit to anything of the sort. Not only that, but thousands of monks in his attendance would scorn you as well, since they are all his groupies.

Going out of context again. Sure, I prefer to eat ice cream than eat shit. That is not what is in question here. Thuscomeone thinks I prefer the thought "there is no self" than "there is self".

 

I say those thoughts are completely irrelevant. Once you wake up from a dream, you can never again believe in the dream monster, so whether thoughts of the monster arise again is completely irrelevant - I can keep thinking "self, self, self" or "monster, santa claus, rabbits with horns" without a problem - I simply can never ever believe that it is anything more than an empty label. More precisely, it is not that I "believe it is an empty label", there is no beliefs involved, rather it is a freedom from beliefs, fabrications, illusions. The thought "self" or "monster" is as ok or irrelevant (irrelevant as in having no real actual basis or relevance to reality) as the thought "no monster" or "no self".

 

I live life without any regards to thoughts of "self", "no self", "baseless" etc. But this arises due to realization. Otherwise it is like what lucky said, merely creating another view of "no view", neti neti-ing away but still stuck in the loop. This is not true freedom. When realization arises, there is no need to reject views or neti them away, they simply become irrelevant. Thoughts of "self" is as self-liberating as thoughts of "no-self". This is true freedom that does not reject anything but sees it for what it is.

 

The view and practice leads to the realization, which then renders the view irrelevant (the raft itself is dropped). But this is not done by neti-ing away the view, it simply happens when the raft serves its purpose - it dissolves everything including itself.

 

Vimalakirti Sutra says wrong views are liberation not the eradication of views, three poisons are liberation not the eradication of poisons. What does that mean? Consider what I said above and you'll see.

Edited July 4, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

going out of context. Sure, I prefer to eat ice cream than eat shit. That is not what is in question here. Thuscomeone thinks I prefer the thought "there is no self" than "there is self".

 

I say those thoughts are completely irrelevant. Once you wake up from a dream, you can never again believe in the dream monster, so whether thoughts of the monster arise again is completely irrelevant - I can keep thinking "self, self, self" or "monster, santa claus, rabbits with horns" without a problem - I simply can never ever believe that it is anything more than an empty label. More precisely, it is not that I "believe it is an empty label", there is no beliefs involved, rather it is a freedom from beliefs, fabrications, illusions. The thought "self" or "monster" is as ok or irrelecant as the thought "no monster" or "no self".

 

I live life without any regards to thoughts of "self", "no self", "baseless" etc. But this arises due to realization. Otherwise it is like what lucky said, merely creating another view of "no view", neti neti-ing away but still stuck in the loop. When realization arises, there is no need to reject views or neti them away, they simply become irrelevant.

 

The view and practice leads to the realization, which then renders the view irrelevant (the raft itself is dropped). But this is not done by neti-ing away the view, it simply happens when the raft serves its purpose - it dissolves everything including itself.

Are your realizations permanent or impermanent?

 

Can there be realization/wisdom without ignorance?

 

I quote Shunryu Suzuki from Zen Mind Beginner's Mind again for you

 

"Suppose you suffer from an illness like cancer and you realize you cannot live more than two or three years. Then you will start practice because it is difficult to rely on something. And someone may rely on the help of God. Someone may start the practice of zazen and his practice will be concentrated on obtaining the emptiness or all things. We naturally…originally we are empty beings. That means he is trying to be free from the suffering of duality (this life, or next life, or this life). This is the practice of form is emptiness or emptiness is form.Because that is true so we want to have that actual realization in our life. But of course this practice will help you and if you practice it and believe in it that is true, and if you…and realizing that to be concerned about this life or that life is wrong, still you are making effort.That is, maybe, that will help you, of course, but that is not perfect practice.

 

 

Knowing that his life is just two or three years time to enjoy day after day, moment after moment that is the life is form is form and emptiness is emptiness. When Buddha comes you will welcome him; when devil comes you will welcome him. Like Woman said, ‘Sun-faced Buddha, and Moon-faced Buddha.” When he was ill someone asked him, “How about you?” And he said, “Sun-faced Buddha and Moon-faced Buddha”. That is the life of form is form and emptiness is emptiness. There is no problem. One year of his life is good. One hundred years of life is good. If you continue our practice you will attain this stage. But at first you will have various problems in your practice and it necessary for you to make some effort to continue our practice. Practice without effort is not true practice for the beginner. For the beginner the practice needs effort. So whatever we do that is practice-- that is Zen. So it does not matter whether you practice or not…that kind of understanding is completely mistaken. If you continue, whatever you do, that is practice. If you do it everything with this purpose and this idea that is practice."

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Aaron]

Going out of context again. Sure, I prefer to eat ice cream than eat shit. That is not what is in question here. Thuscomeone thinks I prefer the thought "there is no self" than "there is self".

 

I say those thoughts are completely irrelevant. Once you wake up from a dream, you can never again believe in the dream monster, so whether thoughts of the monster arise again is completely irrelevant - I can keep thinking "self, self, self" or "monster, santa claus, rabbits with horns" without a problem - I simply can never ever believe that it is anything more than an empty label. More precisely, it is not that I "believe it is an empty label", there is no beliefs involved, rather it is a freedom from beliefs, fabrications, illusions. The thought "self" or "monster" is as ok or irrelevant (irrelevant as in having no real basis in as the thought "no monster" or "no self".

 

I live life without any regards to thoughts of "self", "no self", "baseless" etc. But this arises due to realization. Otherwise it is like what lucky said, merely creating another view of "no view", neti neti-ing away but still stuck in the loop. This is not true freedom. When realization arises, there is no need to reject views or neti them away, they simply become irrelevant.

 

The view and practice leads to the realization, which then renders the view irrelevant (the raft itself is dropped). But this is not done by neti-ing away the view, it simply happens when the raft serves its purpose - it dissolves everything including itself.

 

Vimalakirti Sutra says wrong views are liberation, three poisons are liberation. What does that mean? Consider what I said above and you'll see.

 

 

Hello Xabir,

 

The fact that you are arguing so strongly to prove your point seems to me to indicate that you are attached to your argument. That's the point I think that Thus was trying to make. You may say you don't care for either, but if that's true, then why bother to argue about it, just say what you mean and let it go.

 

Hold nothing as holy and nothing can be profane. If you do not have anything of value, then nothing can be stolen. Sometimes you need to remind yourself of this on a daily basis. And yes reminding yourself of this is attaching to it, until you no longer need to remind yourself and it is just as natural as breathing.

 

Aaron

Edited July 4, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Hello Thuscomeone,

 

All realizations are permanent and impermanent. Thought is real, even though you cannot physically touch it, yet all things come from emptiness, thus thought is impermanent as well. Saying one is either, doesn't answer your question, nor does asking the question actually lead to any deep insight, it just asks a question that in the end has no answer, except the experience itself.

 

Aaron

[xabir2005]

To the one who thinks I am paroting thusness (which I don't recall doing in this thread): even Buddha cannot shake me from my realization, even if Buddha tells me "what you realized is wrong", ill be like, ok that's weird, even the Buddha is wrong sometimes (hypothetical situation as I'm sure it won't happen). Much less thusness.

 

This is an ejournal documenting my experiences and realizations: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

 

But think whatever you want man. I have no intentions to be seen as "an enlightened person" that sometimes come along with weird projections and expectations. None of my real life friends would suspect I have some "realisations" unless I tell them so. I am just an ordinary person with a peculiar interest in dharma.

 

To thuscomeone: I honestly have no thoughts of anatta, self, no self, or emptiness in daily life unless I am posting in forums for the sake of pointing things out. I have more important things to do and think in daily life. But when something is dropped, when you wake up, you can never see things the same again.