How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

thuscomeone, have you read Mahamudra teachings?

[thuscomeone]

If insights of anatta and emptiness is present, the master will very clearly present it. Like my link I showed you. It will not be vague. Whatever expressed so far only show substantial non-dual realization.

Yes, it could certainly be more clear.

 

Could I recommend you something to read? I think you'd like it. It is a series of letters from a young japanese woman to her roshi. She wrote them on her deathbed, as she was sick and slowly dying. The letters reveal the deep level of enlightenment she reached in just a few weeks before her death. It is pretty amazing. I would definitely say that she got beyond substantial non-dualism. The roshi even claimed that she had reached the highest level possible under a master. Her name was Yaeko Iwasaki and the letters were published in a book called "The Three Pillars of Zen." I'm unsure if you can find the book online...

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

thuscomeone, have you read Mahamudra teachings?

I've read some. From what I've gathered, their enlightenment isn't much different than mahayana enlightenment/prajnaparamita.

 

The natural state in the two seems to be the same -- effortless suchness.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Yes, it could certainly be more clear.

 

Could I recommend you something to read? I think you'd like it. It is a series of letters from a young japanese woman to her roshi. She wrote them on her deathbed, as she was sick and slowly dying. The letters reveal the deep level of enlightenment she reached in just a few weeks before her death. It is pretty amazing. I would definitely say that she got beyond substantial non-dualism. The roshi even claimed that she had reached the highest level possible under a master. Her name was Yaeko Iwasaki and the letters were published in a book called "The Three Pillars of Zen." I'm unsure if you can find the book online...

Thanks, will check it out when I hit my local Buddhist bookstore.

[xabir2005]

I've read some. From what I've gathered, their enlightenment isn't much different than mahayana enlightenment/prajnaparamita.

Their teachings, advices and maps (they call it four yogas) are great imo.

 

Get these books and take their advice seriously...

 

Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:

Clarifying the Natural State: A Principal Guidance Manual for Mahamudra

 

 

Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche:

Crystal Clear: Practical Advice for Mahamudra Meditators

Essentials of Mahamudra: Looking Directly at the Mind

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

You're welcome.

 

And thank you!

[xabir2005]

Thusness and Xabir are ignorant overall? Of course. And you're the only one who really knows what's going on. You've got the inside scoop. Man, you really think your you know what doesn't stink, don't you?

It has been my experience that a lot of people will dismiss what I say and also Thusness's 7 stages as nonsense, purely out of lack of experience and ignorance.

 

But when they realize what we realize, they will come to appreciate the precision of what we say...

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

It has been my experience that a lot of people will dismiss what I say and also Thusness's 7 stages as nonsense, purely out of lack of experience and ignorance.

 

But when they realize what we realize, they will come to appreciate the precision of what we say...

But I mean this isn't easy stuff. This completely shatters the frame most people live their lives in and it ain't so easy to understand at first either.

But I have to thank you immensely for maintaining that blog. It has helped me through many a dark night (no pun intended).

[xabir2005]

No mind and matter do not arise together. Matter is just a perception of matter and nagarjuna and candrakirti and the shurangama sutra all speak of the illogical conseuqences of matter being something that truly exists apart from the mind. That's the basic gist of Nagarjuna, that nothing can be produced or ceased or truly existent as something apart.

Yes, indeed, everything is just mind/perception which is like an illusion - insubstantial, unlocatable, ungraspable.

 

But... I would like to quote Thrangu Rinpoche here:

 

"The Dzogchen and Mahamudra instructions tell us that we must recognize and then train in seeing that throughout their inception, duration and disappearance every perception and every mental image is an empty cognizance. Both practice systems consider it very important to train in acknowledging that the perceived is the light of dharmakaya, in other words, that we recognize the nature that is innate to every perception. At first glance, this appears to correspond to the view of the Mind-Only school, which asserts that whatever you experience is only mind. it is an interesting perspective, but one to which the Middle Way school raises objections. For instance, in his Ornament of the Middle Way, the eminent Indian scholar Shantarakshita says that though it is fine to declare that whatever we experience is mind only, we still need to question whether it is reasonable to claim that the mind itself ultimately exists. In other words, the Mind-Only point of view is good in the sense of establishing that perceptions are mind, but we still need to question whether mind itself has ultimate substance. It is very important and useful to train in all perceptions being the light of dharmakaya."

 

 

In Buddhism, everything is not established, rigpa is not established, mind is not established... therefore we do not subsume things into an ultimate source/mind - everything is mind, and it is this luminous mind/perception that is insubstantial, like an illusion.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Yes, indeed, everything is just mind/perception which is like an illusion - insubstantial, unlocatable, ungraspable.

 

But... I would like to quote Thrangu Rinpoche here:

 

"The Dzogchen and Mahamudra instructions tell us that we must recognize and then train in seeing that throughout their inception, duration and disappearance every perception and every mental image is an empty cognizance. Both practice systems consider it very important to train in acknowledging that the perceived is the light of dharmakaya, in other words, that we recognize the nature that is innate to every perception. At first glance, this appears to correspond to the view of the Mind-Only school, which asserts that whatever you experience is only mind. it is an interesting perspective, but one to which the Middle Way school raises objections. For instance, in his Ornament of the Middle Way, the eminent Indian scholar Shantarakshita says that though it is fine to declare that whatever we experience is mind only, we still need to question whether it is reasonable to claim that the mind itself ultimately exists. In other words, the Mind-Only point of view is good in the sense of establishing that perceptions are mind, but we still need to question whether mind itself has ultimate substance. It is very important and useful to train in all perceptions being the light of dharmakaya."

 

 

In Buddhism, everything is not established, rigpa is not established, mind is not established... therefore we do not subsume things into an ultimate source/mind - everything is mind, and it is this luminous mind/perception that is insubstantial, like an illusion.

So, in other words, mind is dependently arisen? aka neither mind nor matter have primacy over one another.

 

When I hear "all is mind", I take it to mean that all false concepts and discriminations arise from mind.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

There is nothing inherent about impersonality and lack of agents either. In other words, lack of agents is dependently arisen with the presence of agents. Do you see this?

Agent is simply a mental conceiving of an inherent self. Such an inherent self cannot be found and is a conjured illusion, much like santa claus.

 

Santa claus, being an illusion, is not real to begin with, so it would not make sense to speak of the presence or absence of santa claus, or the presence or absence of agents.

 

An agent, perceiver, or controller of things was never real to begin with - there is simply perceiving, and doing, and it has nothing to do with the illusion of a perceiver or controller, or rather that illusion of a perceiver or controller has no relevance or control of how reality functions. An illusory seer cannot see, an illusory controller doesn't act - perceiving simply happens as a self-luminous act of cognizance, doing simply happens.

 

Do you see this?

 

But if you say the absence and presence of ignorance (mental conceiving of santa clauses, agents, inherent existence) dependently originates, then yes of course. But not a real self, per se.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

So, in other words, mind is dependently arisen? aka neither mind nor matter have primacy over one another.

 

When I hear "all is mind", I take it to mean that all false concepts and discriminations arise from mind.

Yes, mind too is dependently arisen. There is nothing ultimate, permanent, or independent about mind.

 

"All is mind" simply means all experiences are mental perceptions/experiences, like a dream, you can see, hear, things that seems real (especially in lucid dreams), but it is entirely mind.

 

Waking life is not really different.

 

I don't mean "false concepts and discriminations"... I mean mind, and the nature of mind which is luminous and empty.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Yes, mind too is dependently arisen. There is nothing ultimate, permanent, or independent about mind.

 

"All is mind" simply means all experiences are mental perceptions/experiences, like a dream, you can see, hear, things that seems real (especially in lucid dreams), but it is entirely mind.

 

Waking life is not really different.

 

I don't mean "false concepts and discriminations"...

 

Yes it is very clear that mind is dependently arisen.

 

See, what I mean by "false concepts" is what I think you mean in your second paragraph. The illusion of solidity is created by mind. The mind is not the actual creator of everything (or are you saying it is?), just of false solidity.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'll try.

 

I'll use a famous example from the genjokoan -- firewood and ash. Firewood is firewood and is not ash. Firewood is distinct. But at the same time, one should not suppose that the firewood is gone when there is ash. The firewood is still present in the ash because if it weren't for the firewood, there would be no ash. The past is present in the present. The past is not gone. The future is also present in the present. As Dogen says, ash and firewood fully contain past and future and yet are fully cut off from past and future.

Do you mean the 'effects' of the past is in the present? Or that the past is actually in the present. If the past is in the present, how would we know it apart from the present? Also it does not follow that just because there is a remnent of something from the past that is present, a causal chain from firewood to ash, that the "past" is in the present. Perhaps "effects of the past."

 

Time and space require division. When past, present and future are all together, where is time?

If past present and future arose all together, you wouldn't have a sense of being...you would be frozen in time.

 

When mind and matter are together, where is space?

Uh...between mind and matter (in your terms of duality between them), and within mind and matter. Basically everywhere..? can there be matter without space? I don't think so.

 

But this togetherness of past, present and future is occuring at a very distinct and specific moment in time. And this togetherness of mind and matter is occuring in a very specific space.

Really? A very distinct moment? Can you find me where this present moment precisely begins and ends for it to be specific? Same with space?

 

So this means that things are not the same and not different.

 

If you say that they are both the same and different, it is essentially the same as saying they are neither the same or different. Not same affirms difference. Not different affirms sameness.

What "things" are not the same and not different in the context of this discussion? Are you saying that the specific moment in time is not the same and not different as...what exactly?

 

Also let me follow this sentence:

 

Not same and not different

 

Both same and different = not same and not different

 

Not same = difference

 

Not different = same

 

So let's substitute a little x's and y's here: these "things" you refer to are...same and not same. Can you give me examples of two things that are same and not same. I mean if this is how you understand ontology, daily examples would be fine.

 

Whatever way you put it, it still comes out the same. The point that you come to, either way, is that concepts ultimately don't apply because they all suppose "is" and "is not." Both positions are incompatible with how things actually are.

This is the problem. You don't know how incoherent you sound coming to this "point." It's like you are force feeding it into your mind. Much of what you wrote is parroting of Xabir (whose "is" or "is not" insight also comes from a Namdrol post). You couldn't even think of an example beyond firewood and ashe??

 

I don't see much original thought here that should come from someone whose had his own direct insight.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, indeed, everything is just mind/perception which is like an illusion - insubstantial, unlocatable, ungraspable.

 

But... I would like to quote Thrangu Rinpoche here:

 

"The Dzogchen and Mahamudra instructions tell us that we must recognize and then train in seeing that throughout their inception, duration and disappearance every perception and every mental image is an empty cognizance. Both practice systems consider it very important to train in acknowledging that the perceived is the light of dharmakaya, in other words, that we recognize the nature that is innate to every perception. At first glance, this appears to correspond to the view of the Mind-Only school, which asserts that whatever you experience is only mind. it is an interesting perspective, but one to which the Middle Way school raises objections. For instance, in his Ornament of the Middle Way, the eminent Indian scholar Shantarakshita says that though it is fine to declare that whatever we experience is mind only, we still need to question whether it is reasonable to claim that the mind itself ultimately exists. In other words, the Mind-Only point of view is good in the sense of establishing that perceptions are mind, but we still need to question whether mind itself has ultimate substance. It is very important and useful to train in all perceptions being the light of dharmakaya."

 

 

In Buddhism, everything is not established, rigpa is not established, mind is not established... therefore we do not subsume things into an ultimate source/mind - everything is mind, and it is this luminous mind/perception that is insubstantial, like an illusion.

How does one go about proving that something is beyond the mind to show that it doesn't ultimately exist? (nothing rhetorical, a true question). I understand how one can see the mind as unestablished just like saying a stream of river might be unestablished. But how to know that indeed it is not mind? Or moreover how does that stream realize, "I have no ultimate existence."? Perhaps it can see that it has to substantial existence...but "ultimate existence"?

 

I agree that it is wrong to see the mind as a source in the sense that things come out of "it." That would make mind into some separate substance. I don't think Yogacara is saying that.

 

*I mean mind here as the capacity to be aware, know, cognize...not just the thinking.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

How does one go about proving that something is beyond the mind to show that it doesn't ultimately exist? (nothing rhetorical, a true question). I understand how one can see the mind as unestablished just like saying a stream of river might be unestablished. But how to know that indeed it is not mind? Or moreover how does that stream realize, "I have no ultimate existence."? Perhaps it can see that it has to substantial existence...but "ultimate existence"?

 

I agree that it is wrong to see the mind as a source in the sense that things come out of "it." That would make mind into some separate substance. I don't think Yogacara is saying that.

 

*I mean mind here as the capacity to be aware, know, cognize...not just the thinking.

Can mind/experience be located somewhere? Or is it just an intangible aware-emptiness? This is the way to see that mind has no inherent existence.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Can mind/experience be located somewhere? Or is it just an intangible aware-emptiness? This is the way to see that mind has no inherent existence.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "can you find your eye anywhere"? So you look for your eyes and seeing that one can't find it, think he has no eyes...

 

Or if it was findable, that would be like a man staring into a mirror and seeing his eyes think that's where his eyes are located instead of his head.

 

What does it mean when you say the mind has no inherent existence?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Isn't that kind of like saying, "can you find your eye anywhere"? So you look for your eyes and seeing that one can't find it, think he has no eyes...

 

Or if it was findable, that would be like a man staring into a mirror and seeing his eyes think that's where his eyes are located instead of his head.

 

What does it mean when you say the mind has no inherent existence?

The absence of inherent existence, aka emptiness, is twofold. Emptiness of self and emptiness of objects.

 

When you realize emptiness of self, you realize that there is no subject, no eye, that is behind the seeing.

 

You realize this: seeing IS the seen, in seeing only the seen, in hearing only the heard.

 

The process is self-luminous, knowing is simply what is known. That an agent is simply an inferred existence due to ignorance of anatta, while in actuality the process itself is the knowing.

 

So at this point, it is like what Thich Nhat Hanh says:

 

Sunshine and Green Leaves

 

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

 

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

 

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

 

 

At this point, you not only experience, but realize, there is no eye and ears, like in the 9th oxherding picture:

 

http://www.sanbo-zen.org/cow_e.html

 

What could be superior to becoming blind and deaf

in this very moment?

Come to think of it now, why didn't I become like a blind and deaf person right away? "Blind and deaf" here means a state of mind where there is nothing to see and nothing to hear. When you see, there's only the seeing, and the subject that sees doesn't exist. When you hear, there's only the hearing, and the subject that hears doesn't exist. The objects which are seen or heard are, just as they are, without substance. But understanding the logic of this will not do. When this is realized as a fact, you become like a "blind and deaf" person.

 

 

When we realize first fold emptiness, we realize that 'mind', 'awareness' is empty of a self. It is not a subject. It is a stream of happening.

 

But after this, there is also the second emptiness to penetrate - the emptiness of objects. This is about realizing the ungraspability, unlocatability, of whatever dependently originates - therefore whatever appears are like an illusion.

 

But if you jump to the 2nd emptiness without going through the 1st emptiness, you will still cling to an inherently existing mind.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

The absence of inherent existence, aka emptiness, is twofold. Emptiness of self and emptiness of objects.

 

When you realize emptiness of self, you realize that there is no subject, no eye, that is behind the seeing.

 

You realize this: seeing IS the seen, in seeing only the seen, in hearing only the heard.

 

The process is self-luminous, knowing is simply what is known. That an agent is simply an inferred existence due to ignorance of anatta, while in actuality the process itself is the knowing.

But my question was in regards to your method of inquiring with the mind to find mind, and not finding it declaring that it has no ultimate existence.

 

How do you experience seeing and hearing in the first place if neither the seen or the seer are existent?

 

Alo, so can we say that the "process" is mind?

 

Sunshine and Green Leaves

 

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

 

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

 

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

Thich nhat hanh seems more to be speaking about non-duality here than what we are getting at.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Agent is simply a mental conceiving of an inherent self. Such an inherent self cannot be found and is a conjured illusion, much like santa claus.

 

Santa claus, being an illusion, is not real to begin with, so it would not make sense to speak of the presence or absence of santa claus, or the presence or absence of agents.

 

1. You speak of the absence of agents all the time though.

 

2. Absence of Santa Claus is also an illusion.

 

An agent, perceiver, or controller of things was never real to begin with

 

An agent is an appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind it is illusory.

 

An absence of an agent is another appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind is too is illusory.

 

- there is simply perceiving, and doing, and it has nothing to do with the illusion of a perceiver or controller, or rather that illusion of a perceiver or controller has no relevance or control of how reality functions. An illusory seer cannot see, an illusory controller doesn't act - perceiving simply happens as a self-luminous act of cognizance, doing simply happens.

 

Do you see this?

 

I do. Do you see that the absence of seer, that "seeing is just the seen" is simply another appearance arisen dependently on "seer sees"? The former is the negation of the latter.

 

In other words, absence of seer is an exaggeration if you fixate on it as the ultimate truth.

 

But if you say the absence and presence of ignorance (mental conceiving of santa clauses, agents, inherent existence) dependently originates, then yes of course. But not a real self, per se.

 

Reality of self is an illusion.

 

Unreality of self is another illusion.

 

Try to attain this symmetry of realization. Don't lean toward the nihilistic side of the absence.

 

You proclaim the absence of the seer as the victory over the bondage that clinging to the perception of the seer brings. It's not really a victory though. It's just another form of bondage. Now you are clinging to absence.

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I agree that it is wrong to see the mind as a source in the sense that things come out of "it." That would make mind into some separate substance. I don't think Yogacara is saying that.

 

*I mean mind here as the capacity to be aware, know, cognize...not just the thinking.

 

Very well said.

 

The mind is neither an object nor a substance of any kind. And yet the mind is real. People have trouble with this formulation because usually when someone says something is real, they're talking about an object or a substance of some kind. Naturally protestations arise from this.

 

To say that the mind is both real and deathless is skillful means more than anything. It gives people an easy place of access into the deathless: their own day to day mind. Sure, people also have erroneous conceptions regarding the mind and praising the mind will cause some intermittent clinging to the erroneous conceptions about the mind. That's a fair price to pay for the instant intimacy that's gained in this formulation.

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

But my question was in regards to your method of inquiring with the mind to find mind, and not finding it declaring that it has no ultimate existence.

You are assuming that mind is a subject, sort of an unseen seer. My inquiry at finding mind is when you already realized that mind is not a subject, that there is only what is vividly seen and experienced - that alone is mind, and yet there is still the view that there is some solidity to experience. At this point, you should investigate and realize that mind/experience is vividly apparent yet unlocatable, unfindable, insubstantial, like an illusion, like a magic show. This is the emptiness of objects.

 

If however, one still has the idea or notion that mind is a subject behind things, then one should first investigate on anatta.

How do you experience seeing and hearing in the first place if neither the seen or the seer are existent?

Simple. Dependent origination.

Alo, so can we say that the "process" is mind?

Yes. But it is not that the process is only Mind (subsuming things into 'mind')... but that mind is the process and empty of any self.

Thich nhat hanh seems more to be speaking about non-duality here than what we are getting at.

TNH is talking about knowing, being, etc as verb, process, activities, rather than as entities. This mean anatta. Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

 

~ HHDL, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/His%20Holiness%20the%20Dalai%20Lama

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

You are assuming that mind is a subject, sort of an unseen seer. My inquiry at finding mind is when you already realized that mind is not a subject, that there is only what is vividly seen and experienced - that alone is mind, and yet there is still the view that there is some solidity to experience.

 

Are you confusing solidity with stability? What do you mean by solidity? Do you mean things like you being unable to go through solid walls? Let's speak more precisely here.

 

Stability refers to the fact that experiences tend to be consistent. In other words, roughly the same furniture is found in your place of living every day, etc... That's stability.

 

Solidity refers to objects maintaining spacial integrity. For example, the solid tea cub doesn't pass through the solid surface of the table, etc. That's solidity.

 

So, more precisely now, what are you talking about?

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

1. You speak of the absence of agents all the time though.

 

2. Absence of Santa Claus is also an illusion.

 

An agent is an appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind it is illusory.

 

An absence of an agent is another appearance in the mind. As an appearance in the mind is too is illusory.

What I mean by 'absence' is more about 'unfindability' or 'unestablish-ability' of an entity, than 'non-existence' of an established entity.

 

An absence, or presence, of santa claus cannot be established when santa claus cannot be found to begin with. Just as the Buddha have explained, the existence and non-existence (or both and neither) of the Tathagata cannot be established when a Tathagata cannot even be pinned down as a truth or reality in the present.

 

I do. Do you see that the absence of seer, that "seeing is just the seen" is simply another appearance arisen dependently on "seer sees"? The former is the negation of the latter.

Seeing is always just the seen, not 'seeing becomes the seen' after negation, in the same way that the river is always flowing whether or not you realized it is flowing or is under the delusion that the river is solid and static.

In other words, absence of seer is an exaggeration if you fixate on it as the ultimate truth.

 

 

 

Reality of self is an illusion.

 

Unreality of self is another illusion.

The unfindability of an essence, aka emptiness, is the ultimate truth.

 

Of course, emptiness is not itself something inherent or findable.

Try to attain this symmetry of realization. Don't lean toward the nihilistic side of the absence.

When emptiness is realized, you naturally wake up from the four extremes, you see how they do not apply to reality. When you do not, then you will certainly lean towards one of the sides.

 

You proclaim the absence of the seer as the victory over the bondage that clinging to the perception of the seer brings. It's not really a victory though. It's just another form of bondage. Now you are clinging to absence.

I do not proclaim the absence of seer as victory. (there is no established seer to be present or absent)

 

I proclaim that that there is no findable, independent, permanent self, in the same way that there is no eye, no ear, no nose.... no five skandhas.... no five skandhas, no wisdom, no suffering, no ....(full list see heart sutra).

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005