'No self' my experience so far...

[Informer]

Thank you for sharing your POV.

 

That sensitivity can be a burden or a gift, it is up to you.

[JustARandomPanda]

Interesting. I wish people like Red Pine would translate more obscure works and not just the famous ones. Daoist cannon, from what I've read about it, is huge. Why do people only translate Daodejing? Why not translate say 50-100 different works? Currently I think we have something like ten-ish works translated.

 

I agree! It is hard to find Taoist works. I tried to find a translation of the Spring and Fall Annals but came up only with a historical commentary on them. Not the translation itself.

 

I think maybe few Taoist texts are translated because Publishers don't think they would sell. Who knows...they may be right.

[Todd]

I don't have his translation and I don't remember ever reading it. Perhaps one day.

 

If you are interested, the Chapter links that I provided lead to the translation of the main text (unfortunately missing the translator's notes). It doesn't have the line breaks of the original and there are some mistakes in the text, in comparison with the printed book, but its a decent start. It should be available by Interlibrary Loan, if your local library does that.

 

Yes, the Mystery is oftentime regarded as empty but as it is potential, in my mind, it is not empty.

 

Yeah, its not like it is only nothing. It is a nothing with all of the qualities of the world that we observe and limitless potential below that. I would prefer the view of potential vs only nothing, or only empty.

 

I think that might be an absolute. Hehehe.

 

Here is the translation of Line 1, Chapter 4 by Sanderson Beck:

 

The Way is infinite; its use is never exhausted.

 

This is much closer to my understanding than any other translation I can think of right now. (Note that there is no use of the word "empty", only unlimited potential.

 

I'm not sure where "infinite" is coming from, other than interpretation, which obscures the commonly accepted meaning of empty (which implies infinite, in a way), but I can see the interpretation of "its use is never exhausted". It doesn't completely explain the use of "again", but this meaning seems valid, if interpretive.

[JustARandomPanda]

It's not my POV just a POV.

 

This is not something the (dependently-originated) you believe?

 

There is nothing to own in a POV, it is just one way to look at things.

 

I know your probably thinking Semantics, who needs them, but it is these subtlties that will bind or release.

 

 

That may well be true but since I experience all things from the POV of a "Master Me" that's not yet proven as a Truth. In fact...I'm pretty suspicious it is true. Enough so that that's why I'm trying to get to the Cessation of Thought stage. I'm still utterly plagued with monkey-mind. According to Master Nan if one can not get to quieting down monkey-mind then talking about anything else is a moot point. But I realize quieting monkey-mind is only a means to an end. It's trying to create the "breathing room" so the REAL work can begin.

 

 

That sensitivity can be a burden or a gift, it is up to you.

 

 

I agree. It's one reason why I also let go of hurt feelings quickly in order to reflect on what someone's message is. I'm not always successful. Sometimes I do post when I'm still angry but most of the time I get up, walk around, go read a book, go paint (insert shameless plug for my Deviant Art page) , etc...do something else to cool down. And it works!

 

Unfortunately such a tactic doesn't really address the problem of having Hot Buttons to begin with (which is why I'm cultivating so it's solved, not just suppressed or ignored). I think most people on this site - even high level meditators with attainments in all the Jhanas and Samadhis - still have Hot Buttons. I've seen VH have his Hot Buttons pressed (and thus get defensive and reactionary) on this site by SongsofDistantEarth for example. It just may be that we all vary in which particular hot buttons we have.

 

I will say this. Having people press my Hot Buttons is a treasure! Without them I would not have the chance to be aware of said Buttons and thus no chance to try to work on them. I really do believe they are neccessary for me.

[Lucky7Strikes]

From what I can tell here, you are not saying that mind does not exist at all. You do admit that it has a reality in its manifestations...

It's not an issue of existence and non-existence. It's an issue of whether mind is dependently originated or mind is dependently originating. . Xabir's anatta is exactly that: no doer, no controller, phenomena just rolling on. So everything just dependently originates through conditions, and mind is simply a chain or a stream of those conditions, called a mindstream.

 

But you can see it other way. That dependent origination/emptiness is simply a characteristic of the mind's arising. That those conditions are created by the mind.

 

As for parroting claims, it's more to do with the way Xabir accumulates knowledge and practices. You need to be familiar with his blog and history of practice to see it.

[Todd]

Gold,

 

Another issue is that in a lot of the texts like the Huangdi Neijing, a lot of the meaning in conveyed via a system of associations that are not immediately apparent. So Rabbit represents Metal represents Lung, represents 3-5am, represents Yin in relation to some things and Yang in relation to others, represents the corporeal soul, represents contraction and descending motion of Qi, represents particular times of year and particular years, etc... I by no means am privy to a lot of this stuff, such that I would understand what the text means immediately, and its not really easy to put in a translation, or even notes, though a really interested person could find ways.

[C T]

Serene Blue....

 

Bewtiful works of art! Really creative!

 

[Otis]

[Lucky7Strikes]

sometimes texts provide reasoning too and sometimes they support my reasoning. If a discussion calls for reasoning I will try to explain in my own words too but sometimes what is necessary is simply relentless inquiry into emptiness or anatta - just as rt always ignore the nonsense people spout and ruthlessly ask them to investigate no self. You can't reason yourself into truth... But of course when possible I will try to explain what this is about, and then it is up to the person to investigate it for themselves and truth will reveal on its own accord.

I have criticized your way of anatta inquiry, in searching for a self in sensations. Your reply had nothing to do with that process, but just rehashed your own views, likely because you never truly went through them. You see relentlessness in RT, I see carelessness and almost a fear of accepting any notions of self.

 

 

The Buddha didn't give a lot of reasonings or he did but are limited cos truth can't be approached intellectually. I can give a simple analysis like chandrakirti sevenfold reasonings but it is limited how logic can comprehend something that is direct and upfront so to speak, just as I don't think it makes sense to write a logical thesis on "the logic/philosophy of luminosity" or "the logic of impermanence" from an insight perspective, since these are simply truths to be discovered through non conceptual insight instead of logical reasoning. When you realize I AM, this isn't a realization derived from the use of logic - it is not an inferred truth, but a basic fact being realized to be so. Same for non dual, anatta, etc. So someone uneducated and intellectually dull may very well realize emptiness without reading the philosophy of nagarjuna (and I must admit I never read much of those) by following the pithy pointers of mahamudra or dzogchen teachers.

You can write both thesis on luminosity and impermanence easily. The paper on luminosity would probably start with the question, "what is the most basic thing we can know?" You expect these ideas to be truths even before you truly contemplate on them, so to you these are truths to be accepted and adjusted to rather than weighed and questioned. There was never a genuine investigation of their validity.

 

I AM comes from logical and experiential inquiry. It deepens also due to those two practices.

 

So the Buddha instead asked people to contemplate and observe anatta in meditation such as vipassana. Also in bahiya sutta, he simply gave a short teaching on anatta after which bahiya immediately got liberated, and he was praised, "Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

 

The variety of Buddhist texts point to twofold emptiness so what I picked and the countless other scriptural texts, most I have never read before, wouldn't disagree. I just don't have time to read the long sutras... Yet. I only read short texts and excerpts from others.

Your crutch is the Bayhiya sutta. That is a path to arhathood as I mentioned earlier. It is a form of practice to purify the fetters and lead one to cessation. It's not necessarily bodhisattvahood or buddhahood it leads to.

 

How do you know these sutras don't disagree when you haven't read them? Twofold emptiness is just a teaching, and one can interpret it in a much wider context from Mahayana suttas. One thing I learned from going over the scriptures is they will often contradict or disagree on the basis that there are different levels of teachings. So understanding the audience of the Buddha is crucial when approaching the Mahayna sutras.

 

You assume your knowledge of Buddhism is sound from a few excerpts enough to quote chunks and chunks on the bums, giving off the air that you are correcting others in their knowledge of Buddhism or representing Buddhism. I've seen you do this multiple times to disprove people like 3bob who come with their own scriptural excepts. And now you reveal your own knowledge of them is narrow.

 

Also, having a framework is fine - there will be times where your understanding disagrees with a framework as your framework of duality and inherency is still intact (regardless if you knew about anatta, d.o. Etc intellectually) - even though I had a general understanding of anatta I still held on to an unchanging awareness for eight months from the point of realizing I AM, before I realized Anatta, after which the insights deepened and d.o. And emptiness became experientially clear. All these insights came rather quickly because I had been trained in the view of the twofold emptiness and d.o since years ago (without which I would probably still be stuck at I AM level of understanding right now)... So I kept investigating accordingly (such as bahiya sutta, mahamudra pointing outs etc) along with the right view.

 

Then at some point, when there is true realization and experience the framework may have served its purpose and like a raft is cast aside at the other shore - but also not to leave the raft too early in favour of "non conceptual experiences", otherwise you will not see the subtler truths about emptiness. First have right view, then experience and investigate and see for yourself... Imo this is best

IMO, framework is fine as long as it is your framework in which you constructed through honest investigation. Your framework was rather a leap of faith. Your investigation was just restructuring yourself according to those beliefs, in the form of repetition.

 

When any framework is strong or held on to, there will be inevitable shifts in awareness. Recite a God's name every morning and your awareness will shift to that of devotion. You can become a fanatic. That's why reason is important, to sort out a sincere and coherent framework to guide your experiences. So they both can feed off each other and evolve. If you adapt another person's framework without sufficient critical evaluation, that is already a limitation you've placed on your understanding. Unless that person is omniscient, the path should always be personally driven.

[Otis]

To put it down in simple terms I feel like the playing field is more level if I were to debate my POVs with someone like Marblehead than you. You don't match a Division AAA team with a Division A.

I'm sure you didn't mean this as a put-down of Marblehead, but I just have to say: Marblehead's posts, in my reading, have been among the most sensible and clear that I've read on the Bums. He shows great insight into his biases, unlike many, who pretend they have none. And he is consistently reasonable and good-humored. He is definitely fun to converse with, and doesn't try to overwhelm others, but I don't think he's a lightweight, at all!

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure where "infinite" is coming from, other than interpretation, which obscures the commonly accepted meaning of empty (which implies infinite, in a way), but I can see the interpretation of "its use is never exhausted". It doesn't completely explain the use of "again", but this meaning seems valid, if interpretive.

 

Yeah, I am sure there are those who would say, "But Marblehead, that's an intrepretation, not a direct translation." But you know what? I don't care. Hehehe.

 

Afterall, I have interpreted everything I have ever read in the field of philosophy based on its usefulness to me. I think nearly all of us do that. I'm not all that much into formalities. Practicalities is where my life is. Yep, I am a materialist. You already knew that though, didn't you?

 

And following a self-induced chuckle I need add: See? Infinite in the place of empty. Now I don't have to deal with empty.

[Marblehead]

I'm sure you didn't mean this as a put-down of Marblehead, but I just have to say: Marblehead's posts, in my reading, have been among the most sensible and clear that I've read on the Bums. He shows great insight into his biases, unlike many, who pretend they have none. And he is consistently reasonable and good-humored. He is definitely fun to converse with, and doesn't try to overwhelm others, but I don't think he's a lightweight, at all!

 

Thanks for the vote Otis. Hehehe. No, Serene The Bluetiful would never put me down, I think. I am sure she was referring to the ease at which others can speak with me. I have never claimed to be an expert or master so I need no excuses for when I screw up.

 

I actually took what she said as a compliment even though I felt no need to comment to it.

[JustARandomPanda]

I'm sure you didn't mean this as a put-down of Marblehead, but I just have to say: Marblehead's posts, in my reading, have been among the most sensible and clear that I've read on the Bums. He shows great insight into his biases, unlike many, who pretend they have none. And he is consistently reasonable and good-humored. He is definitely fun to converse with, and doesn't try to overwhelm others, but I don't think he's a lightweight, at all!

 

I agree. I don't think he's lightweight either. He is quite direct, clear in his explanations, doesn't rely on experiences which I haven't experienced and thus can't relate to.

 

I'm not saying the things GiH, VH, Xabir, Vmarco, Informer, CowTao, et. al don't have informative POVs. It's just that the things they debate are so far removed from what I experience in my own normal, everyday life that I can not relate to them easily without 'getting into their waters' - which usually means in order to evaluate what they're debating I'd have to dive into high level jhanas/samadhis/dhyana states and read tons of suttas/sutras.

 

They debate stuff that is quite dependent upon realizations attained in high contemplative, mindful awareness and meditative states. This is not the world I live in. Marblehead's world is my world if you get my drift. Which is why I said he is in my Division. We are playing on the same level. I know someone is not going to try to pull a "Trump Card" of such and such highly Realized Contemplative Truth on me in a discussion about my POVs and experiences.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

It's not an issue of existence and non-existence. It's an issue of whether mind is dependently originated or mind is dependently originating. . Xabir's anatta is exactly that: no doer, no controller, phenomena just rolling on. So everything just dependently originates through conditions, and mind is simply a chain or a stream of those conditions, called a mindstream.

 

But you can see it other way. That dependent origination/emptiness is simply a characteristic of the mind's arising. That those conditions are created by the mind.

 

 

 

Well the mind is still a mindstream even when you see that mindstream arising from dependent origination, right?

 

The characteristics of the minds arising are part of the mindstream though. The mindstream, whether coming from the mind itself or from Emptiness are still just clouds passing through the mind that is inherently Empty. Whether the thoughts are created or uncreated, they arise from Emptiness which one might say is the only inherent thing.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Well the mind is still a mindstream even when you see that mindstream arising from dependent origination, right?

 

The characteristics of the minds arising are part of the mindstream though. The mindstream, whether coming from the mind itself or from Emptiness are still just clouds passing through the mind that is inherently Empty. Whether the thoughts are created or uncreated, they arise from Emptiness which one might say is the only inherent thing.

How does the mind see that it arises from something else?

 

Wait, so mindstream passes through the mind? Then what is mind? Is emptiness a thing to you?

 

Your view is neither mine or Xabirs if you think Emptiness is some inherent thing from which the mind arises.

[Marblehead]

The characteristics of the minds arising are part of the mindstream though. The mindstream, whether coming from the mind itself or from Emptiness are still just clouds passing through the mind that is inherently Empty. Whether the thoughts are created or uncreated, they arise from Emptiness which one might say is the only inherent thing.

 

Holy Shit!!!

 

I have to agree with something said that includes the vulgar word "emptiness" in it!!!

[Harmonious Emptiness]

How does the mind see that it arises from something else?

 

Wait, so mindstream passes through the mind? Then what is mind? Is emptiness a thing to you?

 

Your view is neither mine or Xabirs if you think Emptiness is some inherent thing from which the mind arises.

 

 

Emptiness to the mind could be called a thing, a noun. But, Emptiness just is, like a state of being/not being which is neither a thing. I say inherent because it's not going anywhere, it's not going to change, though the forms that arise from it could be perceived as part of it in a sense, which perhaps explains the middle way doctrine of the Heart Sutra:

 

"form is no different to emptiness,

emptiness no different to form.

That which is form is emptiness,

that which is emptiness, form."

 

 

The mind comes from emptiness, like everything else, and things, like mindstreams, pass through it. The mind is both emptiness and form. By its form it can see it's emptiness. In knowing emptiness it also knows form and thus absence of form.

 

Take a look at the above quotation; do you agree with it?

[JustARandomPanda]

Holy Shit!!!

 

I have to agree with something said that includes the vulgar word "emptiness" in it!!!

 

Yes, it does seem he's explaining it in a very Tao-ish way. Harmonious...you may be a Closet Taoist in Buddhist clothing.

[C T]

Emptiness to the mind could be called a thing, a noun. But, Emptiness just is, like a state of being/not being which is neither a thing. I say inherent because it's not going anywhere, it's not going to change, though the forms that arise from it could be perceived as part of it in a sense, which perhaps explains the middle way doctrine of the Heart Sutra:

 

"form is no different to emptiness,

emptiness no different to form.

That which is form is emptiness,

that which is emptiness, form."

 

 

The mind comes from emptiness, like everything else, and things, like mindstreams, pass through it. The mind is both emptiness and form. By its form it can see it's emptiness. In knowing emptiness it also knows form and thus absence of form.

 

Take a look at the above quotation; do you agree with it?

Sorry to barge in H.E. - May i suggest you give the commentary on the Heart Sutra (linked below) a careful read. Its the best commentary I have ever come across that brings much clarity to understanding exactly what the Sutra teaches.

 

Perhaps Serene Blue and others will also find some inspiration from this: http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/heart-sutra-commentary.html

[dwai]

Emptiness to the mind could be called a thing, a noun. But, Emptiness just is, like a state of being/not being which is neither a thing. I say inherent because it's not going anywhere, it's not going to change, though the forms that arise from it could be perceived as part of it in a sense, which perhaps explains the middle way doctrine of the Heart Sutra:

 

"form is no different to emptiness,

emptiness no different to form.

That which is form is emptiness,

that which is emptiness, form."

 

 

The mind comes from emptiness, like everything else, and things, like mindstreams, pass through it. The mind is both emptiness and form. By its form it can see it's emptiness. In knowing emptiness it also knows form and thus absence of form.

 

Take a look at the above quotation; do you agree with it?

 

 

Nice. I'm returning to TTB after a long hiatus (and will be gone soon, for those who are alarmed by this phenomenon )...the biggest problem with "No Self" is that often we tend to fixate on negating everything using this as an instrument. The fact of the matter is that there IS a Self, even if it is that which is not the "No Self".

 

The stream of thoughts that is the mind is still registering somewhere/in something. Otherwise it would not be a stream and would be an unbroken continuum that is aware of itself. But experience shows us that it is not and that it is nothing but a constant stream of thought "particles" flowing one after another (sometimes one triggering another, other times disconnected from one another). But what is it that knows this?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Nice. I'm returning to TTB after a long hiatus (and will be gone soon, for those who are alarmed by this phenomenon )...the biggest problem with "No Self" is that often we tend to fixate on negating everything using this as an instrument. The fact of the matter is that there IS a Self, even if it is that which is not the "No Self".

 

The stream of thoughts that is the mind is still registering somewhere/in something. Otherwise it would not be a stream and would be an unbroken continuum that is aware of itself. But experience shows us that it is not and that it is nothing but a constant stream of thought "particles" flowing one after another (sometimes one triggering another, other times disconnected from one another). But what is it that knows this?

 

 

Emptiness negates nothing, while seeing through everything, including itself as it's not a self.

[xabir2005]

From your first paragraph of introduction to your e-book:

 

 

Really? That sounds like insanity. How would you ever know?

 

"You can never find..." Wow.

 

Another unbelievably unsupportable and unknowable assertion that depends upon omniscience (but of course, not a belief, since you don't have them).

haha

 

But notice I didn't say there aren't other similarly effective and fast direct path methods. That would be kind of naïve.

 

I simply said this is one of them...

 

Direct paths are any form of direct inquiry that leads to experiential realization. There are gradual paths emphasizing development of experience foremost before realization happens. An example of direct path is selfinquiry, or thusness's anatta verses and ruthlesstruth inquiry. An example of gradual path is actualism and vipassana in general.

 

Maybe I should add a clarification when I bookout from camp.

[xabir2005]

I have criticized your way of anatta inquiry, in searching for a self in sensations. Your reply had nothing to do with that process, but just rehashed your own views, likely because you never truly went through them. You see relentlessness in RT, I see carelessness and almost a fear of accepting any notions of self.

 

 

 

You can write both thesis on luminosity and impermanence easily. The paper on luminosity would probably start with the question, "what is the most basic thing we can know?" You expect these ideas to be truths even before you truly contemplate on them, so to you these are truths to be accepted and adjusted to rather than weighed and questioned. There was never a genuine investigation of their validity.

 

I AM comes from logical and experiential inquiry. It deepens also due to those two practices.

 

 

Your crutch is the Bayhiya sutta. That is a path to arhathood as I mentioned earlier. It is a form of practice to purify the fetters and lead one to cessation. It's not necessarily bodhisattvahood or buddhahood it leads to.

 

How do you know these sutras don't disagree when you haven't read them? Twofold emptiness is just a teaching, and one can interpret it in a much wider context from Mahayana suttas. One thing I learned from going over the scriptures is they will often contradict or disagree on the basis that there are different levels of teachings. So understanding the audience of the Buddha is crucial when approaching the Mahayna sutras.

 

You assume your knowledge of Buddhism is sound from a few excerpts enough to quote chunks and chunks on the bums, giving off the air that you are correcting others in their knowledge of Buddhism or representing Buddhism. I've seen you do this multiple times to disprove people like 3bob who come with their own scriptural excepts. And now you reveal your own knowledge of them is narrow.

 

 

IMO, framework is fine as long as it is your framework in which you constructed through honest investigation. Your framework was rather a leap of faith. Your investigation was just restructuring yourself according to those beliefs, in the form of repetition.

 

When any framework is strong or held on to, there will be inevitable shifts in awareness. Recite a God's name every morning and your awareness will shift to that of devotion. You can become a fanatic. That's why reason is important, to sort out a sincere and coherent framework to guide your experiences. So they both can feed off each other and evolve. If you adapt another person's framework without sufficient critical evaluation, that is already a limitation you've placed on your understanding. Unless that person is omniscient, the path should always be personally driven.

you can write a thesis on luminosity and impermanence - but to talk about it as a theory, philosophy, or logic is quite besides the point - better to lead the reader to an experiential seeing of these truths rather than have them form conceptual models about them. Some understanding is necessary but not to get too heavily conceptualized or theoretical imo. My anatta inquiry is bahiya sutta inquiry... I didn't practice searching for a self, rather by investigating whether "in seeing there is just the seen", I realized directly "in seeing just the seen", "seeing is the seen" without agent, beyond a logical comprehension of it.

 

The Buddha thought upon his enlightenment, "This Dhamma which I have realized is indeed profound, difficult to perceive, difficult to comprehend, tranquil, exalted, not within the sphere of logic, subtle, and is to be understood by the wise. These beings are attached to material pleasures. This causally connected 'Dependent Arising' is a subject which is difficult to comprehend. And this Nibbāna -- the cessation of the conditioned, the abandoning of all passions, the destruction of craving, the non-attachment, and the cessation -- is also a matter not easily comprehensible. If I too were to teach this Dhamma, the others would not understand me. That will be wearisome to me, that will be tiresome to me."

 

Shunyata, anatta, non dual, etc aren't realized by logic. The I AM realization too is beyond logic. The selfinquiry process is simply "turning the mind inwards to realize the source" and not an intellectual analysis about being. The truth simply cannot be touched by concepts. If thoughts are any useful there, it should be a thought about the limits, inaccuracy and uselessness of thoughts in approaching truth (hence leading to the abandoning of those conceptual reasonings in favour of direct experiential investigation). The neti neti process is an example of useful thoughts, but even that is secondary to the true purpose of selfinquiry - neti neti is not enough to attain selfrealization, which can only be attained when one traces the radiance to the source, to that pure luminosity or undeniable fact of presence-awareness prior to concepts.

 

I agree framework must come with honest investigation which I did, otherwise no matter whether I have faith in that framework, I will simply not see it and its implications in experience. In other words no realization, no quantum shift in perception will occur. Many people studied teachings about anatta and emptiness and may be well versed in nagarjuna but doesn't mean they realized.

 

I agree bahiya sutta is about arhatship. This is because bahiya sutta teaches firstfold emptines aka anatta, whereas the mahayana prajnaparamita sutras (along with the rare instances of pali canon like phena sutta) emphasizes not only anatta but more about the secondfold emptiness.

 

However, secondfold emptiness does not deny firstfold but is merely a progression. Secondfold emptiness is not a recourse back into inherent existence, mind or self of the hindu eternalistic view... It is a progression that includes and further expands on the original insight of anatta. Whereas anatta is the emptiness of self in a person, the second is the emptiness of self in all phenomena.

 

Mahayana does not deny anatta (there is a lot about it - see diamond sutra etc) but simply points to a subtler aspect of emptiness relating to all phenomena.

 

Buddha, Nagarjuna, Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc all do not establish anything including the inherent existence of mind.

 

I have not read all sutras indepth (some are hundreds of pages long) but I have a general idea what they are about.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Sorry to barge in H.E. - May i suggest you give the commentary on the Heart Sutra (linked below) a careful read. Its the best commentary I have ever come across that brings much clarity to understanding exactly what the Sutra teaches.

 

Perhaps Serene Blue and others will also find some inspiration from this: http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/heart-sutra-commentary.html

 

Thanks CowToa, that was insightful. I won't comment much on it now so as not to divert the previous questions, but I am going to use a part of it here to reiterate, namely:

 

"If all form is precisely emptiness, emptiness nonetheless appears to us as form. Form is precisely emptiness but emptiness also is precisely form. Samsara and Nirvana are contrasting perspectives on the Unknown Nature that lies behind it all. The vision of the Mahayana is that both are true in a co-emergent mutuality which becomes the focus of meditation itself."

 

Now, Xabir, hopefully you'll soon respond to my earlier question as well, as to whether you agree with that isolated quotation from The Heart Sutra. Thanks.

[Birch]

All this stuff is getting confusing.

As far as I'd like to suggest, there is nothing in mind apart from the stream. The thought of knowing a thought is "just a thought" is IME also "just" a thought but it has a different "quality" to it than the thought that "doesn't know" it's "just" a thought. So why is this? I figure there could be lots of reasons/explanations- from the inherent nature of some thoughts (as in we don't tend to equate viewing something with "thinking" although I've seen people try to push that idea over the edge) to just because someone else told you that's how it works (see "it's not what you think" as a pretty standard response to many obviously "it is what you think" situations...)

 

I grant religions the ability to get large numbers of people to tell each other both what to think and how to think and some will go very far into the thinking process in order to make sure no-one gets left out...but IMO their more obvious flaws start showing up when they attempt to interpret people's inner lives in ways that suit the religions more than the

people. Which is one of the reasons they suck IMO. Reasons they might also not suck are that they are also often huge repositories of information about how they do what they do and how to undo what they do. Also lots of very neat physical / mental practices in many of them but I haven't worked out why that stuff is there (inside religions) yet..

 

Yes my self-construct happens to be anti-religious. No I am neither inherently flawed for bearing this POV nor do I have any bad church experiences to tell (although I remember ages ago thinking "this is just ridiculous" when the old biddy attempted to convince me of various things.)

 

I find it interesting that buddhism is doing so well in our times and I think one of the reasons might be that it truly goes further into people's inner lives than many others. I find it intrusive at some levels but I'm also interested in just how far it's proponents will go.