'No self' my experience so far...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

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...)

 

 

Personally, I'm just trying to sort out what is or is not Buddhism, since that seems to be why the argument is going on. I don't fully subscribe to any doctrines. I'm just thinking that this will either show that both sides actually agree underneath the words, or one will say "okay, I don't see it the Buddhist way, but this is how I see it" then the debate will find resolution and agree to disagree since there will not be any "you're wrong" about how someone just perceives it.

[xabir2005]

[Otis]

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.

Cool. I figured as much. Just felt the need to put in a good word for the man, whose posts make good sense to me, just about as much as anyone here.

[Otis]

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.

A clarification is not the issue. The issue is that you are no longer drinking the kool-aid, you're breathing it.

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

A clarification is not the issue. The issue is that you are no longer drinking the kool-aid, you're swimming in it.

if you go look around you'll clearly see there is a distinction and difference between direct path and gradual path practices.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

No emptiness is not a state and it is not some container for things. Emptiness is "no independent/inherent existence".

 

Emptiness is the nature of all forms and therefore form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

 

....

 

When there is this, that is.

With the arising of this, that arises.

When this is not, neither is that.

With the cessation of this, that ceases.

The profundity of this four-liner principle of conditionality is not in words. For a more theoretical exposition, see Non-Dual Emptiness Teachings by Dr. Greg Goode; for a more experiential narration, see the subsection "On Emptiness" and "On Maha" of the post "On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness and Spontaneous Perfection".

 

Comments:

 

Here practice is clearly understood as neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to thoroughly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the on-going reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature.

 

"no independent/inherent existence" could be called a state if it could be called anything.

 

Your quotation seems to agree with my above post, no?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The difference is lucky says "there is no reality other than mind" which means mind has reality. I say, and like third karmapa said, even mind is empty without reality, but being empty its manifestations are infinite and unceasing and its essence is luminous clarity. Emptiness, luminosity and manifestation are inseperable.

 

 

This is an example where you seem to negate the existence of form, but your other quotations do not negate it, but see it almost inseparable from emptiness.

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.. to toss in an old chestnut..

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Regarding self inquiry as a form of direct path:

 

Ramana Maharshi on Atma Vichara

 

...

 

There is no greater mystery than this - that being the reality we seek to gain reality. We think that there is something hiding our reality and that it must be destroyed before the reality is gained. It is ridiculous. A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your past efforts. That which will be on the day you laugh is also here and now.

 

Source: from David Godman Excellent Book "Be As You are"

 

 

I think this also supports my point

[Otis]

if you go look around you'll clearly see there is a distinction and difference between direct path and gradual path practices.

LOL! You know my point had nothing to do with that.

 

You said, in your intro: "you can never find a more direct path to realization than the approach I have presented".

 

That's an amazingly absurd thing to claim.

[Informer]

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Does this mean we can be friends?

 

Quieting the mind can be tricky. I used to have much trouble sleeping because the mind would run rampant. One of the things that helped me was just taking notice that I was thinking and stop fallowing whatever train of thought it was leading too. Then I would focus on something else to keep it occupied. Like breathing.

 

One single thought is like a snowball down a mountain, it brings about more and more until it is a full-blown avalance. By consciously making the decision to not fallow it, the mind becomes blank, awaiting the next thought to arise.

 

The trick is to catch them when they stem, and to be active in swatting them down. Eventually it should lead to complete calming. Swatting them even before they arise.

 

Questing for self is but a single aspect that brings about an awareness of awareness if you will. This is a single aspect amongst other things, although some get caught up in only this part and never see beyond.

[xabir2005]

LOL! You know my point had nothing to do with that.

 

You said, in your intro: "you can never find a more direct path to realization than the approach I have presented".

 

That's an amazingly absurd thing to claim.

That is true - there is no "more" direct path because all direct paths are equal, as it leads the practitioner straight to truth. It is a straight path and direct pointer to truth.

 

When the person is ripe, self inquiry only need to be asked once... And self realization is attained - such as ramana maharshi, eckhart tolle, etc. Others take a little longer (like me, still less than two years)

[xabir2005]

This is an example where you seem to negate the existence of form, but your other quotations do not negate it, but see it almost inseparable from emptiness.

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.. to toss in an old chestnut..

it is not "almost"... It IS a unity.

 

While appearing, it is empty of inherent existence... While empty, appearances are diverse. Appearance-emptiness, like an illusion, like a dream, like a magician's trick.

[xabir2005]

"no independent/inherent existence" could be called a state if it could be called anything.

 

Your quotation seems to agree with my above post, no?

no... No independent/inherent existence is just the way things are, it is the nature of reality.

 

Just like you do not call "impermanence" a "state"... It is simply the way things are so... Constantly fading... Vanishing without a trace.

 

Emptiness is the nature of reality and not a state. The realization of the nature of reality is called the arising of prajna wisdom.

[Informer]

no... No independent/inherent existence is just the way things are, it is the nature of reality.

 

Just like you do not call "impermanence" a "state"... It is simply the way things are so... Constantly fading... Vanishing without a trace.

 

Emptiness is the nature of reality and not a state. The realization of the nature of reality is called the arising of prajna wisdom.

 

You are stuck in the paradox of destroying you.

 

[Informer]

What you say is true, but only from your POV.

 

If you own fixed a POV,

 

I say woe to you.

 

And especially to he who thinks

 

there is no you.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

no... No independent/inherent existence is just the way things are, it is the nature of reality.

 

Just like you do not call "impermanence" a "state"... It is simply the way things are so... Constantly fading... Vanishing without a trace.

 

Emptiness is the nature of reality and not a state. The realization of the nature of reality is called the arising of prajna wisdom.

 

It doesn't matter what I call it. It is what it is, and it's not difficult to see that "nature of reality" is the same as what I meant by "state" whatever attachments you have to "state" in other uses. We're describing the virtually indescribable. All that matters is that one side understands what the other means, regardless of what words are used.

 

My whole intention here is try to prove that you do not in fact disagree with what other people are saying, for the most part, but that the words and descriptions are being taken too seriously which is why everybody seems to disagree with you here when in fact they agree. It's just a misunderstanding of words and statements etc..

[xabir2005]

You are stuck in the paradox of destroying you.

 

no, there is no you to destroy

[xabir2005]

What you say is true, but only from your POV.

 

If you own fixed a POV,

 

I say woe to you.

 

And especially to he who thinks

 

there is no you.

I do not have a point of view. Existence and non-existence are points of views. The 'I Am conceit' as buddha calls it is the most fundamental pov that leads to rebirth and suffering. To be freed from such extremes is to be free from views and positions.

 

I have stated in the past many times, there is no you but also no "no you" - just in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard. (With regards to anatta insight) I negate without asserting non-existence, so I am not a nihilist and do not have a point of view.

 

Today I just found something well said so I'm going to quote them because it expresses what I said earlier with clarity.

 

"If I had a position, I would be at fault,

Since I alone have no position, I alone am without fault"

 

-- Vigrahavyavartani.

 

"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."

 

- Namdrol

[xabir2005]

It doesn't matter what I call it. It is what it is, and it's not difficult to see that "nature of reality" is the same as what I meant by "state" whatever attachments you have to "state" in other uses. We're describing the virtually indescribable. All that matters is that one side understands what the other means, regardless of what words are used.

 

My whole intention here is try to prove that you do not in fact disagree with what other people are saying, for the most part, but that the words and descriptions are being taken too seriously which is why everybody seems to disagree with you here when in fact they agree. It's just a misunderstanding of words and statements etc..

state implies a particular state of experience

 

Emptiness is not a state, it is the nature of all states or experience.

 

Lucky and I have fundamental disagreements with regards to the nature of mind: whereas he establishes mind to have inherent existence, I do not.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

it is not "almost"... It IS a unity.

 

While appearing, it is empty of inherent existence... While empty, appearances are diverse. Appearance-emptiness, like an illusion, like a dream, like a magician's trick.

 

Here, once again, you are agreeing with what I said, but attacking words superficially to disagree with the statement. So I put the statement softly rather than directly, but you still respond as if we disagree. Looking at the point I was trying to make with that and other posts, you obviously just agreed with my point. Yet, superficial wording is understood rather than the obvious implications of their point. Realization is not about the words that describe it. The words don't matter after the realization. See the point. The point is that you agree that forms exist, though they are actually emptiness, and that we know emptiness by the forms (which emptiness is the absence of, and so emptiness can be seen in forms as well).

 

I think this is a "worded" perspective that all agree on, and maybe all these confusing word-forms can cease so as not to cloud the fact that they are not the same as Prajna, though some inspiring words can be found in these pages.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

state implies a particular state of experience

 

Emptiness is not a state, it is the nature of all states or experience.

 

Lucky and I have fundamental disagreements with regards to the nature of mind: whereas he establishes mind to have inherent existence, I do not.

 

I don't think Lucky would say that mind has inherent existence. I think that he just mistakes you for being on the emptiness-no-form extreme, and so you assume he is on the form no-emptiness extreme. The thing is that you're both arguing for a middle path, so the argument will never end until you both realize it.

 

-- and as for the state issue.. obviously I know this. Where's your honed insight that should be able to perceive this and move past the word-choice.

[Otis]

That is true - there is no "more" direct path because all direct paths are equal, as it leads the practitioner straight to truth. It is a straight path and direct pointer to truth.

 

When the person is ripe, self inquiry only need to be asked once... And self realization is attained - such as ramana maharshi, eckhart tolle, etc. Others take a little longer (like me, still less than two years)

You are utterly shameless with your declarations of the absolute.

 

Here you are, "less than two years" in, and you declare everything with such certainty.

 

You use words like "permanent" and "never" with no sense of irony. You boldly declare "is" statements about the most mysterious possible subjects, without the least caveat, even though you've admitted that "is" and "is not" can't accurately describe the actual world. You equate your "liberation" with the awakenings of two of the most respected spiritual leaders of the last few decades (and state that your prescribed method is equal). You've even declared that you know that there is no God. You still have never justified your use of absolutes, except with the circular I'm right cuz I'm enlightened, and I'm enlightened cuz I say so.

 

You have made an argument above for "self inquiry", but that's a far cry from saying that some unspecified reader ("you") can "never find a more direct path to realization than the approach I have presented", which is to say that xabir knows not only the best way to liberate himself, but also the best (or equal to the best) way to liberate everyone else. You learned all that in two years?

[xabir2005]

I said earlier how there is no knowing without a known... Hence a non objective and truely existing seeing is baseless.

 

Just found something from namdrol while reading dharmawheel just now:

 

 

Seeing isn't a charateristic, it is an action.

 

N

 

adinatha wrote:

"Seeing and knowing continuous and effortless."

 

 

Seeing without an object to see? Such seeing is useless as well as impossible. Apart from what has been seen and what has not been seen, there is no present seeing.

 

N

 

.......

 

adinatha wrote:

"Not eye faculty seeing. "Seeing," as in "I know, I see." For example, how do we "see" space? Is space an object?

 

When there's no seeing, how do you know?"

 

 

The same thing applies "Apart from what has been known and what has not been known, there is no present knowing".

 

The mental faculty is not exempt from this.

 

Once you take a position such as you have i.e. "I know that I know", you are dogmeat.

 

N

 

.....

 

It is part of the dialectic, something known depends on something which has not been known. What Nagarjunga is pointing out is that there is no "knowing". His dialectic serves to negate all present tense as well as infinitive verbal forms i.e. Apart from what has been perceived and not been perceived, there is no perception, etc.

M

......

[xabir2005]

Here, once again, you are agreeing with what I said, but attacking words superficially to disagree with the statement. So I put the statement softly rather than directly, but you still respond as if we disagree. Looking at the point I was trying to make with that and other posts, you obviously just agreed with my point. Yet, superficial wording is understood rather than the obvious implications of their point. Realization is not about the words that describe it. The words don't matter after the realization. See the point. The point is that you agree that forms exist, though they are actually emptiness, and that we know emptiness by the forms (which emptiness is the absence of, and so emptiness can be seen in forms as well).

 

I think this is a "worded" perspective that all agree on, and maybe all these confusing word-forms can cease so as not to cloud the fact that they are not the same as Prajna, though some inspiring words can be found in these pages.

I do not meant to imply disagreement, just a clarification.