'No self' my experience so far...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

 

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.

 

 

Once again.. agreeing. Somehow, however, this looks like a rebuttal rather than mutual recognition..

[xabir2005]

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?

I did not say it is the best for everyone since what is best is simply what one is inclined to and have a capacity for. E.g. Thusness told me that my mom suits doing kundalini practice more than self-inquiry due to her experiences and inclinations.

 

Self-inquiry is not for everyone, but as R.M. says, is a direct and infallible path to self-realization, and one which he says,

 

"To all deep-thinking minds, the enquiry about the "I" and its nature has an irresistible fascination." (Ramana Maharshi, MG, 72.)

 

So if you are so inclined, self inquiry is best for you.

[xabir2005]

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.

actually asserting mind as the sole reality that has inherent existence is precisely the position of lucky. He is a non-dual substantialist.

 

And no, it is not that he mistakes me for being on the emptiness-no-form extreme, but he is against what I said regarding the emptiness of mind and anatta.

[Otis]

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

Well, I guess we can start calling you dogmeat, because that's exactly the position you've been taking all along.

[xabir2005]

Once again.. agreeing. Somehow, however, this looks like a rebuttal rather than mutual recognition..

we can't have mutual recognition unless there is utter clarity that what we are talking about is the same.

[xabir2005]

Well, I guess we can start calling you dogmeat, because that's exactly the position you've been taking all along.

I have no positions.

 

If there is an 'I' and some object which I 'know', then I have fallen into the extremes.

 

Therefore as my taiwanese teacher says, this is about seeing there is no-thing to see and realizing there is no-thing to obtain.

[Vajrahridaya]

You are stuck in the paradox of destroying you.

 

The realization of emptiness destroy's nothing, it just brings the mind to see through itself and phenomena as inherent. This realization accepts and denies nothing except the erroneous cognition about things having an inherent truth.

 

This is what I find the problem with these boards, people constantly read into statements, hey we all do it.

[Otis]

If there is an 'I' and some object which I 'know', then I have fallen into the extremes.

Precisely, so when you say that you are "liberated" or can see "the true nature of reality", then you have fallen into extremes. You are making extreme statements, here, xabir, and they all rely on the infallibility of YOU. You pretend that you don't exist and have no viewpoint, but then you insist that your (non-)viewpoint is utterly correct.

 

Your word games don't cover up your hypocrisy.

[xabir2005]

Precisely, so when you say that you are "liberated" or can see "the true nature of reality", then you have fallen into extremes. You are making extreme statements, here, xabir, and they all rely on the infallibility of YOU. You pretend that you don't exist and have no viewpoint, but then you insist that your (non-)viewpoint is utterly correct.

 

Your word games don't cover up your hypocrisy.

No.. Liberation from views and clingings are not extreme. Asserting "is" and "is not", clinging to such views, is extreme.

 

And "the true nature of reality" I.e. Emptiness is not a "thing" to be seen.

 

Namdrol:

 

You will never see emptiness in meditation directly for emptiness is a not a thing that can be seen.

 

.....

 

When you don't find anything, that not-finding is finding emptiness.

 

When you don't see anything, that not-seeing is seeing emptiness.

[Informer]

The realization of emptiness destroy's nothing, it just brings the mind to see through itself and phenomena as inherent. This realization accepts and denies nothing except the erroneous cognition about things having an inherent truth.

 

This is what I find the problem with these boards, people constantly read into statements, hey we all do it.

 

To say that you absolutely do not exist is a paradox

[Vajrahridaya]

To say that you absolutely do not exist is a paradox

 

I do have relative existence, just not absolute existence. No one is saying that you absolutely do not exist. You just don't exist absolutely. Xabir is saying you have no inherent existence, but you do have relative existence... flexible, floating in space, permeated by it, inherently free through it.

[Informer]

That is what xabir is here representing "you do not exist" from RT.

 

He is just picking and choosing things that he thinks will help prove this point.

 

RT pounds "You do not exist" into peoples heads.

[Vajrahridaya]

That is what xabir is here representing "you do not exist" from RT.

 

He is just picking and choosing things that he thinks will help prove this point.

 

RT pounds "You do not exist" into peoples heads.

 

It is a particular aspect of the perspective, but not the entirety of it. Having that deep intuitive experience of the all, where you disappear is very thirst quenching as it quenches ones thirst by removing the one thirsting. This is hard to put into words... it has to be experienced. But then... how to keep going in positive action is also the path, as this experience is not one of nihilism, though it might sound like it... it really is not. It's a release of self clinging into the all.

[Informer]

It is a particular aspect of the perspective, but not the entirety of it. Having that deep intuitive experience of the all, where you disappear is very thirst quenching as it quenches ones thirst by removing the one thirsting. This is hard to put into words... it has to be experienced. But then... how to keep going in positive action is also the path, as this experience is not one of nihilism, though it might sound like it... it really is not. It's a release of self clinging into the all.

 

 

Explain this:

 

Are you saying that you agree that "you don't exist" = only true?

 

How don't you see that?

[Informer]

In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

[xabir2005]

That is what xabir is here representing "you do not exist" from RT.

 

He is just picking and choosing things that he thinks will help prove this point.

 

RT pounds "You do not exist" into peoples heads.

as I have said many times... There is no you to exist or not exist.

 

Denying existence does not mean I assert non-existence.

 

Since there is no self-entity, existence and non-existence cannot be asserted.

 

Therefore I deny all assertions without asserting non-existence to be truth, as said earlier:

 

"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."

 

 

In other words there is no you but no 'no you' or 'you do not exist' - it is a denial of existents without asserting non-existence.... So in seeing there is just the seen, in hearing just the heard, no you and no "no you" - just the suchness of seeing, hearing, etc.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Reading this I recalled one of my favorite sayings: "What is, is, always has been, and always will be. They (things) just take different form over time."

 

So things do not originate in emptiness but rather become what they are from what other things were, eternally. (Well, during this universe's lifetime anyhow.)

[xabir2005]

It is a particular aspect of the perspective, but not the entirety of it. Having that deep intuitive experience of the all, where you disappear is very thirst quenching as it quenches ones thirst by removing the one thirsting. This is hard to put into words... it has to be experienced. But then... how to keep going in positive action is also the path, as this experience is not one of nihilism, though it might sound like it... it really is not. It's a release of self clinging into the all.

Hmm... But anatta is not an experience, but what is already always the case, in seeing always just the seen, no seer, in hearing always just the heard, no hearer... So it is not the case that it is the experience of dissolving self, such experiences are temporary and common but not the same as realization.

[Marblehead]

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is...

 

Amen!

[xabir2005]

Reading this I recalled one of my favorite sayings: "What is, is, always has been, and always will be. They (things) just take different form over time."

 

So things do not originate in emptiness but rather become what they are from what other things were, eternally. (Well, during this universe's lifetime anyhow.)

Yes. Everything arises dependent on various causes and conditions... This process of dependent origination rolls on without a beginning to be found.

[Informer]

as I have said many times... There is no you to exist or not exist.

 

 

From that perspective you choose, obviously.

 

 

Denying existence does not mean I assert non-existence.

 

 

"You do not exist" is asserting non-existence. Duh. It is also insinuating that you have been able to determine there is not an observer or awareness, with your only proof being that you could not find it.

 

 

Since there is no self-entity, existence and non-existence cannot be asserted.

 

 

Then why say that "You don't exist?"

 

 

Therefore I deny all assertions without asserting non-existence to be truth, as said earlier:

 

"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."

 

 

By saying that "You don't exist" is not rejecting the existense of existents, it is doing the opposite and claiming non-existence of existents.

 

 

 

In other words there is no you but no 'no you' or 'you do not exist' - it is a denial of existents without asserting non-existence.... So in seeing there is just the seen, in hearing just the heard, no you and no "no you" - just the suchness of seeing, hearing, etc.

 

"You don't exist" is denying an existence.

 

How could you relate to those who do exist, when you are stuck in a perpetual and fixed non-existence?

[Vajrahridaya]

Explain this:

 

Are you saying that you agree that "you don't exist" = only true?

 

How don't you see that?

 

Yes, I as I only conventionally exist, and Xabir has been saying that all along. If you read all his posts... you guys keep reading things into the things he says and he keeps giving different angles, through quotes and his own writings. But to connect to what he's writing, one has to have I think an intimate understanding of the underlying principle of dependent origination/emptiness that he is speaking from, not merely an intellectual view of it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Informer]

Yes, I as I only conventionally exist, and Xabir has been saying that all along. If you read all his posts... you guys keep reading things into the things he says and he keeps giving different angles, through quotes and his own writings. But to connect to what he's writing, one has to have I think an intimate understanding of the underlying principle of dependent origination/emptiness that he is speaking from, not merely an intellectual view of it.

 

You are saying "you doesn't exist" meaning the thought or idea.

 

Are you alive?

 

or

 

Is you alive?

 

Can you see the difference?

[Marblehead]

I do have relative existence, just not absolute existence. No one is saying that you absolutely do not exist. You just don't exist absolutely. Xabir is saying you have no inherent existence, but you do have relative existence... flexible, floating in space, permeated by it, inherently free through it.

 

You did good. Hehehe.