'No self' my experience so far...

[Vajrahridaya]

You did good. Hehehe.

 

LOL! The cosmic dance through me... and us all!

[Marblehead]

Continuing to read and thinking back on this:

 

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

 

I think that Xabir is stuck in the middle right now - there is no mountain. He still has one step to take.

 

But there is no destination, only the journey.

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

These are glimpses which allow a deeper reference for understanding the dynamic of living. Yes, all these experiences arise and dissolve... but the depth of ones living experience as an ongoing process always references ones illumined history of glimpses on a sub-conscious level, it can't help to do so as ones experienced history is en-lodged in ones cells, ones energy... this can scare people who are really caught up in seriously dense self reference existing. Yet, we all need some self referencing conventionally speaking... just a flexible, open, less clingy one.

[Marblehead]

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

 

Great! "Everything" arises, then it fades back into "no-thing". This is the Taoist concept of cycles and reversion.

 

And I think it is true, no matter how far back we are able to look we can never determine a beginning. Even considering the theory of 'big bang' when singularity became 'the many', there is still the question, "What existed before there was singularity?" We will never be able to 'see' 'before the beginning'.

[Vajrahridaya]

Great! "Everything" arises, then it fades back into "no-thing". This is the Taoist concept of cycles and reversion.

 

And I think it is true, no matter how far back we are able to look we can never determine a beginning. Even considering the theory of 'big bang' when singularity became 'the many', there is still the question, "What existed before there was singularity?" We will never be able to 'see' 'before the beginning'.

 

Well... I would disagree. I feel meditation holds an incredible power to expand awareness beyond the individual so deeply into the mystery as to de-mystify it. I feel there is no beginning, even the big bang and the singularity (pralaya in sanskrit) is merely part of the cycles of expansion and contraction, expansion and contraction that happen both macrocosmically and microcosmically. There was a before the big bang and there was a before the singularity which can be illumined through "right focus/concentration", number 8 in the 8 fold path of the Buddha.

 

Marblehead... the mystery of you has plenty of undiscovered lands to illumine, for and by you.

[Marblehead]

Well... I would disagree. I feel meditation holds an incredible power to expand awareness beyond the individual so deeply into the mystery as to de-mystify it. I feel there is no beginning, even the big bang and the singularity (pralaya in sanskrit) is merely part of the cycles of expansion and contraction, expansion and contraction that happen both macrocosmically and microcosmically. There was a before the big bang and there was a before the singularity which can be illumined through "right focus/concentration", number 8 in the 8 fold path of the Buddha.

 

Marblehead... the mystery of you has plenty of undiscovered lands to illumine, for and by you.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

We have had this discussion before and if I remember correctly I just gave up on you and left you to wander around the unknown universe. Hehehe. I don't want this discussion to go as far as the other discussion did.

 

Thanks but I don't need any more illusions and delusions in my life. The ones I hold to serve me very well, thank you. And I am still watching out for my pegacorn.

[xabir2005]

From that perspective you choose, obviously.

 

 

 

"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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

"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?

as explained above, I do not have positions and do not assert non-existence. You have never heard me say "you don't exist" but "there is no you to exist or not exist and also "there is no you but also no 'no you'" since I negate existents without asserting the non-existence of existents.

 

You also need to re read this:

 

"

knowing is always with an object... Even if that object is formless mental luminosity. In realizing anatta it is seen that seeing is always just the seen, knowing is always just the known.

 

I have told lucky not long ago:

 

"sorry I know you are probably too tired for discussion but I still have to clarify something.

 

The realization of anatta arises from direct experiential insight and not an inference. It is not an inferred conclusion due to not being able to locate the whereabouts of an agent or perceiver. Similarly the emptiness of objects is not just about being unable to locate where phenomena is, it is the direct realization of dependent origination and the corelessness of all phenomena. Anatta realization is also not inferred conclusion from peak experiences of no-mind which you had.

 

It is the irrefutable seeing that "seeing is just the seen", that the actuality of what "seeing" is is simply the stream, the process of seeing without seer. It is not "I cannot locate where the seer is, therefore I conclude there is no seer", but rather, there is the direct realization that there is no seer, no core to mind, and waking up to the nature of seeing. It is a waking up, like suddenly you realize what you call "wind" is just the entire blowing activity, so too is the luminosity, presence, awareness simply a term collating the self-luminous stream or process. There is no inference involved, and in fact you clearly see that an unchanging mind is infact totally inferred just like an unchanging windness of blowing is inferred out of the "view of inherency"... it is either you realize this or not. If you realize this you can never unsee it... No inference at all.

 

Luminosity cannot be denied, it is only the view of duality, and the view of inherency that must be seen through. " "

[xabir2005]

Continuing to read and thinking back on this:

 

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

 

I think that Xabir is stuck in the middle right now - there is no mountain. He still has one step to take.

 

But there is no destination, only the journey.

there is nothing beyond the middle way. To state there is something beyond middle way is to fall into extremes.

 

As Namdrol said:

 

"Even Norbu Rinpoche asserts that in his rdzog chen skor dris len that Dzogchen view does not go beyond Madhyamaka in terms of formal statements of the view, citing Sakya Pandita to the effect that if there would something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme, and so on."

 

I and Thusness don't like the mountain, no mountain then mountain stages.

 

It could be used in terms of prajnaparamita dialectics: because A is not A, therefore A is A, in which case that would be fine.

 

But more often than not, the three stages is interpreted from a substantialist nondual perspective.

 

Since the three steps is vague and can lend itself to a variety of interpretations. There is no clarity about what insights it is talking about. The second step may not be buddhist emptiness, but the I AM stage understanding: "the world is illusory, brahman alone is real" and the third stage could be substantial nondual understanding: "brahman is the world".

 

If one has direct insight of emptiness, naturally one sees mountain as without mountain-essence, while vividly appearing. This is the unity of appearance and emptiness. One will also not fall into extremes of non-existence or existence.

Edited August 4, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

there is nothing beyond the middle way. To state there is something beyond middle way is to fall into extremes.

 

Nice response. I don't agree but that's beside the point.

 

Well, I do agree with the 'middle way' concept but I don't take it to extremes. Hehehe.

 

I like the mountain. Lots to see up there and to interact with. That's called living. Now, I'm not saying you are not living as I am quite sure you are, it's just that I accept things for what they are instead of saying they don't exist.

 

Yeah, I know. I am a materialist so as long as we two hold to our base understandings we will never have total agreement. But we do get to agree now and again. Hehehe.

 

I really do understand what you are saying. It is just that I don't understand things the way you and VJ do. Oh well. I guess that is one of the things that make us different. Variety is good.

[xabir2005]

Nice response. I don't agree but that's beside the point.

 

Well, I do agree with the 'middle way' concept but I don't take it to extremes. Hehehe.

 

I like the mountain. Lots to see up there and to interact with. That's called living. Now, I'm not saying you are not living as I am quite sure you are, it's just that I accept things for what they are instead of saying they don't exist.

 

Yeah, I know. I am a materialist so as long as we two hold to our base understandings we will never have total agreement. But we do get to agree now and again. Hehehe.

 

I really do understand what you are saying. It is just that I don't understand things the way you and VJ do. Oh well. I guess that is one of the things that make us different. Variety is good.

to truly realize and effortlessly experience the suchness of seeing, hearing, etc... One has to realize the twofold emptinesses which ends the establishment of subject and object... Leaving naked unreified experiencing, as kalaka sutta explains. Otherwise our experience will continue to be tainted by false projections and clingings, so we will never be able to "see things as they are"... Edited August 4, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

to truly realize and effortlessly experience the suchness of seeing, hearing, etc... One has to realize the twofold emptinesses which ends the establishment of subject and object... Leaving naked unreified experiencing, as kalaka sutta explains. Otherwise our experience will continue to be tainted by false projections and clingings, so we will never be able to "see things as they are"...

 

Hehehe. Thanks but I found a better way (for me). But you go ahead on, okay?

[Otis]

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

Of course it's not the liberation that is extreme. It is the assertion that you are liberated, which is extreme. The assertion that your realization is permanent. The assertion that "you will never find a more direct method". The assertion that you see "the true nature of reality". The assertion that there "is no self", that it is a "basic fact about reality". The assertion that there is no God. The assertion that you have no viewpoint, no beliefs.

 

These are all "is" and "is not" statements, they all display clinging to views, and they are all very extreme.

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Just because you don't say you have a position doesn't mean that. No one goes around reiterating their points of views on life. No one goes around saying "I am conceit." Your doing just what everyone does from time to time, which is to just realign yourself to a new set of views..but in this case you don't think you have one, which is a cop out and lack of insight into views themselves.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

double.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Can you explain how exactly you "conventionally" exist? Conventional to whose terms?

[Lucky7Strikes]

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

This, this is your view:

 

No I, just processes rolling on there own. Like a bag of clay, without will, freedom, or what not. Just thrown into existence, "rolling on their own" according to conditions. This view is not any different than modern scientific view of the human existence. That you are a pile of proteins rolling along. When there is bell, hitter, stick, the sound of "tooongg" right?

 

Universe eats, sleeps, shits.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Otis]

It is delicious, it is wonderful, and it is highly addictive, to be sure about one's standing in the world.

 

"I've arrived" or "I'm right" are like narcotics, so tempting, so rewarding.

 

What is difficult, is to live in the complexity. To live with self-doubt. To allow myself to be wrong, to be foolish, to not understand everything. That's painful and depressing.

 

Oh, so much happier to be under the spell of certainty. I get it all, so I don't have to listen to anyone else. No doubt, no mistakes, just grand old correct perfect wonderful me.

 

But where is the growth in that? How will I move forward, if I am unwilling to be skeptical about my own BS? If I'm unwilling to listen? If I'm unwilling to be wrong?

 

Xabir, you can keep your "liberation", because it sounds like the worst kind of delusion to me. Have fun in your fairy kingdom of certainty and absolute beliefs (that somehow will be shrugged off as no absolutes, no beliefs). Enjoy being the one who's always right, no matter what anyone else says.

 

For me, there is a huge world out there, that I don't yet understand. There are 6 billion+ people who don't agree with me. And that's fine. I don't have to be king of understanding. I just need to be me, and do my best, be my most clear, my most aware, and yes, my most empty. And I need to be willing to be wrong, because growth IME is the best thing to live for. Exploring, discovering; that's what makes life an adventure, what makes experience rich.

[forestofclarity]

These arguments remind me of the Marxists in college who used to say that if you disagreed with Marxism, it's only because you were brainwashed by the bourgeoisie.

[dwai]

It is delicious, it is wonderful, and it is highly addictive, to be sure about one's standing in the world.

 

"I've arrived" or "I'm right" are like narcotics, so tempting, so rewarding.

 

What is difficult, is to live in the complexity. To live with self-doubt. To allow myself to be wrong, to be foolish, to not understand everything. That's painful and depressing.

 

Oh, so much happier to be under the spell of certainty. I get it all, so I don't have to listen to anyone else. No doubt, no mistakes, just grand old correct perfect wonderful me.

 

But where is the growth in that? How will I move forward, if I am unwilling to be skeptical about my own BS? If I'm unwilling to listen? If I'm unwilling to be wrong?

 

Xabir, you can keep your "liberation", because it sounds like the worst kind of delusion to me. Have fun in your fairy kingdom of certainty and absolute beliefs (that somehow will be shrugged off as no absolutes, no beliefs). Enjoy being the one who's always right, no matter what anyone else says.

 

For me, there is a huge world out there, that I don't yet understand. There are 6 billion+ people who don't agree with me. And that's fine. I don't have to be king of understanding. I just need to be me, and do my best, be my most clear, my most aware, and yes, my most empty. And I need to be willing to be wrong, because growth IME is the best thing to live for. Exploring, discovering; that's what makes life an adventure, what makes experience rich.

 

Well said. The allure of standing out as "No Self" is as great as the allure of standing out as "A Self".

[Seth Ananda]

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

Hehe, that is what I have been saying to you in all our posts.

 

You ask me point blank 'do you exist, yes or no?' and I say, 'Relatively yes, Ultimately no!'

Means the same thing.

[Seth Ananda]

This, this is your view:

 

No I, just processes rolling on there own. Like a bag of clay, without will, freedom, or what not. Just thrown into existence, "rolling on their own" according to conditions. This view is not any different than modern scientific view of the human existence. That you are a pile of proteins rolling along. When there is bell, hitter, stick, the sound of "tooongg" right?

 

Universe eats, sleeps, shits.

Hey Lucky, In Buddhist view, this is what we describe as Absolute View. Relative view however allows for 'free will' Individual decisions, fun and so on...

 

This seems to bother lots of people, but for me Its great. The Relative and Absolute can not be separated, so I get to have my cake and eat it too.

 

I enjoy life, and being a person, but simultaneously I know that none of it is Inherently 'real' and that who I am is more like an ever changing stream, than a solid fixed thing.

 

Or said another way, I simultaneously get to know I have no self, while i enjoy being a person.

 

To me thats great. I enjoy the natural arisings, and no longer take them so seriously or get as worked up. Life has just gotten so much better, and I had a good life before in many ways.

 

Also my heart is just open, really open In ways it never was, far more often

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hey Lucky, In Buddhist view, this is what we describe as Absolute View. Relative view however allows for 'free will' Individual decisions, fun and so on...

 

This seems to bother lots of people, but for me Its great. The Relative and Absolute can not be separated, so I get to have my cake and eat it too.

 

I enjoy life, and being a person, but simultaneously I know that none of it is Inherently 'real' and that who I am is more like an ever changing stream, than a solid fixed thing.

 

Or said another way, I simultaneously get to know I have no self, while i enjoy being a person.

 

To me thats great. I enjoy the natural arisings, and no longer take them so seriously or get as worked up. Life has just gotten so much better, and I had a good life before in many ways.

 

Also my heart is just open, really open In ways it never was, far more often

IMO,

 

It's a good way to practice, because it gets rid of all unnecessary baggage one carries as "me, mine, my." It's a way of purification, hence is a path for ridding of the fetters and to arhathood. I practiced like this for a long time, and I agree, it is very liberating and relaxing. I mention this so you don't think I'm just skimming over Xabir's points and drawing conclusions.

 

But it is a limited view one has to come to grips with at a certain point. The relative and absolute need to merge into a coherent understanding. Relative free will isn't necessarily free will, as relative self is not a "self" or a "person" because according to the understanding of the absolute both become "emptied out." It's a path towards cessation and spontaneous arising, but it is imo, not where cultivation ends.

 

What could happen in this way of practicing is one could become entrenched in viewing life this way. As arising, ceasing, no-self, self-spontaneous process: "rolling along." When this is taken to be the be it nature of reality, you become an arhat, a Pratyekabuddha, who ends the cycle of birth, but is not a master of one's birth like a Bodhisattva. Signs of this stage is you may stop dreaming. On the other hand, the Bodhisattvas in scriptures are master of their illusions and attains the ability to manifest according to their will and this requires a very different understanding of our awareness than that it is just a part of d.o. process.

 

So my quote does describe Xabir's ultimate view of his existence. And I disagree that that is what our experience is. There is further potential to our understanding of our existence.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Can you explain how exactly you "conventionally" exist? Conventional to whose terms?

 

As in relative to all empty phenomena.

[Vajrahridaya]

IMO,

 

It's a good way to practice, because it gets rid of all unnecessary baggage one carries as "me, mine, my." It's a way of purification, hence is a path for ridding of the fetters and to arhathood. I practiced like this for a long time, and I agree, it is very liberating and relaxing. I mention this so you don't think I'm just skimming over Xabir's points and drawing conclusions.

 

But it is a limited view one has to come to grips with at a certain point. The relative and absolute need to merge into a coherent understanding. Relative free will isn't necessarily free will, as relative self is not a "self" or a "person" because according to the understanding of the absolute both become "emptied out." It's a path towards cessation and spontaneous arising, but it is imo, not where cultivation ends.

 

What could happen in this way of practicing is one could become entrenched in viewing life this way. As arising, ceasing, no-self, self-spontaneous process: "rolling along." When this is taken to be the be it nature of reality, you become an arhat, a Pratyekabuddha, who ends the cycle of birth, but is not a master of one's birth like a Bodhisattva. Signs of this stage is you may stop dreaming. On the other hand, the Bodhisattvas in scriptures are master of their illusions and attains the ability to manifest according to their will and this requires a very different understanding of our awareness than that it is just a part of d.o. process.

 

So my quote does describe Xabir's ultimate view of his existence. And I disagree that that is what our experience is. There is further potential to our understanding of our existence.

 

I agree that there is further to go.

 

Dzogchen for instance doesn't utilize the two truth model.

[xabir2005]

Of course it's not the liberation that is extreme. It is the assertion that you are liberated, which is extreme. The assertion that your realization is permanent. The assertion that "you will never find a more direct method". The assertion that you see "the true nature of reality". The assertion that there "is no self", that it is a "basic fact about reality". The assertion that there is no God. The assertion that you have no viewpoint, no beliefs.

 

These are all "is" and "is not" statements, they all display clinging to views, and they are all very extreme.

In buddha's teachings, doubt is one of the three lower fetters (along with self-view and attachment to rites and rituals) that are being abandoned at the first stage of awakening (stream entry) on the path to arhantship.

 

And I can see why because doubt represents confusion and ignorance to the nature of reality.

 

When realization of anatta arises, naturally the first three fetters will be permanently dissolved. Why? It is no longer possible to hold the position or belief in a self once you see that a self within or apart from the five aggregates is untenable, that experiencing is simply the stream, process, activities of knowing without knower, or doer. These aggregates simply dependently originate without an agent or origin.

 

Attachment to rites and rituals vanish because now you see the meaninglessness of rituals as only true insight can liberate a person, not vane rituals that simply keeps a person trapped in their religious conditioning, leading nowhere.

 

The insight of anatta also dissolves doubt because you now clearly realize the selflessness and agentlessness in reality, so no longer hold speculative beliefs nor have doubts about views - you simply see that all self-views, eternalistic or nihilistic simply do not apply.

 

So now I am doubtless - not in the sense that I hold onto a conceptual certainty, but rather my doubtlessness is simply the lack of doubts as well as conceptual certainty. This is because I hold unto no positions at all... There is just the naked, unreified, doubtless and undeniable experiencing in which I no longer establish a seer or something being seen.

 

This is not to say doubts are not useful at first. Far from it - doubts are useful and in some ways even essential, until they have served its purpose and dissolves on its own accord due to great realization. In zen, it is said great faith, great doubt, and great determination are the essential keys to great realization. This means not only faith in the teachings of the awakened one which is also quite important but more importantly, faith in one's ability to attain the same awakening as countless others have. Secondly, great doubt represents the relentless desire to inquire and know the truth about one's being - inquiries like 'who am I?' Or ruthless truth's kind or inquiry (which is not the same but I digress) or other forms of investigation be it zen koan practice or mahamudra style vipashyana investigation. Great doubt, great inquiry and investigation shall result in great realization. Finally, great determination - never give up, great desire to know the truth. With these three key factors, there is no way you won't be enlightened soon.

 

P.s. "I am liberated" is not true ultimately (there is no I) but for conventional purposes, "I am liberated" is just as fine as saying "I am walking" or "I had lunch today". Also, rt's definition of liberation is different as rt's liberation is simply the dissolving of self-view or the three lower fetters, but Buddha's definition of liberation is the total liberation from all sufferings, afflictions, and the ten fetters.

 

Btw the Buddha himself proclaimed loudly that he was the rightly self-awakened one.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005