'No self' my experience so far...

[xabir2005]

I think if you understand this, you must know that saying "You don't exist" is complete bullshit and don't even believe it. Only wish to convince others of it for whatever reason.

I actually realized what Ramana Maharshi said on 9th February 2010, as described in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html . There are more insights though.

 

P.s. I said over and over this is not about 'you don't exist' so I'm not going to repeat.

[Informer]

I actually realized what Ramana Maharshi said on 9th February 2010, as described in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html . There are more insights though.

 

P.s. I said over and over this is not about 'you don't exist' so I'm not going to repeat.

 

Are you saying you disagree with Ruthless Truth? Or simply trying to wriggle and squirm to prove your non-points and decieve others as well as you, that you are right?

 

Do you exist xabir?

[xabir2005]

Are you saying you disagree with Ruthless Truth? Or simply trying to wriggle and squirm to prove your non-points and decieve others as well as you, that you are right?

 

Do you exist xabir?

There is no 'I' to exist, not-exist, etc, and no 'non-existence of self' that can be asserted. 'Xabir' is a convention for conglomerate of aggregates with no actual independent essence to be found...

[Informer]

There is no 'I' to exist, not-exist, etc, and no 'non-existence of self' that can be asserted. 'Xabir' is a convention for conglomerate of aggregates with no actual independent essence to be found...

 

Have you ever told people they "do not exist" as a defacto statement?

 

As it is seen all over the boards at ruthless truth, the very site that you are here to gather fallowers for?

[xabir2005]

Have you ever told people they "do not exist" as a defacto statement?

 

As it is seen all over the boards at ruthless truth, the very site that you are here to gather fallowers for?

No.... 'I do not exist' or 'you do not exist' is a position - all positions are views and clingings.

 

The insight of anatta is not 'I do not exist'... it is 'in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard' - there is a realization of agentlessness and as such an existent self is not established, nor is the non-existence of self being established... no you and no 'no you'... just pure, unreified, suchness of experiencing as described in Kalaka Sutta:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html

 

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

 

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[dwai]

"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

Madhyamika's position of "no absolute position" is in itself an absolute position...or so it has been demomstrated on this forum (and others) time and time again.madhyamika is just a dialectic framework at the intellectual level in such a case. I see lucky finally "gets it" (the fallacy of DO)...

[Lucky7Strikes]

I actually realized what Ramana Maharshi said on 9th February 2010, as described in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html . There are more insights though.

 

P.s. I said over and over this is not about 'you don't exist' so I'm not going to repeat.

No absolutely not. To realize Maharshi you need your heart center to completely liberate from the body through a death experience. It's not just a "certainty of being" you describe as I AM.

[Informer]

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Xabir, don't you see what you wrote is full of hypocrisy?

 

If I sit here waiting for fate to feed me and my family, I and my family will starve to death.

 

There needs intention, will, zeal, effort, hard work, etc etc... which consists of various mental and physical constituents/arisings/thoughts/actions. Even though these too are ultimately empty - conventionally, subjective participation is necessary... our lives (and more) are in our hands.

That's a bad example. That's still fated. You sit there or not sit there does not matter, neither your compassion for your family or fear of not starving. Remember, there is no agent or controller. They are all part of the processes without a doer or controller according to conditions that makes you do or not do accordingly. Or are you saying that in your mind you know its all an illusion but act as if it's not? That goes against your view that the understanding of relative and ultimate is one.

 

Therefore one can see that every action has causes and conditions, but it is not the case that it is fated or determined from the past since that would negate the possibility of change through effort at right practice. i.e. Right practice in the present can result in wholesome and liberating action.

Right, hence your view is wrong. This paragraph is not really a line of good inquiry. You are basically saying "all my theory supports the non-existence of unicorns, but that can't be true because I like unicorns."

 

Relative and ultimate isn't two... what appears relatively is just like an illusion - also it is not the case that the appearance of intention has a real agent - it is just a dependently originated appearance without agent and without core, empty.

Ah ok, so your sense of doing anything is an illusion. In truth everything is just rolling along.

 

“From recollection there is interest; from interest consideration; from consideration willful effort; from willful effort vital energy; and from that, action. So what does the self do here?” ~ Vasubandhu

 

A machine cannot have conscious decisions or thoughts because a machine does not have consciousness, therefore it is purely mechanical interaction.

 

Consciousness isn't mechanical... it is a different class of phenomenon altogether. It is not determined by the physical, however the physical stuff are part of the conditions for consciousness - i.e. our sense organs, our DNA, etc, affect our states of consciousness. However it is not the case that DNAs cause a killer to kill or a person to become an Arhant. That would be too naive - there is the whole mental side, mental influences, imprints, cultivation, etc etc... so many factore.

So your view is also that consciousness is differentiated from the physical? That paragraph of consciousness seems to be full of uncertainties. The physical part is stuff are only "partly" conditions for consciousness? Then what is that which is not part of it, independent consciousness? But you deny that. If they are complete conditions for consciousness, then the actions of consciousness is determined by the physical processes. How is that different from a machine which is conscious (which imo is worse than what is not conscious).

 

For example, by training yourself in loving kindness... anger can be transformed. Therefore anger is not an inherent characteristic of a person, it is not determined from the past, it is not fated or fixed, and therefore they can be purified, transformed, or liberated. Hence we cannot say that anger is determined by some external influences or determined by past action. They are 'learnt' in one's consciousness and can therefore can be 'dropped'. Certainly there is this tendency due to one's conditioning to get angry when certain things happen - yet this tendency is not 'fated to play out' because there is always the potential to be purified, transformed, or liberated, by counter-acting forces, by the practice of purification or transformation, or in more advanced level (like dzogchen, mahamudra) these poisons are spontaneously self-liberated.

But let's take in the factors that led to anger's transformation. The tendency to not get angry, according to your view, is just as fated to play out. We apply this to spiritual endeavors, those who remain in suffering or become enlightened are just causes and conditions.

 

If one thinks there is no way these can be purified, transformed, or liberated, then it is like what Buddha warned - "When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.'"

 

Whereas if we accept that even though there are past influences, imprints, and conditionings, that continue to pop up in one's mind, these thoughts may not be followed, they can be discerned through awareness, and appropriately acted upon or rejected (via purification, or transformation, or self-liberation) then in this case, there is development, there is transcendence, there is the possibility to overcome one's conditions.

 

Therefore it is not so much of past actions, but what is acted upon in the present that is more essential.

Your little disclaimer is a contradiction to everything you wrote above:

 

Having said so much, it is not the case that there is an agent that is controlling actions... intentions, actions, and so on are also dependent on various factors - sometimes positive, sometimes negative, nevertheless:

 

“From recollection there is interest; from interest consideration; from consideration willful effort; from willful effort vital energy; and from that, action. So what does the self do here?” ~ Vasubandhu

 

As you can see 'action' depends on 'vital energy' which depends on 'willful effort' depends on 'interest consideration' which depends on 'recollection', and a host of mental factors. So it is a process that plays out... but you cannot discount the subjective participation (conventionally called so) part of action and intention-making, as Vasubandhu described. In other words, you cannot say karma or past influences makes you fated to be a killer because... it can be changed, through present right discernment, consideration, effort, action, etc.

So, let me follow this:

 

1) The idea of subjective participation, in your view, is illusory, only a conventional understanding, hence unreal. So you can say ultimately, the past influences is the only dictating force of the process.

 

2) So it's not that there is really a subjective "changing" through discernment (only "conventionally")...but rather it's that those changes are just taking place, like seen, heard, tasted: discernment, consideration, effort, action. All just "rolling along"! So who experiences those factors and who doesn't ultimately is just as fated.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

In short, there is no free will if free will is defined as an independently existing controller controlling things: but there can be free action in the sense that action which arises out of immediate wisdom and awareness free from the chains of one's latent tendencies, therefore we are not fated by our past actions to commit crimes, etc. There can be freedom from unwholesome latent tendencies through wisdom, and yet even wisdom and awareness isn't established.

What is this "immediate wisdom" free from conditions?

 

Ultimately, free will in the sense of ultimate agency is not established but neither is it determinism. Free will and determinism don't really apply - actions aren't determined by past actions, nor are actions determined by an independent agent. Actions manifest dependent upon a host of different factors, but are not determined from a past action.

Just because you say not established, doesn't mean your view does or doesn't conform to. You may not establish it in your head, just as most people don't establish in their head all the things they believe in, but it is your view nonetheless.

 

What are host of different factors that are not past action?

 

Present action? But present action is conditioned by past action as well right? Or if somehow the present action is independent of past action, that established a separate entity to decide on the present.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

The physical part is stuff are only "partly" conditions for consciousness? Then what is that which is not part of it, independent consciousness? But you deny that.

Mental factors and conditions. There is no independent consciousness... consciousness is also a dependently originated process... there is no consciousness not dependent on something being conscious-ed of. Having said so it is obviously still not the case that everything depends only on physical conditions.

1) The idea of subjective participation, in your view, is illusory, only a conventional understanding, hence unreal. So you can say ultimately, the past influences is the only dictating force of the process.

Past influences and process are equally unestablished as subjective participation... since whatever dependently originates are ultimately empty, and cannot be said to have originated from somewhere, or even that it has arisen, or have abidance or have cessation.

 

 

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness." ~ Nalakalapiyo Sutta

What is this "immediate wisdom" free from conditions?

I only know that from the perspective of interconnectedness, everything is self-originated, as I said to simple jack:

 

Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated. What's your experience with it? - http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3225985453951330898&postID=6800570015725565876

But let's take in the factors that led to anger's transformation. The tendency to not get angry, according to your view, is just as fated to play out. We apply this to spiritual endeavors, those who remain in suffering or become enlightened are just causes and conditions.

If something has not been set into place by a previous action, then it is not fate. Latent tendencies do not make anger fated (as I explained why), and 'the tendency to not get angry' may not be a tendency but an immediate action and practice to counteract an existing tendency like anger. In other words, you may be 'going against the flow of your conditionings' through your practice.

 

If it were the case that only existing latent tendencies will result in actions, then no action can be done to remedy existing latent tendencies.

2) So it's not that there is really a subjective "changing" through discernment (only "conventionally")...but rather it's that those changes are just taking place, like seen, heard, tasted: discernment, consideration, effort, action. All just "rolling along"! So who experiences those factors and who doesn't ultimately is just as fated.

Fate establishes a real objective agent that determines an outcome. Free will establish a real subjective agent that determines an outcome. I do not establish anything. What dependently originates is empty and neither arise, have origins, have abidance or have cessation.

Present action? But present action is conditioned by past action as well right? Or if somehow the present action is independent of past action, that established a separate entity to decide on the present.

Present action is conditioned by a previous action - ultimately there is no real present action - both past, present and future mind is ungraspable and empty as Diamond Sutra states. Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, because every point, every nuance has infinite causes to it's effect, kind of like infinite infinities.

 

It's so complicated that both concepts of "deterministic" and "spontaneous" do not do reality justice. One has to step out of oneself and see it from a space without subjective influence, even if just as a glimpse, this glimpse can become reference for deeper evaluation and contemplation.

Over complication, no matter how complicated is not an adequate counter to "determinism." Determinism is not a measure of complication, but a description of quality. So no matter how vast unmeasurable the sky seen from the earth may be, I can easily say it's blue at day time. It has nothing to do with how complex or vast it is.

 

From what I read, this is not Dzogchen view. Dzogchen says causes and conditions are all illusory.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Mental factors and conditions. There is no independent consciousness... consciousness is also a dependently originated process... there is no consciousness not dependent on something being conscious-ed of.

So consciousness is separate from the thing it is conscious of?

 

That's not really "just seen, heard, tasted," is it?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

No absolutely not. To realize Maharshi you need your heart center to completely liberate from the body through a death experience. It's not just a "certainty of being" you describe as I AM.

In I AM, there is no body, conceptual thoughts, etc. There is just that I AM.

[xabir2005]

So consciousness is separate from the thing it is conscious of?

 

That's not really "just seen, heard, tasted," is it?

Consciousness manifest dependent on sense objects and sense organs. (nama-rupa, aka mind and matter)

 

But consciousness, being manifestation, is simply just the experience of 'just seen, just heard, just tasted'. Just seen is visual consciousness, just heard is auditory consciousness, just taste is gustatory consciousness, etc...

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness." ~ Nalakalapiyo Sutta

 

 

 

Fatalism is 'other-made', free will is 'self-made', which are false views...

 

it is not the case that a previous action or external condition 'made this'... nor is this action made by itself or an agent...

 

It is that, with the meeting of conditions comes an action. The conditions too are not determined from some distant past or 'other-made', nor are 'self-made'. There is no origin or agent, objective or subjective, self-made or other-made. Coming from nowhere, abiding nowhere and going nowhere... dependently originated and thus empty and unestablished.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Over complication, no matter how complicated is not an adequate counter to "determinism." Determinism is not a measure of complication, but a description of quality. So no matter how vast unmeasurable the sky seen from the earth may be, I can easily say it's blue at day time. It has nothing to do with how complex or vast it is.

 

From what I read, this is not Dzogchen view. Dzogchen says causes and conditions are all illusory.

This is Nagarjuna's view and the view of Prajnaparamita, not special to Dzogchen. Causes and conditions are empty and unestablished because what is dependently originated is empty.

[Lucky7Strikes]

In I AM, there is no body, conceptual thoughts, etc. There is just that I AM.

I was pointing to that the depth of your realization of I AM is no where near Maharshi's. Ramana Maharshi's sense of presence was powerful enough to make people around him enter samadhis. The experience has depth to it than a mere realization.

 

The opening of the heart center shifts your consciousness, it is as much an energetic experience as conceptual. You may have a glimpse of it from a current physical state, but I wouldn't just categorize the Maharshi's experiences into just realizing I AM. This is one of the problems of trying to measure everyone's attainments according to Thusness's stages.

 

I do not agree with all that Ramana says, but to claim as you did, to have realize what Ramana has, is very doubtful.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Mental factors and conditions. There is no independent consciousness... consciousness is also a dependently originated process... there is no consciousness not dependent on something being conscious-ed of. Having said so it is obviously still not the case that everything depends only on physical conditions.

 

Past influences and process are equally unestablished as subjective participation... since whatever dependently originates are ultimately empty, and cannot be said to have originated from somewhere, or even that it has arisen, or have abidance or have cessation.

It originates from what it is dependent on. Emptiness doesn't deny experience, what are you talking about? Just saying "it's all empty" is a cop out. It's empty because it's conditioned. You don't throw out the reasoning of conditioning you used to reach the conclusion of emptiness. You say everything is empty because everything is seen in terms of causes, conditions = dependence.

 

"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness." ~ Nalakalapiyo Sutta

I only know that from the perspective of interconnectedness, everything is self-originated, as I said to simple jack:

 

Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated. What's your experience with it? - http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3225985453951330898&postID=6800570015725565876

So now you're saying everything arises spontaneously from causes and conditions?

 

If something has not been set into place by a previous action, then it is not fate. Latent tendencies do not make anger fated (as I explained why), and 'the tendency to not get angry' may not be a tendency but an immediate action and practice to counteract an existing tendency like anger. In other words, you may be 'going against the flow of your conditionings' through your practice.

 

If it were the case that only existing latent tendencies will result in actions, then no action can be done to remedy existing latent tendencies.

Then you write:

 

"Present action is conditioned by a previous action - ultimately there is no real present action - both past, present and future mind is ungraspable and empty as Diamond Sutra states."

 

Emptiness or ungraspability of experience does not negate the view that they arise from conditions, that they are dependent on factors.

 

Fate establishes a real objective agent that determines an outcome. Free will establish a real subjective agent that determines an outcome. I do not establish anything. What dependently originates is empty and neither arise, have origins, have abidance or have cessation.

Fate doesn't need an agent. Fate is simply that things happen according to a set of laws, or some natural order where there is no agent or actor. For instance, from popular modern scientific standpoint a tree is fated to die at a certain point according to its type, environment, history, weather, and all these set of variables. That's what fate is: that there is no agent, but only the process. That you cannot escape the conditioned environment.

 

And will you stop saying "I don't establish anything"? Because you clearly are. Every statement, every view, is an establishment of a perspective. If you didn't establish anything truly, that would be your establishment, your view, your approach to life.

 

Furthermore, you need to re clarify, in your own words please, why dependent origination is empty. Your view, imo, is simply that dependent origination melts everything down to a conditioning process. "Things just happening, and therefore, no true 'things' found" This is not a valid way to just go, "conditioning is empty too." What does conditioning depend on to make it empty?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is Nagarjuna's view and the view of Prajnaparamita, not special to Dzogchen. Causes and conditions are empty and unestablished because what is dependently originated is empty.

What do causes and conditions depend on?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Consciousness manifest dependent on sense objects and sense organs. (nama-rupa, aka mind and matter)

 

But consciousness, being manifestation, is simply just the experience of 'just seen, just heard, just tasted'. Just seen is visual consciousness, just heard is auditory consciousness, just taste is gustatory consciousness, etc...

So you think consciousness arises from sense objects and sense organs. Not only will Mahayna texts refute this, but also quantum science.

 

No different than physicalist scientists or actual freedom. Reifying the material world.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Fatalism is 'other-made', free will is 'self-made', which are false views...

 

it is not the case that a previous action or external condition 'made this'... nor is this action made by itself or an agent...

 

It is that, with the meeting of conditions comes an action. The conditions too are not determined from some distant past or 'other-made', nor are 'self-made'. There is no origin or agent, objective or subjective, self-made or other-made. Coming from nowhere, abiding nowhere and going nowhere... dependently originated and thus empty and unestablished.

Conditions are made from conditions is what you are saying. That is an example of "other made." You may not experience it that way, ungraspable or whatever, but that is your underlying view of the nature of reality. Conditions upon conditions, a chain of rolling on.

[Vajrahridaya]

Over complication, no matter how complicated is not an adequate counter to "determinism." Determinism is not a measure of complication, but a description of quality. So no matter how vast unmeasurable the sky seen from the earth may be, I can easily say it's blue at day time. It has nothing to do with how complex or vast it is.

 

From what I read, this is not Dzogchen view. Dzogchen says causes and conditions are all illusory.

 

Everything conceivable is illusory in Dzogchen, even any conceptualization of Rigpa. The only truth is the middle way experience of Rigpa beyond extremes which means it cannot be conceptualized adequately. Nothing can, which was my point, nothing is graspable. One cannot conceptualize reality perfectly, but one can have a perfect experience of what the concepts are pointing to. Describing an apple is not the same as eating it.

 

The idea that causes and conditions are illusory is also from Nagarjuna, as since nothing is established, nothing has arisen, everything is already unborn.

 

My point above that you quoted is that practically speaking, all individual things have an individual story of infinitude, while connected to all other infinitudes. Do you see? I personally have my own individual line of beginningless causes and conditions as reference for my being in this moment, all empty, but also all interconnected with every other line of individual infinitude of causes and conditions. Every story is unique, yet connected to all other unique stories, thus infinite dimension both within and without. The fact of emptiness allows for the space of freedom in this dance of causes and conditions.

 

The thing about Dzogchen view, is that if you just read into the idea that all causes and conditions are literally an illusion, you would be wrong. It's more like they are like an illusion. Which is why the Dzogchen Master Padmasambhava said:

 

'My realization is higher than the sky,

 

But my observance of karma is finer than grains of flour."

 

-- Padmasambhava

 

If they were "really" an illusion, then there would be no results to actions, and nothing would connect, and nothing would really matter. So to sit in a view of causes and conditions as being absolutely an illusion, would be an extreme view.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Conditions are made from conditions is what you are saying. That is an example of "other made." You may not experience it that way, ungraspable or whatever, but that is your underlying view of the nature of reality. Conditions upon conditions, a chain of rolling on.

 

13. Knowing the relativity of all,

The ultimate truth is always seen;

Dismissing the idea of beginning, middle and end

The flow is seen as Emptiness.

 

14. So all samsara and nirvana is seen as it is -

Empty and insubstantial,

Naked and changeless,

Eternally quiescent and illumined.

 

-Nagarjuna

[thuscomeone]

Xabir, tell me, in your own words, what is a concept and what is not a concept? I don't think you really know the difference.