'No self' my experience so far...

[xabir2005]

And you still cling to emptiness and d.o. Congratulations.

 

And you tell me I'm too focused on maps.

 

You wrongly conflate non-conceptual presence with "I am."

The realization of emptiness cannot be clung to. Emptiness negates existents without asserting non-existence or any positions.

 

I did not conflate non-conceptual presence with "I am", I simply state that it is Eckhart Tolle's view that Presence is the eternal background self.

 

I'm surprised you didn't read Tolle.

[xabir2005]

I think this shows you to be looking at the mold, rather than the properties.

No mold, no properties. Edited August 6, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

The realization of emptiness cannot be clung to. Emptiness negates existents without asserting non-existence or any positions.

 

I did not conflate non-conceptual presence with "I am", I simply state that it is Eckhart Tolle's view that Presence is the eternal background self.

 

I'm surprised you didn't read Tolle.

Yes it most definitely can be clung to. Otherwise, why would nagarjuna advocate not clinging to it?

 

Well, you seem to think that anyone who isn't talking within your paradigm of emptiness is an eternalist.

[Lucky7Strikes]

And I also found something relevant from the blog http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/2007/11/gampopa-and-compassion.html :

 

 

Deepening Compassion..

Whoever wrote that excerpt has only a conceptual view on compassion. The last section of non-referencing compassion seems to be a limited understanding, but nonetheless is an accurate view of the realizations we enter as we progress. Compassion and being become inseparable.

 

I am not sure whether this is incorporated into you and Thusness's models because I do not see Thusness talk about this as direct experience but only conceptually.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Xabir, to put it within terms you can understand, you haven't yet realized what rigpa is.

Edited August 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Yes it most definitely can be clung to. Otherwise, why would nagarjuna advocate not clinging to it?

 

Well, you seem to think that anyone who isn't talking within your paradigm of emptiness is an eternalist.

Nagarjuna is advocating not clinging to intellectual views about emptiness.

 

Eckhart Tolle is clearly eternalist - "Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature."

[thuscomeone]

Nagarjuna is advocating not clinging to intellectual views about emptiness.

 

Eckhart Tolle is clearly eternalist - "Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature."

Emptiness is an intellectual view. It is not absolute truth. It is just words.

Edited August 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Whoever wrote that excerpt has only a conceptual view on compassion. The last section of non-referencing compassion seems to be a limited understanding.

 

I just popped in for a second...

 

I just want to say that unconditional love has no reference, but compassion always references the equal emptiness of all relativity; the people, places and things...

 

Unconditional love is just that state of bliss that see's everything's unborn nature directly, including oneself.

[xabir2005]

Whoever wrote that excerpt has only a conceptual view on compassion. The last section of non-referencing compassion seems to be a limited understanding, but nonetheless is an accurate view of the realizations we enter as we progress. Compassion and being become inseparable.

 

I am not sure whether this is incorporated into you and Thusness's models because I do not see Thusness talk about this as direct experience but only conceptually.

Thusness:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

 

"Although I do not hold on tightly to an altruistic view but yes I believe when a practitioner fully actualized the view of 2 fold Emptiness, there is this free flowing compassion for all living beings. For lay practitioner, this aspect is not thoroughly manifested but for some great vajrayana or Mahayana masters, we witness such compassions. I do not see ‘Bodhicitta’ as a goal but rather as a natural quality of a sincere practitioner that has actualized the view of Emptiness. "

Edited August 6, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Emptiness is an intellectual view. It is not absolute truth. It is just words.

 

Not entirely... only as it's utilized in logic and reason.

 

Emptiness and Rigpa are not really the same, but not really different either. As Rigpa is basically the awareness of self emptiness directly.

[thuscomeone]

I just popped in for a second...

 

I just want to say that unconditional love has no reference, but compassion always references the equal emptiness of all relativity; the people, places and things...

 

Unconditional love is just that state of bliss that see's everything's unborn nature directly, including oneself.

It doesn't see any sort of "nature" and assign that nature to things at all. It doesn't see "unborn" or anything else. That's called ignorance. It just sees.

[Lucky7Strikes]

[thuscomeone]

Not entirely... only as it's utilized in logic and reason.

 

Emptiness and Rigpa are not really the same, but not really different either. As Rigpa is basically the awareness of self emptiness directly.

Not even an awareness of "emptiness." Just leaving things as they are.

[Vajrahridaya]

It doesn't see any sort of "nature" and assign that nature to things at all. It doesn't see "unborn" or anything else. That's called ignorance. It just sees.

 

I'm sorry, but emptiness already transcends neither perception nor non-perception, both logically and intuitively.

 

When I say "see's one's unborn nature, including all else".. it's merely a figure of speech... which should be quite obvious.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Haha!

 

Xabir, look what you've done to thuscomeone! Made him a worse mirage!

 

:D

[xabir2005]

Emptiness is an intellectual view. It is not absolute truth. It is just words.

Yes, there is no real 'emptiness'. All views must be relinquished, through realization of the twofold emptiness, leaving unreified experiencing, what I call, the magic of empty-luminosity.

 

But right view will self-release upon realization, to throw away the raft before realization will not result in realization or liberation.... therefore, it is still the realization of the twofold emptiness that 'does the job' and not trying to remain in non-conceptual experience, etc. In other words, the realization, and the implication of views and how all these relates to liberation must not be overlooked... otherwise it just leads nowhere and there is no liberation.

Edited August 6, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Not even an awareness of "emptiness." Just leaving things as they are.

 

Which is an empty flow of beginningless d.o.

 

Please... don't let your mind b.o. this.

[xabir2005]

So he hasn't experienced directly. Only believes.

Can't say for him.

 

Are you vegetarian? (just curious, I'm not making judgements)

[thuscomeone]

I'm sorry, but emptiness already transcends neither perception nor non-perception, both logically and intuitively.

 

When I say "see's one's unborn nature, including all else".. it's merely a figure of speech... which should be quite obvious.

You too are stuck on endlessly repeating emptiness and d.o., just like xabir, and never going beyond.

[xabir2005]

You too are stuck on endlessly repeating emptiness and d.o., just like xabir, and never going beyond.

I didn't need to repeat if you had realized the implication of views and how the realization of twofold emptiness results in liberation.

 

And the Buddha didn't need to teach tens of thousands of verses and pages about emptiness, if emptiness doesn't liberate sentient being.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I just popped in for a second...

 

I just want to say that unconditional love has no reference, but compassion always references the equal emptiness of all relativity; the people, places and things...

 

Unconditional love is just that state of bliss that see's everything's unborn nature directly, including oneself.

I didn't feel unconditional love. I felt unconditional compassion for anyone I met and immediately knew what to say and what not to. I could barely face certain people who were open energetically because my heart would send my entire body into uncontrollable bliss. I would stop speaking in mid sentence because my heart was literally paralyzing my body (ok I'm remembering this lunch I had with a friend and I just began crying out of joy and she got really scared :lol: ). I could barely meditate during that period of about ten days because I would pass out in spontaneous prayers. It didn't reference anything.

 

The deeper and deeper I went, the more awake I became, I didn't know I could be that awake, and that awakefulness was coupled with an incredible sense of creativity and love. It wasn't a trance state because my body was breathing and responding to everything differently.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Which is an empty flow of beginningless d.o.

 

Please... don't let your mind b.o. this.

Uh-uh. d.o. is not the answer.

[thuscomeone]

I didn't need to repeat if you had realized the implication of views and how the realization of twofold emptiness results in liberation.

 

And the Buddha didn't need to teach tens of thousands of verses and pages about emptiness, if emptiness doesn't liberate sentient being.

Emptiness does liberate. As skillful means. Never said it doesn't. But you don't really know what emptiness means/what it is pointing to.

[Vajrahridaya]

You too are stuck on endlessly repeating emptiness and d.o., just like xabir, and never going beyond.

 

LOL! There's no beyond what is already beyond.

 

As the Buddha said,

 

"Dependent Origination is the all, and to see dependent origination is to see me."

 

You are reifying some experience. Are you not?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Can't say for him.

 

Are you vegetarian? (just curious, I'm not making judgements)

I was but for family reasons I had to stop. . But I didn't become a vegetarian for that period because of some ideology. I just didn't want to eat meat for a while.