'No self' my experience so far...

[Vajrahridaya]

From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.

[/i]

 

Exactly... this is why I've always said that there is free awareness, not free will. Will is always determined.

 

Even as a Buddha, your actions are determined by signals from sentient beings, just referencing compassion instead of selfishness, as in free versus bound awareness.

[xabir2005]

No, that's just causes and conditions.

 

You said causes and conditions depend on something and is hence empty. What do causes and conditions depend on?

more causes and conditions...

[Vajrahridaya]

No, that's just causes and conditions.

 

You said causes and conditions depend on something and is hence empty. What do causes and conditions depend on?

 

emptiness, to be flexible and have potential for ongoing remixes of the song of life.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

You "personally"? An individual? What and where exactly is this individual personality apart from causes and conditions...?

 

Or are you saying there is personal line of causes and conditions? Because I think I can agree with that.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Huh?

 

You "personally"? An individual? What and where exactly is this individual personality apart from causes and conditions...?

 

Or are you saying there is personal line of causes and conditions?

Conventional individuality... not inherent individuality...

[Lucky7Strikes]

emptiness, to be flexible and have potential for ongoing remixes of the song of life.

Causes and conditions depend on emptiness? I thought causes and conditions render everything empty, so no "things."

 

Anyways, can you give me an example of this?

Edited August 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

I already said 'is' and 'is not' don't apply...

 

Dependent arising is relative truth, upon investigation, what is relative is empty.

You think that you aren't attached to dependent arising...but you are. You say "is" and "is not" do not apply. But look at how many times you write reality "is" this, is empty, is dependent, etc. in your posts.

 

See, you are correct in saying that "is" and "is not" do not apply. But you don't really understand why they don't apply. You think they don't apply because reality "is" a certain way -- is empty, is dependent. And by saying this, you are contradicting yourself.

 

Actually, the reason that "is" and "is not" do not apply is that descriptions -- which all suppose is or is not --cannot touch the bare fact of experience. It isn't because things are "dependently arisen." That would be holding onto another description.

Edited August 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited August 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

more causes and conditions...

That's redundant don't you think. That's like saying process depends on process. Causes and conditions are not things in the manner in which we have been using that term, they are ways things work. So it makes no sense to says causes and conditions depend on causes and conditions, you are basically saying everything arises from causes and conditions.

[C T]

more causes and conditions...

 

Not exactly. According to the 12 links, causes and conditions arise due to ignorance. This 12 links is reversible, ending in eradication/extinction of ignorance, whereby causes and conditions cease. End of karmic cycles leading to cessation of suffering, leading to no birth no death. If causes and conditions are unendable, death and rebirth cannot be transcended.

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is nothing whatsoever that does not arise dependently, and thus there is nothing whatsoever that is not empty.

Ok, ok. Just EMPTY appearance rolling along. That changes nothing.

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is only moment to moment experience, that ultimately, is empty and non-arising.

 

There is nothing linking experience, and yet it is not the case that experience has a real arising and cessation. So there is no lines, and no continuity of an entity as well.

 

Whatever dependently originates is empty of arising, abidance and cessation since there is literally no-thing 'there' to arise, abide, subside, etc.... just mere appearances... no coming, staying, going, no where to be found, like a magical apparition.

If there is nothing linking existence, why do we have selfhood? As in how do I distinguish a "me" ness at all if it's just disjointed moment to moment? Why do we feel flow of moments? Why do I have knowledge of past and present if it's just disjointed moment after moment??

 

Moreover, how does one see two disjointed moment A and B and compare them at all?

[Vajrahridaya]

Causes and conditions depend on emptiness? I thought causes and conditions render everything empty, so no "things."

 

Anyways, can you give me an example of this?

 

Causes and conditions are empty, thus movement happens, thus time is possible. This is how change dances, due to emptiness, not as a thing, but as the fundamental quality of things, including the cognition of things mutually arising with things, or focus on non-things such as what happens in formless absorptions. But for Buddhism to be understood, one has to understand that non-things are also things, that non-phenomena is also phenomena, that transcendence is also imminence, that beyond phenomena is just another phenomena.

 

Because causes and conditions, including all that I've mentioned above, have no self reference and only reference previous causes and conditions, there is ongoing motion, like an infinite sphere of domino's, both expanding internally infinitely and externally infinitely yet all equally empty. The no boundary of all boundaries makes boundaries possible. I know... I re-read this and it sounds cryptic when I try to put myself in other peoples place.

 

Infinite allows for infinite finites which are also individually infinite in the sense that they continue the story through inter-causation, due to their quality of emptiness.

 

You want that experience you can only get through deep contemplation past these pages. I know you do!!!!

[xabir2005]

You think that you aren't attached to dependent arising...but you are. You say "is" and "is not" do not apply. But look at how many times you write reality "is" this, is empty,

Empty is not an assertion about reality (emptiness is not real: emptiness too is empty). It is simply a denial of existents, it is not an assertion, you need to read this:

 

"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."

 

This is why the 'realization of emptiness' is the realization that frees one from all views.

is dependent, etc. in your posts.

Dependent is relative... it is not absolute. I never said dependent arising is real. I said dependent arising is *empty* just as Nagarjuna said.

 

See, you are correct in saying that "is" and "is not" do not apply. But you don't really understand why they don't apply. You think they don't apply because reality "is" a certain way -- is empty, is dependent. And by saying this, you are contradicting yourself.

Appearances are empty of inherent existence, it is not that their reality is something called emptiness.

 

Actually, the reason that "is" and "is not" do not apply is that descriptions -- which all suppose is or is not --cannot touch the bare fact of experience. It isn't because things are "dependently arisen." That would be holding onto another description.

No. You are still not understanding the implications of views, and how realization of no-inherency dissolves view of 'is and is not' - non-conceptual experience alone cannot dissolve such views which runs latent in the psyche, affecting how we view and cling to things moment to moment, causing suffering. A view is not just a manifest concept - it is a position and belief deeply held in one's psyche which runs and affects our life in subtle and gross ways. Edited August 6, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Exactly... this is why I've always said that there is free awareness, not free will. Will is always determined.

 

Even as a Buddha, your actions are determined by signals from sentient beings, just referencing compassion instead of selfishness, as in free versus bound awareness.

Ah OK!

 

So you agree with this too. Will is determined.

 

Can we just agree on this that you and Xabir do not believe in free will, but determined will?

[xabir2005]

If there is nothing linking existence, why do we have selfhood? As in how do I distinguish a "me" ness at all if it's just disjointed moment to moment? Why do we feel flow of moments? Why do I have knowledge of past and present if it's just disjointed moment after moment??

There is a continuity of a process, not the continuity of an entity.

 

Moreover, how does one see two disjointed moment A and B and compare them at all?

We can't.

 

We can only have a present memory.

[xabir2005]

Ah OK!

 

So you agree with this too. Will is determined.

 

Can we just agree on this that you and Xabir do not believe in free will, but determined will?

In the same way that drumbeats are not determined by air, drum, etc, but is a manifestation due to the meeting of conditions, so too is will not determined in the sense of self-made or other-made, but is a conditioned arising. There is no independent free will.

[Vajrahridaya]

Not exactly. According to the 12 links, causes and conditions arise due to ignorance. This 12 links is reversible, ending in eradication/extinction of ignorance, whereby causes and conditions cease. End of karmic cycles leading to cessation of suffering, leading to no birth no death. If causes and conditions are unendable, death and rebirth cannot be transcended.

 

Actually, the links are just reversed in the sense that they cease to function selfishly through ignorance. Existence never stops, even for a Buddha there is no such thing as non-existence in the literal sense. It's just seen through, both concepts of existence and non-existence. Causes and conditions are un-endable, as sentient beings keep producing these based upon ignorance without beginning. It's just that once you've realized the experience of the insight of emptiness totally, your causes and conditions for manifesting reference compassionate emptiness, rather than selfish projections arising due to a sense of lack.

 

So, the twelve links still go, but for you it's self liberated compassion. Ignorance is freed through you in every moment as "they" who are empty, keep producing based upon it.

 

There is only ignorance, it's just for a Buddha it's seen through due to emptiness insight. Thus, Samsara is Nirvana... on and on. As they say, Samsara has no beginning and Nirvana has no end.

 

EDIT: Too many comas or miss placed comas and not enough periods... a bad habit of mine.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

No, xabir. You are stuck in the muck of the intellect and yet you think you are free.

 

You can't see your own chains because you don't understand what concepts are.

 

You think you are free from views, but anyone with half a brain can see from reading your posts that that is just not true.

Edited August 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Not exactly. According to the 12 links, causes and conditions arise due to ignorance. This 12 links is reversible, ending in eradication/extinction of ignorance, whereby causes and conditions cease. End of karmic cycles leading to cessation of suffering, leading to no birth no death. If causes and conditions are unendable, death and rebirth cannot be transcended.

12 links is reversible and transcendable, no doubt.

 

D.O. does not only apply where there is ignorance. It can apply in general ways too - for an arhant whose ignorance is ceased, nevertheless, his experience arise due to past karma (dependent origination), his sense awareness arises dependent on sense objects and organs, etc.

Edited August 6, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

In the same way that drumbeats are not determined by air, drum, etc, but is a manifestation due to the meeting of conditions, so too is will not determined in the sense of self-made or other-made, but is a conditioned arising. There is no independent free will.

No, drum beats are determined by, according to you: the drum, its size, materials, the person, the person's mood, the air, the occasion, etc.

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

No, xabir. You are stuck in the muck of the intellect and yet you think you are free.

 

You can't see your own chains because you don't understand what concepts are.

 

You think you are free from views, but anyone with half a brain can see from reading your posts that that is just not true.

As a matter of fact, I am not stuck in the intellect, I have true realization and experience that transcends all concepts and positions....

 

And I also gone through what you went through before. Thusness wrote this to me because of what I was going through - the disease of non-conceptuality (even after an initial insight into anatta), on 31 October 2010:

 

 

Hi Geis,

 

I 'fear' commenting about other's forum because AEN will create havoc in that forum after that...lol.

 

Jokes aside but I think it is still too early to say that insight of anatta has arisen. There seem to be a mixing up and a lack of clarity of the following experiences that resulted from contemplating on the topic of no-self:

 

1. Resting in non-conceptuality

2. Resting as an ultimate Subject or

3. Resting as mere ‘flow of phenomenality

In case 1 practitioners see ‘The seen is neither subjective nor objective.... it just IS....’

In terms of experience, practitioners will feel Universe, Life. However this is not anatta but rather the result of stripping off (deconstructing) identity and personality.

When this mode of non-conceptual perception is taken to be ultimate, the terms “What is”, “Isness”, “Thusness” are often taken to mean simply resting in non-conceptuality and not adding to or subtracting anything from the ‘raw manifestation’. There is a site effect to such an experience. Although in non-conceptuality, non-dual is most vivid and clear, practitioners may wrongly conclude that ‘concepts’ are the problem because the presence of ‘concepts’ divides and prevent the non-dual experience. This seems logical and reasonable only to a mind that is deeply root in a subject/object dichotomy. Very quickly ‘non-conceptuality’ becomes an object of practice. The process of objectification is the result of the tendency in action perpetually repeating itself taking different forms like an endless loop. This can continue to the extent that a practitioner can even ‘fear’ to establish concepts without knowing it. They are immobilized by trying to prevent the formation of views and concepts. When we see ‘suffering just IS’, we must be very careful not to fall into the ‘disease’ of non-conceptuality.

 

In Case 2 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization, understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of ‘No-Self based on Self’.

 

For Case 3 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed. This is different from 'deconstructing of identity and personality' which is related to non-conceptuality but 'actual' seeing of the non-existence of agent in transient phenomena.

 

Here practitioners will not only feel universe as in case 1 but there is also an immediate experience of our birth right freedom because the agent is gone. It is important to notice that practitioners here do not mistake freedom as ‘no right or wrong and remaining in a state of primordial purity’ ; they are not immobilized by non-conceptuality but is able to clearly see the ‘arising and passing’ of phenomena as liberating as there is no permanent agent there to ‘hinder’ the seeing. That is, practitioner not only realize ‘what experience is’ but also begin to understand the ‘nature’ of experience.

 

To mature case 3 realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.

 

In my opinion, the blog that hosts the articles on “Who am I” and “Quietening the Inner Chatter” provide more in depth insights on non-duality, Anatta and Emptiness. The author demonstrates very deep calirty of ‘what experience is’ and the ‘nature (impermanent, empty and dependent originates according to supporting conditions)’ of experience.

 

Just my 2 cents. :-)

 

 

-----------

 

 

P.s. I just realized this post is so good and actually summarizes the problems of people in this forum. Either Case 1 or Case 2.

Edited August 6, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is a continuity of a process, not the continuity of an entity.

Ok: you are an impersonal process of the universe. But the way you feel that is not "out there," but intimate. As spontaneous arising.

 

We can't.

 

We can only have a present memory.

If we only have present memory, why do you remember yesterday? Or the day before. Or more than two moments?

[xabir2005]