xabir2005 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Seth: simply because they do not know that the hindu view is similar to theirs'. Furthermore, for fear that they be called non-buddhist, some shentong replace direct terms like "true self" with other terms like ultimate, independent, unchanging mind or awareness, which actually amounts to the same thing. No buddhist wants to be labelled non-buddhist so they won't admit that their doctrines are similar to the eternalists. Even tho dolpopa (founder of shentong) did himself use direct terms amounting to a true self. I know you probably don't like to read long articles, but if you read archaya's article you should get what I mean. Edited July 21, 2011 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) @ Seth, I wrote this in another thread to share my observations of anatta inquiry. I would like to know if what I wrote pertains to your experience somewhat. Thanks! Does thinking see thinking? Does sound hear sound? That would mean sound is aware. (You would blast music and awareness would drift as the soundwaves) Or mental processes are aware in themselves. Where does a thought begin and end? You would be all these chopped up awarenesses and have no connection between tasting and hearing. No memory would be established or a sense of being. You may conclude that from such reasoning that objectifies that moment of thought to itself, and go, "look, there is just these disparate moments of thought, me moving, jus things arising spontaneously." And the critical juncture during this inquiry is the realization that that very thought ("look, there is just these disparate...") itself is also another rising. And one falsely thinks this is the nature of reality when really you are just impersonally experiencing things as they rise because they are objectified. This is what you call "no-self realization." This is just another way of experiencing reality and I have no problem with that. It's spontaneous and liberating, a great way to practice and let go of grasping for me/mine mental habits. But the Buddhadharma says the objects are empty also. So you inquire into thoughts, movement, phenomena, and conclude there are no inherent separation or identity to them. However, here you are missing a critical flaw in the process, because in order to investigate various arisings, they must be contained, connected, or somehow perceived in their totality. You are stepping out of the "just this arising" understanding in order to see the relationship between multiple arisings. And to justify this process, you say afterwards, "oh, that was just another arising." There is no such thing as "just arising" inquiry. Inquiry demands connection, division, multiplicity, memory, reflection. It is a fluid process. So it's like you have a loop of justification. So you come to a nonsensical conclusion that, well, it's just like magic. As a crude example this is like a man looking for his eyes and seeing objects and not his eyes concludes that objects "see" themselves. And to see whether objects really exist or not, he closes his eye and sees darkness. So he concludes objects are not really there either. He doesn't understand that this whole thing just happens in his seeing-nature and denies his seeing entirely. You can deny everything in the world, but not awareness. Because that final denial happens in awareness. Nor does it make sense to say awareness belongs to arising of disparate moments. Not does it make sense to say one can directly know that awareness comes from something else (that can only be speculated as scientists attribute it to the brain). You can say awareness dependently originates, but only in the sense that a ball bounces. The fact that the ball bounces does not deny the ball. That would be stupid. Dependent origination is just how this dimension of awareness works. 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. Edited July 21, 2011 by xabir2005 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Edited July 21, 2011 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 21, 2011 Yes, between the two views is the place to be. Transcending ALL views and concepts (self, no self, emptiness, form) by realizing that what you are is prior to them -- emptiness as form. Enochian wrote: I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy... Namdrol: Then there is no hope for you at all. Madhyamaka is not to followed, it is to be used to pacify proliferations, including the one called "Madhyamaka". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted July 21, 2011 perhaps the way to see thoughts without division is simply to see that thoughts are mind... Like mahamudra pointing on innate thought and innate perception would have you see. It is a progression from simply the realization of innate mind. When the nondual aspect of thought and perception reveals.. Ken Wilber has described this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html Thoughts are not "Mind" as I define Mind, they're ego. Your post brings up an important subject seldom addressed,...the sciential mind, brain, psyche, which produces knowledge and thought, is not the sapiential Mind, heart, thymos, which manifests gnowledge and wisdom. Those who know, do not gnow. Wisdom does not arise through knowledge (period). What do you know,...and what do you gnow. When there is a direct awareness of the 6th density or higher, there is no "know." Knowledge arises from the impermanent, the cerebral-centricness that dreamers cherish. ACIM said, "the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to the impermanent brain), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves. The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is. No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it" I do enjoy Ken Wilber, although certainly do not see him as enlightened,...in fact, as of late, he appears to have regressed back into theism; which suggests that he may have never tasted truth to begin with. V Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) 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. Describe how YOU came to the realization of anatta. HOW the realization dawned upon you instead of regurgitating impersonal and dogmatic language we see here a thousand times. I find it curious how unoriginal some of your posts can be, even the examples never change. They are straight off of someone else's quotes... Edited July 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 21, 2011 Enochian wrote: I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy... Namdrol: Then there is no hope for you at all. Madhyamaka is not to followed, it is to be used to pacify proliferations, including the one called "Madhyamaka". Namdrol's an insightful guy, but if he really had realized what he was talking about in that quote, he wouldn't be so dogmatic in his views or adamant to tell people they are wrong. For example, he clings tightly to his view of rebirth and criticizes anyone who doesn't believe it. If he really knew, he wouldn't have a notion of rebirth or non-rebirth. The word is not the actuality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 21, 2011 Namdrol's an insightful guy, but if he really had realized what he was talking about in that quote, he wouldn't be so dogmatic in his views or adamant to tell people they are wrong. For example, he clings tightly to his view of rebirth and criticizes anyone who doesn't believe it. If he really knew, he wouldn't have a notion of rebirth or non-rebirth. The word is not the actuality. Actually on the Buddhist boards, his job is to maintain the traditional Buddhist view for the sake of education. He's different in person. Believe me, he has realization. He's just a stern academic scholar online. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 21, 2011 Actually on the Buddhist boards, his job is to maintain the traditional Buddhist view for the sake of education. He's different in person. Believe me, he has realization. He's just a stern academic scholar online. Good to know. Can't say I haven't learned a lot from him myself. It's just that words can only take you so far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 21, 2011 Good to know. Can't say I haven't learned a lot from him myself. It's just that words can only take you so far. He knows this, but he knows this due to knowing through stringent scholarship what the teachings of the Tibetan lineages teach, as well as mind to mind transmission from various masters. He will always promote mind to mind transmission, but he always say's that the experience has to be grounded and contextualized through thorough scholarship in order for the experience to be understood, as well as to set up conditions of expression that work to help others understand the experience both intellectually and experientially. But, it's true that enlightenment is not contained in any of the scriptures, they are just pointing to "thusness" with subjectively interpreted accuracy, or not, arisen dependent upon a persons individual needs in the moment of that persons process. I say this as some people read the Buddhist texts and think it's talking about demonic things. Que sera sera. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Thoughts are not "Mind" as I define Mind, they're ego. Your post brings up an important subject seldom addressed,...the sciential mind, brain, psyche, which produces knowledge and thought, is not the sapiential Mind, heart, thymos, which manifests gnowledge and wisdom. Those who know, do not gnow. Wisdom does not arise through knowledge (period). What do you know,...and what do you gnow. When there is a direct awareness of the 6th density or higher, there is no "know." Knowledge arises from the impermanent, the cerebral-centricness that dreamers cherish. ACIM said, "the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to the impermanent brain), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves. The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is. No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it" I do enjoy Ken Wilber, although certainly do not see him as enlightened,...in fact, as of late, he appears to have regressed back into theism; which suggests that he may have never tasted truth to begin with. V It's not wise to make an enemy of yourself. Your ego just does whatever the real you tells it to do. Stop blaming your ego for your troubles. The ego is not conspiring against you as if it had independent existence. The ego is your action, like a clenched fist. Clenched fist is your doing and unclenched hand is your doing also. So ego is like the clenched fist and non-ego is like an unclenched hand. The fist is not conspiring against your hand. It's all you from top to bottom. It's you who relaxes and it's you who is tense. It's you who believes one thing and then another. If you believe you can relax, relaxing is easy. If you believe tension is your true nature then relaxing is challenging. But the buck stops with you, the real you. You should not say "I have an ego." Say instead, "I am egoing." Ego is an action, a verb. Beliefs are verbs too, such as, "I am believing." Everything is a verb. Intent is the key. Edited July 21, 2011 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 21, 2011 Thoughts are not "Mind" as I define Mind, they're ego. Your post brings up an important subject seldom addressed,...the sciential mind, brain, psyche, which produces knowledge and thought, is not the sapiential Mind, heart, thymos, which manifests gnowledge and wisdom. Those who know, do not gnow. Wisdom does not arise through knowledge (period). What do you know,...and what do you gnow. When there is a direct awareness of the 6th density or higher, there is no "know." Knowledge arises from the impermanent, the cerebral-centricness that dreamers cherish. ACIM said, "the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to the impermanent brain), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves. The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is. No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it" I do enjoy Ken Wilber, although certainly do not see him as enlightened,...in fact, as of late, he appears to have regressed back into theism; which suggests that he may have never tasted truth to begin with. V I like what goldisheavy has to say about the ego. Ego is not a thing, it is simply a process of clinging and identifying... To make ego an enemy is simply more ego, so to speak. Ken Wilber is not a theist, he is a substantial non-dualist who has true nondual insight. This however is not the same as realizing anatta and shunyata but I digress. I still don't think you get what I meant so I shall quote from dakpo tashi namgyal the famous mahamudra master (and I highly recommend his book, clarifying the natural state, and the commentary 'crystal clear' by thrangu rinpoche): Pointing Out Innate Thinking Second, the meditator should now assume the correct posture in front of (the master, and be told the following): http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Dakpo%20Tashi%20Namgyal?m=0 "Let your mind remain in its natural way. When thoughts have subsided, your mind is an intangible, aware emptiness. Be undistracted and look directly into the identity of this naked state! "At this moment, allow a feisty thought, such as delight, to take form. The very moment it vividly occurs, look directly into its identity from within the state of aware emptiness. "Now, is this thought the intangible and naked state of aware emptiness? Or is it absolutely no different from the identity of innate mind-essence itself? Look!" Let the meditator look for a short while. The meditator may say, "It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference." If so, ask: "Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?" If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days. On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction: "When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya. "Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 21, 2011 Namdrol's an insightful guy, but if he really had realized what he was talking about in that quote, he wouldn't be so dogmatic in his views or adamant to tell people they are wrong. For example, he clings tightly to his view of rebirth and criticizes anyone who doesn't believe it. If he really knew, he wouldn't have a notion of rebirth or non-rebirth. The word is not the actuality. As a matter of fact the Buddha had taught that view of rebirth is right view and the view of annihalation is wrong view. ... And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) As a matter of fact the Buddha had taught that view of rebirth is right view and the view of annihalation is wrong view. ... And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. Wait a minute. You just talked before about ending views via madhyamaka. Now you propose a view. I don't think you see it yet. "This" is a verb, not a noun (concept). All views -- rebirth, non-birth -- are just something extra. They are not the actual. Edited July 21, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Describe how YOU came to the realization of anatta. HOW the realization dawned upon you instead of regurgitating impersonal and dogmatic language we see here a thousand times. I find it curious how unoriginal some of your posts can be, even the examples never change. They are straight off of someone else's quotes... actually I have talked about it a couple of times and adviced you to do the same but perhaps you didn't pick up... Direct path anatta contemplation ala bahiya sutta style (in contrast to more gradual methods like actualism) My anatta realization happened in october last year when I was still doing bmt (basic military training). I was at the one mind phase at that time. Since I was busy with bmt and didn't have much time to talk with thusness, he communicated important points about non-dual, total transparency, the mind-body dropoff and anatta to me in dreams (he later informed me it was his intentions to let me know certain important pointers in my dreams, and that it was possible for him to communicate in this way as we had some deep connections, sort of like a guru-student mind connection). Two weeks later I was contemplating on "in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard" while marching and it suddenly clicked. I realized anatta and actualized whatever was communicated to me in my dreams. The first article I wrote afterwards was this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html?m=0 Edited July 21, 2011 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 21, 2011 Wait a minute. You just talked before about ending views via madhyamaka. Now you propose a view. I don't think you see it yet. "This" is a verb, not a noun (concept). All views are just something extra. That's your view, and it's not even an honest one. I mean, you don't really believe what you're saying in the hearts of hearts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) That's your view, and it's not even an honest one. I mean, you don't really believe what you're saying in the hearts of hearts. Nope. It simply can't be captured in a view. It's just like the eye trying to see itself. That doesn't mean that views don't still "happen." Even in this view it can't be captured. But views can point. To that which is beyond views. That is you. Not "you." Edited July 21, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 22, 2011 Wait a minute. You just talked before about ending views via madhyamaka. Now you propose a view. I don't think you see it yet. "This" is a verb, not a noun (concept). All views -- rebirth, non-birth -- are just something extra. They are not the actual. Rebirth is relative right view like dependent origination is relative right view. Since what dependently originates is realized to be empty, this ends all views. The relative truths are not clung too either as even karma is ultimately empty. But we need to recognize karma on the relative level as we need to recognize d.o. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) actually I have talked about it a couple of times and adviced you to do the same but perhaps you didn't pick up... Direct path anatta contemplation ala bahiya sutta style (in contrast to more gradual methods like actualism) My anatta realization happened in october last year when I was still doing bmt (basic military training). I was at the one mind phase at that time. Since I was busy with bmt and didn't have much time to talk with thusness, he communicated important points about non-dual, total transparency, the mind-body dropoff and anatta to me in dreams (he later informed me it was his intentions to let me know certain important pointers in my dreams, and that it was possible for him to communicate in this way as we had some deep connections, sort of like a guru-student mind connection). Two weeks later I was contemplating on "in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard" while marching and it suddenly clicked. I realized anatta and actualized whatever was communicated to me in my dreams. The first article I wrote afterwards was this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html?m=0 What is in this post that is different? It's basically "Thusness told me X"...and it "just clicked" because "just seen, just heard." That is not a good reflection on your own path to understanding. This is just experiencing everything directly as they arise. It is nothing special until you convince yourself that it is. Or in your instance, you were already convinced due to faith in Thusness. The so called anatta realization: "Just this." And while contemplating "this" ness, you realize that that itself is also "just this." Like the koan, "what is this?" It realizes there is only that which is the question, or just whatever that is. It's nothing special until you convince yourself it is somehow the nature of all experience. IMO that is a shallow understanding of how you came to that conclusion. Edited July 22, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Rebirth is relative right view like dependent origination is relative right view. Since what dependently originates is realized to be empty, this ends all views. The relative truths are not clung too either as even karma is ultimately empty. But we need to recognize karma on the relative level as we need to recognize d.o. I would say that true seeing of "emptiness is form" is what really ends all views. If you see emptiness is form as a verb, not a noun, views are finished. There is one thing that is free from views. It is not empty, relative, ultimate, karma, rebirth, no-rebirth. What is it other than you -- typing, thinking, seeing? Edited July 22, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 22, 2011 Nope. It simply can't be captured in a view. It's just like the eye trying to see itself. That doesn't mean that views don't still "happen." Even in this view it can't be captured. But views can point. To that which is beyond views. That is you. Not "you." You are committed to the view that views are to be transcended, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 22, 2011 What is in this post that is different? It's basically "Thusness told me X"...and it "just clicked" because "just seen, just heard." That is not a good reflection on your own path to understanding. This is just experiencing everything directly as they arise. It is nothing special until you convince yourself that it is. Or in your instance, you were already convinced due to faith in Thusness. The so called anatta realization: "Just this." And while contemplating "this" ness, you realize that that itself is also "just this." Like the koan, "what is this?" It realizes there is only that which is the question, or just whatever that is. i actually posted my line of inquiry and reflection on my bahiya sutta commentary... From "in seeing just seen" to no subject, object, distance, the concept of awareness and so on. "In seeing just the seen" has nothing to do with faith (and neither has it to do with logical conviction derived by analysis like madhyamika philosophy)... I can believe this is so (and I actually have deep faith in buddha from the beginning and knew about this sutra for years)... But unless I truly see that this is so, it wouldn't make sense to me experientially. You need to contemplate until realization occurs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 22, 2011 I would say that true seeing of "emptiness is form" is what really ends all views. If you see emptiness is form as a verb, not a noun, views are finished. There is one thing that is free from views. It is not empty, relative, ultimate, karma, rebirth, no-rebirth. What is it other than you? the realization of the twofold emptiness releases the mind from the views of "is" and "is not", and without such clinging naturally there is just an ungraspable verb - direct experiencing - the magic of empty-luminosity - emptiness is form Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 22, 2011 You are committed to the view that views are to be transcended, right? I am not commited to the view at all. I'm just attempting to point to something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thuscomeone Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) the realization of the twofold emptiness releases the mind from the views of "is" and "is not", and without such clinging naturally there is just an ungraspable verb - direct experiencing - the magic of empty-luminosity - emptiness is form who is experiencing? No "experiencing." The hand moves, the eyes see. Emptiness is form. Edited July 22, 2011 by thuscomeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
