Tradition and Lineages

[Vajrahridaya]

clever sounding but again missing the mark.

 

I'm not aiming for a mark to begin with... that would mean there is a definite self to cling to as a goal.

[3bob]

I'm not aiming for a mark to begin with... that would mean there is a definite self to cling to as a goal.

 

Zen silly

[ralis]

You've never understood much of what I said, as to say this about my posts is absolutely unfounded. I am far from a black and white thinker. I have found over the years that you project a meaning onto my posts that doesn't exist outside of your own mind, and this is evidenced by the fact that others do not see in my posts what you see, and no, it has nothing to do with your education.

 

Robert Anton Wilson has always been one of my favorite writers. Here he discusses in the first part of the interview, why communication can be problematic.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-7gZkPoeMY&feature=related

[Vajrahridaya]

Robert Anton Wilson has always been one of my favorite writers. Here he discusses in the first part of the interview, why communication can be problematic.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-7gZkPoeMY&feature=related

 

Yes, it's brilliant, but Mahasiddhas go deeper than personal relativity, or neurological relativism while expressing through it.

 

This is cool though, thank you. I like his voice.

 

Dependent Origination leads to the same realization, but emptiness liberates one from this "liberation" within the personalized paradigm he is talking about as well.

 

This is brilliant though, I love his use of English. I do have some of the same concerns as he does about information control.

 

Orgone theory... eh? That universal life force is dependent origination/emptiness, works on all levels impersonally, interpersonally and personally.

[Vmarco]

[Vajrahridaya]

IMO

Still tinged with pride... so just be open.

[Seth Ananda]

Please don't take offense, but your comment about quoting from books,...and quoting from books was precious.

 

Ok,...I see you have a bizarre idea about emptiness, and believe that idea because "most schools" accept it,...Yes,...it's very easy to get caught up in some groupthink, or media-ted through self-proclaimed authorities.

 

For me, I could not, in all honest call myself a Buddhist,...but I do see myself as a Freethought Buddhist,...that is, I have a very broad view of sutras and Mahamudras.

 

My understanding of emptiness comes from various sutras and Mahamudras,...and not Traditions, Lineages, or any current Buddhist or non=dual business.

 

Form is empty, and empty is form,...through that understanding according to the Heart sutra, one can recognize a Bodhisattva,...thus one reason I consider that text important,...the other reason is that in the Heart sutra Buddha says, the most important thing, known to all Buddhas in the three periods of time, is, Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!...

 

That is the definition of Tathagata,... "to go, to come, beyond going and coming, into complete going and coming, where enlightenment is welcomed" Any other definition is misinformation,...just ask Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje.

 

In the context of the Heart sutra,..

 

Emptiness is a substance unseen

Emptiness is the unwinded aspect of divided light

Emptiness is not an absolute

Neither emptiness nor form exists on its own

Emptiness is the Vidyadhara of wisdom

From emptiness all form arises

Emptiness has no "i"

Emptiness does not feel, for it is the cycle of unwinded form

Emptiness is the yin, that cycles into yang

Emptiness is the unseen aspect of duality

Only through the understanding of Emptiness, does one uncover the threshold of non-duality

 

Yes,...this is not a competition,...if you have already uncovered your light,...fine,...if not,...why not? Can we share ideas without them offending someones beliefs, lineages, or personal knowledge of great enlightened beings.

 

It always comes down to this,...how honest can one be? Two fully honest people of dissimiliar backgrounds could realize a level to do miraculous things in a short amount of time.

 

What an adventure honesty would be.

 

V

I am sorry but this is the stupidest post about Buddhism I have ever read.

 

Emptiness is a substance unseen? lol really? Tell me about your experience of this magical substance?

 

From emptiness all form arises? So what about dependent origination? Buddha taught this from day one, in thousands of teachings over and over again in as many ways as was probably humanly possible in one life time. Things and events give rise to things and events. Emptiness is not a creator, or a producer. It is the true nature of every existing condition, and when I say true nature I do not mean as some substance, I mean that the true nature of things is that they have no Inherent existence.

 

Its sad that you call your self a Buddhist [free thought variety] and are an Intelligent individual, yet can not see the compiled levels of eternalism and ridiculousness that taint your supposedly free perspective.

 

Seth out.

[xabir2005]

Hmmm,..Is what is, Is. Is; , Is Is a noumenon? A phenomenon? the elusive unknowable "thing-in-itself"?

 

How can the Self beyond the skandhas,...the Self that is realized when Unborn Awareness is uncovered,...be explained? What is the Self that gets off the Wheel of samsara, and ends cycles of rebirth? The term "exist", as in the Self that exists, doesn't work for me, because "to exist" implies to stand alone,...and Self does not, from my observations, do that, at any level I'm aware of..

 

Non-Mahaparinirvana Buddhism teaches that where truth is, the self is not,...yet this is discussing the skandha self,...not the Self beyond the illusion that comes through the skandhas. Some Buddhists believe there is a permanent Self of a union of form and formlessness (emptiness), but that is ridiculous,...there can never be a union of opposites. Whenever opposites come together they cancel themeslves out.

 

Charles Coulomb’s object-ive point of view, although seemingly appropriate for the attraction and repulsion of electrical charges, is fully misleading. Like conditions actually attract like conditions. From my view, two magnets cancel out the end poles of any point of union.

 

 

Buddha said, "Really it is not that there is no self." Which may be intrepreted differently by every Lineage Holder. However, the question above is, "how did you arrive at that conclusion?"

 

There is an Undivided Light (best described in cerebral-centric terms as that which is realized at the so-called speed of light,...when there is no longer any distance, any time, nor need for speed), which cannot be perceived through any appendage of the skandhas.

 

From all my observations, this Light is Causeless, Unchanging, Eternal, Still, and nothing is beyond it. That which can glimpse beyond the skandhas can observe this Undivided Light,...this direct observer is not a self in any traditional way of self, but, for the most part, a self that simultaneous comes as it goes,...in other words, observes beyond objects. The observer that directly views Undivided Light is not a phenomenon dependent upon duality, because it is directly related with Undivided Light, which is not a phenomena.

 

For example, look at flower,....

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19569-heartmind/page__st__80

 

When you come back into youself, simultaneously as you go, you and the flower are one,...two illusory phenomenon with the same interdependent origination,...however, when this observing Self is viewing Unconditional Light, the relationship is different.,...because the observer self is not observing a phenomena.

 

A being attached to sentience goes out, stops at a perceived object, seeing it as separate from "thinking self." The Conscousness beyond the 6 senses, goes out, and simultaneously comes back in, as they go out, so that the object never was an object separate from Consciousness. Then there is the observer of Undivided Light,....there is no going out, there is no coming in. There is this Is. No questions. No wants. No desire. No sentient feelings. No Gods. And yet cognizance of life itself.

 

I came across an interesting book (free on the internet) called Secret of Light

http://www.archive.org/stream/WalterRussellTheSecretOfLight/WalterRussell_TheSecretOfLight_djvu.txt

 

Although it is unforntately written through a religio-scientific focus, it is nevertheless quite informative about the subject of what I call Undivided Light, and the MahaSiddhas called Clear Light.

 

This book is also essential for anyone wanting a fuller spectrum understanding of Wu Chi and T’ai Chi.

 

V

Though you have realized I AM, you have not realized anatta and shunyata... therefore at present your views are no different from that of Advaita Vedanta*.

 

*Hindu teacher Ramana Maharshi: 1 . Who am I ?

 

The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense-organs, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning's, I am not.

 

2. If I am none of these, then who am I?

 

After negating all of the above-mentioned as 'not this', 'not this', that Awareness which alone remains - that I am.

 

3. What is the nature of Awareness?

 

The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss

 

 

I completely understand and gone through what you realized and experienced... however there are further insights and not to mistaken Mahaparinirvana Sutra as belonging to that of Hindu eternalism.* The further stages of insights are summarized by Thusness in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

 

 

*Loppon Namdrol:

 

'Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya.'

 

....

 

 

Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:

That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

 

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

 

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

 

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

 

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

 

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

 

The Bhagavan replied:

 

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

 

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

 

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

 

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

 

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

Thus, the Lanka says:

All yaanas are included

in five dharmas, three natures,

eight consciousnesses,

and two selflessnesses

It does not add anything about a true self and so on.

 

If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:

Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.

 

Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.

 

Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.

 

And:

Although tathaagatagarbha

possesses seven consciousnesses;

always engaged with dualistic apprehensions

[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.

 

If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:

"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.

`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.

And:

`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.

 

Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.

 

Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:

 

"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.

 

So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states

"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.

 

Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.

 

When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

2. If I am none of these, then who am I?

 

After negating all of the above-mentioned as 'not this', 'not this', that Awareness which alone remains - that I am.

 

 

This goes against "You do not exist", As this is showing how you do exist.

 

It is through deduction that you find what you are.

 

Not to be mistaken as evidence for not existing, but to eliminate everything that you are not.

 

What remains is what you are. It's simple.

 

P.S. This is in regards to xabir's self proclaimed non-existence, which I think this proves that he doesn't even believe it himself, just wishes to convince others of it for whatever reason.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

You jumped to a conclusion that what you cannot find must not exist.

[Vmarco]

I am sorry but this is the stupidest post about Buddhism I have ever read.

 

Emptiness is a substance unseen? lol really? Tell me about your experience of this magical substance?

 

From emptiness all form arises? So what about dependent origination? Buddha taught this from day one, in thousands of teachings over and over again in as many ways as was probably humanly possible in one life time. Things and events give rise to things and events. Emptiness is not a creator, or a producer. It is the true nature of every existing condition, and when I say true nature I do not mean as some substance, I mean that the true nature of things is that they have no Inherent existence.

 

Seth out.

 

You appear quite disinformed about about Dependent Origination, its purpose, and what Buddha taught. It is also outrageous how you have, like Vajrahridaya, developed an attachment to Emptiness as a goal.

 

Buddha expressed His experience of enlightenment in one of two ways, either in terms of having understood the Four Noble Truths, or in terms of having understood the nature of dependent origination,...each are simply principals of dualistic causality,...and are merely intended uncover what is beyond the skandhas.

 

Their is no permanent self within the sentient self.

 

Even though a few, like Avalokiteshvara, could understand Dependent Origination quite easily, for most sentient beings, their bizarre concepts of things made is very difficult,...so Buddha had to address it like a kindergarten teacher doing ABC's with imbeciles.

 

Most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

 

Form is empty, and empty is form,....if you disagree with this basic Buddha statement, than you disagree with Buddha. From emptiness, a substance unseen, a division of unwinded form, reaches a concave optical boundary where it begins to multiply, winding spectra into form. In no way does this contradict Dependant Origination,...it only contradicts the teachings of Lineages since the 12th century.

 

Not only are your views of duality strange,...it strange who sharply you deny the Tao on a Tao forum.

 

I never said emptiness creates (that's your misinterpetation of the cyclic flow between form and emptiness),...the only time I recall using the term "creator" was in the context that their can be no creator without the illusion of time,...also consistent with Dependent Origination.

 

He who sees dependent origination sees the Dharma,...and you dear poster, haven't a clue about Dependent Origination, or the nature of duality.

 

V

[Informer]

You appear quite disinformed about about Dependent Origination, its purpose, and what Buddha taught. It is also outrageous how you have, like Vajrahridaya, developed an attachment to Emptiness as a goal.

 

Buddha expressed His experience of enlightenment in one of two ways, either in terms of having understood the Four Noble Truths, or in terms of having understood the nature of dependent origination,...each are simply principals of dualistic causality,...and are merely intended uncover what is beyond the skandhas.

 

Their is no permanent self within the sentient self.

 

Even though a few, like Avalokiteshvara, could understand Dependent Origination quite easily, for most sentient beings, their bizarre concepts of things made is very difficult,...so Buddha had to address it like a kindergarten teacher doing ABC's with imbeciles.

 

Most mature Buddhists have said, "it is important to remember that dependent origination is essentially and primarily a teaching that has to do with the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from suffering, and not a description of the evolution of the universe."

 

Form is empty, and empty is form,....if you disagree with this basic Buddha statement, than you disagree with Buddha. From emptiness, a substance unseen, a division of unwinded form, reaches a concave optical boundary where it begins to multiply, winding spectra into form. In no way does this contradict Dependant Origination,...it only contradicts the teachings of Lineages since the 12th century.

 

Not only are your views of duality strange,...it strange who sharply you deny the Tao on a Tao forum.

 

I never said emptiness creates (that's your misinterpetation of the cyclic flow between form and emptiness),...the only time I recall using the term "creator" was in the context that their can be no creator without the illusion of time,...also consistent with Dependent Origination.

 

He who sees dependent origination sees the Dharma,...and you dear poster, haven't a clue about Dependent Origination, or the nature of duality.

 

V

 

That attachement to nothing is a paradox, how to break the spell?

[xabir2005]

You jumped to a conclusion that what you cannot find must not exist.

No, I have not, and apparently you haven't 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]

This goes against "You do not exist", As this is showing how you do exist.

 

It is through deduction that you find what you are.

 

Not to be mistaken as evidence for not existing, but to eliminate everything that you are not.

 

What remains is what you are. It's simple.

 

P.S. This is in regards to xabir's self proclaimed non-existence, which I think this proves that he doesn't even believe it himself, just wishes to convince others of it for whatever reason.

What Ramana Maharshi realized is the mind's luminosity in its state of quiescence. It is pure presence prior to concepts. But this is being falsely reified into a true self.

 

It is also the relative nature of mind, in contrast to the ultimate nature of mind:

 

Dalai Lama:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/07/happiness-karma-and-mind.html

 

Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind.

 

There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state.

 

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[C T]

From emptiness, a substance unseen, a division of unwinded form...

You appear to have hit a blockage - Emptiness from any perspective, pre- or post-12th century, can never be a substance unseen or seen. Moreover, it is cannot be a division. As Seth had repeatedly said, in very simple terms, its the basis of things - the underlying nature of phenomena. Without this basis, the movements of arising and cessation cannot occur, which then implies permanence, which then means the basic causes of suffering cannot be transcended, and this completely negates the very foundation of Buddhist thought.

 

Moreover, the cessation of conflicting dualism (root cause of suffering) does not arise from seeing dependent origination. It arises from contemplating repeatedly the futility of emotional attachments that give rise to clinging and aversions.

[xabir2005]

The clear light that vmarco realized and experienced is also not unchanging as he thought (even though it does appear completely still and quiescent - it is nevertheless falsely reified into an unchanging entity/background/self/identity):

 

Dalai Lama, "The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the ‘clear light’ (abhasvara, ‘od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, ‘dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered ‘permanent’ in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted…"

 

Shurangama Sutra, "

(33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

 

First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent."

 

......

 

Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence."

 

 

And I understand (from my own experience) from the I AM realization and experience, all these can be hard to swallow or comprehend.. that is why it is best to go step by step, from I AM into impersonality, then non-dual, then anatta.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

[3bob]

oh hell, "the ducks never flew away"

[3bob]

oh hell, "the ducks never flew away" (not an exact quote, any way I gotta go wash the dishes they have not flown away either, later)

Edited August 5, 2011 by 3bob

[xabir2005]

Any notion that the typer of this has not realized anatta is baffling.

 

xabir wrote: "Who am I ?"

 

No one, can ever, realize Who they are, without first, or simulataneously understanding When they are.

Can you show me where I haven't advocated neti-neti?

 

I'm glad you completely understand and gone through what I have realized and experienced,...and even that you surpassed it, and entered further stages of insights. Not sure what the point is,...but I'm glad for you.

I do like that quote,...That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.

 

For me, having accepted the Bodhisattva vow, I'm not interested in the further stages insights beyond the rest and shamata of Clear Light, but I am interested in how sentient beings can shift from their mediocrity and need to express ego as real, and reality as unreal.

 

xabir writes: "one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states."

 

That looks pretty accurate to me. As Tilopa said:

"The Clear Light cannot be revealed, By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises, Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals."

 

I also agree, that Buddha nature always exists in all sentient beings,...its a no-brainer! The only thing that needs to be done is to disrobe the beliefs that obscure that reality.

 

V

I know you advocated neti-neti... What I am saying is that anatta is not just a matter of neti neti.

 

I am glad you are open to what I am suggesting... I was careful not to interrupt your postings too much as I thought you would reject immediately what I said...

 

Anyway if you have accepted the Bodhisattva vows, which I am glad for you (as I myself did too), you should be very interested in attaining complete enlightenment for the sake of liberating all sentient beings.

 

A true Bodhisattva, much more a Buddha, has thoroughly realized the twofold emptinesses... which means he has traversed through all those stages that Thusness and I spoke about.

 

Not trying to suggest you should start chasing after experiences or realizations... just keep an open mind and continue your investigation and practice and in time things will reveal... Vajrahridaya suggested finding a teacher which I think is a great idea.

 

p.s. I just flipped the Dalai Lama's book "Lighting the Way" I'm currently reading to the bookmarked page (where I stopped - and I can say since I started practicing, countless synchronicities like this just happens), and here's a passage the I think is relevant not only to you but to the thread as well:

 

"...Having said this, when traversing the path to enlightenment we do need to rely on our teachers as spiritual guides. In fact, it is essential that we find an authentic, qualified teacher if we are to develop a good understanding of the spiritual practices essentiial for leading us to full awakening. there is a Tibetan saying: 'The source of pure water must be traceable to pure snow mountains.' In the same way, It is very important to ensure that the practices we follow are authentic and are traceable through an authentic lineage of transmission.

 

These days there is a tendency to take bits from here and there and come up with one's own mixture. This may be fine, but if you are following a particular spiritual tradition, in our case Tibetan Buddhism, it is important to ensure the authentic source and purity of the lineage, and that your teacher is an embodiment of that pure lineage.'

 

Since you live in Austin, Texas, you should seriously check out this center: http://www.vajravidyaaustin.org/

 

Their Mahamudra Master, Thrangu Rinpoche, (who is also assigned by Dalai Lama to be the tutor of the Kagyu lineage holder 17th Karmapa) is a truly enlightened master who have deep thorough realizations. I and Thusness have read his Mahamudra books and found his wisdom to be truly deep. You can have full confidence in his teachings...

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

 

What was the Bodhisattva vow that you took xabir? When did you take it and who gave it to you?

 

Was this part of it?

 

" Teaching emptiness to the untrained "

Edited August 5, 2011 by Informer

[xabir2005]

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

 

What was the Bodhisattva vow that you took xabir? When did you take it and who gave it to you?

 

Was this part of it?

 

" Teaching emptiness to the untrained "

Did you see me elaborate anatta to vmarco? Did you see me talk about anatta to vmarco in my previous posts? The most I talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... I only talk about anatta and shunyata to people who inquire about it...

 

I took the vows years back at my local dharma center.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Did you see me elaborate anatta to vmarco? Did you see me talk about anatta to vmarco in my previous posts? The most I talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... I only talk about anatta and shunyata to people who inquire about it...

 

I took the vows years back at my local dharma center.

 

 

Was that or was the not part of it?

[xabir2005]

Was that or was the not part of it?

Not part of it - of course, and you never see me shoving emptiness into people unless they are truly interested or are inquiring into it.

 

I never talked about anatta or shunyata to vmarco, for instance. I only talked about impersonality and a little about non-dual... However, I did state that there are further insights about anatta and shunyata (without elaboration) and that it is best he find a Mahamudra teacher, since he is interested in Mahamudra and seems to be a sincere and genuine practitioner.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]