Primary and Secondary Enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

aha

 

so one have to separates the object and subject?

isn't the self-created by the separation?

wouldn't the separation be empty that of self?

 

it's parody of statement isn't it?

 

knower, knowing and the known

 

take out one where does the other goes?

 

can emptiness, self, phenomena, form exist independently?

 

this is my last attempt in understanding what you are trying to teach me;

if not I will just give it up and get back to my thing of absurd moments.

Don't worry too much though, I am sure you did your best to make me see.

The emptiness of self is not just about realizing no separation of subject and object.

 

You can realize no separation, and yet you still cling to the notion of an inherent knowing.

 

If for example, you think that there is a substance of knowing, like a mirror, which nevertheless is inseparable with its reflections, or can only be known through its reflections, and therefore is not separated... you see through the separation, but you still cling to an inherent substance of knowing.

 

So the view of duality is gone, but the view of inherency is in tact.

 

The view of inherency is only removed after realizing anatta and shunyata. The view of inherency is twofold: the view of inherent self, and the view of inherent object.

 

When you realize anatta, you realize that 'in seeing just the seen, seeing is just the seen', you no longer see a mirror that is inseperable from its reflections. At this point it is no longer about the inseparability of subject and object: rather, there is no subject, the subject is empty.

 

You realize: all along no mirror, reflections alone is, i.e. all alone no subject, manifestation alone is.

 

The process itself rolls and knows, no knower is necessary or exists.

 

At which point, you move from Thusness Stage 4 into Thusness Stage 5.

 

But there is still the view of inherent objects - a subtle trace of grasping at phenomena as 'truly there'. This is removed through having right view and penetrating into dependent origination and emptiness. You can only be truly clear about dependent origination after you realize anatta - as the Buddha teach, I do not say 'I see' but 'with what condition does seeing arise?'. Anatta allows you to overcome the dualistic view, then with the right pointers, teachings and learnings, one enters into　ｔｈｅ non-dual, non-local　ｖｉｅｗｌｅｓｓ view of dependent originated activities and processes.

 

At one point, all phenomena becomes realized as a shimmering mirage and display of D.O. - nothing truly there. Like a magic show, like an illusion, like a dream, yet vivid and clear.

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Do you think that clining to "no-self" could be as detrimental as clinging to self?

 

Is no-self a condition to have or a state to obtain?

[Informer]

How is it possible to have no-self? What is it that is having?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

In Dzogchen, since you mentioned Rainbow Body, the realization of the two emptiness* is achieved at Third Vision at which point you become an awakened 1st Bhumi bodhisattva. From Third Vision to Fourth Vision you traverse 1~7 bhumi, and then 8~16 bhumis in the fourth, after which you achieve rainbow body and become a fully enlightened Buddha.

 

This is not exactly 'celestial enlightenment' since it is nothing 'celestial' (celestial realms are still part of samsara), rainbow body happens when the elements of the body revert into wisdom light.

 

*two emptiness: there are two levels of realizing emptiness, one is the emptiness of self, one is the emptiness of phenomena

 

Yes, thanks, I meant Celestial metaphorically (isn't everything...lol).

 

And what of people who realize emptiness but still have a lot of scrubbing to do? or do you know of such a possibility?

[xabir2005]

Do you think that clining to "no-self" could be as detrimental as clinging to self?

 

Is no-self a condition to have or a state to obtain?

Emptiness cannot be clung to, since it simply denies existents without asserting non-existence:

"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." - Namdrol

 

Emptiness cannot be obtained, since it is not an object. Emptiness is not a state either. But emptiness (the absence of inherent existence) can be realized.

 

Emptiness is not a metaphysical position, and cannot be clung to. When realized, all views are liberated.

 

If there is an object of clinging, that is not emptiness proper, if someone so called "clings to emptiness", that is not emptiness but an incorrect view of emptiness.

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Yes, thanks, I meant Celestial metaphorically (isn't everything...lol).

 

And what of people who realize emptiness but still have a lot of scrubbing to do? or do you know of such a possibility?

It depends what you mean by scrubbing. When you realize emptiness (aka path of seeing, 1st bhumi), you no longer can fall into the erroneous view of self and objects as inherent.

 

However, afflictions still arise, until the end of the 7th bhumi. Therefore the first seven bhumis are called impure bhumis, simply because afflictive obscurations are still present to varying degrees. So there are stages in which afflictions are progressively cleared.

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Do you think that clining to "no-self" could be as detrimental as clinging to self?

 

Is no-self a condition to have or a state to obtain?

 

Personally, I can tell you what -I- think the answer might be but this is only my perspective however incomplete or improper

 

Clinging to an idea of no-self, maybe, if it is just the idea and not merging with the true reality of the self. Merging with the true reality of it, no.. there's no clinging when merged with the true reality..

 

to the 2nd question: if someone wanted to say that the self is in a state of non-existence then that might be semantically acceptable.

 

The thing too is that the body is not the self, and the personality is not the self, so it's difficult for people to understand "how can you be here but not." But the thing is, that that self that would be receiving the state is not the self as well/either . So when this is realized, what self is there to be in the condition or to obtain any state ? Look at that self? Is it there? Is it really?? Who is looking? Who is asking?

 

Edited September 16, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Informer]

Emptiness cannot be clung to, since it simply denies existents without asserting non-existence:

"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." - Namdrol

 

Emptiness cannot be obtained, since it is not an object. Emptiness is not a state either. But emptiness (the absence of inherent existence) can be realized.

 

Emptiness is not a metaphysical position, and cannot be clung to. When realized, all views are liberated.

 

If there is an object of clinging, that is not emptiness proper, if someone so called "clings to emptiness", that is not emptiness but an incorrect view of emptiness.

 

The mind can most certaintly cling to a prospect of no-self. You are proof of that.

[xabir2005]

The mind can most certaintly cling to a prospect of no-self. You are proof of that.

I don't cling to "a prospect of no-self" just as I don't cling to a position of "no santa claus".

 

I simply negate self, but I do not make a position out of it.

 

In every moment experience: in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard.

 

No self, and no no-self either. I only negate self to others, for the purpose of pointing out something to them. In normal life I don't have a thought about self or no-self.

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

It depends what you mean by scrubbing. When you realize emptiness (aka path of seeing, 1st bhumi), you no longer can fall into the erroneous view of self and objects as inherent.

 

However, afflictions still arise, until the end of the 7th bhumi. Therefore the first seven bhumis are called impure bhumis, simply because afflictive obscurations are still present to varying degrees. So there are stages in which afflictions are progressively cleared.

 

So then you would say that the possibility does not exist..

 

I don't know.. I think it's still possible to get tempted or deceived if the prudence or earnestness wanes. Is this not why there are still afflictive obscurations until the end of the 7th bhumi?

[Informer]

[xabir2005]

So then you would say that the possibility does not exist..

 

I don't know.. I think it's still possible to get tempted or deceived if the prudence or earnestness wanes. Is this not why there are still afflictive obscurations until the end of the 7th bhumi?

Possibility of what?

 

Tempted or deceived by what?

[xabir2005]

Then why xabir, when we converse is it 90% of the time about no-self? I will post this again even though I have already in the past. I think it is a good article.

Because people ask about it and a discussion starts. Without these conditions, no conversations about it could begin.

"One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers."

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

As I said - Buddha simply negates existents without asserting non-existence. We simply don't make a position out of it.

 

Secondly, the Buddha goes as far as to say that no self or tathagata could be pinned down as a reality in or apart from the five skandhas. And he is always denying or negating a self.

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Secondly, the Buddha goes as far as to say that no self or tathagata could be pinned down in or apart from the five skandhas. And he is always denying or negating a self.

Can you show me where he always does that?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Possibility of what?

 

Tempted or deceived by what?

 

The question: And what of people who realize emptiness but still have a lot of scrubbing to do? or do you know of such a possibility?

 

The possibility that someone can realize emptiness and still have some scrubbing to do to see more clearly through samsara.

 

Tempted or deceived by the senses.

[xabir2005]

The question: And what of people who realize emptiness but still have a lot of scrubbing to do? or do you know of such a possibility?

 

The possibility that someone can realize emptiness and still have some scrubbing to do to see more clearly through samsara.

 

Tempted or deceived by the senses.

If by scrubbing you mean removing afflictions, then yes, after realizing emptiness you still need to do it until 8th bhumi.

 

When you reach 8th bhumi the stage of immovable, you will no longer be tempted or deceived by the senses.

[Informer]

Are you equating emptiness of the self to non-existence? Or nothingness?

 

Could it be that an empty self is one without a fixed perspective or attachements?

[xabir2005]

Are you equating emptiness of the self to non-existence? Or nothingness?

 

Could it be that an empty self is one without a fixed perspective or attachements?

Emptiness is not a position.

 

Emptiness simply means empty of inherent existence, i.e. self. Like there is no windness of wind, carness of car, weather-ness of weather, river-ness of river.

Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Let's pretend that Self is an unbound awareness, and that self is an awareness that is bound within the mind. Then what would you say?

[xabir2005]

Let's pretend that Self is an unbound awareness, and that self is an awareness that is bound within the mind. Then what would you say?

Go contemplate non-dual, and then followed by Bahiya sutta. I've been there, done that. From I AM to non-dual to anatta to shunyata. Thusness 7 stages is precise, I know from experience. Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Go contemplate non-dual, and then followed by Bahiya sutta. I've been there, done that. From I AM to non-dual to anatta to shunyata. Thusness 7 stages is precise, I know from experience.

 

You would say there is no awareness?

[xabir2005]

You would say there is no awareness?

Not in a nihilistic way like saying car don't exist, rivers don't exist or weather don't exist - such positions don't make sense because obviously, you don't deny the phenomena of rivers, weather, etc. There just isn't a core or inherent existence to it.

 

The same applies to awareness and knowing, and it can be directly realized by contemplating on Bahiya sutta.

[Informer]

Not in a nihilistic way like saying car don't exist, rivers don't exist or weather don't exist - such positions don't make sense because obviously, you don't deny the phenomena of rivers, weather, etc. There just isn't a core or inherent existence to it.

 

The same applies to awareness and knowing, and it can be directly realized by contemplating on Bahiya sutta.

 

I think I could agree in that it seems that awareness is what everything uses to arise into existence. The foundation so to speak.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Informer

[xabir2005]

I think I could agree in that it seems that awareness is what everything uses to arise into existence. The foundation so to speak.

I don't see it this way. I see awareness/luminous clarity as manifestation, and manifestation dependently originates. What dependently originates is empty, hence no arising or cessation. Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

I don't see it this way. I see awareness as manifestation, and manifestation dependently originates. What dependently originates is empty, hence no arising or cessation.

 

I don't pretend to know or care