Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually it does - since one is living with an illusion and one is not.

Then you are still living in the duality of illusion and truth. What makes your experience more real then a rabbit's? What makes your experience more real than an insects? Or someone with alzheimers? Or someone dreaming. Nothing. Your experience is not any more real than another consciousness experience.

 

As an experience, it is undeniable (not as in undeniably existing, but undeniably appearing as an experience).

All appearances are not absolute. As in they are not undeniable. Nothing is undeniably this way or that way. You just choose to strongly believe in the undenialbility of your experience and impose it universally. Which is bigotry.

 

But as a statement that the tiger exists independently with substance is utterly delusional - in the case of a unicorn, it is simply a mind image, an imagined thought, and there is no substance or actuality to them. Similarly - try finding the substance or core of a foam, a mountain-ness in a mirage, a reality behind a magician's trick, the moon-ness of the moon reflected on water, etc. No such thing at all.

And have you ever seen something that is not a mind image? Have you even understood something without thought or consciousness? What does finding a substance, a core, to the tiger or a mountain or a magic trick have anything to do with this so called "delusional" experience of them? Do you think a person takes a tiger to be real because he believes that the tiger has a substance to it? Of course, a lot of the Buddhist books point this out, of the common mind's obsession with inherent existences. But this is not true when you actually look into the mind.

 

The tiger is real because of composite sets of beliefs have come together to form the idea of a tiger. Your memories, what you read in a book about them, including the ability to chew you up, images, not to mention instinctual survival habits of the body, that sense of fear programmed into your glands, all form the tiger. The inherency lies not in the "substance" of the tiger, but rather the degree of concreteness that surrounds the experience of a tiger. But to a tiger a tiger is nothing like the tiger of ours. Hence we can say that our perception of the tiger is not absolute but illusory, since it is derived. So you see everything is a mind image, an imagined thought. The unicorn is just as real and false as a tiger in that sense of existence.

 

I'm not saying that the tiger is actually non-existent, or the unicorn is. But that this is the process by which our mind understands and interacts with reality. Whether that tiger truly is or that unicorn truly isn't is beyond the powers of our observation. We can only attest to what we experience and how we perceive that experience. It's not as simple as "just seen, just heard." Not everyone is Bahiya.

 

When you see that the entire framework of a seer seeing the seen is entirely false and as illusory as the belief in santa claus or the moon is made of green cheese (the latter analogy is more plausible since the moon can be seen by a glance), there is no question of willingness or unwillingness to change since it is no longer a matter of belief or disbelief - you simply have no possibility of believing in that illusion again, because now you SEE, not believe. You realize that 'self' is simply a mentally imagined false construct due to a false framework. Never can you be in doubt any more.

I don't think you understand that someone can SEE something totally different. And this is just your narrow mindedness and inability to emphasize with the development of other minds due to a very boxed in upbringing in Buddhism.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. I think I only knew about RuthlessTruth after my anatta insight. Or I might have my dates wrong... but its around the time. I think ActualFreedom had an influence on me too - the emphasis on cultivating PCE may have some influence about my shift in practice.

Then that more strongly supports my observation that you did not encounter these different practices as an "open minded" practitioner. You listed them as examples of you taking alternative paths, you know, being open minded. And I pointed out how that's bullshit considering you only "practiced" them only because they were in line with a set of pre-conceive beliefs, namely Thusness's stages.

 

There are lots of time that despite all that Thusness tells me, my view has shaped into very dualistic and inherent sort of framework - I am starting to cling to Awareness as something independent and unchanging and 'background' because it really seems like this is my experience. But through further pointers by Thusness, reminders, and my own investigation, I was able to break through all these views and attain deeper realization. All these are not just about beliefs, but real time investigation and challenging of all my views until realization occurs and they are completely seen through. Belief by itself doesn't help - you can believe in anatta and emptiness for 30 years and not get enlightened. You can understand Thusness and get 100/100 on exams, but unless you practice and do investigation, you will never realize or awaken. Many are experts of emptiness by reasoning via Madhyamaka and yet their understanding remain intellectual or inferred. I have a number of friends who have quite a good understanding of Thusness's writings, anatta, emptiness, but they haven't realized it for some time. I too have gone through that phase.

You are confusing the word "belief" with "conceptual/intellectual leaning" or "logical understanding." A person may know how all the dots line up without actually deciding to draw the shape, which is a very shallow form of belief. What you see as investigation, I can only say it is indoctrination.

 

It's not 'whats on the next step' - it is that so far the suttas are the clearest texts that really speak about my own realization.

I am a Buddhist, not a universalist or a Christian or a Hindu for a reason. Even Buddha says Buddhism/his teachings is the best (as I quoted earlier about the lion's roar) but I don't just agree with him due to faith, but it has also been my own observations that his depth and insight and clarity is truly deep and rare. You see, I think it is a given that I am a Buddhist because I think Buddhism is best. I do not need to overemphasize this point because I think its a given and overemphasizing this is not going to make everyone happy.

So don't hide under the veil or pretentiousness because it won't make people happy. It won't make people happy for a reason and that's because you are imposing on their right to his or her way to experience life.

 

Hahahahaha! Of course the Buddha says Buddhism is the best! His the one who started teaching it!

 

I'm sure there are others who think Taoism or Hinduism is best which is why they chose to be Taoists, Hindus, whatever - thats fine with me. I feel no urge to evangelise theseadays. Plus it's a bit pointless to say "I think Buddhism is best" without explaining the "why", and when the "why" is explained (and not only explained but also understood, experienced, realized) then it would not be necessary to have said "I think Buddhism is best". Those who see things to the end will decide for themselves. As Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche says, Dzogchen is not about accepting something, it's about discovering something.

 

But your statement "I think buddhism is the best and better than all the other religions out there. It will lead you furthest in terms of human potential" does express my stance of things, even if I may not emphasize it unnecessarily (just like I don't emphasize Buddhism is best to my Christian real-life-friends, because it probably doesn't lead anywhere, and anyway I seldom talk about religion outside internet)

You need to understand this. And this is essentially what I am trying to convey to you: That people don't necessary, and imo shouldn't, believe that Taoism is best so practice Taoism. Or that Hinduism is the best so are hindus. They do or can do so believing that it is indeed best for themselves and/or their situation and not necessarily everyone. Choices and circumstances lead one to a particular way of experiencing life. And one way of life is no more truer than others in that both are equally existent and possible. Yours may be more blissful according to your standards, but is it more real than theirs? Absolutely not. How can you say that when they are experiencing their own ways?

 

This is what I meant when I mentioned teaching Buddhism to a dog. If one begins to believe that a certain way of seeing life is indeed the absolute universal truth, it immediately restructures your relationship with others into hierarchies, subconsciously beginning to attempt to mold others. You don't feel like proselytizing these days? Ha! Then you might just feel like doing it again huh? Right, how can you not, when in your eyes you are truth, and others are delusion. A devoted Hindu might say the same thing right back. And that is the root of all religious conflict.

 

You don't say "I think Buddhism is best and it will bring you to better enlightenment than all the other religions" because you are afraid of this imminent conflict. So you go about in a more sly way of persuasion. But this entire stance is to conjure up a war of values, of "mine is better than yours" when you have no idea whether it truly is or not beyond all this faith you grew up with, your personal experiences under Thusness, your conditioning. Don't you get it? Your experience is entirely to your own. Share it, but don't impose it. (It's very different when one shares with the idea that what he shares is of his own vs. someone who "shares" believing that his way is the ultimatum, the objective.) And this is utterly impossible to do unless you begin to realize that perhaps the way you experience life right now, the bliss, spontaneity, directness, freedom, is merely just another very ordinary way of living, just another illusion substituted by the mind, among a sea of diverse awarenesses perceiving life. But this would also discredit a lot of your gifts and divinity, your enlightenment, and so called awakening .

 

Even if you are a god! or a Buddha! Not more than another speck of dust, and not anything less than the greatest stars.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Your happiness may be complicated, but my bliss is simple. It is simple because it does not require fulfilment of many things - in fact it does not depend on gratification of craving but rather it is a result of letting go of self, of things. The more you let go, the more bliss and liberation you feel - this is an actual, observable thing, not a theory or a hypothesis. You can actually see it for yourself - it is very very predictable, as predictable as the eight states of jhana - by entering into deeper states of jhanas, the bliss, joy, and the types of mental factors changes according to your depth of absorption and depth of tranquility. Similarly, in anatta, the experience due to letting go of self/Self is predictable. The bliss is predictable, the liberation is predictable, and all you have to do is to realize anatta and experience it.

 

The bliss I am talking about is simple - I mean bliss, as an actual experience. Through letting go of self, and experiencing the luminosity of mind, this is very blissful. Like entering samadhi is blissful... but this is a natural samadhi. Now merely ordinary seeing, ordinary hearing is very blissful. Just like you do not need to interprete what liberation feels like - you know it when it comes, when you lift a load off your shoulders and you feel that release, this is how it feels like. You know it when you experience it. When you don't know, it means you haven't experienced it. It is not dependent on the satisfaction of craving (therefore it is not the short-lived happines of say, satisfying your urge of eating an ice cream) - rather it is the natural bliss as an actual experience due to the falling away of craving, of sense of self, of clinging.

All that is quite obvious and needs no interpretation. Everyone knows what bliss is when it comes. But the bliss from anatta is pretty intense. The lack of clinging, the experience of anatta, this is blissful and everyone can know it. This kind of happiness is not dependent on gain and loss of material stuff or temporary sensual gratifications.

I'm not saying my happiness is complicated. But that the understanding of happiness is very diverse for people, and hence it's not as simple as "you'll know bliss when it comes." There are many types of bliss experiences, feelings of being home, a heart centered compassionate bliss, the rise of that sort of energy, or a mental nongrasping bliss that arises, or feeling all potential to be there and available, the bliss of sexuality, blisses of concentration sates. Bliss can come with fear or sense of desire, etc.

 

They are not obvious. Bliss is a very general word, it is also a very personal word. Your general usage of it I don't think does it much justice.

 

Stop with all this "see it for yourself" crap. Just see it on your own and tell us about it, share it in that manner. It's annoying, like a cultist saying, "oh just come join us, and you will see."

 

Buddhism ends all kinds of afflictions for those who practice it. By mental afflictions, I mean stuff like anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, ignorance, etc etc. Anyone can do it - provided they have the conditions to (such as being human, meeting the right teacher, etc).

You mean more so that everyone should do it or those that don't are inferior.

 

I believe the Buddhahood is the ultimatum of spirituality. Why do I believe? Because I have no direct knowledge of Buddhahood. I have not experienced Buddhahood. But I have faith in Buddha, partly due to confidence from my direct experience - how it completely lines up with what the Buddha taught, how deep and profound was Buddha's insights... that by inferrence surely, what the other stuff I've not seen but have been said by Buddha, must be true too.

 

However what I do know from experience (without any need of inference) is this: as my insights progressed, there is deeper freedom experienced, deeper liberation experienced, greater effortlessness, greater clarity, lesser clinging, lesser afflictions, etc etc... greater insight into the nature of reality. Therefore this is of course a very obvious progress in my path. And I say - without anatta, emptiness, etc, you cannot achieve maximum effortlessness, maximum clarity, etc. Even in I AM due to belief in purest identity of I AM it is clung to tightly and practice aims at achieving 24/7 abidance in a purest state of presence - a form of contrivance and effort. In non-dual, though lesser effort and greater seamlessness with the manifold manifestation, still there can be subtle habit to reconfirm a source, an attempt to be nondual, etc, which are again subtler but still present effort, clinging, ignorance. And so on... so as I said, greater freedom, lesser effort, greater clarity, greater bliss, lesser clinging, lesser suffering, lesser afflictions (in their various forms)... greater results with the deepening of insight into the way things are. Which is why this is worthwhile for me. This is why while there is no strict one-for-all linear hierarchy of things, it does not mean there is no observable progress. Ultimately, all Buddhist paths that aims at liberation, i.e. the total ending of suffering, clinging, craving, etc must lead to twofold emptiness, to the qualities mentioned above.

 

Believe me - or not, I am only stating my experience, just see for yourself.

I like this way you write much better where you are present. Where you are opening up (not a lot more, but still a creak here) your experiences from a much more personal perspective then as in some universal textbook you assume enlightened experiences should be. Except the "just see for yourself" part of course.

 

All this, all this is for you. Not for everyone. Buddhism is for you, for your awareness. It is true to you, not for everyone. You believed and as everyone around too in Buddhism and in 20 years or so have just conformed to its philosophy and transformed your consciousness accordingly. But not even the Buddha can prove to someone that his way of life is truer that that persons. The Buddha can only offer his way. He may use his spiritual powers to alter my consciousness, to show me my origins, but to decide what to accept as truth or not, or as a way of life over another is ultimately a personal matter.

 

Remember we are just an awareness in a vast mysterious universe. Adopt some genuine humility, eh?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Unfortunately like it or not, Buddhism deals with universal truths. Whether you see those truths, that totally depends. But just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not true. Don't worry we won't start a religious war... Buddha is not a god demanding unswerving faith (he benefits nothing out of it - its all for our own sake - he does not ask for worship) and there is no Buddhist scriptures that can act as a basis for Jihad. Buddhism has had no religious war started by its doctrines (there are wars started by Buddhists since Buddhists as any other type of persons are succeptible to afflictions, craving, anger, etc, but not religious wars).

 

When I said universal truths, I mean truths that pertain to the nature of reality and the human condition. The four noble truths are truths pertaining to the nature of reality and the human condition. They are universal. The truths of impermanence, suffering, non-self... these are universal truths. The truth of emptiness is a universal truth.

 

So I say Buddhadharma is universal - because dharma pertains to universal truths. The truth of suffering (birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair), cause of suffering (craving and ignorance), end of suffering (nirvana) and way to end suffering (noble eightfold path) is universal. When I say 'end suffering' I don't mean like temporarily ending a dog's craving for food by giving him dog food, I mean complete, permanent end of any mental suffering and afflictions and furthermore the end of afflictive births in the cycle of samsara.

 

You see, if only you were to see things as Buddha see, plus you have the three knowledges that Buddha had: rebirth, karma, and 4 noble truths, then you will be able to see things in the big picture and see why taking up Dharma practice is the best thing to do. As my Taiwanese teacher who could remember innumerable past lives and have [in this life] visited realms of heaven and hell and provided clear descriptions of them (well ok if you don't believe it - but lets just presume its true for a moment since this is what the Buddha reports to be true as well) have said - if you knew your past lives, you will totally get sick and tired of all the rebirths. But most of us can't remember past lives or that much past lives anyway - so this is something that can only be taken by faith - and if you have faith in Buddha, it can be a good motivating force to practice the dharma. Of course just by the suffering of this life alone some people will find enough reasons to seek for liberation, but it is far different from seeing things from the 'big picture'.

 

And as the Buddha himself have said,

 

SN 15.13

PTS: S ii 187

CDB i 658

Timsa Sutta: Thirty

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 2009–2011

 

Now on that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagaha, in the Bamboo Grove. Then thirty monks from Pava — all wilderness dwellers, all alms-goers, all triple-robe wearers, all still with fetters — went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side.

 

Then the thought occurred to the Blessed One, "These thirty monks from Pava... are all still with fetters. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma in such a way that in this very sitting their minds, through lack of clinging, would be released from fermentations?"

 

So he addressed the monks: "Monks."

 

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

 

The Blessed One said, "From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?"

 

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the blood we have shed from having our heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans."

 

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

 

"This is the greater: the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans.

 

"The blood you have shed when, being cows, you had your cow-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

 

"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"The blood you have shed when, arrested as thieves plundering villages, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as highway thieves, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as adulterers, you had your heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

 

"Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the thirty monks from Pava — through lack of clinging — were released from fermentations.

 

This is why I say dharma is universal. The truth of suffering is universal. And the most sensible thing after considering the big picture, is to end suffering ASAP, without delay.

 

If you have not known the big picture, you may not have enough reasons why the Buddhist cause is the most sensible or best thing to do. And if you have not gone through the insights and experiences I had, you will not see why liberation is only possible through the twofold emptiness, which is why Buddhism is unique and perculiar.

All appearances are not absolute. As in they are not undeniable. Nothing is undeniably this way or that way. You just choose to strongly believe in the undenialbility of your experience and impose it universally. Which is bigotry.

No, I mean the subjective individual experience for the person is undeniable - not absolute (as in truly substantially existing), simply undeniably appearing as mere experience - experience of unicorns is undeniable, even if it is mere delusion. The visual distortions by someone taking hallucinogenic drugs are undeniably appearing - even though completely illusory, empty. And such experiences are not universal because they are just an experience arising due to a particular set of conditions. Your dream experience at night is personal - I can't see it unless I have psychic powers. In any case, I don't share your dream experience. But your dream experience is undeniable for you (and you only).

 

But when I say the Nature of experience, that is universal. The nature of experience is not about one experience, it is the nature of all experience, all phenomena, five aggregates - be it mind or matter. The truth of emptiness applies equally to you or me - there is no way that it only applies to me and not someone else. If they do investigation, they too will realize emptiness. There is no such thing as a person (as long as he has conditions like human life, right teaching and teacher, etc) who cannot realize emptiness because emptiness is the nature of phenomenon.

 

Similarly there is no person in the world who can say they are 'unaware' or without any form of awareness. Luminosity is the basic essence of mind, of all experiences, and to be able to even respond or be aware of my communicating with them would already necessitate luminosity. Emptiness is likewise. The union of luminosity and emptiness is universal. It is the nature of reality.

 

Since you are familiar with luminosity you should know that those people who aren't into spiritual will probably not know what 'awareness' or 'luminosity' is when you talk to them - at best a vague idea or concept about it but not direct knowledge or realization of it. Yet just because they don't know what awareness/luminosity is, doesn't mean its not there right? Precisely because luminosity is already present, that it can be discovered. It is not there only because of discovery (it is not merely an experience that pertains to an enlightened state - both enlightened and unenlightened have luminous minds) - it is already there, which is why it can be discovered.

 

So anyway, if you have realized luminosity, but due to existing framework you see luminosity as inherent, independent, unchanging, Self, then luminosity becomes an object of clinging. But through investigation you realized anatta, then that clinging or reification of luminosity as a Self is removed. This investigation into the nature of reality giving rise to insight is what liberates you. The nature of reality is universal and only needs to be seen through investigation and contemplation. There is a clear progression of things: for example, A, B, C are universal truths. Lets say A is luminosity, B is anatta, C is shunyata.

 

If you realize A, thats great because A is an undeniable fact - you can't deny luminosity or awareness right? It is a profound, transformational, blissful realization. Similarly you can't deny B or C so if you realize A, you should also realize B or C which refines your view. These are all universal truths that can and should be realized for total liberation.

Then you are still living in the duality of illusion and truth. What makes your experience more real then a rabbit's? What makes your experience more real than an insects? Or someone with alzheimers? Or someone dreaming. Nothing. Your experience is not any more real than another consciousness experience.

All our experiences are illusory. But to believe that in that illusory experience there is a real self and an object, that is delusional. When I say "one is living with illusion, one is not" I mean one is living with deluded views, one is not living in deluded views and ignorance. There is no ignorance for someone who has awakened. It doesn't mean however that they have something real and sentient beings have something illusory - even Buddhahood and Nirvana is empty and illusory. But a Buddha is no longer in ignorance about it. Not being in ignorance, a Buddha or an arhant does not cling, does not suffer.

 

Prajnaparamita Sutra: "Subhūti said, "0 dear gods, if there were something that was more superior even than Nirvāṇa, I would still say that it is like a dream and a magical delusion. 0 dear gods, there is not the slightest difference between Nirvāṇa and dreams and magical delusions."411

Unicorns and monsters are very real in their imaginative existence. Your consciousness gives them life in a dream. You become joyous from seeing one in a dream, the sensation is there, the vision is there. It is experienced, just as the fear of the monster. And when you awake it does not disappear. The idea is very much alive within you. It can be communicated to others as well. It is indeed very real. You say you have no metaphysical positions, but here you are revealing that in your conscious interpretation of the world the dream world is less real than the daily world. I'm not saying it isn't. But do you see how you do have a certain metaphysical filter for life? That you cannot be without one?

I do not have metaphysical filter for life. Somehow you don't understand that theres a difference between delusion and illusory. All things are illusory - from hell to Buddhahood and Nirvana. But you can either be deluded about it, or awakened. Awakening is permanent. Once awaken you do not have more delusion.

What you see as investigation, I can only say it is indoctrination.

Even a simple exercise to observe the three characteristics of phenomena is a powerful investigation, well lets not talk about 3 char... just 1 will do: impermanence. Observing impermanence is a basic Buddhist meditation. Through that one may realize that all experiences are impermanent. This is not indoctrination - its something you can see - impermanence is a universal fact of all phenomena, that they are constantly arising and subsiding, they don't stay. In Vipassana terms people can start to see everything as similar to 'the vibrations of atoms' - nothing is solid. Indoctrination is to instill an unexamined concept. When it is examined and seen as it is, it is no longer indoctrination.

 

Similarly, all investigation and exercise must be done through contemplation and observation in naked awareness. I can understand "all things are impermanent", it does make sense to me yeah, but unless I meditate, I'll never wake up to it. The theory is there, the realization and experience is lacking.

 

So like a scientist, you can have your theory, but it must be proven or seen through tests. You need to device a reproducible test that can showcase how your theory works.

You believe, behind all the false humility, that you are extraordinary, special, blessed, and gifted.

This is totally not true... haha I find it amusing you would think so. I don't know how to convince you anymore if you truly think that I think I'm gifted. You just have to take my word for it... or not. Either way I am not too concerned about people's opinions about me (as I will explain). I am not interested in false humility and if I thought I was some great lama last life, I would have said it. I am not interested in false humility - if I were, I would have said something like "oh... I am not enlightened at all, I am just a lousy learner who hasn't gained anything from dharma" but I have so far been very open about my experiences with dharma (not out of pride but out of genuine sincerity to share it with others, to inspire others and perhaps provide some pointers for others). I have no memories of being a great lama last life. But I do have memories of being a student of some great lama. I must say, I am not a proud person, but I am not a humble person either. The question of pride/humility just does not arise because I simply am not concerned with self image (in fact have no clinging to self image nor any sense of self/Self whatsoever). As I told someone, I wouldn't care less if someone else thinks I'm a fraud or a fool or a madman, or that I'm enlightened, great, whatever (even though if he shows misconception of me I would probably attempt to rectify the misconception but I wouldn't really care or be attached to it). I am only interested in facts and truth, not what someone else thinks about me, or what I think about myself - their opinions are their own matters. I am also not really concerned if you believe in what I just said. I am just sharing my experience for the joy of it.

 

(just found a sutta which describes how I would react: "38. "If for that (reason)[40] others revile, abuse, scold and insult the Perfect One, on that account, O monks, the Perfect One will not feel annoyance, nor dejection, nor displeasure in his heart. And if for that (reason) others respect, revere, honor and venerate the Perfect One, on that account the Perfect One will not feel delight, nor joy, nor elation in his heart. If for that (reason) others respect, revere, honor and venerate the Perfect One, He will think: 'It is towards this (mind-body aggregate) which was formerly[41] fully comprehended, that they perform such acts.'[42]")

 

The whole story about my birth is just one of those 'interesting facts' and there is no explanations for it - I mean how the hell will we know what happened in between my last life and this life (until I can remember it that is). It is the least important of things yet its just one of those curious unexplainable things.

 

Honestly, sometimes, I wonder why is it that such an ordinary person like me get to see all these and why so many other brilliant minded, sincere people can't? And the answer is not "oh because I'm special and I'm an incarnate of a special being" (which I do not think I am) but "it is truly unfortunate that the true dharma is not being propagated well enough to the masses, had it been so, it would have been like the Buddha's times where thousands or tens of thousands of his students get liberated". Not implying I could do a better job anyway... I am not skillful in teaching (and I'm not a teacher).

 

Anyway my point in my previous post is that I probably had given rise to an aspiration to attain Buddhahood in my previous lifetime which had an impact on this birth - I'm sure lots of people have such aspirations. I don't mean to say "I'm a special Bodhisattva who chose to come here". You are making things overcomplicated perhaps due to my failure to communicate properly.

Nothing disappears into thin air. Not even your imagination. No energetic formation dies. A fire that burns the candle together make the smoke that dissolve into the atmosphere. It may become clouds, it may become mist.

Not in Buddhism, and not in my experience. In my experience, nothing transforms from one thing to another. Nothing becomes something else. And likewise there is no 'Awareness becoming this experience' (substantialist nondualism). There is just A is A, B is B, etc... In my experience and insight, firewood does not turn into ashes. And sorry I had to quote someone again because this expresses my experience very well:

 

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

 

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

 

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

 

~ Zen Master Dogen, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/genjo-koan-actualizing-fundamental.html

 

Plus the Buddha teaches (and it has been my experience) that remainderless cessation is possible:

 

"Now from the remainder-less fading and cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-and-form. From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering."

 

 

By the way I should say, cessation of self-view (attained in stream entry) is not the same as the complete cessation of ignorance (attained in arhantship). As an analogy: pouring out the contents of a jug still leaves a residual smell in the jug. This is also my experience, but shall not elaborate now.

How can you have such little insight into your own mind for someone who claims to be awakened? That metaphor has another level of depth to it. The snake is still there and it has nothing to do with the rope in the first place. It is present within the mind, along with all the associations put around it: the fear of its venom, its shape, look, behavior, potential effects on your body, the slipperiness, the eyes. The snake does not come alive to the person because of the rope, but because of his mind. The rope is just a trigger that coincides with one of these associations. It's not that important whether the rope is really a snake or not.

 

The idea is what lets you interact with it. If you had no idea of it, then the snake"ness" would be meaningless; you wouldn't recognize a snake at all. And it is still very much alive within even if someone has turned on the lights revealing a mere rope, its not gone or affected. If you contemplate deeper into this idea of a snake you come to understand what understanding is, how that snake is present within you. Then you do not tame the snake nor do you get rid of it, you comprehend your relationship to it. As a side effect that original fear may be assuaged, but that's not the point. The point of the metaphor is for you to see how you are always within the scope of your mind and its ideas, and how they are very much real and alive as anything you experience.

This is very true and this is what I mean by latent views and tendencies. Edited December 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[Protector]

Just burn the stupid book already

[xabir2005]

Just burn the stupid book already

Why should I? And why do you think it is stupid? I think you should be open minded. Just because you haven't experienced something that I wrote, doesn't mean others haven't, or that you may not experience it some day in the future. Don't let your ego get to you. Edited December 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[Protector]

The ego doesn't get in my way, it doesn't get in your way either

But the book does, with enough arguing about it, you will undo everything you worked for

 

or that's the theory at least

[xabir2005]

The ego doesn't get in my way, it doesn't get in your way either

But the book does, with enough arguing about it, you will undo everything you worked for

 

or that's the theory at least

Hmm... and this is where I differ. You see, after enlightenment, activities go on. Talking goes on. Writing goes on. Communicating with others go on. Going out with your girlfriend, your friends, your family, goes on. Going to work goes on. Walking down the street goes on. Everything goes on. None of them stops, or can be stopped, and there isn't a single problem with any of that. None of the activities can undo your enlightenment, but instead is the expression of your enlightenment, of Buddha-nature. If activities somehow undo enlightenment, then a Bodhisattva or a Buddha will never be able to save or help countless sentient beings out of compassion.

 

After enlightenment, there just isn't one thing: the illusion and clinging to a self/Self... and in the absence of this, there is just the intense aliveness and clarity of the moment... of this moment of activity, this moment of sights and sounds. Everything is direct, intimate and spontaneous. In sitting just sit. In talking just talk. In sleeping just sleep. In seeing just seen.

 

I think your forum signature is very good:

 

Before enlightenment carry water chop wood

After enlightenment carry water chop wood

Edited December 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[Protector]

I just think if something creates so much conflict then it must go

or at least work off the conflict in a positive way

[xabir2005]

I just think if something creates so much conflict then it must go

or at least work off the conflict in a positive way

Hmm true... Nowadays I really avoid some of those discussions that I see as pointless - like those I had years ago(mentioned this earlier). So far Lucky7Strikes have been having some discussions that I think is valid, not really just pointless debates... so I find it ok (at the moment). If at anytime I found that the discussions have steered into non-constructive arguments, I will probably stop. Edited December 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Hmm true... Nowadays I really avoid some of those discussions that I see as pointless - like those I had years ago(mentioned this earlier). So far Lucky7Strikes have been having some discussions that I think is valid, not really just pointless debates... so I find it ok (at the moment). If at anytime I found that the discussions have steered into non-constructive arguments, I will probably stop.

 

Are you kidding me? What kind of brand is a reserved Xabir anyway?

 

[Lucky7Strikes]

I do not have metaphysical filter for life. Somehow you don't understand that theres a difference between delusion and illusory. All things are illusory - from hell to Buddhahood and Nirvana. But you can either be deluded about it, or awakened. Awakening is permanent. Once awaken you do not have more delusion.

Before I reply to your larger post, I want to just focus on this point.

 

All appearances are illusory, but your understanding is either deluded or not. So what is it that separates appearances with that which understands appearances?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Before I reply to your larger post, I want to just focus on this point.

 

All appearances are illusory, but your understanding is either deluded or not. So what is it that separates appearances with that which understands appearances?

There is no separation. But appearances can be perceived either through wisdom, or through delusion. For example in Yogacara, appearances experienced through delusions arise as 8 consciousnesses, experienced through wisdom arise as the 5 wisdoms. There is no wisdom that exists separately from perception.

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is no separation. But appearances can be perceived either through wisdom, or through delusion. For example in Yogacara, appearances experienced through delusions arise as 8 consciousnesses, experienced through wisdom arise as the 5 wisdoms. There is no wisdom that exists separately from perception.

What do you mean appearances perceived through wisdom when there is no separation?

[xabir2005]

What do you mean appearances perceived through wisdom when there is no separation?

It means cognition arise as wisdom. I don't mean through wisdom as if wisdom is a separate perceiver.

 

Eight consciousnesses completely transforms into the five wisdoms. It is not the case that the five wisdoms observe eight consciousnesses.

 

Understand however that is just Yogacara framework, they don't talk about this distinction (wisdom vs consciousness) in Theravada.

Edited December 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[guruyoga]

It means cognition arise as wisdom. I don't mean through wisdom as if wisdom is a separate perceiver.

 

Eight consciousnesses completely transforms into the five wisdoms. It is not the case that the five wisdoms observe eight consciousnesses.

 

Understand however that is just Yogacara framework, they don't talk about this distinction (wisdom vs consciousness) in Theravada.

 

 

I've read your blog and book and forum for many months now and I have to agree with Lucky that you do sound like a person deeply bound by beliefs than someone who is liberated on the basis of personal insights.

 

Yogachara says this, Theravada says that, Chittamatravadins say this, Svatatrika-Prasangika says x, y, z - what is your opinion? You seem to struggle to express your insights in simple words that you can own. What do YOU have to say? We all know what the different schools say. This thread seems to have the objective of reflecting your personal insight and practice but you are parroting the same stuff that you do on other forums.

 

Btw, why do you try so hard to promote your blog/book? Sometimes just a link and quoting relevant portions is sufficient. I assume you have already gained sufficient traffic and publicity for your blog/book by frequent promotion here, so now you can perhaps take it down a notch? It's amazing how obtuse you seem in spite of your claimed state of enlightenment or liberation or whatever. I bet if your Buddhist beliefs were to be taken away from you and you considered even a slight possibility of an alternative to Buddhist worldview being possible and equally or more valid, you would be devastated and broken. I don't see how you are different from many orthodox Christians fundamentally.

Edited December 21, 2011 by guruyoga

[xabir2005]

I've read your blog and book and forum for many months now and I have to agree with Lucky that you do sound like a person deeply bound by beliefs than someone who is liberated on the basis of personal insights.

 

Yogachara says this, Theravada says that, Chittamatravadins say this, Svatatrika-Prasangika says x, y, z - what is your opinion?

I don't mean to say that Yogacara is saying something contradictory to Theravada, just that its expression is peculiar and we should not use this framework to understand how things are understood elsewhere. As in, when Buddha talks about 'consciousness' in the pali suttas, he need not have 'ignorance/deluded cognition' in mind.

 

My experience (not opinion) is that wisdom is simply correct cognition, not a separate perceiver of things.

 

You seem to struggle to express your insights in simple words that you can own. What do YOU have to say? We all know what the different schools say. This thread seems to have the objective of reflecting your personal insight and practice but you are parroting the same stuff that you do on other forums.

I often use analogies from different sources to express my thoughts - but sometimes I say it in my own words. I am not fixated with one method of delivering a message. Sometimes something that another person said strikes me as well-said, and expresses my thought well. So its worth sharing.

 

Btw, why do you try so hard to promote your blog/book? Sometimes just a link and quoting relevant portions is sufficient. I assume you have already gained sufficient traffic and publicity for your blog/book by frequent promotion here, so now you can perhaps take it down a notch?

I just hope there is more clarity in the world. If my promoting of it has offended or disturbed you for some reasons, sorry about it. Your suggestion about putting a link instead of the entire article is a good suggestion, thanks for that - I have regretted not doing it because it is problematic if I want to make changes (then I have to change it in many places).

It's amazing how obtuse you seem in spite of your claimed state of enlightenment or liberation or whatever. I bet if your Buddhist beliefs were to be taken away from you and you considered even a slight possibility of an alternative to Buddhist worldview being possible and equally or more valid, you would be devastated and broken. I don't see how you are different from many orthodox Christians fundamentally.

I don't know about orthodox Christians so can't comment. But I am speaking from experience and insight, not from beliefs and faith. Edited December 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

It means cognition arise as wisdom. I don't mean through wisdom as if wisdom is a separate perceiver.

 

Eight consciousnesses completely transforms into the five wisdoms. It is not the case that the five wisdoms observe eight consciousnesses.

 

Understand however that is just Yogacara framework, they don't talk about this distinction (wisdom vs consciousness) in Theravada.

Do these five wisdoms arise as appearances? There is no difference between cognition and appearance you said right? Than what makes the wisdoms any less illusory than ignorance?

[xabir2005]

Do these five wisdoms arise as appearances? There is no difference between cognition and appearance you said right? Than what makes the wisdoms any less illusory than ignorance?

Wisdom is illusory (as per Heart Sutra: no Suffering, Origin, Cessation or Path, no wisdom-knowledge, no attainment and no non-attainment).

 

As I said, everything is illusory - Buddhahood is illusory, wisdom is illusory, but a Buddha is no longer deluded about it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Wisdom is illusory (as per Heart Sutra: no Suffering, Origin, Cessation or Path, no wisdom-knowledge, no attainment and no non-attainment).

 

As I said, everything is illusory - Buddhahood is illusory, wisdom is illusory, but a Buddha is no longer deluded about it.

Is being "no longer deluded about it" also illusory?

[xabir2005]

Is being "no longer deluded about it" also illusory?

It is illusory but not delusory.

 

Know lucid dreaming? In a dream, you may suddenly turn lucid so are no longer deluded about the dream, but the dream goes on, and you can manipulate the dream, fly in the sky, make use of the illusion. Fun stuff. But if you think the dream tiger chasing after you is real, not so fun.

Edited December 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

It is illusory but not delusory.

 

Know lucid dreaming? In a dream, you may suddenly turn lucid so are no longer deluded about the dream, but the dream goes on, and you can manipulate the dream, fly in the sky, make use of the illusion. Fun stuff. But if you think the dream tiger chasing after you is real, not so fun.

Thanks for not plastering quotes. I like this shorter back and forth. Let's keep it this way when we discuss this issue. I don't want us to write pages of quotes and replies. I don't think it's necessary, especially since you are awakened and have a very clear mind. IMO your reply shows that you haven't really thought about this that much.

 

If you awake in a dream, are you dreaming anymore?

 

Also, is "no longer being deluded about the dream" an appearance, or is it referring to something recognizing the dream as delusional? Your answer is probably not the latter. So if it's an appearance, then it is also illusion. So now the distinction between delusion and illusion no longer make much sense since there is no one to be deluded about something.

 

Your "enlightenment" according to your ideas, is just another appearance! So why do you say something is deluded and something is not deluded?

 

p.s. you realize you can manipulate the ordinary world just like the dream world. The dream tiger can kill you too: you wake up on your bed and you are no longer in the jungle.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

If you awake in a dream, are you dreaming anymore?

Lucid dreaming.

Also, is "no longer being deluded about the dream" an appearance,

"no longer being deluded about the dream" implies first, a moment of realization that terminates a false view about reality, and secondly this realization resulting in the effortless authentication of the 'suchness of seen, heard, sensed' without falsely projecting self/seer, objects, and so on, as per what Kalaka Sutta described. This actualization is the actualization of wisdom, and when all latent tendencies are completely removed (when not even the residual smell remains after the contents of the jug was removed), such a being can be called an arhant or a buddha, and such a being only perceives wisdom in day to day living, never any ignorance, sense of self, attachments, and so on

 

"no longer being deluded about the dream" cannot be pinned down as an entity inside the appearance, or apart from the appearance. It is simply a description about our experience - ignorance is wrong-cognition and wisdom is correct-cognition (shall explain below). Wisdom is just a convention, but ultimately empty of any inherent existence that could be pinned down or located as a reality. Similar things can be said to anything else: weather cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the everchanging clouds, rain, wind, lightning, etc... Car cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the engine, door, [other components] etc... Self cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the constantly changing five aggregation... so on and so forth. Awareness also cannot be pinned down inside or apart from the six dependently originated consciousnesses. All are just conventional truths, ultimately empty - that means ultimately there is no wisdom, no ignorance, no awareness, no self, no car, no weather, no eye, no ear, no nose, no five skandhas, no nirvana, no samsara - Form is Emptiness. But this should always be clarified: emptiness does not deny form, no-awareness does not deny luminosity, no self does not deny witnessing consciousness, no object does not deny appearance, etc. This is why 'Emptiness is Form'.

 

Can't deny appearances - but because of empty nature you cannot pinpoint something (a wisdom, an Awareness, a car, a self, a weather, a chariot) as the appearance, or apart from the appearance

or is it referring to something recognizing the dream as delusional?

Anatta means there is no one, no agent, that is ignorant, that is realized, that is behind seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. So to presume "something" is behind something is already false.

 

Realization is something akin to recognizing the dream as illusory (not delusional). When you recognize the dream, you don't wake up from the dream, you wake up from your delusions about the dream (as containing real substantial objects and a real substantial self) and you continue dreaming lucidly, able to manipulate the illusions.

Your answer is probably not the latter. So if it's an appearance, then it is also illusion.

Wisdom is illusory - empty but not delusional. Ignorance is both illusory and delusional.

 

In short, it is one thing to say that the thing you see is illusory - for example you can see an illusory thing - like a mirage. But its a whole different thing to be tricked by the mirage by taking the mirage as an actual thing - like you thought there is a real city at the far end, when actually its just a mirage. Mirage is illusory, being tricked is delusion.

So now the distinction between delusion and illusion no longer make much sense

It does make sense conventionally as I just explained above (one is with delusion one is not). Ultimately, there is no distinction because emptiness is the nature of everything - from ignorance to wisdom, from hell to Buddhas.

since there is no one to be deluded about something.

You think that to be deluded implies 'someone' being deluded. This is just an inference, similar to thinking that to hear something it requires a hearer, or to see something requires a seer. This is false. The Buddha says, I do not say "I see", "I hear", or even "I am ignorant" or "I am deluded". He says, based on such and such supporting conditions, such and such happens. He doesn't say 'I hear, I see, I awaken' but he says with such and such conditions comes awakening, seeing, hearing, etc.

Your "enlightenment" according to your ideas, is just another appearance! So why do you say something is deluded and something is not deluded?

Because the nature of twofold emptiness is such that there are no independent/inherent self or objects, to hold the view that there are independent self/objects are delusional.

 

So, there is correct cognition (wisdom), and false cognition (ignorance), even though both are equally empty. That means, the conventionally observed effects of wisdom (wisdom leads to liberation, clarity, etc etc) and ignorance (ignorance leads to the 12 links, leads to suffering, clinging, etc etc) cannot be denied. But even wisdom and ignorance is ultimately illusory.

 

As an analogy: experiencing the dream as if the dream tiger is real and the dream self is real and as a result experiencing fear and suffering, is a sign of ignorance (false cognition of the dream). Experiencing the dream with the recognition that the dream is merely a thought-projection and therefore no real tiger or self and as a result experiencing no fear at all is a sign of wisdom (correct cognition of the dream). This is just an analogy, of course lucid dreaming is not the same as the realization of emptiness as the nature of reality but a mere recognition of a dream as a dream: dream here as the state opposed to waking, not the dream-like nature of everything.

 

You see, I think the problem with you is that to you, 'true' means 'something real, something existing, something substantial' and 'false' means 'something illusory'.

 

To me its the opposite. 'True' means 'empty of reality, substantiality, inherent, independent existence' whereas 'false' means 'something taken as real, substantial, inherent, etc'

 

So you're basically saying: if things are empty, if wisdom is as empty as ignorance, how can wisdom be more true (as in being the 'correct way of cognition') than ignorance? Or how can ignorance be more false than wisdom?

 

While my answer is that precisely because the nature of reality is empty, that wisdom (correct cognition) or truth does not require substantial reality but rather points to the lack of substantiality or graspable existence... and precisely because of empty nature, that ignorance means view of inherent/substantial reality - deluded, false cognition of reality... of course even ignorance is empty but with ignorance, you don't comprehend that.

p.s. you realize you can manipulate the ordinary world just like the dream world. The dream tiger can kill you too: you wake up on your bed and you are no longer in the jungle.

Not sure what you're getting at. And yes, ordinary world is just as illusory/empty as dream world.

 

By the way, Diamond Sutra says a Bodhisattva who believes that there is a self saving a sentient being is not a true bodhisattva since he believes in a truly existing self and a truly existing sentient being. And yet, he should give rise to the intention to save sentient beings. Why so? If all sentient beings are illusory, why save them? The answer is simple: just because all things are illusory doesn't mean people realize it, and because they don't realize it, they are asleep, and suffering as a result. Compassion arises from no one to no one - simply a spontaneous response or reaction to the situation of samsara. So just because everything is illusory doesn't mean genuine compassion cannot arise, the genuine intention to save ourselves and others (even though there is no real self or other) from suffering and delusion.

Edited December 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Lucid dreaming.

Then what's the difference between lucid dreaming and waking states?

 

By the way, way to keep it concise. .

 

"no longer being deluded about the dream" implies first...Can't deny appearances - but because of empty nature you cannot pinpoint something (a wisdom, an Awareness, a car, a self, a weather, a chariot) as the appearance, or apart from the appearance

Anatta means there is no one, no agent, that is ignorant, that is realized, that is behind seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. So to presume "something" is behind something is already false.

So...that's a yes.

 

Realization is something akin to recognizing the dream as illusory (not delusional). When you recognize the dream, you don't wake up from the dream, you wake up from your delusions about the dream (as containing real substantial objects and a real substantial self) and you continue dreaming lucidly, able to manipulate the illusions.

Wisdom is illusory - empty but not delusional. Ignorance is both illusory and delusional.

 

In short, it is one thing to say that the thing you see is illusory - for example you can see an illusory thing - like a mirage. But its a whole different thing to be tricked by the mirage by taking the mirage as an actual thing - like you thought there is a real city at the far end, when actually its just a mirage. Mirage is illusory, being tricked is delusion.

Let's look a bit deeper into this "recognition" of an illusion. How do you recognize something as an illusory appearance? By having an idea of something that is non-illusory. And there is no agent either yes? So in your paradigm that recognition of something being illusory arises with the condition of recognizing something as true. It makes no sense to have something be false, without an opposite context of something being true.

 

But you say everything is mere appearance. And that appearances are illusions. IMO, there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because you are giving legitimacy to a certain experience calling is wisdom over another way of experiencing which is delusional. But that so called "wisdom" is seeing everything is illusory and baseless:

Ultimately, there is no distinction because emptiness is the nature of everything - from ignorance to wisdom, from hell to Buddhas.

 

You think that to be deluded implies 'someone' being deluded.

Nope. I'm not saying that at all. In fact it seems like you are without even recognizing it.

 

As an analogy: experiencing the dream as if the dream tiger is real and the dream self is real and as a result experiencing fear and suffering, is a sign of ignorance (false cognition of the dream). Experiencing the dream with the recognition that the dream is merely a thought-projection and therefore no real tiger or self and as a result experiencing no fear at all is a sign of wisdom (correct cognition of the dream). This is just an analogy, of course lucid dreaming is not the same as the realization of emptiness as the nature of reality but a mere recognition of a dream as a dream: dream here as the state opposed to waking, not the dream-like nature of everything.

If the dream tiger is real in your mind, it will also bite your dream body in the dream world and give you dream pain. If in the dream there is the arising of through that it is "not real" then there will be dream peace of mind, in a dream safety in the dream world. Which one is illusory tiger and which one is the illusory safety?

 

You see, I think the problem with you is that to you, 'true' means 'something real, something existing, something substantial' and 'false' means 'something illusory'.

On the contrary that is what you are saying. You give reality to one experience over the other, saying one is wisdom and the other is delusional. It's not "things" you are giving reality to, but modes of cognition and states of mind. As we agreed on the snake analogy, really there is no difference between "things" and "states of mind."

 

To me its the opposite. 'True' means 'empty of reality, substantiality, inherent, independent existence' whereas 'false' means 'something taken as real, substantial, inherent, etc'

So your "true" falls under "false." What you are basically saying above is True is "false," therefore "false." And since False is False, it is then True. This is a blatant logical fallacy and obliterates the point of distinguishing True and False.

 

So you're basically saying: if things are empty, if wisdom is as empty as ignorance, how can wisdom be more true (as in being the 'correct way of cognition') than ignorance? Or how can ignorance be more false than wisdom?

 

While my answer is that precisely because the nature of reality is empty, that wisdom (correct cognition) or truth does not require substantial reality but rather points to the lack of substantiality or graspable existence... and precisely because of empty nature, that ignorance means view of inherent/substantial reality - deluded, false cognition of reality... of course even ignorance is empty but with ignorance, you don't comprehend that.

Haha! What? You don't make too much sense towards the end there do you. Let's examine a few things you said here: "Correct cognition" or "false cognition"...of what? Of reality? Cognition "of" reality indicates dual perception which I thought you don't have. You just have arising perception, which is not really perception, but more an experience and appearance. What reality are you cognizant of as "false" then or true, unless you label one type of appearance more real than some other way you are aware of through memory.

 

By the way, Diamond Sutra says a Bodhisattva who believes that there is a self saving a sentient being is not a true bodhisattva since he believes in a truly existing self and a truly existing sentient being. And yet, he should give rise to the intention to save sentient beings. Why so? If all sentient beings are illusory, why save them? The answer is simple: just because all things are illusory doesn't mean people realize it, and because they don't realize it, they are asleep, and suffering as a result. Compassion arises from no one to no one - simply a spontaneous response or reaction to the situation of samsara. So just because everything is illusory doesn't mean genuine compassion cannot arise, the genuine intention to save ourselves and others (even though there is no real self or other) from suffering and delusion.

Uh...this is totally random. Why are you bringing this up? Do you have trouble feeling truly compassionate for others? I just don't see why you brought this up..

Edited December 23, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[headless]

 

Uh...this is totally random. Why are you bringing this up? Do you have trouble feeling truly compassionate for others? I just don't see why you brought this up..

 

A robot has no compassion

[C T]

A robot has no compassion

The above applies when compassion is viewed as a personal, cultivatable virtue.

 

However, compassion has many levels. At the peak, its simply the force that re-animates the cycle of life, and robots are not exempted from the impersonal workings of the process; hence, it can be ascertained that compassion (as energy) is necessarily involved in the creation of robots. Its not what the robot has, its what goes into its creation. Same with humans. What can/do we really possess?