Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

Lucky7Strikes · December 29, 2011

The point is that emptiness negates view of existents without establishing a position of its own (such as non-existence).

I never said he needed to negate anything other than the view of self.

Because if you negate the view of self, automatically you negate the non-existence of self, both, and neither. Why? Non-existence of self here means a self that exists and then go into non-existence. Since no self can be established (to exist) to begin with, its non-existence, both and neither is also automatically negates.

Therefore all that is required is to negate view of self.

Uh...as I said, this can easily be turned the other way around because you are saying this presuming the non-existence of a self. But if you presume the existence of a self (I'm not saying this, but for the sake of pointing out your faulty line of thinking here) it works just like your argument above which goes like this:

1. There is no self.

2. A self is non-existent.

3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also.

And so far, your only support for statement 1 has been: "Hey! Look! You just have to see it!" Nice insights there!

So if we do the opposite,

1. There is a self.

2. A self is existent.

3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also.

And....statement 1 would be supported by, of course, the Xabir logic of "Hey! Look! You just have to see it!"

If you want to keep on with the santa claus example,

1. There is santa claus.

2. Santa claus exists.

3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also.

And...statement 1 is supported by, "Hey! Look! I've seen Santa Claus!" Which basis your entire arguments on personal observation and nothing else. And I bring up the plant example, precisely because you have no personal observation of plant awareness to support your claims of whether a plant is ignorant, has a self, or aware or not, since that's your only way of supporting any claims so far.

It's just an analogy.

Another analogy is this: you started learning English. When people say "The Weather is hot", "The Weather is good today", you thought there is a real thing called 'The Weather'. You thought it is a 'real' thing, something with tangible substance or existence. Then you realise on day 'oh, there is no The Weather as some existent thing, it is just a label for the heat, the rain, the wind, etc'.

The same applies to 'self', 'awareness', and so on

Precisely as I said above.

Well, then name me something you experience that's not a label (not literally a label, but something understood without associations), something "direct." Isn't heat, rain, wind all labels, not only in the sense of language, but experience as well? I'm still waiting for a personal example from you since you keep avoiding this question, which is strange considering this is apparently how you experience reality all the time. But you had to quote someone from 2000 years ago to show this "directness"?

Wrong - is not does not apply, I do not say "is or is not, is not" - rather "is or is not don't apply, full stop". "Is not" (non-existence) requires something existing to begin with that could become non-existent, and in this case, the four extremes have no real existence to begin with, and so is not or is do not apply to them.

Lets make this simpler: is in my definition means existence, is not means non-existence. To say 'is' (exists) or 'is not' (is non-existent) requires a base, an existent entity to begin with. For example, before I die, the commoner might say I exist, but after death they say I cease to exist so I am non-existent. The basis for existence or non existence here is the 'self'. If there is no 'self' that can be established in or apart from the five aggregates to begin with, the existence or non-existence of self cannot be established. Is or is not cannot be established.

You see, you do not need to 'introduce the idea of is or is not' - the idea of 'is or is not' already 'exists' for sentient beings, and precisely because sentient beings are deluded by notions of existence and non-existence pertaining to a self, that the self-view should be negated and seen through by awakening. If they are not deluded (like Buddhas who are already awakened, or like plants which have no self-view), there is no need for negation. In fact all they have to do is negate the idea of an existent self - because as explained earlier, just negating existence itself already automatically negate the other 3 extremes. So there is no endless loop there.

In one moment of awakening, all false notions are negated - awakening is non-inferrential, it is not a step by step negating of something, rather in just one moment all is seen.

As Namdrol already said: Madhyamaka simply negates views of existents without establishing a position of its own, such as non-existence [is not].

I demonstrated the error of this kind of thinking above. You assume the non-existence of a self in the first place. And then you say you just have to negate any contradictions to this "truth," and furthermore any reaffirmation of this truth is redundant because it is already so. The error is pretty blatant. You have no evidence or significant proof of the assumption. This becomes even more hilarious when the statement is something like "everything is an illusion, except this statement."

Something real means there is a real self, inherent, independent, separate, agenthood (perceiver, controller, etc), etc

A view of something real means like projecting there to be a real self where there actually isn't - merely delusioned to believe in it. In other words, purely imaginary without basis. It is as imaginary as the belief that moon is made of green cheese.

[/quote

So how would you tell the difference between the two?

This is not a belief, this is a realization, and I have already explained how I came to that realization.

Yes, I know. It's "hey look everyone, I see it!"

Edited December 29, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · December 29, 2011

All you need is false view of reality to make a contrast. There is no need for something truly real to make a contrast (there isn't any).

Illusion simply means appearance, but without any substance or reality or tangibility to it. For example you see a mirage on the horizon - to an untrained person it may seem to represent something objective out there, like a city, but actually its just an illusory vision without a real city out there.

The "imagination that there is a real city" itself can contrast with the illusoriness of the mirage.

Yeah, and the same question comes up again. What's the difference between the "imagination that there is a real city" and the "experience of a real city?"

Except when I didn't say "everyone on this island is a liar" but "everyone on this island is a liar except me". In other words, all truths (i.e. conventional truths) are ultimately false, the only truth is Ultimate Truth.

Nagarjuna:

"Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true,

what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

Mhmm, then you better have a bit of better evidence to tell all these liars besides, "hey look, I see it!," especially when your like "everyone sees it, but are deluded, except me who see it the right way." But more pertinently, if you say "all truths are false, except this statement," how is this statement supported exactly?

I am not trying to find the definition of something objective (nor is there a subjective person to observe something objective), because precisely the point here is to see through the illusion of a Seer, that is seeing Something. There is no seer, and no something being seen. When you investigate seeing and realize that in seeing there is just the seen without a seer, and furthermore the seen is entirely dependently originated and empty and illusory, your job is done.

However, highly intellectual, Madhyamaka style analysis is not required. Bahiya got liberated by just a short concise teaching by Buddha. There are some with very dull intellect (like this monk Chunda who can't remember anything the Buddha said) who got liberated too. With all the right conditions, in one moment of seeing, you can awaken, it is not a very intellectually demanding thing. Many Zen masters awakened upon hearing a sound or seeing something, Thusness too.

The Four Foundations of Mindfulness also will lead to Arhatship in less than 7 years of practice.

All that analysis is done in Buddhism is done for seeing through and rejecting views, done for letting go, not for grasping to new views like the raft analogy.

Sentient beings are the ones in trance world, since they believe in the delusion of self.

By the way Bahiya Sutta is 'vipassana stuff' and 'vipassana stuff' is not intellectual analysis. I wonder if you practiced Vipassana.

For example: you believe there is a solid thing called 'body', then you deconstruct it by investigating on bare sensate level, and discover there are only disjoint sensations without a real 'body'. This can lead to what Dogen calls 'mind-body drop off'. This is vipassana. The Bahiya sutta of investigating 'self' and breaking it down to the six senses - in seeing just the seen, no you in terms of that - is also high level vipassana stuff.

This exercise is simply having insight to trace one's process of "realization," ideas, transformations, convictions. It's insight into the causes and interplay that happens in one's experience, and accompanied with mindfulness, one sees the causes and conditions of one's own condition. And you have a significant lack of insight into your own condition evident from these discussions that display lack of coherency and soundness in your line of thinking to support your awakening. It shows that you didn't really truly contemplate the so called "truths" of no-self, impermanence, enlightenment, but kind of just adopted them with a blind eye. So you can't really explain yourself besides,

Yeah, and see it for yourself!

Awakening all depends on each individual, and what I say or what others say doesn't matter. Engaging in 1000 pages of debate isn't going to get any nearer to true resolution.

"Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

You are mistaken if I believe this discussion is geared towards a resolution, or some grandiose conclusion on what true enlightenment is, or if it's all One Awareness, or simply emptiness/d.o. I am just pointing out a bunch of fallacies in you that seem glanced over. And I couldn't care less about Bahiya. Why does Bahiya matter so much? Does he somehow lend you legitimacy? Ah I see, you are resorting to authority again since you cannot support your own claims.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 29, 2011

Uh...as I said, this can easily be turned the other way around because you are saying this presuming the non-existence of a self. But if you presume the existence of a self (I'm not saying this, but for the sake of pointing out your faulty line of thinking here) it works just like your argument above which goes like this:

1. There is no self.

2. A self is non-existent.

3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also.

And so far, your only support for statement 1 has been: "Hey! Look! You just have to see it!" Nice insights there!

So if we do the opposite,

1. There is a self.

2. A self is existent.

3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also.

And....statement 1 would be supported by, of course, the Xabir logic of "Hey! Look! You just have to see it!"

If you want to keep on with the santa claus example,

1. There is santa claus.

2. Santa claus exists.

3. Statement 2 is redundant, because statement 1 is true. Therefore, statement 2 is negated. Any statements contradicting or affirming statement 1, on the basis of redundancy or contradiction, is negated also.

And...statement 1 is supported by, "Hey! Look! I've seen Santa Claus!" Which basis your entire arguments on personal observation and nothing else. And I bring up the plant example, precisely because you have no personal observation of plant awareness to support your claims of whether a plant is ignorant, has a self, or aware or not, since that's your only way of supporting any claims so far.

You are missing what I said completely. Statement 2 (a self is non-existent) is not rejected because it is redundant, but because there is no existent self that can serve as a basis for that self to go into non-existence. In other words, if no existent is established, no non-existent can be established either.

If there is a self, then naturally the four extremes must apply because there is an entity to exist, not exist, and so on.

If no self can be established to begin with, then naturally the four extremes don't apply.

Well, then name me something you experience that's not a label (not literally a label, but something understood without associations), something "direct." Isn't heat, rain, wind all labels, not only in the sense of language, but experience as well? I'm still waiting for a personal example from you since you keep avoiding this question, which is strange considering this is apparently how you experience reality all the time. But you had to quote someone from 2000 years ago to show this "directness"?

Conventionally, you are here looking out there at the beautiful tree, but, if conventional truth is seen through and dropped, there is simply the "suchness of seen" without establishing a cognizer or something cognized (a tree), in the seeing just the seen, this is directness.

I demonstrated the error of this kind of thinking above. You assume the non-existence of a self in the first place. And then you say you just have to negate any contradictions to this "truth," and furthermore any reaffirmation of this truth is redundant because it is already so. The error is pretty blatant. You have no evidence or significant proof of the assumption. This becomes even more hilarious when the statement is something like "everything is an illusion, except this statement."

I don't assume. I realized, and that is the whole point. And it is more like 'no self could be established' - it is a rejection of existents but not a postulating of a position of non-existence with regards to an existent.

I never said anything about reduncy - I said positions cannot be established - even of non-existence - when the existent cannot be established to begin with. Therefore as Namdrol said, this is about a non-asserting negation that leaves no positions established at all.

It is difficult for me to 'prove to you' that your dream is a dream until you investigate for yourself. For whatever 'proof' I present, will be seen from the dream (as in delusional) framework. In any case, the only proof is through yogic realization. You can never show objective evidence of things like rebirth (well maybe a bit, but limited), karma (definitely not), much less things like anatta or emptiness. All these can only be verified through yogic realization and experience. Just because you haven't realized it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Illusion and delusion are different. I say - everything is illusory, full stop. But everything is delusional (conventional truth = false cognition) except ultimate truth. In other words everything is illusory but not everything is delusional.

So how would you tell the difference between the two?

When you realize always already, there never was a self, then you see immediately that the view of self has been delusional from the beginning.

Yes, I know. It's "hey look everyone, I see it!"

Yup. Same for rebirth and karma. Buddha is telling you, this is what I see, see it for yourself. He didn't say 'this is what I see and only I can see it'. Nor does he say 'This is what I see and I shall show objective, scientific evidence for you' (impossible).

He says, I see this, so practice and you can see it too (via yogic realization and experience).

Edited December 30, 2011 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · December 29, 2011

How I came to anatta realization is not through intellectual analysis or inference like Madhyamaka reasoning.

Mine is a very experiential form of investigation - vipassanic, you can say.

As I already said earlier:

By the way Bahiya Sutta is 'vipassana stuff' and 'vipassana stuff' is not intellectual analysis. I wonder if you practiced Vipassana.

For example: you believe there is a solid thing called 'body', then you deconstruct it by investigating on bare sensate level, and discover there are only disjoint sensations without a real 'body'. This can lead to what Dogen calls 'mind-body drop off'. This is vipassana. The Bahiya sutta of investigating 'self' and breaking it down to the six senses - in seeing just the seen, no you in terms of that - is also high level vipassana stuff.

I can also add: from I AM to non-dual, I did some kind of investigation that challenges boundaries, inside and outside, subject and object and realized there is no boundaries or division in one's awareness or experience.

I mentioned Bahiya Sutta a lot because this is the Sutta which I contemplated on, that got me awakened to anatta. I have a lot to owe to that text.

Edited December 29, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 29, 2011

You are missing what I said completely. Statement 2 (a self is non-existent) is not rejected because it is redundant, but because there is no existent self that can serve as a basis for that self to go into non-existence. In other words, if no existent is established, no non-existent can be established either.

Please reply to the rest of my post, but I'm going to make a quick reply to this.

Ok, so let's edit it to see if it makes much of a difference.

1. There is no existent self

2. A self is already non-existent

3. Statement 2 is rejected because Statement 1 is true.

Statement 1 is true, because..."Hey! I see it that way!"

Uh.. :rolleyes:

Edited December 29, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 30, 2011

Yeah, and the same question comes up again. What's the difference between the "imagination that there is a real city" and the "experience of a real city?"

Real means substantially existing. There is no substantially real city. Imagination means imagination.

Mhmm, then you better have a bit of better evidence to tell all these liars besides, "hey look, I see it!," especially when your like "everyone sees it, but are deluded, except me who see it the right way." But more pertinently, if you say "all truths are false, except this statement," how is this statement supported exactly?

Conventionally truth: the apple you see is red.

Ultimate truth: whatever dependently originates is empty of any substance, so there is no apple, no redness of apple, no red apple. This is the only truth. Whatever conventional truth said is thus ultimately false (there is actually no red apple).

This applies to everything because d.o./emptiness is the nature of all phenomenon.

This exercise is simply having insight to trace one's process of "realization," ideas, transformations, convictions. It's insight into the causes and interplay that happens in one's experience, and accompanied with mindfulness, one sees the causes and conditions of one's own condition. And you have a significant lack of insight into your own condition evident from these discussions that display lack of coherency and soundness in your line of thinking to support your awakening. It shows that you didn't really truly contemplate the so called "truths" of no-self, impermanence, enlightenment, but kind of just adopted them with a blind eye. So you can't really explain yourself besides,

I did contemplate but it is not what you think of as contemplation. It is not an intellectual analysis ala Madhyamaka style, but more like 'vipassanic' contemplation as I already explained.

You are mistaken if I believe this discussion is geared towards a resolution, or some grandiose conclusion on what true enlightenment is, or if it's all One Awareness, or simply emptiness/d.o. I am just pointing out a bunch of fallacies in you that seem glanced over. And I couldn't care less about Bahiya. Why does Bahiya matter so much? Does he somehow lend you legitimacy? Ah I see, you are resorting to authority again since you cannot support your own claims.

Explained.

xabir2005 · December 30, 2011

Please reply to the rest of my post, but I'm going to make a quick reply to this.

Ok, so let's edit it to see if it makes much of a difference.

1. There is no existent self

2. A self is already non-existent

3. Statement 2 is rejected because Statement 1 is true.

Statement 1 is true, because..."Hey! I see it that way!"

Uh..

There is not even a because. Emptiness is true whether I see it or not. Anatta is true, is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not.

Similarly, dependent origination is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. Impermanence is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. Luminosity is already the essence of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not.

But I just so happen to see it, i.e. realize, as a result of my own contemplation.

Edited December 30, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 30, 2011

There is not even a because. Emptiness is true whether I see it or not. Anatta is true, is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not.

Similarly, dependent origination is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. Impermanence is already the nature of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not. Luminosity is already the essence of everything, regardless of whether I see it or not.

But I just so happen to see it, i.e. realize, as a result of my own contemplation.

Ok, so I see this is basically your position: "it's just true!" This paragraph above is very funny. So you "know" all that stuff to be true beforehand. And you uh, "investigate it" to see whether it's true or not? And what are the chances that it won't be true? Haha! Very fair and nice contemplation indeed.

Your own contemplation! So far in this discussion, no logical basis, no empirical evidence, no objective proof, not even sound insight of your own.

It's all just based on "I just see it that way!" And if someone asks why? how so? You just rely on 2000 year old quotes, and at the end of the day, it's still just "I just see it!"

Does this really deserve 450 pages of explanation? Come on Xabir, your shortcomings are pretty darn blatant. IMO you still haven't even scratched the surface of awakening with such shallow insights into your own progression.

Conventionally, you are here looking out there at the beautiful tree, but, if conventional truth is seen through and dropped, there is simply the "suchness of seen" without establishing a cognizer or something cognized (a tree), in the seeing just the seen, this is directness.

So if there is just suchness of seen, do you not know that it's a tree you are looking at? If your answer is no, well then you must have a very hard time doing anything. If yes, how do you know that it's a tree by this direct vision?

Edited December 30, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · December 30, 2011

Real means substantially existing. There is no substantially real city. Imagination means imagination.

I don't think you are contemplating this difference that well. View and experience are essentially the same thing.

Conventionally truth: the apple you see is red.

Ultimate truth: whatever dependently originates is empty of any substance, so there is no apple, no redness of apple, no red apple. This is the only truth. Whatever conventional truth said is thus ultimately false (there is actually no red apple).

This applies to everything because d.o./emptiness is the nature of all phenomenon.

I did contemplate but it is not what you think of as contemplation. It is not an intellectual analysis ala Madhyamaka style, but more like 'vipassanic' contemplation as I already explained.

Explained.

All you can do, I see clearly now, is repeat and parrot doctrine. You cannot support them through your own insights.

You way of contemplation is not contemplation. Telling yourself "in sound just sound, no hearer or in seeing, no seer or seen" without investigating these claims is down right indoctrination unless you understand why "in hearing just sound" is the nature of reality. You may tell yourself that you experienced that directly, but probably didn't question whether your perception changed to confirm those statements instead.

But it's hard. It's so hard to turn this around now for you since you've already dedicated so much of yourself to this faith in Thusness' way and Buddhism. The blog, the book, your personal history, teachers. It's become such an ingrained part of who you are. And that's why I know there is no way for you to admit you are wrong, or somehow yours or Thusness' insight of method of practice is at fault anywhere. No way, not now. .

Edited December 30, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 30, 2011

Ok, so I see this is basically your position: "it's just true!" This paragraph above is very funny. So you "know" all that stuff to be true beforehand. And you uh, "investigate it" to see whether it's true or not? And what are the chances that it won't be true? Haha! Very fair and nice contemplation indeed.

Your own contemplation! So far in this discussion, no logical basis, no empirical evidence, no objective proof, not even sound insight of your own.

It's all just based on "I just see it that way!" And if someone asks why? how so? You just rely on 2000 year old quotes, and at the end of the day, it's still just "I just see it!"

Does this really deserve 450 pages of explanation? Come on Xabir, your shortcomings are pretty darn blatant. IMO you still haven't even scratched the surface of awakening with such shallow insights into your own progression.

The empirical evidence and way to discover it lies in the method and your own experience. See

In other words, if I say 'the mind is luminous' or I want to show you the I AM aspect, I don't give you 100 inferrential reasonings why the mind is luminous or why I AM can be discovered. I don't even say 'you are not this and this, therefore you must be I AM'. That is completely inferrential and close to useless. I also won't tell you 'I'm going to show you my luminous mind, look at my hands, I am holding my luminous mind out to you right now, that big luminous ball in my hand, that's evidence'. Can't show you objective evidence for something that can only be discovered (conventionally speaking) in one's subjective experience.

The only way you can prove that thing is to tell them to investigate, do self-inquiry for 2 years, find out for themselves.

So if there is just suchness of seen, do you not know that it's a tree you are looking at? If your answer is no, well then you must have a very hard time doing anything. If yes, how do you know that it's a tree by this direct vision?

I do not know 'it's a tree' because the fact is, there is no tree. It is only for communication that sometimes I say 'it's a tree'.

Spontaneous action and awareness does not necessitate perceiving conventions, and does not preclude one from using conventions to communicate (but doesn't mean you believe in them). A Buddha's action is completely spontaneous and non-conceptual (a Buddha don't perceive conventions).

In other words, I won't bang into a wall just because I don't perceive the convention of wall when I'm walking. My walking is completely spontaneous based on wisdom. I don't establish a controller, a walker, a walking, a destination, a wall, an obstruction, without any concepts, thoughts, notions, the action is completely accomplished spontaneously in full (non-conceptual) awareness.

Edited December 30, 2011 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · December 30, 2011

I don't think you are contemplating this difference that well. View and experience are essentially the same thing.

I understand... but experiencing an imagination does not make it real, it just means experiencing an imagination. (but it sure can appear damn real, like a dream appears real in the context of a dream but doesn't mean there is any reality, substantiality, tangibility to it)

All you can do, I see clearly now, is repeat and parrot doctrine. You cannot support them through your own insights.

You way of contemplation is not contemplation. Telling yourself "in sound just sound, no hearer or in seeing, no seer or seen" without investigating these claims is down right indoctrination unless you understand why "in hearing just sound" is the nature of reality. You may tell yourself that you experienced that directly, but probably didn't question whether your perception changed to confirm those statements instead.

But it's hard. It's so hard to turn this around now for you since you've already dedicated so much of yourself to this faith in Thusness' way and Buddhism. The blog, the book, your personal history, teachers. It's become such an ingrained part of who you are. And that's why I know there is no way for you to admit you are wrong, or somehow yours or Thusness' insight of method of practice is at fault anywhere. No way, not now. .

I don't tell myself. I investigate the nature of seeing and discovered it to be so. This seeing is not shakeable even if Buddha or Thusness were to tell me I'm wrong. Edited December 30, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 30, 2011

The empirical evidence and way to discover it lies in the method and your own experience. See

Mhmm, and I'm telling you your telescope, your "injunction," might be broken.

In other words, if I say 'the mind is luminous' or I want to show you the I AM aspect, I don't give you 100 inferrential reasonings why the mind is luminous or why I AM can be discovered. I don't even say 'you are not this and this, therefore you must be I AM'. That is completely inferrential and close to useless. I also won't tell you 'I'm going to show you my luminous mind, look at my hands, I am holding my luminous mind out to you right now, that big luminous ball in my hand, that's evidence'. Can't show you objective evidence for something that can only be discovered (conventionally speaking) in one's subjective experience.

The only way you can prove that thing is to tell them to investigate, do self-inquiry for 2 years, find out for themselves.

Yes, and someone may find something different than you, see something different than what you saw. Whoa! Isn't that a novel thought? Consider it fully. It might scare you!

And what's wrong with inference? Process of elimination is not useless. You clearly don't see the power of logic that can break or strengthen a person's convictions if used right. It's a powerful tool. The greatest scientific discoveries in the past century have been inferred, for instance much of Einstein's theories are still being tested today.

If you think reason is useless, you should no longer engage in anymore discussions let alone write a book because its at the basis of what makes all this happening right now possible (the usage of words, the meanings, their relations, their organization, namely the understanding of cause and effect). Also, because it is a shared way of perceiving and navigating the world for much of mankind, you can use it wisely to lead someone from their paradigm of the world to yours. All you do is state your convictions and you go from there. That's not an effective way of communication and very far from wisdom.

Reason also grounds us and unifies our perceptions into a coherent manner. Even chaos has a cause and effect to it. It's actually a very Buddhist idea, the idea of cause and effect, of conditions and understanding them. The Buddha upon enlightenment didn't just get up and go, "in seeing just seen." He saw the causes and conditions of existence, outlined the twelve links, and the the remedies in a very logical manner. It's ironic that you write inferred reason is useless and seem to very much cherish your "direct" experiences as I have often seen you criticize seekers of reifying experiences, or becoming attached to them. Right now, you are suggesting nothing different.

Also, this is a bit off topic, but you actually communicate your state of mind to others, the luminosity or depths of samadhi or one's energetic being can be transferred.

I do not know 'it's a tree' because the fact is, there is no tree. It is only for communication that sometimes I say 'it's a tree'.

You see, this is the type of nonsense thinking I am talking about. So you don't know it's a tree. But you communicate that it's a tree. It's helpful if you just write your process of thinking in indented statements:

1. There is no tree

2. Therefore, I do not know what it is.

3. But I can still communicate that it's a tree.

So the problem is that you are denying knowledge of something but affirming your ability to communicate about it. That's contradictory.

Spontaneous action and awareness does not necessitate perceiving conventions, and does not preclude one from using conventions to communicate (but doesn't mean you believe in them). A Buddha's action is completely spontaneous and non-conceptual (a Buddha don't perceive conventions).

In other words, I won't bang into a wall just because I don't perceive the convention of wall when I'm walking. My walking is completely spontaneous based on wisdom. I don't establish a controller, a walker, a walking, a destination, a wall, an obstruction, without any concepts, thoughts, notions, the action is completely accomplished spontaneously in full (non-conceptual) awareness.

A Buddha doesn't perceive conventions, or a Buddha perceives conventions but doesn't believe in them?

If former, a Buddha would indeed bang into a wall, because knowing a wall, its potential effects on the body, pain, its solidity are are all indirectly known by the body and the mind. You may not consciously think all these things, but it's all ingrained since you've had this body. When you were a toddler, you probably bumped into walls. Why's that? Have you ever done a physical activity, such as play basketball, where you had to learn a specific motion such as shooting and it becomes instinctual? You no longer consciously calculate the angles or the strength that goes into the shot, it becomes immediate. But to say that the shooting has become a direct experience would be ignoring all the "conventionalities" that lie underneath the shot. It's simply been very habited to be noticed, and indeed, "perceived."

If latter, if someone perceives conventions but doesn't believe in them, well that certainly isn't spontaneous or direct because you are interpreting a perception to be false.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · December 30, 2011

I understand... but experiencing an imagination does not make it real, it just means experiencing an imagination. (but it sure can appear damn real, like a dream appears real in the context of a dream but doesn't mean there is any reality, substantiality, tangibility to it)

I don't think you understand or have given serious contemplation into these issues. It does not matter too much whether it is an imagination or something real. Those are terms that merely distinguish the power of certain experiences over others, specifically, the effect they have on our state of minds, both the intensity and the prolonged consequences they leave. Our own ideas about their origin (personal projection vs. belief of an objective outside world) also become factors in whether we consider something to be an imagination or real, and this closely relates to the amount of control we have over the experience. The less control we have, the more real it is, and the more in line with our paradigm of the world, the more "real" it is.

So, really an object's reality heavily depends on one's way of perception, and perhaps only depends on it. When understood from such a perspective, whether something truly has a substantiality or tangibility is unimportant, but merely our relationship with it. Anyways, I was hoping you at least had some insight into this line of investigation, but seeing that you don't, I'd not like to focus on it.

This seeing is not shakeable even if Buddha or Thusness were to tell me I'm wrong.

Well then you have a serious problem.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · December 30, 2011

Yes, and someone may find something different than you, see something different than what you saw. Whoa! Isn't that a novel thought? Consider it fully. It might scare you!

If what you see is true than naturally it is non falsifiable - others will see the same thing as me if they do their investigation. I can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way I've seen.

For example even now, I cannot deny I AM - I AM is just the luminous essence of mind experienced as a non-conceptual thought, but due to wrong framework it is taken as Self. Then one discovers non-dual - then I AM is no longer more I AM than a sight or a sound, but still a clinging to One Mind can occur due to univestigated framework of inherency. Nonetheless the non-duality of subject and object is a truth - there never was such a division, and this is what I cannot deny. Then I discovered anatta, again something I cannot deny.

And what's wrong with inference? Process of elimination is not useless. You clearly don't see the power of logic that can break or strengthen a person's convictions if used right. It's a powerful tool. The greatest scientific discoveries in the past century have been inferred, for instance much of Einstein's theories are still being tested today.

I never said they are completely useless (otherwise why is there madhyamaka teachings), but in itself they cannot accomplish much. Inferrential understanding can give rise to faith or intellectual conviction, but faith or intellectual conviction by itself cannot lead to experiential realization or liberation.

If you think reason is useless, you should no longer engage in anymore discussions let alone write a book because its at the basis of what makes all this happening right now possible (the usage of words, the meanings, their relations, their organization, namely the understanding of cause and effect). Also, because it is a shared way of perceiving and navigating the world for much of mankind, you can use it wisely to lead someone from their paradigm of the world to yours. All you do is state your convictions and you go from there. That's not an effective way of communication and very far from wisdom.

Reason also grounds us and unifies our perceptions into a coherent manner. Even chaos has a cause and effect to it. It's actually a very Buddhist idea, the idea of cause and effect, of conditions and understanding them. The Buddha upon enlightenment didn't just get up and go, "in seeing just seen." He saw the causes and conditions of existence, outlined the twelve links, and the the remedies in a very logical manner. It's ironic that you write inferred reason is useless and seem to very much cherish your "direct" experiences as I have often seen you criticize seekers of reifying experiences, or becoming attached to them. Right now, you are suggesting nothing different.

His knowledge of 12 links is not by inferrence but direct knowledge.

Also, this is a bit off topic, but you actually communicate your state of mind to others, the luminosity or depths of samadhi or one's energetic being can be transferred.

Never tried to, so no comments.

You see, this is the type of nonsense thinking I am talking about. So you don't know it's a tree. But you communicate that it's a tree. It's helpful if you just write your process of thinking in indented statements:

1. There is no tree

2. Therefore, I do not know what it is.

3. But I can still communicate that it's a tree.

So the problem is that you are denying knowledge of something but affirming your ability to communicate about it. That's contradictory.

Yeah conventional truth assumes things like 'that thing over there is a red flower', but as I have shown you and Thusness have shown the analogy about the red flower being empty of redness or flowerness due to D.O. and emptiness, ultimately 'that is a red flower' is false, it is not true. The ultimate truth is its emptiness. But from the perspective of conventional truth, 'that is a red flower' is true. Know that 'that is a red flower', 'red', 'flower', or 'that is a rose' is actually a learnt knowledge, it is something learnt, and the same thing goes for everything else including 'self', 'awareness', etc, a baby doesn't perceive a thing called 'self', 'awareness' but it is learnt. Before we learn it, we have no means of conceiving a red flower as red flower, we do not know conventional truth. But learning conventional truth doesn't mean its ultimately true, like the word 'weather' doesn't point to something inherent, like any other word ultimately doesn't point to something inherent.

Anyway found an interesting piece of info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

A Prasaṅgika asserts that something exists conventionally if it meets all of the following three conditions:

if it is known to a conventional consciousness

if no other conventional cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known

if reason that accurately analyses reality (that is, analyses whether something intrinsically exists) does not contradict it

Whatever fails to meet those criteria does not exist.[5] Therefore Prasaṅgikas cannot accept that intrinsic nature exists, even conventionally.

A Buddha doesn't perceive conventions, or a Buddha perceives conventions but doesn't believe in them?

If former, a Buddha would indeed bang into a wall, because knowing a wall, its potential effects on the body, pain, its solidity are are all indirectly known by the body and the mind. You may not consciously think all these things, but it's all ingrained since you've had this body. When you were a toddler, you probably bumped into walls. Why's that? Have you ever done a physical activity, such as play basketball, where you had to learn a specific motion such as shooting and it becomes instinctual? You no longer consciously calculate the angles or the strength that goes into the shot, it becomes immediate. But to say that the shooting has become a direct experience would be ignoring all the "conventionalities" that lie underneath the shot. It's simply been very habited to be noticed, and indeed, "perceived."

If latter, if someone perceives conventions but doesn't believe in them, well that certainly isn't spontaneous or direct because you are interpreting a perception to be false.

You have learnt from the past, but it doesn't mean you have to perceive conventional truth, knowledge can manifest in action completely spontaneously and non-conceptually in pure awareness/wisdom (see the fifth wisdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wisdoms ).

Loppon Namdrol:

The primary Mahayāna sutra metaphor for a Buddha is a wishfulfilling gem because a wishfulfilling automatically gem fulfills the wishes of sentient beings without concepts.

-------

What I am saying is really simple: Buddhas do not have conceptual minds, therefore, their acts of speech are not connected with concepts and signs.

-------

Buddha's interactions with sentient beings are completely spontaneous and non-conceptual.

-------

Buddha don't have thoughts, therefore, they have no concepts. They are however omniscient.

I don't think you understand or have given serious contemplation into these issues. It does not matter too much whether it is an imagination or something real. Those are terms that merely distinguish the power of certain experiences over others, specifically, the effect they have on our state of minds, both the intensity and the prolonged consequences they leave. Our own ideas about their origin (personal projection vs. belief of an objective outside world) also become factors in whether we consider something to be an imagination or real, and this closely relates to the amount of control we have over the experience. The less control we have, the more real it is, and the more in line with our paradigm of the world, the more "real" it is.

So, really an object's reality heavily depends on one's way of perception, and perhaps only depends on it. When understood from such a perspective, whether something truly has a substantiality or tangibility is unimportant, but merely our relationship with it. Anyways, I was hoping you at least had some insight into this line of investigation, but seeing that you don't, I'd not like to focus on it.

What you said is relatively true, but ultimately, all is equally illusory and empty.

Well then you have a serious problem.

Then so do all awakened beings because no true realization is shakeable. You cannot be lured into dream again after you wake up.

Edited December 30, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 31, 2011

If what you see is true than naturally it is non falsifiable - others will see the same thing as me if they do their investigation. I can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way I've seen.

For example even now, I cannot deny I AM - I AM is just the luminous essence of mind experienced as a non-conceptual thought, but due to wrong framework it is taken as Self. Then one discovers non-dual - then I AM is no longer more I AM than a sight or a sound, but still a clinging to One Mind can occur due to univestigated framework of inherency. Nonetheless the non-duality of subject and object is a truth - there never was such a division, and this is what I cannot deny. Then I discovered anatta, again something I cannot deny.

Ugh. You are just a crap load of disappointment. Read what you are writing, it's just totally fanatic. "If you see truth, it has to be the truth that I see!" And, "Hey someone else saw it too! So it must be true!" Wooow. You can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way you've seen? Hahahahha! Well I can list a huuuuuuuge number of people who don't see what you've seen! Like say, billions of people who you think are "deluded"!

I never said they are completely useless (otherwise why is there madhyamaka teachings), but in itself they cannot accomplish much. Inferrential understanding can give rise to faith or intellectual conviction, but faith or intellectual conviction by itself cannot lead to experiential realization or liberation.

His knowledge of 12 links is not by inferrence but direct knowledge.

Nope, you said it was useless. You clearly don't really understand the use of inferred knowledge, but is obsessed with "direct" experiencing. Deductive and inductive way of approaching information is not merely just theorizing potential cause and effects, but also establishing them from one's observations. For example, we observe that when there is fire, there is also smoke. So we deduce a correlational relationship between the two phenomena. And the next time we see smoke, our mind uses that knowledge to infer that perhaps there is also fire somewhere. If our mind stopped doing this, you would have no idea of the relationship between fire and smoke, and moreover would not be able to even distinguish what a smoke was besides sense experience.

All this is truly ironic because all these years you tell these hindu practitioners that their "direct" experience of God is all delusional and they are attached to it.

So how do you link the 12 links without inferring their connections after seeing their cause and effects being played out? Do you just see them all at once simultaneously? Well if that's the case, it would just be 1 link wouldn't it? Progression is established by connecting a series of moments and their relationships. If all you had were just mere observations, then you wouldn't have the ability to draw connections among them. For instance even if the Buddha had seen the 12 links being played out universally, he had to understand whether they were just induced visions or valid observations.

Yeah conventional truth assumes things like 'that thing over there is a red flower', but as I have shown you and Thusness have shown the analogy about the red flower being empty of redness or flowerness due to D.O. and emptiness, ultimately 'that is a red flower' is false, it is not true. The ultimate truth is its emptiness. But from the perspective of conventional truth, 'that is a red flower' is true. Know that 'that is a red flower', 'red', 'flower', or 'that is a rose' is actually a learnt knowledge, it is something learnt, and the same thing goes for everything else including 'self', 'awareness', etc, a baby doesn't perceive a thing called 'self', 'awareness' but it is learnt. Before we learn it, we have no means of conceiving a red flower as red flower, we do not know conventional truth. But learning conventional truth doesn't mean its ultimately true, like the word 'weather' doesn't point to something inherent, like any other word ultimately doesn't point to something inherent.

You have learnt from the past, but it doesn't mean you have to perceive conventional truth, knowledge can manifest in action completely spontaneously and non-conceptually in pure awareness/wisdom (see the fifth wisdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wisdoms ).

Ok, let's talk about that red flower example you like a lot. So what if someone sees it as red and someone else sees it in quantum vision. It still doesn't deny that the flower's reality! People just experience it differently. So why do you draw the extreme conclusion that the flower is an illusion? Actually doesn't the fact that you assume there are other ways of experiencing the flower establish its reality instead?

Ah so I see, any learned experience is conventional and illusory. So I guess you are just going to ignore the body's biological impulses, genetics, environmental influences when you are acting in this spontaneous and wise manner? Where exactly does this spontaneous action come from? It just *poof* arises? Name me an example of one that's not learned or affected by preconceived conditioning, or any learned knowledge.

Loppon Namdrol:

The primary Mahayāna sutra metaphor for a Buddha is a wishfulfilling gem because a wishfulfilling automatically gem fulfills the wishes of sentient beings without concepts.

-------

What I am saying is really simple: Buddhas do not have conceptual minds, therefore, their acts of speech are not connected with concepts and signs.

-------

Buddha's interactions with sentient beings are completely spontaneous and non-conceptual.

-------

Buddha don't have thoughts, therefore, they have no concepts. They are however omniscient.

....for the millionth time...I do not care what Namdrol says or thinks. I don't hold him to be authority as you do. I don't know him so these statements say nothing to me, they are just statements made without support. And how does Namdrol know what a Buddha does, how a Buddha thinks, how a Buddha acts. Unless he thinks he is a Buddha, these statements are just meaningless and invalid.

What you said is relatively true, but ultimately, all is equally illusory and empty.

How do you know that? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Nice. So wise. :rolleyes: . How do you know your own experience is illusory when everything is illusory? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Haha! And what supports your convictions? Wait wait, I know, "I just see it that way. And someone agrees with me." Great. What led you to this vision? "I knew it was true because my teacher told me. All I had to do was see it that way." Great! Very nice investigation there!

Then so do all awakened beings because no true realization is shakeable. You cannot be lured into dream again after you wake up.

Maybe you just woke up to another dream.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

effilang · December 31, 2011

You guys appear to be out of my league. But in my humble experience. If you assume that you have broken through illusion you are still having an illusion. I think that to break through illusion, one needs to break through duality, because using illusion contextually, automatically dictates that within that frame of cognition the counter-concept of non-illusion exists and as long as a person's state of mind exists in a reality which allows him to categorize phenomena or experiences in ANY state within which it's direct opposite exists, means that they are still trapped in the illusion of rationalizing their reality.

For a person to break through illusion means their mind is in a reality of function that is completely non-dual and at that point, there will be no question of illusion or non-illusion. There will simply be an experience, an experience of no-name and no state.

To say you have broken through illusion already demonstrates that you are actively congizantly differentiating between illusion and non-illusion and differentiation is an illusion in itself, because IME differentiation is simply NOT possible. Only the attempt at differentiation is possible, and the ideas produced by the attempt to classify and differentiate create what we experience as our personal reality. In essence, the consciousness of our true existence understands that the difference between the objects of comparison are in fact interchangeably identical and ultimately VOID of illusion, because any point at which the existence of a non-dual entity originates from will be perceived as an independent reality by the lesser, dual mind. I say interchangeable, because energy is transformative, and anything that is limitlessly transformative cannot be qualified or categorized under one state. To do so, to attempt to categorize it; that is what begets the concept of illusion, from which illusions spawn.

From what i understand in my experience. Illusion is the illusion. To break through, you have to rise above not only the product of ILLUSION but the concept of illusion. When there is no more illusion as a concept, then i think you've achieved non-duality, because then labels can no longer be formed and names can no longer be given. And identification is not possible.

Illusion isn't even the correct word. What i think is illusion, is a personal perception of your reality. The tricky part is that every persons reality viewed from the eyes of the experiencer sees different things and that is completely understandable.

Sorry that i'm not as read as you guys are with all the Buddhist texts, so i can't drop any fancy quotes, but this is the best way i can explain the visions i've had during deep meditations.

I could be wrong but, i think that if a person breaks through illusion, that they will be incapable of realizing it. Perhaps the real break-through happens when you begin to question whether you have broken through illusion, endlessly? Perhaps this would be the best way to approach it. At least you will have guaranteed advancement in your realization this way. Perhaps : )

Edited December 31, 2011 by effilang

xabir2005 · December 31, 2011

You guys appear to be out of my league. But in my humble experience. If you assume that you have broken through illusion you are still having an illusion. I think that to break through illusion, one needs to break through duality, because using illusion contextually, automatically dictates that within that frame of cognition the counter-concept of non-illusion exists and as long as a person's state of mind exists in a reality which allows him to categorize phenomena or experiences in ANY state within which it's direct opposite exists, means that they are still trapped in the illusion of rationalizing their reality.

For a person to break through illusion means their mind is in a reality of function that is completely non-dual and at that point, there will be no question of illusion or non-illusion. There will simply be an experience, an experience of no-name and no state.

To say you have broken through illusion already demonstrates that you are actively congizantly differentiating between illusion and non-illusion and differentiation is an illusion in itself, because IME differentiation is simply NOT possible. Only the attempt at differentiation is possible, and the ideas produced by the attempt to classify and differentiate create what we experience as our personal reality. In essence, the consciousness of our true existence understands that the difference between the objects of comparison are in fact interchangeably identical and ultimately VOID of illusion, because any point at which the existence of a non-dual entity originates from will be perceived as an independent reality by the lesser, dual mind. I say interchangeable, because energy is transformative, and anything that is limitlessly transformative cannot be qualified or categorized under one state. To do so, to attempt to categorize it; that is what begets the concept of illusion, from which illusions spawn.

From what i understand in my experience. Illusion is the illusion. To break through, you have to rise above not only the product of ILLUSION but the concept of illusion. When there is no more illusion as a concept, then i think you've achieved non-duality, because then labels can no longer be formed and names can no longer be given. And identification is not possible.

Illusion isn't even the correct word. What i think is illusion, is a personal perception of your reality. The tricky part is that every persons reality viewed from the eyes of the experiencer sees different things and that is completely understandable.

Sorry that i'm not as read as you guys are with all the Buddhist texts, so i can't drop any fancy quotes, but this is the best way i can explain the visions i've had during deep meditations.

I could be wrong but, i think that if a person breaks through illusion, that they will be incapable of realizing it. Perhaps the real break-through happens when you begin to question whether you have broken through illusion, endlessly? Perhaps this would be the best way to approach it. At least you will have guaranteed advancement in your realization this way. Perhaps : )

The way I talk about illusion is different, I say everything - whether of deluded cognition, or awakened cogntion, are all equally illusory, so there is no such thing as a non-illusion, not even Nirvana. Why? Because they are by nature empty - there is no substance at all, so that is why there is ultimately no wisdom, no ignorance, no eye, ears, nose, etc (basically no Everything). Having no substance, yet appearing vividly, therefore Emptiness is Form.

So basically everything is illusory... but whether people realize it is another matter, this is why practically speaking, all the people are suffering right now because of their perception of inherent existence of self and things. Their state is such that they do not recognise their dream as a dream, so they treat the dream-tiger as real, and suffer as a result of it. This is just an analogy of course.

So the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, knowing that all along there never was any substance to ignorance or wisdom or anything else, nonetheless understands that a lot of sentient beings are deluded about things and suffer as a result. For example even though everything they perceive is illusory, but nonetheless it appears very real to them and so they suffer needlessly. And it is because of this understanding that we show deep compassion and try to help other beings awaken.

If Buddhas are not able to understand the situation of sentient beings, there will be no Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to help sentient beings. They have wisdom, they understand the situation of sentient beings, but they don't rely on concepts. Wisdom is spontaneous.

For example some people may upon seeing that the building is on fire, spontaneously without even a thought for themselves rush into the fire to save the children. They did not even have a moment of thought to analyse or think.

Anyway a Buddha has five wisdoms:

[edit] Tathatā-jñāna

Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Tathatā-jñāna is the jñāna of Suchness or Dharmadātu[4], "the bare non-conceptualizing awareness" of Śūnyatā, the universal substrate of the other four jñāna.[5]

[edit] Ādarśa-jñāna

The Melong is very important in the esoteric Mantrayana traditions such as Dzogchen. Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Ādarśa-jñāna is the jñāna of "Mirror-like Awareness", "devoid of all dualistic thought and ever united with its 'content' as a mirror is with its reflections".[6] Ādarśa is Sanskrit for "mirror", the term may be parsed into the etymon of darśana with a grammatical adposition.

Kalupahana (1991: p.99) proffers that:

Samatā is also identical with the second ādarśa when samatā becomes the non-duality of upāya and prajñā.[7]

[edit] Samatā-jñāna

Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Samatā-jñāna is the jñāna of the "Awareness of Sameness", which perceives the sameness, the commonality of dharmas or phenomena.[8]

Kalupahana (1991: p.99) proffers that:

The Tattvāloka says "The wisdom of equality of Tathāgata is the non-dual method of upāya and prajñā, and it is the wisdom of the universal that can be tasted in the dharmādhtu." [7]

[edit] Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna

Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna is the jñāna of "Investigative Awareness", that perceives the specificity, the uniqueness of dharmas. [9]

[edit] Kṛty-anuṣṭhāna-jñāna

Keown, et al. (2003) hold that the Kṛty-anuṣṭhāna-jñāna is the jñāna of "Accomplishing Activities", the awareness that "spontaneously carries out all that has to be done for the welfare of beings, manifesting itself in all directions".[10]

Edited December 31, 2011 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · December 31, 2011

Ugh. You are just a crap load of disappointment. Read what you are writing, it's just totally fanatic. "If you see truth, it has to be the truth that I see!" And, "Hey someone else saw it too! So it must be true!" Wooow. You can list a huge number of people who have seen things the way you've seen? Hahahahha! Well I can list a huuuuuuuge number of people who don't see what you've seen! Like say, billions of people who you think are "deluded"!

As a matter of fact is, billions of people are deluded and that is why they suffer. And when you wake up to truth, you will not have any doubt about it.

Nope, you said it was useless. You clearly don't really understand the use of inferred knowledge, but is obsessed with "direct" experiencing. Deductive and inductive way of approaching information is not merely just theorizing potential cause and effects, but also establishing them from one's observations. For example, we observe that when there is fire, there is also smoke. So we deduce a correlational relationship between the two phenomena. And the next time we see smoke, our mind uses that knowledge to infer that perhaps there is also fire somewhere. If our mind stopped doing this, you would have no idea of the relationship between fire and smoke, and moreover would not be able to even distinguish what a smoke was besides sense experience.

I never said inferrential knowledge is useless in all situations. I said it is useless when it comes to awakening. Well, I mean, largely useless, not totally. It can be helpful if it helps you establish 'Right View' but still, a conceptual inferrential understanding does not in itself lead to awakening.

All this is truly ironic because all these years you tell these hindu practitioners that their "direct" experience of God is all delusional and they are attached to it.

What is ironic? I think I didn't say 'direct experience' as a problem, I say it is the uninvestigated framework of inherency and duality that is a problem, and those are views, proliferations, not direct experience. But those views can shape how we view a direct experience. Through contemplation (as in Vipassana kind) they can be resolved in a moment of awakening.

So how do you link the 12 links without inferring their connections after seeing their cause and effects being played out?

Firstly I must say, I don't have direct experience of all the links of the 12 links or have very clear understanding into all the exact workings of dependent origination. I also don't know stuff like karma and rebirth, at least not much. I'm not a Buddha. The general theory of D.O. can be seen in one moment, as in when there is no illusion of a self/Self, all activities are realized to be the manifestation of causality in a single moment, like the whole universe is hearing this sound, doing this action. As an analogy: it is not 'I' that is driving the car, it is equally the car itself, the road, the sky, the sunlight, everything coming together to manifest as this action of car driving, without imputing a subject and an object. I cannot however tell you the exact causes and conditions or the 12 links from direct knowledge, furthermore considering that my understanding of 12 links spans 3 lives, from past, present to future.

To know the exact details of dependent origination probably requires the wisdom of Buddha, but Buddha does not rely on concepts and inference, so it can only be by direct knowledge and wisdom, and who is to say he can't have that direct knowledge considering he even traced and remembered 91 aeons of his past lives and karma.

Do you just see them all at once simultaneously? Well if that's the case, it would just be 1 link wouldn't it? Progression is established by connecting a series of moments and their relationships. If all you had were just mere observations, then you wouldn't have the ability to draw connections among them. For instance even if the Buddha had seen the 12 links being played out universally, he had to understand whether they were just induced visions or valid observations.

When someone beats you, pain is felt, with supporting conditions or cause of the other hand. It can be directly observed and no need of inference.

Ok, let's talk about that red flower example you like a lot. So what if someone sees it as red and someone else sees it in quantum vision. It still doesn't deny that the flower's reality!

It denies an it-ness of a flower, which is what I mean by reality. If there is no substance there is no reality, but nonetheless appearance is undeniable but is dream-like, illusory, coreless, like a mirage.

People just experience it differently. So why do you draw the extreme conclusion that the flower is an illusion? Actually doesn't the fact that you assume there are other ways of experiencing the flower establish its reality instead?

It means there is no substantiality - like a thought you cannot establish the substance, location, origin and destination of thoughts. Or when you dream you cannot locate where the dream image comes from, exists, or goes to. It looks very real as in out there, the dream tiger you see is out there, but when you wake up it's all gone and you can't say it was here, there, anywhere. But you don't have to wait for it to be all gone - even in the midst of a thought arising you cannot find where the thought came from, where it abides, where it goes to.

Ah so I see, any learned experience is conventional and illusory. So I guess you are just going to ignore the body's biological impulses, genetics, environmental influences when you are acting in this spontaneous and wise manner? Where exactly does this spontaneous action come from? It just *poof* arises? Name me an example of one that's not learned or affected by preconceived conditioning, or any learned knowledge.

Actually learnt knowledge may not manifest as concepts, etc. It can also manifest as a spontaneous response.

How do you know that? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Nice. So wise. . How do you know your own experience is illusory when everything is illusory? Oh wait, I know. "I just see it that way." Haha! And what supports your convictions? Wait wait, I know, "I just see it that way. And someone agrees with me." Great. What led you to this vision? "I knew it was true because my teacher told me. All I had to do was see it that way." Great! Very nice investigation there!

If it were that easy I would have become awakened 5 years ago.

Maybe you just woke up to another dream.

I realized a dream as illusory. I do not posit some other reality called 'Nirvana' because even Nirvana is also illusory and dream-like. Edited December 31, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · December 31, 2011

The way I talk about illusion is different, I say everything - whether of deluded cognition, or awakened cogntion, are all equally illusory, so there is no such thing as a non-illusion, not even Nirvana. Why? Because they are by nature empty - there is no substance at all, so that is why there is ultimately no wisdom, no ignorance, no eye, ears, nose, etc (basically no Everything). Having no substance, yet appearing vividly, therefore Emptiness is Form.

Uh Huh. And why? Why are you saying this. How are you supporting this grand claim?

xabir2005 · December 31, 2011

Uh Huh. And why? Why are you saying this. How are you supporting this grand claim?

Said it somewhere in my reply to you above.

Lucky7Strikes · December 31, 2011

As a matter of fact is, billions of people are deluded and that is why they suffer.

That wasn't the point of the reply! Holy crap I see that you are really losing the power to infer beyond the appearance of the replies. Great wisdom indeed! The point of the reply was in objection to you supporting your ideals on the basis that a lot of people have them.

And when you wake up to truth, you will not have any doubt about it.

I never said inferrential knowledge is useless in all situations. I said it is useless when it comes to awakening. Well, I mean, largely useless, not totally. It can be helpful if it helps you establish 'Right View' but still, a conceptual inferrential understanding does not in itself lead to awakening.

What is ironic? I think I didn't say 'direct experience' as a problem, I say it is the uninvestigated framework of inherency and duality that is a problem, and those are views, proliferations, not direct experience. But those views can shape how we view a direct experience. Through contemplation (as in Vipassana kind) they can be resolved in a moment of awakening.

So without using the framework or the views shaping a direct experience, how is your direct experience more true than someone else's this so called "direct" experience?

And maybe, just maybe, wouldn't you be "investigating the framework" through, oh I don't know, inductive and deductive reasoning, i.e. inferred knowledge? And maybe, "those views" shaping how you view a direct experience..be...in that same medium?

Firstly I must say, I don't have direct experience of all the links of the 12 links or have very clear understanding into all the exact workings of dependent origination. I also don't know stuff like karma and rebirth, at least not much. I'm not a Buddha. The general theory of D.O. can be seen in one moment, as in when there is no illusion of a self/Self, all activities are realized to be the manifestation of causality in a single moment, like the whole universe is hearing this sound, doing this action. As an analogy: it is not 'I' that is driving the car, it is equally the car itself, the road, the sky, the sunlight, everything coming together to manifest as this action of car driving, without imputing a subject and an object.

Are you saying you directly experience all the causes and conditions that come together to form your experience of driving the car? Well geez, then you must also directly experience the car being made at some point, and the guy who invented the model, then the guy who dug up the oil to make the gasoline, and the truck that mixed the concrete under you, and of course! the sun. Gotta feel the sun burning "directly" as its heat through space, through the atmosphere down to the car.

It denies an it-ness of a flower, which is what I mean by reality. If there is no substance there is no reality, but nonetheless appearance is undeniable but is dream-like, illusory, coreless, like a mirage.

What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't deny the it ness of the flower at all! It denies that the flower has a definitive color or shape because it's experienced differently in different modes of vision, because your eyes perceive objects in a certain way. Doesn't mean that the object is somehow an illusion or "not there" that's just a far fetched and totally baseless conclusion.

It means there is no substantiality - like a thought you cannot establish the substance, location, origin and destination of thoughts. Or when you dream you cannot locate where the dream image comes from, exists, or goes to. It looks very real as in out there, the dream tiger you see is out there, but when you wake up it's all gone and you can't say it was here, there, anywhere. But you don't have to wait for it to be all gone - even in the midst of a thought arising you cannot find where the thought came from, where it abides, where it goes to.

And let me guess. The tool you are using to locate the thought or dream is...maybe another thought? Hahaha! So basically you are trying to locate another thought (needn't be conceptually worded, just the effort is enough) with thought, and since you are now newly occupied with "thought of trying to find thought" and OBVIOUSLY not finding this thought you are looking for (well since, you are already occupied)conclude that the past thought is a total illusion? Holy crap. This is like a guy saying "Hey! I'm going to find where I was 10 steps ago...oh wait, but I'm here now! Ha! That 10 steps ago place must've been a total illusion!" or having gone 10 steps "Wait a second...I'm still just here and not 10 steps back! Oh my god, it's impossible to find that place again! It must be a total illusion!" It's...mind blowingly...stupid.

Actually learnt knowledge may not manifest as concepts, etc. It can also manifest as a spontaneous response.

:blink: Uh, well, then that wouldn't be spontaneous. It would be learned.

If it were that easy I would have become awakened 5 years ago.

No, now that I'm reading through your own insights, it wouldn't surprise me if it took you that long.

xabir2005 · December 31, 2011

That wasn't the point of the reply! Holy crap I see that you are really losing the power to infer beyond the appearance of the replies. Great wisdom indeed! The point of the reply was in objection to you supporting your ideals on the basis that a lot of people have them.

And my point is the people you talk about are deluded. By a lot I don't mean like majority but a substantial number of people from past to present. The Buddha had like thousands or tens of thousands of students in his lifetime who are awakened, many more have since awakened. That is quite a substantial number even though still small when compared with the current population of 7 billion people.

So without using the framework or the views shaping a direct experience, how is your direct experience more true than someone else's this so called "direct" experience?

All views are false. Seeing truth is to stop establishing views, but it is not that there is some 'thing' that can be pinned down as a truth or reality, the truth is simply the lack of anything that can be viewed or pinned down as reality.

Anyway I am not comparing 'direct experience'. For example one can have NDNCDIMOP like I AM, but due to false framework it is reified. But I am not rejecting the direct experience of NDNCDIMOP, I am rejecting the framework in which the NDNCDIMOP is reified. As the masters said, keep the experience, refine the view. The experience (as in the NDNCDIMOP) is not the problem, you can't deny the pure luminous presence, you can only reject self-view, false views, which are mental proliferations.

And maybe, just maybe, wouldn't you be "investigating the framework" through, oh I don't know, inductive and deductive reasoning, i.e. inferred knowledge? And maybe, "those views" shaping how you view a direct experience..be...in that same medium?

The resolution to uninvestigated framework is realization.

Are you saying you directly experience all the causes and conditions that come together to form your experience of driving the car? Well geez, then you must also directly experience the car being made at some point, and the guy who invented the model, then the guy who dug up the oil to make the gasoline, and the truck that mixed the concrete under you, and of course! the sun. Gotta feel the sun burning "directly" as its heat through space, through the atmosphere down to the car.

Not really, but it is seen that whatever manifest is sort of like the conspiracy of the universe (all the supporting causes and conditions) to manifest as this moment, complete, whole and non-dual. The view of a manifestation coming from a particular direction, source, or agent is completely seen through. Car driving is as much the road's driving or the car's driving as it is 'your' driving, in reality there is no agent or source, just one complete manifestation as a result of all the causes and conditions. A manifestation A is independent of B and C, but itself is a complete, whole, manifestation of B and C and thus independent of B and C in one complete manifestation, so that it is simultaneously dependent and yet unconditioned as the only thing in the world (in a figure of speech way, as an experiential expression of 'in seeing just the seen').

What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't deny the it ness of the flower at all! It denies that the flower has a definitive color or shape because it's experienced differently in different modes of vision, because your eyes perceive objects in a certain way. Doesn't mean that the object is somehow an illusion or "not there" that's just a far fetched and totally baseless conclusion.

You cannot pin down any it ness of a flower. There is no core of a flower. It is just like a mirage or a bubble, appearing yet without core or substance. Whether you see a flower as atoms, as red, as black, as void, whatever observations you make about a flower is dependent on how you observe it, so in final analysis every phenomenon is dependently originated.

For example you might be thinking, a person sees A with regards to a flower, another sees B with regards to a flower, but actually the true existence or core of a flower is Z (something you cannot see but can only postulate). But I'm telling you that even if you are to discover Z, that too is a dependently originated phenomenon. Everything is a dependently originated phenomenon, there is no inherent existence at all. So there are just different appearances but no core at all. This has to do with the nature of all phenomenon - dependently originated and thus empty.

So this is not a statement about 'everything is only mind, the objective existence are illusory' but rather an insight into dependent origination and emptiness of all phenomenon, such that what we conventionally call mind, and what we conventionally call matter, are equally empty and illusory. This is not about subsuming everything to be mind-only (which will have given reality to 'mind'). Mind and matter can be distinguished, but only conventionally, and what is conventional isn't true. Ultimately mind and matter are equally illusory and empty which is to say there is no mind and no matter.

In short:

This does not deny appearance as we observe it, nor is it to say that there's no reality outside the mind (subsuming everything into into mind), but simply that no 'reality in itself' exists. Phenomena only manifest in dependence on other phenomena. An independent core cannot be found, established, pinned down, as everything dependently originates and is empty.

And let me guess. The tool you are using to locate the thought or dream is...maybe another thought? Hahaha! So basically you are trying to locate another thought (needn't be conceptually worded, just the effort is enough) with thought, and since you are now newly occupied with "thought of trying to find thought" and OBVIOUSLY not finding this thought you are looking for (well since, you are already occupied)conclude that the past thought is a total illusion? Holy crap. This is like a guy saying "Hey! I'm going to find where I was 10 steps ago...oh wait, but I'm here now! Ha! That 10 steps ago place must've been a total illusion!" or having gone 10 steps "Wait a second...I'm still just here and not 10 steps back! Oh my god, it's impossible to find that place again! It must be a total illusion!" It's...mind blowingly...stupid.

No, I mean you cannot find a thought right now, the current thought while appearing cannot be pinned down anywhere, you cannot find an origin of the thought, or a destination of a thought.

No, now that I'm reading through your own insights, it wouldn't surprise me if it took you that long.

Actually come to think of it, it is possible I have realized all these 5 years ago, but incredibly difficult. I will have to be of similar calibre like Bahiya.

Happy new year!

Edited December 31, 2011 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 2, 2012

And my point is the people you talk about are deluded. By a lot I don't mean like majority but a substantial number of people from past to present. The Buddha had like thousands or tens of thousands of students in his lifetime who are awakened, many more have since awakened. That is quite a substantial number even though still small when compared with the current population of 7 billion people.

When I read replies like this, I start to think you are no longer worth having a discussion with. I mean, just trace this part of the conversation back. You basically mentioned that you were right because others had similar experiences as you. And I replied that this "evidence" is stupid since popularity of an idea doesn't make it true, since billions of people don't see life as you do. And your reply is now, oh yes, all those people are deluded. The point of this exchange was for me to point out to you how relying on the number of people agreeing with you is not a sufficient support for your "truth." And somehow to you it turns out to be "everyone is deluded except for those who agree with me." :huh:

All views are false. Seeing truth is to stop establishing views, but it is not that there is some 'thing' that can be pinned down as a truth or reality, the truth is simply the lack of anything that can be viewed or pinned down as reality.

Anyway I am not comparing 'direct experience'. For example one can have NDNCDIMOP like I AM, but due to false framework it is reified. But I am not rejecting the direct experience of NDNCDIMOP, I am rejecting the framework in which the NDNCDIMOP is reified. As the masters said, keep the experience, refine the view. The experience (as in the NDNCDIMOP) is not the problem, you can't deny the pure luminous presence, you can only reject self-view, false views, which are mental proliferations.

Describe an experience without a framework then! Describe to me this direct and spontaneous experience and wisdom that isn't learned. I've asked you this repeatedly and every time you cannot give me an answer when supposedly this is how you experience life daily.

How do you know you are not reifying "non-reification" instead? But focus on the former: describe an experience without a framework.

The resolution to uninvestigated framework is realization.

What? I don't think you understood what I meant. You said frameworks need to be investigated to be realized. Now they need to be "univestigated"? And how is there a resolution to that?

Not really, but it is seen that whatever manifest is sort of like the conspiracy of the universe (all the supporting causes and conditions) to manifest as this moment, complete, whole and non-dual. The view of a manifestation coming from a particular direction, source, or agent is completely seen through. Car driving is as much the road's driving or the car's driving as it is 'your' driving, in reality there is no agent or source, just one complete manifestation as a result of all the causes and conditions. A manifestation A is independent of B and C, but itself is a complete, whole, manifestation of B and C and thus independent of B and C in one complete manifestation, so that it is simultaneously dependent and yet unconditioned as the only thing in the world (in a figure of speech way, as an experiential expression of 'in seeing just the seen').

Mhmm, and how do you know this? What support do you have for these claims. Direct experience? Well, your explanations sure don't seem like it! "A manifestation A is independent of B and C, but itself is a complete, whole, manifestation of B and C and thus independent of B and C in one complete manifestation, so that it is simultaneously dependent and yet unconditioned as the only thing in the world" Uh...excuse me? Again, let's just do this by indented sentences.

1. A is independent of B and C

2. A is manifestation of B and C, thus it is independent of B and C

3. So A is dependent and unconditioned.

So statement 2 is contradicting itself. And statements 2 and 3 directly contradict each other (A is independent, therefore it is dependent). What are you trying to say?

You cannot pin down any it ness of a flower. There is no core of a flower. It is just like a mirage or a bubble, appearing yet without core or substance. Whether you see a flower as atoms, as red, as black, as void, whatever observations you make about a flower is dependent on how you observe it, so in final analysis every phenomenon is dependently originated.

For example you might be thinking, a person sees A with regards to a flower, another sees B with regards to a flower, but actually the true existence or core of a flower is Z (something you cannot see but can only postulate). But I'm telling you that even if you are to discover Z, that too is a dependently originated phenomenon. Everything is a dependently originated phenomenon, there is no inherent existence at all. So there are just different appearances but no core at all. This has to do with the nature of all phenomenon - dependently originated and thus empty.

First of all, people seeing a flower as different appearances does not deny the flower's core. Just because something appears differently in varying situations does not mean its ultimate existence is questionable. You have no grounds (well, at least the way you are presenting it) to come to that "final analysis." The flower may indeed have a core, it may indeed even have awareness or some essential make up of flowerness that cannot be broken down. Perhaps you're just seeing it partially due to your own vision, as you said we might not be able to see that core with our eyes. But moreover, why are you "telling me" (yes yes keep telling me without supporting you claims :rolleyes: ) that the flower is a dependently originated phenomenon? How do you know that? (Don't say inferred knowledge. Remember, you saw all this through your direct experience).

So this is not a statement about 'everything is only mind, the objective existence are illusory' but rather an insight into dependent origination and emptiness of all phenomenon, such that what we conventionally call mind, and what we conventionally call matter, are equally empty and illusory. This is not about subsuming everything to be mind-only (which will have given reality to 'mind'). Mind and matter can be distinguished, but only conventionally, and what is conventional isn't true. Ultimately mind and matter are equally illusory and empty which is to say there is no mind and no matter.

In short:

This does not deny appearance as we observe it, nor is it to say that there's no reality outside the mind (subsuming everything into into mind), but simply that no 'reality in itself' exists. Phenomena only manifest in dependence on other phenomena. An independent core cannot be found, established, pinned down, as everything dependently originates and is empty.

Soooo...you are just saying reality is experienced in different ways. Woooow, another incredible insight!!! Ok, but then you jump the gun and say now that everything is empty and illusory including mind and matter? Hmm? How did you arrive at that conclusion from the previous observation... And you also say that reality in itself does not exist? Are you saying reality exists but is experienced in different ways? Seems like that what you are saying.

And as for your logic that there is no mind and no matter...what? Your argument for that is that because they are distinguished conventionally, they don't exist. So now your definition of something's existence is that it has to be distinguished?

Look, you need to be more clear and step back from the abstract lingo. You are just tossing out conclusions here and there and they are all just rushed. You make no sense.

No, I mean you cannot find a thought right now, the current thought while appearing cannot be pinned down anywhere, you cannot find an origin of the thought, or a destination of a thought.

Oh god. Let me help you out......perhaps..the thought you were trying to find would have probably been, while you were typing the above sentence, "No, I mean you cannot find a thought right now." Pin it down somewhere? Why are you trying to pin it down somewhere when it's not in front of you? Do you try to pin down your kidneys to see if they are there too? Your thoughts are likely in you head ok? Destination? HAhahah! Does a teddy bear have a destination? Since when did having a destination mean something was substantial or non illusory? Also with "origin." When did the knowledge of something's origin negate or confrim its existence? You're just tossing words here.

Come on man, you are making too many ludicrous supports for all these claims, "reality is illusory and empty" crap.

Maybe all you are trying to say is that things are temporary. But just because something is temporary does not make it empty, or without reality, or illusory. Its...temporary....

Informer · January 2, 2012

Edited January 2, 2012 by Informer

xabir2005 · January 2, 2012

Describe an experience without a framework then! Describe to me this direct and spontaneous experience and wisdom that isn't learned. I've asked you this repeatedly and every time you cannot give me an answer when supposedly this is how you experience life daily.

I already described it to you. Go figure. Or check out Kalaka Sutta. No time to reply any more for now.

Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites