Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

xabir2005 · January 11, 2012

There is a motive in your interactions that is beyond just mere sharing. It's a very self serving attitude and behind it all, an inverted ego trip if you will, nothing like Thusness' other screen name says: "passerby."

...

You are not doing any helpful jobs in clarifying anything but spewing your truths as the universal truth. Your ideas are a mess of contradictions and uninvestigated claims. Didn't you read over your own posts above? I asked you how and what led to your realization and your reply was "I had a realization because I realized." The entire process of your investigations and contemplations are just hidden indoctrinations.

my motivations are sincere, not self-serving but other-serving. After all a bodhisattva should give rise to great compassion and help those who are still deludedly in samsara. I'm sure many have similar motivations.

The fact that I realized is not a result of mental inference but an experiential seeing of a fact, like noticing the figure in a picture puzzle. It is not a logical set of reasoning that got me to seeing the figure. Of course this is just an example. You are not satisfied by the perceived lack of logical process behind my contemplation, but vipassana and contemplation is not meant to be purely intellectual. Nonetheless it can help one realize truth and that's what matter. Did Buddha teach intellectual analysis? He didn't. He taught four foundations of mindfulness can lead to liberation. He taught anapanasati meditation, etc etc. He teach people to contemplate anicca, dukkha, anatta, but not as an intellectual exercise. And it has worked effectively for countless people. Bahiya was liberated by just one line from Buddha, the one that got me to realization.

wowee · January 11, 2012

or maybe I no longer have feelings but think that some of the discussions are senseless?

P.s. This conversation is getting ridiculous, so I'm out

Really, you should heed Lucky7Strikes' advice and take a look at yourself and your own writings. Now you say you 'no longer have feelings'. You're getting more and more ridiculous. You can ignore or even report my nonsensical posts, it's fine by me. But please continue to have your discussion as per your original intent of starting this thread. Don't say 'I'm out', that's a cop-out.

xabir2005 · January 11, 2012

my motivations are sincere, not self-serving but other-serving. After all a bodhisattva should give rise to great compassion and help those who are still deludedly in samsara. I'm sure many have similar motivations.

The fact that I realized is not a result of mental inference but an experiential seeing of a fact, like noticing the figure in a picture puzzle. It is not a logical set of reasoning that got me to seeing the figure. Of course this is just an example. You are not satisfied by the perceived lack of logical process behind my contemplation, but vipassana and contemplation is not meant to be purely intellectual. Nonetheless it can help one realize truth and that's what matter. Did Buddha teach intellectual analysis? He didn't. He taught four foundations of mindfulness can lead to liberation. He taught anapanasati meditation, etc etc. He teach people to contemplate anicca, dukkha, anatta, but not as an intellectual exercise. And it has worked effectively for countless people. Bahiya was liberated by just one line from Buddha, the one that got me to realization.

Bump

Lucky7Strikes · January 11, 2012

my motivations are sincere, not self-serving but other-serving. After all a bodhisattva should give rise to great compassion and help those who are still deludedly in samsara. I'm sure many have similar motivations.

You display no sense of empathy in the way you communicate with others from what I've seen in the past years. It is didactic, it's a "shove it down your throat" way, and polarizing people into the "us awakened Buddhists" against "those deluded beings." It has not been a display of compassion.

The fact that I realized is not a result of mental inference but an experiential seeing of a fact, like noticing the figure in a picture puzzle. It is not a logical set of reasoning that got me to seeing the figure. Of course this is just an example. You are not satisfied by the perceived lack of logical process behind my contemplation, but vipassana and contemplation is not meant to be purely intellectual. Nonetheless it can help one realize truth and that's what matter. Did Buddha teach intellectual analysis? He didn't. He taught four foundations of mindfulness can lead to liberation. He taught anapanasati meditation, etc etc. He teach people to contemplate anicca, dukkha, anatta, but not as an intellectual exercise. And it has worked effectively for countless people. Bahiya was liberated by just one line from Buddha, the one that got me to realization.

....and I am suggesting to you that maybe you shouldn't trust your vision of that figure so much. I am unsatisfied by the pretentious contemplative insight you suggest in your posts. As if what you write is logically sound, or have coherent sense in the ideas behind them. Because clearly from this discussion you rely heavily on visions and observations, but most of all, in your faith in Buddhism and its teachings, which you wrongly label as true investigative insight. True investigation begins from minimal assumptions, it doesn't begin with "let's confirm that what the Buddha taught is true."

Nothing is purely intellectual exercise when it involves deep and genuine questioning, and questioning involves categorical awareness, i.e. thinking but not necessarily language. It is necessary because our senses are often untrustworthy. You should know this better than anyone. The Buddha did teach analysis. He said it even before he gave his own lecture, telling people to consider what he says, to think and contemplate them, to see if it make sense before accepting their meaning. Bahiya clearly did not do that did he? And so imo his enlightenment is unsatisfactory.

"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the

spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you

have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do

not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is

written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and

elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is

conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

-Kalama Sutta

But even the post you make here is out of touch with this very discussion. I am not interested (man, how many times have I written this comment) in what the Buddha taught. It is irrelevant to me when I am having a discussion with what you claim to have realized. It is only relevant if your only evidence is your faith in the Buddha, in which case, I will dismiss your claims as faith oriented and not self owned.

I don't doubt that you have attained a degree of spiritual clarity. The way you are experiencing reality is obviously different than most people. But I believe you have become enamored with that experience and have ceased to look deeper into it. But more alarmingly, I have begun to doubt your motivations for all this is tied to something much more intricate than a mere "I want to become enlightened for the benefit of all sentient beings" or even "I want to cease all suffering."

Edited January 11, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · January 11, 2012

Buddha is not saying not to have faith. He is saying, don't blindly believe but check if it is sensible. If people say killing infidels is good, don't just accept it but check if it is sensible and beneficial. But if something is sensible then put your faith in that person and follow the path.

So, the basic premise that by contemplating, meditating, investigating the three seals lead to dispassion, freedom from afflictions etc, such is a sensible premise, such a thing is beneficial to my wellbeing. It does not mean depend on intellectual analysis for everything because intellectual analysis itself cannot produce insight.

Bahiya was praised by Buddha for not pestering him with dharma qns but simply put his advice to practice and see things for himself. Far from unsatisfactory, the Buddha is setting him up as a good example for others to follow. You may see it as unsatisfactory but I see no reason why - since whatever the case, one wakes up and that is the point. One realizes the true nature of reality and is liberated.

The true activity of true compassion is in waking people up, in any way that can work. It is not limited by your conceptual limitations of what true compassion should be. Zen master hitting his student is also compassion.

Edited January 11, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 11, 2012

Buddha is not saying not to have faith. He is saying, don't blindly believe but check if it is sensible. If people say killing infidels is good, don't just accept it but check if it is sensible and beneficial. But if something is sensible then put your faith in that person and follow the path.

Did you read the quote? The first sentence says precisely to not trust in the teacher/person.

So, the basic premise that by contemplating, meditating, investigating the three seals lead to dispassion, freedom from afflictions etc, such is a sensible premise, such a thing is beneficial to my wellbeing. It does not mean depend on intellectual analysis for everything because intellectual analysis itself cannot produce insight.

It seems like you don't really understand the place of the intellect in practice. It's not everything, but is a very important aspect of one's being. Again, it isn't just the language that forms the intellect, language is only one expression of it. Our ability to reflect on our own being, to know what it is, to understand what it is, is what our intellect is. Understanding and awareness can be said, imo, to be inseparable: to be alive is to know.

Bahiya was praised by Buddha for not pestering him with dharma qns but simply put his advice to practice and see things for himself. Far from unsatisfactory, the Buddha is setting him up as a good example for others to follow. You may see it as unsatisfactory but I see no reason why - since whatever the case, one wakes up and that is the point. One realizes the true nature of reality and is liberated.

The true activity of true compassion is in waking people up, in any way that can work. It is not limited by your conceptual limitations of what true compassion should be. Zen master hitting his student is also compassion.

You rely too heavily on scripture, which is incidentally, what the Buddha says one shouldn't do in that quote. The scriptures were all written at least 400 years after the Buddha died. Do you know how long that is for teachings to be passed on? Even via chanting and memory? Especially when the sangha was divided into numerous sects? (Think back 400 years from now for perspective on how long this is). Even right after the Buddha died, the order of the sangha shifted immediately. So it's not sensible to rely on the scriptures word by word, but to take the main ideas from them and integrate them into your own path, see if it makes sense and if it's practical. Whether or not Bahiya is praised or not is of little importance.

The quote of the Kalama Sutta is not significant because the Buddha said it, but because it's a very sensible position to approaching spirituality among a vast sea of people who claim to know the truth, to be masters. You were born to Buddhism so this idea may not resonate with you as much, but seekers, particularly from the West, have searched for their own path, and the only reliance one has is one's own reason and sensibilities. Bahiya's enlightenment is unsatisfactory because he just followed directions like a dog; he may have glimpsed the nature of reality, but that is the limit of his progress because his enlightenment is not his own.

And don't toss in words like "true nature of reality" or "liberation" lightly and believe that the words justify themselves. "True compassion" or "awakening" are all flashy little terms you pick out from Buddhist lingo, but the terms do not give themselves credence. For example you say, "well it doesn't matter because people wake up." Well, that they became awakened is from your own perspective. It's very similar to the usage of the word "God" in Abrahamic religions: "God is our Creator and it's just important that I have now developed an unbending faith in Him. That is the point, I have awakened to his grace." If you study the language of other religions, you realize that the terms like "nature of reality," "liberation," "awakening" are all pretty much meaningless if used only in their own context.

As for your tidbit on compassion, you compassion ironically seems to be dry and an analytically justified one. I don't feel any true "passion" in it at all. Compassion is very much a natural element of being alive. We don't feel empathy because we decided to or because we tell ourselves that it's a duty, but because it's a necessary element that underlies all forms of communication, that we are capable of understanding how someone else feels. IMO, you have a vast amount to learn about compassion because in your own words, you have very little experience with suffering of your own self and others. You don't just take a man and shove "anatta anatta" down his throat. That is not compassion, but a self serving mission.

xabir2005 · January 12, 2012

xabir2005 · January 12, 2012

Lucky7Strikes · January 12, 2012

Partly in reaction to dogmatic religion, partly in subservience to the reigning paradigm of objective scientific knowledge, it has become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that the Buddha's teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify. This interpretation of the sutta, however, forgets that the advice the Buddha gave the Kalamas was contingent upon the understanding that they were not yet prepared to place faith in him and his doctrine; it also forgets that the sutta omits, for that very reason, all mention of right view and of the entire perspective that opens up when right view is acquired. It offers instead the most reasonable counsel on wholesome living possible when the issue of ultimate beliefs has been put into brackets.

....

So this guy is basically saying: "the Buddha taught not to be dogmatic and appeal to scientific knowledge and reason unless it's what he taught. And those relying on their own capacity to reason are just not ready for what I teach, so I'm just teaching them to be self-reliant." Somehow this sounds like a twisted interpretation of a quote that is very clear onto itself. It makes Buddha sound like a manipulative salesman.

And also, none of these "immediately verifiable" Buddhist ethical positions are self evident. This guy seems to think so because, ah of course, he is a Buddhist and think everything that's Buddhist is already true. Your arguing against dogma with another dogma. It sounds ridiculous.

Lucky7Strikes · January 12, 2012

Because the truth is not an intellectual position, not a position, but simply the rejection of the falsities of all positions such that true suchness is revealed, it is not a subject that can be comprehended by logic or the intellect. But with insight discernment, with wisdom, one can penetrate it in a moment of awakening. And that is through contemplative contemplation and not mere intellectual reasoning. Intellectual reasoning can help to some extent and that is why there are teachings like Madhyamika. However an inferred understanding is not the same as an experiential awakening.

What is the difference between "contemplative contemplation" ( :blink: whatever that is) and use of logic and intellect. Give me an example. Hint: if you are contemplating without using logic, your depending on vision and appearance. So someone on acid can also be said to be contemplating.

Again, stop using these flashy words, "wisdom" "insight discennment" believing that they are credible as definition onto themselves. They are not. They are quite meaningless the way you are using them.

Also if you are rejecting falsities you are doing that on the basis of another position. You are using logical procession here without realizing that you are.

The Buddha said: "This Dhamma which I have realized is indeed profound, difficult to perceive, difficult to comprehend, tranquil, exalted, not within the sphere of logic, subtle, and is to be understood by the wise. These beings are attached to material pleasures. This causally connected 'Dependent Arising' is a subject which is difficult to comprehend. And this Nibbāna -- the cessation of the conditioned, the abandoning of all passions, the destruction of craving, the non-attachment, and the cessation -- is also a matter not easily comprehensible""

Candrakirti states, "The very coming to rest, the non-functioning, of perceptions as signs of all named things, is itself nirvana.... When verbal assertions cease, named things are in repose; and the ceasing to function in discursive thought is ultimate serenity."

....Ok, I'm going to say this for the next one millionth time.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT THE BUDDHA OR WHAT CANDRAKIRTI TAUGHT. (the only reason I brought up the Kalama sutta was because you said the Buddha didn't teach reasoning or analysis) OK? YOU"RE THE ONE WALKING AROUND HERE TELLING EVERYONE YOU ARE ENLIGHTENED AND EVERYONE ELSE IS DELUDED. SO STAND FOR YOUR OWN AWAKENING INSTEAD OF RESORTING TO THE BUDDHA'S AUTHORITY.

If your support at the end of the day is going to be, "it is so because the Buddha said so." Then fine. Then your realization is dependent on your faith in the Buddha.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

wowee · January 12, 2012

It's like telling an educationally sub-normal child not to do it, but he keeps repeating it again and again. Hilarious!

xabir2005 · January 12, 2012

I like to quote Buddha because it so happens he often express my realization and experience well. And its not like I simply quote without explaining.

Contemplating by investigating your own experience, challenging your views of inside, outside, border, subject and object, agency, inherency of objects are al contemplation. Closely observing phenomena to discern their impermanence, arising and cessation is also contemplation. Contemplating if seeing always is just the sight without seer, challenging the longheld belief of an agent behind perception, is also contemplation. But it is based on looking or investigating one's experience, not logical reasoning.

Seeing the falsity or delusional-ity of a position is not the same as establishing a new position. It just means you saw that your position is delusional and untrue. This is not a new conceptual position but a seeing through of a position.

Edited January 12, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 13, 2012

I like to quote Buddha because it so happens he often express my realization and experience well. And its not like I simply quote without explaining.

Bullshit. That quote above basically, says, "this is hard to understand." So you can't say that in your own words or did you just quote that to lend your claims more authority? It was unnecessary. And if you can't express yourself better than a 2000 year quote passed orally for 400 years, how "awakened" is that?

Same with Candrakirti's quote. It says nothing at all that special. You just used it to give your claims authority.

Contemplating by investigating your own experience, challenging your views of inside, outside, border, subject and object, agency, inherency of objects are al contemplation. Closely observing phenomena to discern their impermanence, arising and cessation is also contemplation. Contemplating if seeing always is just the sight without seer, challenging the longheld belief of an agent behind perception, is also contemplation. But it is based on looking or investigating one's experience, not logical reasoning.

And you don't see how your own mind processes all this through observation and logic? Then you don't even understand your mind at all.

I'll give you an example from the one you listed above. When investigating the location of oneself, we must first consider the logic behind "locating the one who is doing the locating." It is not merely, "let's look for where I am." That is a simpleton's way of trusting too much in one's sense experience, and can easily result in a faulty conclusion (note the usage of logic here linking observation to conclusion). One must also assess the legitimacy of the process of looking. This is like examining the procedure of "finding one's eyes with vision." If you go head on with this without giving it a thought, you will come to a false conclusion that the eyes are not located anywhere after trying to "see your eyes." You must use logic in this case gathered from observation and knowledge of linguistic definitions: location is something that is relatively defined, and relativity necessiates more than one component. Hence one cannot locate the eyes using the primary agent, namely the eyes, because one cannot establish a relativity with one agent. See the usage of logic in all this linking observations and examining one's actions not in and of themselves but outside of it as well?

It is the same as impermanence. One should not just use observation of impermanence to conclude that all things are impermanent (again, see the use of logic when transitioning from sample observation to a general claim). One should ponder the nature of that observation. Impermanence is seen, but what is it that lets us see it? As in, if indeed there was merely impermanence, shouldn't we not be able to observe it at all anyway, since movement is noticed with relative stillness? So you bring in the knowledge of movement and stillness to your basic observations of impermanence. All this linking is done through categorized observations, i.e. reasoning, that connects them into a coherent general claim about something to be applied to new experiences. Don't take these examples literally, but I'm showing you how reason is a very necessary component of the mind and observations it makes.

Contemplating if seeing always is just the sight without seer, challenging the longheld belief of an agent behind perception, is also contemplation.

And you still don't see the use of logic here? Your insights are pitiful. You made a series of observations and drew a concluding claim of them. That is the use of logic. Even the fact that you chose to depend on your observation is a choice made through a logical stance.

Seeing the falsity or delusional-ity of a position is not the same as establishing a new position. It just means you saw that your position is delusional and untrue. This is not a new conceptual position but a seeing through of a position.

Not true. You are denying something on the grounds of another position, that is, it's falsity. If someone comes and tell you that he has seen a unicorn, and you deny that claim, you are doing so on your previous position of never having seen a unicorn in your life. Or perhaps it's by the reason that the person is untrustworthy, and that untrust triumphs his claims of having seen an unicorn.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · January 13, 2012

Bullshit. That quote above basically, says, "this is hard to understand." So you can't say that in your own words or did you just quote that to lend your claims more authority? It was unnecessary. And if you can't express yourself better than a 2000 year quote passed orally for 400 years, how "awakened" is that? Same with Candrakirti's quote. It says nothing at all that special. You just used it to give your claims authority.

I think you missed the point, or rather, overlooked certain points. Hard to understand is one thing, which is also important because people tend to oversimplify things - simplifying things may be good for certain things, but not when it comes to Buddha's dharma (unless you are just introducing things to beginner and putting things as-it-is might scare them off).

But don't overlook this point: "not within the sphere of logic", "The very coming to rest, the non-functioning, of perceptions as signs of all named things, is itself nirvana".

Nirvana, wisdom, is not the gaining of a new point of view or position or view.... It is the cessation of all views, positions, intellectual concepts, etc... it is the cessation of all forms of clinging. Right view is no view. As Buddha taught, he teaches the dharma for the purpose of abandonment, and even right view is merely a raft to be ultimately let go of, not for a purpose of clinging to a position. In other words, right view is a form of non-asserting negation, like fire that burns the candle leaving no traces of candle or the fire itself in the end.

I'll give you an example from the one you listed above. When investigating the location of oneself, we must first consider the logic behind "locating the one who is doing the locating." It is not merely, "let's look for where I am." That is a simpleton's way of trusting too much in one's sense experience, and can easily result in a faulty conclusion (note the usage of logic here linking observation to conclusion). One must also assess the legitimacy of the process of looking. This is like examining the procedure of "finding one's eyes with vision." If you go head on with this without giving it a thought, you will come to a false conclusion that the eyes are not located anywhere after trying to "see your eyes." You must use logic in this case gathered from observation and knowledge of linguistic definitions: location is something that is relatively defined, and relativity necessiates more than one component. Hence one cannot locate the eyes using the primary agent, namely the eyes, because one cannot establish a relativity with one agent. See the usage of logic in all this linking observations and examining one's actions not in and of themselves but outside of it as well?

I never said 'lets look for where I am'.

I said, investigate if experience is simply a flow of self-luminous experiencing without an experiencer. Thorough investigation will show that yes, indeed, experience experiences itself without an experiencer, there is in seeing always just the seen without a seer.

I will paste a conversation by Ciaran I just read today.

As in, if indeed there was merely impermanence, shouldn't we not be able to observe it at all anyway, since movement is noticed with relative stillness?

The answer to this is: I do not perceive movement at all. There is no movement in impermanence. Movement is only perceived through the delusional consciousness of duality.

Posted this some time ago:

Movement is perceived when it is falsely perceived that there is some unchanging self-entity that links two moments together.

For example as a bystanding observer on the roadside, it appears that a car quickly moves through your field of vision. So it appears that you, as an observer, observed an object moving across. What if however, you are on a vehicle moving at the same speed as the other vehicle, do you perceive movement of another vehicle? No. Why? Because the observer is now at the same speed as the observed object, and movement only occurs as a contrast between the unmoving subject and a moved object.

But what if there is no observer at all (which is what we realised to have been always the case in the insight into anatta - the observer being merely a constructed illusion) - with no reference point, is there movement? No. Because movement requires a dualistic contrast, and without a perceiving subject, perceptions have no reference point to compare with. In fact there is no 'perceived object' either - there is just disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing images that has no link to each other. Without a self and an object, only unsupported and disjoint images, each manifestation being complete and whole in itself with no dualistic contrast, transience reveals itself to be non-moving. You don't say "You" walked from Point A to Point Z. Because there is no 'You' there to link or observe movement. Instead, Point A is Point A, Point B is point B, and so on... Z is Z, whole and complete in itself. Each moment, ever fresh, whole, complete, and leaving no trace the next moment.

As for defilements: defilements only arise along with the sense of self. If the sense of self arise, there is reference points, (sense of self itself being merely a clinging to a falsely constructed reference to a person, a self) and so there can be a perceived movement. If there is no sense of self/Self, then also there is no sense of movement (such as during a PCE, even though PCE is just experience and need not imply realization). We realise that any sense of a movement is merely a dualistic referencing and contrasting, a referencing that asserts an entity (a subjective observer) that links the process and sees movement. It is not attention in and of itself (which as you agreed is necessary for daily normal functioning) that causes perception of movement, but the delusion of an inherent self and of dualistic perception.

And you still don't see the use of logic here? Your insights are pitiful. You made a series of observations and drew a concluding claim of them. That is the use of logic. Even the fact that you chose to depend on your observation is a choice made through a logical stance.

None at all. My insight has nothing to do with inference made after observation. There is no inference involved. It is a clear realization of a delusion as delusion - that the notion of a self or a seer or agent is delusional, in seeing just the seen, the seer-seeing-seen framework is delusional. Like solving a picture puzzle and noticing the figure didn't need inference, you either see it or you don't. No amount of inference will make you solve the picture puzzle. Of course this is just an analogy. Edited January 13, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 13, 2012

http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2011/12/1000-well-spent.html Edited January 13, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 14, 2012

I think you missed the point, or rather, overlooked certain points. Hard to understand is one thing, which is also important because people tend to oversimplify things - simplifying things may be good for certain things, but not when it comes to Buddha's dharma (unless you are just introducing things to beginner and putting things as-it-is might scare them off).

But don't overlook this point: "not within the sphere of logic", "The very coming to rest, the non-functioning, of perceptions as signs of all named things, is itself nirvana".

I think you missed the point. So you quoted the buddha saying "not within the sphere of logic" to give authority to your claims. Again, the quote was unnecessary except your efforts to lean on the name of the Buddha, as a mere voice-hearer. It is pathetic. .

Secondly, logic does not necessarily involve signs or names, but it does involve categorization and the seeing phenomena is relations, for instance, cause and effect. Again, why the candrakirti quote? You can't put those thoughts together in your head, or are you leaning on someone else's words because you deem them respectable?

Nirvana, wisdom, is not the gaining of a new point of view or position or view.... It is the cessation of all views, positions, intellectual concepts, etc... it is the cessation of all forms of clinging. Right view is no view. As Buddha taught, he teaches the dharma for the purpose of abandonment, and even right view is merely a raft to be ultimately let go of, not for a purpose of clinging to a position. In other words, right view is a form of non-asserting negation, like fire that burns the candle leaving no traces of candle or the fire itself in the end.

I know you said that. So I typed a reply. Why don't you reply to what I wrote instead of writing the same damn thing over. There is no such thing as a non-asserting negation. You negate something on certain grounds.

Fire burns the candle and becomes smoke. Find some good example where something truly disappears. Oh wait, do remember the law of conservation of energy.

I never said 'lets look for where I am'.

So now you don't even know what you are writing.

"Contemplating by investigating your own experience, challenging your views of inside, outside, border, subject and object, agency, inherency of objects are al contemplation.

If in this contemplation you are not mindful of one's own location, you are not contemplating enough angles.

I said, investigate if experience is simply a flow of self-luminous experiencing without an experiencer. Thorough investigation will show that yes, indeed, experience experiences itself without an experiencer, there is in seeing always just the seen without a seer.

That's not an "investigation." You already presumed the "flow of self-luminous experiencing without an experiencer" and then you just "confirmed" it. You basically catered your vision to be in line with your presumption and made an unsupported confirmation. It's an experimental error where you are tampering the procedure to fit the hypothesis.

The answer to this is: I do not perceive movement at all. There is no movement in impermanence. Movement is only perceived through the delusional consciousness of duality.

Then how do you see dependent origination directly? Dependent origination is seeing causes and conditions. Causes and conditions is movement of phenomena and categorization of relativity. Memory is also seeing of movement seen from relative position of the present and the past.

Posted this some time ago:

Movement is perceived when it is falsely perceived that there is some unchanging self-entity that links two moments together.

For example as a bystanding observer on the roadside, it appears that a car quickly moves through your field of vision. So it appears that you, as an observer, observed an object moving across. What if however, you are on a vehicle moving at the same speed as the other vehicle, do you perceive movement of another vehicle? No. Why? Because the observer is now at the same speed as the observed object, and movement only occurs as a contrast between the unmoving subject and a moved object.

But what if there is no observer at all (which is what we realised to have been always the case in the insight into anatta - the observer being merely a constructed illusion) - with no reference point, is there movement? No. Because movement requires a dualistic contrast, and without a perceiving subject, perceptions have no reference point to compare with. In fact there is no 'perceived object' either - there is just disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing images that has no link to each other. Without a self and an object, only unsupported and disjoint images, each manifestation being complete and whole in itself with no dualistic contrast, transience reveals itself to be non-moving. You don't say "You" walked from Point A to Point Z. Because there is no 'You' there to link or observe movement. Instead, Point A is Point A, Point B is point B, and so on... Z is Z, whole and complete in itself. Each moment, ever fresh, whole, complete, and leaving no trace the next moment.

:blink: :blink:

So how do you identify a car as it passes from moment to the next? Or me as I'm talking to you? Or even this sentence? So when you read this sentence, you won't be able to decipher it at all huh. Since each letter, "S" "O" "W" "H" "E" would all be their own manifestation unlinked to the next letter? Your preposterous statements make you sound like a new age nutjob.

And what exactly establishes these units of manifestation as I have mentioned earlier? What makes phenomena A all complete in itself separate from phenomena B? a "milisecond" well that's just a human designation on a period of time.

None at all. My insight has nothing to do with inference made after observation. There is no inference involved. It is a clear realization of a delusion as delusion - that the notion of a self or a seer or agent is delusional, in seeing just the seen, the seer-seeing-seen framework is delusional. Like solving a picture puzzle and noticing the figure didn't need inference, you either see it or you don't. No amount of inference will make you solve the picture puzzle. Of course this is just an analogy.

....Ok...give me an example of realization that comes from series of observations that is not made with inference or induction. I'll give you a hint: you can't.

You are very much caught in shallow appearance and have not investigated deeper into them. Go do more insight meditation, instead of being lazy and indoctrinating yourself repeatedly with "in seeing just seen, blah blah"

For your puzzle example, of course there is the process of inference! You have through experience of certain figures that make up the puzzle (let's say there's a picture of an elephant, then you have to know that such a thing as a elephant exists), combined with the knowledge of the whole puzzle picture, you are able to identify where each piece fits. The knowledge of how the pieces come together don't just automatically come together from the puzzle itself. It comes from a complex process in your mind. It's also not some see it or don't process. You obviously haven't put together puzzles where you've put the wrong piece in the picture.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · January 14, 2012

I know you said that. So I typed a reply. Why don't you reply to what I wrote instead of writing the same damn thing over. There is no such thing as a non-asserting negation. You negate something on certain grounds.

Negation only applies to delusion. When there is no delusion, there is no negation necessary. Therefore there is no position being put forth. It is not for example, my position is A, therefore B and C is wrong. It is that, A, B, C, are all delusional. I do not propose the A is non-existent, or existent. I only say that the view that A is existent is false, without proposing that A is non-existent.

If you do not have delusion, there is no need to negate, the negation of intrinsic nature is merely of therapeutic value pertaining to the delusion of sentient beings. It is like healing the cataracts of sentient being that produce deluded view.

I do not have positions. And please don't make nonsensical deductions like "That I do not have position is a position", for that would be as ridiculous as saying "That I have no cheese is a cheese".

Fire burns the candle and becomes smoke. Find some good example where something truly disappears. Oh wait, do remember the law of conservation of energy.

Ultimately, nothing becomes another thing. Anatta and emptiness deconstructs the view of 'something becoming something'.

So now you don't even know what you are writing.

"Contemplating by investigating your own experience, challenging your views of inside, outside, border, subject and object, agency, inherency of objects are al contemplation.

If in this contemplation you are not mindful of one's own location, you are not contemplating enough angles.

There is no 'one's location' at all - it is as delusional as 'the location of santa claus', so how can you be mindful of it? However, you can certainly be aware that there is a felt (deluded) sense of self and location. The only way to resolve it is by realization of anatta and emptiness.

That's not an "investigation." You already presumed the "flow of self-luminous experiencing without an experiencer" and then you just "confirmed" it. You basically catered your vision to be in line with your presumption and made an unsupported confirmation. It's an experimental error where you are tampering the procedure to fit the hypothesis.

It is like 'notice the fact that ....' It is a fact that can be noticed. There is no self. It is not a matter of agreeing to it. You are simply looking at your experience as it is, and you discover that the sense of self is utterly delusional, fictional, has no bearing to reality at all. There is no seer seeing the seen, seeing is simply the seen without the seer, you discover that the view 'seer-seeing-seen' is false and delusional.

Then how do you see dependent origination directly? Dependent origination is seeing causes and conditions. Causes and conditions is movement of phenomena and categorization of relativity. Memory is also seeing of movement seen from relative position of the present and the past.

Causes and conditions is not 'movement'. Nothing is a movement. A is not B, but B is a manifestation of all of not-B including A. But it is not the case that A moved into B, because A abides in the phenomenal expression of A and B in B, etc.

Dogen:

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

So how do you identify a car as it passes from moment to the next? Or me as I'm talking to you? Or even this sentence? So when you read this sentence, you won't be able to decipher it at all huh. Since each letter, "S" "O" "W" "H" "E" would all be their own manifestation unlinked to the next letter? Your preposterous statements make you sound like a new age nutjob.

Identification is all conventional truth on the pre or uninvestigated level. When you realize ultimate truth, conventional truth no longer applies, or is seen through as delusional. But on the conventional, deluded level of conventions which is how we communicate, we can talk about a self as if it remains the same self from yesterday to today, we can talk about objects, etc as if they 'exist', and so on. But that doesn't mean they are ultimately true.

I don't identify anything.

And what exactly establishes these units of manifestation as I have mentioned earlier? What makes phenomena A all complete in itself separate from phenomena B? a "milisecond" well that's just a human designation on a period of time.

You don't need to establish A and B. You just need to deconstruct the view that links A with B. At this point everything is felt disjoint in the sense that everything is spontaneous, insubstantial, bubble-like without a self linking manifestation. There is no self linking A and B. Of course even A and B is not truly existing, but first you should realize the emptiness of self. Then after emptiness of self is realized, you go on to realize emptiness of objects. Then you see that A is just an appearance without a truly existing A-ness. B is without B-ness. All is illusory like a dream, like mirage, like a magician's trick.

....Ok...give me an example of realization that comes from series of observations that is not made with inference or induction. I'll give you a hint: you can't.

The discovery of I AM is not made from inference. Non-dual is not made from inference. Anatta is not made from inference. Emptiness is not made for inference. I'll give you a hint: no true realization is made from inference.

You are very much caught in shallow appearance and have not investigated deeper into them. Go do more insight meditation, instead of being lazy and indoctrinating yourself repeatedly with "in seeing just seen, blah blah"

I've done my investigation and relying on my own knowledge now. My practice is now not done for enlightenment but an expression of enlightenment. In other words, I used to sit with a purpose, now in sitting it is just sitting, the sound of air con humming, the cooling sensation on my skin, and so on. That alone is buddha-nature/primordial purity/enlightenment.

On the other hand if you still have uninvestigated notions or views of inherent existence or self, you should continue investigating until they are seen through in realization.

For your puzzle example, of course there is the process of inference! You have through experience of certain figures that make up the puzzle (let's say there's a picture of an elephant, then you have to know that such a thing as a elephant exists), combined with the knowledge of the whole puzzle picture, you are able to identify where each piece fits. The knowledge of how the pieces come together don't just automatically come together from the puzzle itself. It comes from a complex process in your mind. It's also not some see it or don't process. You obviously haven't put together puzzles where you've put the wrong piece in the picture.

All inference process are pre-realization... For example in self-inquiry, many thoughts arise like 'I am so and so'... but maybe through an inference or just a sheer moment of clarity you see that such notions are arbitrary and mentally created, so you drop them and continue investigating until you discover the I AMness prior to all concepts. But it does not mean I AMness is discovered inferrentially - it is a non-conceptual, non-inferred certainty of Being. The inference part is not even necessary as some people don't even go through that inference process, some people awake to it spontaneously, or whatever. But if the inference part is necessary to let you see the ridiculousness of some of the concepts then I say go ahead, but don't forget that intellectual reasoning etc has nothing to do with the real self-inquiry that results in a non-conceptual moment of seeing as it is.

In other words you can engage in endless reasoning and inference due to the endless scenarios and imagination of the mind for a hundred years and still not wake up to I AM, or you can take a short moment and truly, with deep curiosity, inquire and investigate what is the truth of my Being prior to all the bullshit nonsense of the mind. That is all that is required for self-realization.

Edited January 14, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 14, 2012

Negation only applies to delusion. When there is no delusion, there is no negation necessary. Therefore there is no position being put forth. It is not for example, my position is A, therefore B and C is wrong. It is that, A, B, C, are all delusional. I do not propose the A is non-existent, or existent. I only say that the view that A is existent is false, without proposing that A is non-existent.

If you do not have delusion, there is no need to negate, the negation of intrinsic nature is merely of therapeutic value pertaining to the delusion of sentient beings. It is like healing the cataracts of sentient being that produce deluded view.

I do not have positions. And please don't make nonsensical deductions like "That I do not have position is a position", for that would be as ridiculous as saying "That I have no cheese is a cheese".

Are you not arguing for a position now? One does not need to consistently put their positions forth, but they do defend it, and they do utilize it. You are saying A, B, C are all delusional based on another position. The very fact that you label one experience delusion and another clarity means you have a point of view of what is the correct perspective and what is an incorrect perspective.

And are you really that incapable of using language? :rolleyes: To have a position is a verbal description of an act that describes itself, to have cheese points to the possession of an object. The former, to give you an example is, "I am writing a sentence" or "I am not writing a sentence." In both instance the meaning of the language conveys the very expression. Moreover, to not have a position means precisely that: it means you do not know what is true and what is false, that you do not take sides. This is clearly not the case with you, since you are arguing for a particular case, of a ignorance vs. clarity.

There is no 'one's location' at all - it is as delusional as 'the location of santa claus', so how can you be mindful of it? However, you can certainly be aware that there is a felt (deluded) sense of self and location. The only way to resolve it is by realization of anatta and emptiness.

Go trace this part of the conversation back. I was pointing to your inattentiveness to what you yourself write. And I answered this point in the two posts beforehand.

It is like 'notice the fact that ....' It is a fact that can be noticed. There is no self. It is not a matter of agreeing to it. You are simply looking at your experience as it is, and you discover that the sense of self is utterly delusional, fictional, has no bearing to reality at all. There is no seer seeing the seen, seeing is simply the seen without the seer, you discover that the view 'seer-seeing-seen' is false and delusional.

Ah ha! Notice it! So we come back to it again, "hey! just look!" It is your only pseudo wisdom.

Causes and conditions is not 'movement'. Nothing is a movement. A is not B, but B is a manifestation of all of not-B including A. But it is not the case that A moved into B, because A abides in the phenomenal expression of A and B in B, etc.

...and what exactly separates A and B? And how does one transition from A to B without movement, hmm? By now I think you are highly delusional.

I don't care about what Dogen wrote. Holy crap, how many times do I have to ask you to just stand for your own opinions instead of piggybacking on dead people?

Identification is all conventional truth on the pre or uninvestigated level. When you realize ultimate truth, conventional truth no longer applies, or is seen through as delusional. But on the conventional, deluded level of conventions which is how we communicate, we can talk about a self as if it remains the same self from yesterday to today, we can talk about objects, etc as if they 'exist', and so on. But that doesn't mean they are ultimately true.

So you do conceive of conventional truth. And conventional truth involves movement. ...so you do perceive movement.

I don't identify anything.

Then you probably can't function in daily life.

You don't need to establish A and B. You just need to deconstruct the view that links A with B. At this point everything is felt disjoint in the sense that everything is spontaneous, insubstantial, bubble-like without a self linking manifestation. There is no self linking A and B. Of course even A and B is not truly existing, but first you should realize the emptiness of self. Then after emptiness of self is realized, you go on to realize emptiness of objects. Then you see that A is just an appearance without a truly existing A-ness. B is without B-ness. All is illusory like a dream, like mirage, like a magician's trick.

So you establish A and B to deny the movement and connection of phenomena. And you deny A and B with dependent origination, i.e. knowledge of cause and conditions, i.e. the connection to other phenomena. Do you see what you are doing here? You are being very ignorant about your own process.

You are basically denying a position C by establishing position D and then you are denying position D by re-establishing C (which was negated by D ). You are being a total fool.

The discovery of I AM is not made from inference. Non-dual is not made from inference. Anatta is not made from inference. Emptiness is not made for inference. I'll give you a hint: no true realization is made from inference.

I think you need more hints: inference means to make an observation and make a conclusion from those observations.

Did you make an observation of these qualities of experience? Like luminosity, directly experienced it? Then did you realize that it is always the nature of all experiences? Good. You made an inference from a series of observations that now applies generally to a greater sample.

I've done my investigation and relying on my own knowledge now. My practice is now not done for enlightenment but an expression of enlightenment. In other words, I used to sit with a purpose, now in sitting it is just sitting, the sound of air con humming, the cooling sensation on my skin, and so on. That alone is buddha-nature/primordial purity/enlightenment.

Too bad. I have bad news for you. You are in a serious hole of self delusion you likely won't dig out of for a very very long time, and I have probably shortened that time by a significant amount through this discussion.

All inference process are pre-realization... For example in self-inquiry, many thoughts arise like 'I am so and so'... but maybe through an inference or just a sheer moment of clarity you see that such notions are arbitrary and mentally created, so you drop them and continue investigating until you discover the I AMness prior to all concepts. But it does not mean I AMness is discovered inferrentially - it is a non-conceptual, non-inferred certainty of Being. The inference part is not even necessary as some people don't even go through that inference process, some people awake to it spontaneously, or whatever. But if the inference part is necessary to let you see the ridiculousness of some of the concepts then I say go ahead, but don't forget that intellectual reasoning etc has nothing to do with the real self-inquiry that results in a non-conceptual moment of seeing as it is.

In other words you can engage in endless reasoning and inference due to the endless scenarios and imagination of the mind for a hundred years and still not wake up to I AM, or you can take a short moment and truly, with deep curiosity, inquire and investigate what is the truth of my Being prior to all the bullshit nonsense of the mind. That is all that is required for self-realization.

...LISTEN! ARE YOU READING! GOOD. I AM GOING TO WRITE THIS FOR LITERALLY THE FOURTH TIME. INFERENCE, LOGIC, DEDUCTION, ARE ALL PROCESSES THAT DO NOT NECESSITATE MIND CHATTER, ALSO KNOWN AS LANGUAGE.

Ok?

Your idea of logic and inference seems very narrow and careless. Our mind makes deduction instinctively, such as our instinctive reaction to pain that we had experienced before hand. I'm not going to say anything more on this because I want you to try to actually investigate this aspect by yourself. But by now I'm not sure you are even capable.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · January 14, 2012

Was randomly going through some old conversations with Thusness. Found an old convo dated 7 April 2011:

(8:40 PM) Thusness: it is very difficult to move from substantialist non-dual to anatta

even after arising insight of anatta, there is still this problem

(8:40 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:41 PM) Thusness: very often u need to have clarity in DO to rid it...that is using DO to refine the experience of anatta

so when a person undergoes awareness practice until a certain phase (non-dual), it is very very important to keep instilling the right view

(8:42 PM) Thusness: keep breaking the essence

for this, a certain amount of faith in the teacher is very important

(8:43 PM) AEN: ic..

(8:43 PM) Thusness: otherwise one will not be able to progress to the next phase

(8:44 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:44 PM) Thusness: even if u have undergone the experience, u will not be able to realize anatta

until practitioners realized that it is not necessary to have 'essence' at all...it is just simply a distorted view

(8:45 PM) AEN: the experience of D.O.?

(8:46 PM) Thusness: no anatta

(8:46 PM) AEN: oh icic

experience of anatta like a glimpse of no mind experience?

(8:46 PM) Thusness: yeah

(8:46 PM) AEN: ic..

(8:46 PM) Thusness: like luckystrike...

(8:46 PM) AEN: yeah

(8:46 PM) Thusness: there is the experience of no mind

(8:47 PM) Thusness: so for u, there must be willingness to let go of the 'wrong view' entirely

then with the experience of no-mind and realization, the adoption of the view carries u...until u perfect the experience

then the doubts is completely gone

ur entire experience transcend the entire idea of 'essence'

the center is completely gone...just flat, disjoint, unsupported, dimensionless and pure experience

manifested as whatever arises

this is very important and must take note

otherwise u will not be able to advice correctly

(8:50 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:01 PM) Thusness: in another 1-2 yrs, u will be master of insights...lol

(9:01 PM) AEN: lol

(9:39 PM) Thusness: why not make ur e-journal permanent on the side bar

(9:39 PM) AEN: ic

under where

must reads?

(9:40 PM) Thusness: below total page count

before must read

put ur e-book

can?

(9:42 PM) AEN: wah create a new column just for it haha

(9:43 PM) Thusness: haha...since that is ur hardwork

(9:44 PM) AEN: haha i will put it after must reads

(9:51 PM) AEN: added

(9:51 PM) Thusness: lol

(9:52 PM) Thusness: put different color

the heading

(9:53 PM) AEN: har

but white wld be suitable

other colours not so suitable

bcos of background image

(9:53 PM) Thusness: oh...lol

Are you not arguing for a position now? One does not need to consistently put their positions forth, but they do defend it, and they do utilize it. You are saying A, B, C are all delusional based on another position. The very fact that you label one experience delusion and another clarity means you have a point of view of what is the correct perspective and what is an incorrect perspective.

And are you really that incapable of using language? To have a position is a verbal description of an act that describes itself, to have cheese points to the possession of an object. The former, to give you an example is, "I am writing a sentence" or "I am not writing a sentence." In both instance the meaning of the language conveys the very expression. Moreover, to not have a position means precisely that: it means you do not know what is true and what is false, that you do not take sides. This is clearly not the case with you, since you are arguing for a particular case, of a ignorance vs. clarity.

Go trace this part of the conversation back. I was pointing to your inattentiveness to what you yourself write. And I answered this point in the two posts beforehand.

Clarity is simply the absence of delusion, not the presence of a position.

Ah ha! Notice it! So we come back to it again, "hey! just look!" It is your only pseudo wisdom.

A noticing, rather. You can stare blankly whole day, or you can actually notice a fact. That is why three characteristics are taught. You don't just stare blankly or focus on something - that is concentration practice. As Ciaran said, "to discover that orcs from lord of the rings aren't real, you don't just stare out the window, not seeing orcs, and wait for the insight to land". Real realization is not pseudo wisdom.

...and what exactly separates A and B? And how does one transition from A to B without movement, hmm? By now I think you are highly delusional.

When you realize anatta, you realize there is nothing linking A and B. Then when you realize emptiness, you realize there is no A and B at all. But first you have to break the self-view. Otherwise you will see a linking substance, an inherent essence or self.

There is no transition in the sense you think of it, just as there is no soul undergoing reincarnation but doesn't deny rebirth on the conventional level.

In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."

I don't care about what Dogen wrote. Holy crap, how many times do I have to ask you to just stand for your own opinions instead of piggybacking on dead people?

I like to quote people who have much very good expressions of something. Just because you see something, doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a better expression than you do. SO I am borrowing their expression and I don't see why not. It doesn't mean I am unable to express myself but it just means someone may do it better or have done it perfectly. I do not limit myself in any way.

As Thusness said (14th Nov 2010): (5:34:56 PM) Thusness: but some of the expressions are beautiful. Some times just few of these beautiful phrases help to articulate expressions...

(5:35:13 PM) Thusness: and that is what i look for because it is so hard to express.

(5:35:39 PM) AEN: ic..

So you do conceive of conventional truth. And conventional truth involves movement. ...so you do perceive movement.

Then you probably can't function in daily life.

You don't need to conceive of conventional truth to function... you can know conventions purely for understanding and communicating to others, but you do not need to conceive of them mentally.

I never perceive of movement because the sense of self as a dualistic observer which can contrast movement has pretty much disappeared from my life. There is just each moment of manifestation complete in itself, without movement, yet self-releasing (doesn't stay).

So you establish A and B to deny the movement and connection of phenomena.
And you deny A and B with dependent origination, i.e. knowledge of cause and conditions, i.e. the connection to other phenomena. Do you see what you are doing here? You are being very ignorant about your own process.

You are basically denying a position C by establishing position D and then you are denying position D by re-establishing C (which was negated by D ). You are being a total fool.

No you do not establish A and B. It is a deconstruction of a self that links appearance, not an establishment of mind moments. The point about no self linking A and B is not that A and B exist, the point is that there is no linking self, and that in A just A - no seer-seeing-seen, but even A and B are empty.

In actuality there is also no A and B. But first you deconstruct the subjective self view first. It is all a process of deconstruction without any need of establishment of any kind of positions.

Also this is an important point:

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe.

"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..."

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."

- David Loy

I think you need more hints: inference means to make an observation and make a conclusion from those observations.

No, anatta is not a mental (conceptual) conclusion just as I AM realization is not a mental (conceptual) conclusion. Anatta realization rather results in the permanent ending of a previous deluded view and proliferation in a moment of non-conceptual realization.

Did you make an observation of these qualities of experience? Like luminosity, directly experienced it? Then did you realize that it is always the nature of all experiences? Good. You made an inference from a series of observations that now applies generally to a greater sample.

Actually I do not make such an inference. I do not hold on ANY positions at all. Experience is always self-luminously evident and there is no doubt about the luminous essence of experience. 'Luminous essence of experience' is a description of a non-conceptually self-evident fact, not a position. I simply do not have any positions or beliefs about it. It is just that this luminosity is shining right in your face so to speak, you do not need to make any kind of inference at all.

Too bad. I have bad news for you. You are in a serious hole of self delusion you likely won't dig out of for a very very long time, and I have probably shortened that time by a significant amount through this discussion.

You are the one in a serious hole of self delusion in the literalistic sense of it - not realizing anatta, that you won't dig out for a long time unless you take Thusness's advise.

...LISTEN! ARE YOU READING! GOOD. I AM GOING TO WRITE THIS FOR LITERALLY THE FOURTH TIME. INFERENCE, LOGIC, DEDUCTION, ARE ALL PROCESSES THAT DO NOT NECESSITATE MIND CHATTER, ALSO KNOWN AS LANGUAGE.

Ok?

Your idea of logic and inference seems very narrow and careless. Our mind makes deduction instinctively, such as our instinctive reaction to pain that we had experienced before hand. I'm not going to say anything more on this because I want you to try to actually investigate this aspect by yourself. But by now I'm not sure you are even capable.

"Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic."

Spiritual realization has nothing to do with logic, has nothing to do with drawing mental conclusions at all. Whether that conclusion is made consciously or is a conclusion that is latent (therefore instinctual reaction).

Edited January 14, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 15, 2012

I like to quote people who have much very good expressions of something. Just because you see something, doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a better expression than you do. SO I am borrowing their expression and I don't see why not. It doesn't mean I am unable to express myself but it just means someone may do it better or have done it perfectly. I do not limit myself in any way.

Actually it does mean you can't express yourself adequately. Hence you think someone else does it better than you. But the point is, what you quote really isn't all that special, or the wording isn't all that poetic or more detailed. It's just mostly snippets taken out of context to match your own language. And you do it to lend authority to your points, because oooOOH Dogen said it! Candrakirti said it! the Buddha said it! It speaks to your mentality of a follower. The way we communicate reveals very much about our latent characteristics. And your own insecurity regarding the knowledge you say you possess shows how much you feel the need to be verified by figures you deem superior than you are.

You don't need to conceive of conventional truth to function... you can know conventions purely for understanding and communicating to others, but you do not need to conceive of them mentally.

This is where you are wrong. At any given moment, unbeknownst to the conscious mind, the unconscious mind gathers an incredible amount of information to act and react in that moment. Your body, brain, latent tendencies, all are in synchronized movement. You cannot function without conceiving this entirety of your so called "conventional truths." It's never "just the seen," there is an entire subtext happening within a moment that you are choosing to ignore because you are unable to "see it." The conscious mind is not the only event that is happening in a given moment, just as your "seen" is not the only "seen" happening (unless you are a solipsist, in which I will drop this conversation), since there are other conscious beings also. It is not a magic trick as you often phrase it, because it is indeed happening. Events produce effects that are experienced. Other people exist in a consistent manner. Thus, they are very real in that sense.

I never perceive of movement because the sense of self as a dualistic observer which can contrast movement has pretty much disappeared from my life. There is just each moment of manifestation complete in itself, without movement, yet self-releasing (doesn't stay).

Then you're only swimming in the shallow waters. Not only that, you think that's as deep as it gets.

No you do not establish A and B. It is a deconstruction of a self that links appearance, not an establishment of mind moments. The point about no self linking A and B is not that A and B exist, the point is that there is no linking self, and that in A just A - no seer-seeing-seen, but even A and B are empty.

In actuality there is also no A and B. But first you deconstruct the subjective self view first. It is all a process of deconstruction without any need of establishment of any kind of positions.

Uh uh. Now please read this carefully and try to actually understand what I am writing. You are establishing A and B to break the flow of phenomena. You are in fact suggesting that phenomena does not flow, because there are disparate moments of just-A then just-B.

And then you go on to deny the A and B altogether on the basis that phenomena is dependently originated, which suggests a link, a flow, from cause to effect in how moments are perceived. What we deem the cause and what we deem the effect is rather arbitrary: the principle of cause and effect notes a continuation observed from a designated (not inherent) moment A then to moment B. So you say A and B are empty and unestablished. Do you see the problem here? You are using the point you already dismissed (that there is continuation, a link) to counter a point you used to make that initial dismissal.

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe.

"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..."

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."

This means nothing to me. I can very well interpret David Loy's experience in a whole another manner. I think he is justifying his bliss non binding experience with very goofy line of interpreting reality. Like you, the process does not matter, but only the effect, which is the deconstruction of experience to be in a perpetual let-go. How or why experience can be made so, or the methods you used to get there apparently do not matter to you or David Loy. But it does to me.

No, anatta is not a mental (conceptual) conclusion just as I AM realization is not a mental (conceptual) conclusion. Anatta realization rather results in the permanent ending of a previous deluded view and proliferation in a moment of non-conceptual realization.

Inference and conclusion are not properties of concepts. They are also activities of the instinct, of one's awareness. You don't see how inference is in fact, the activity of the non-conceptual that is only often expressed conceptually. You are arguing with the surface, not the root.

Actually I do not make such an inference. I do not hold on ANY positions at all. Experience is always self-luminously evident and there is no doubt about the luminous essence of experience. 'Luminous essence of experience' is a description of a non-conceptually self-evident fact, not a position. I simply do not have any positions or beliefs about it. It is just that this luminosity is shining right in your face so to speak, you do not need to make any kind of inference at all.

So your wisdom is merely explained via visions and appearances? Shining right in your face huh? I remember this type of language in numerous other religious texts and speeches of Gurus. Relying on mere appearances can blind you.

You are the one in a serious hole of self delusion in the literalistic sense of it - not realizing anatta, that you won't dig out for a long time unless you take Thusness's advise.

Not really. I'm not in any serious hole what so ever. In any case what you say may be true, or what vedanta says might be true, or what muslims say may be true, or what christians may be true, or what scientists say may be true. I preserve my own choice to investigate multitudes of possibilities I see that best fits reality. I am open to exploring ideas and practices that may widen my vision. I am filled with questions and uncertainties about what being alive means, of what I am capable of. So I am certainly in no hurry to figure it all out by tomorrow; I don't have an agenda, but I do have a direction.

Yet, the reason why you are becoming entrapped in your vision is because you have thrown away potentialities and choice. You have basically cut off any new roads that will further progress. You will simply be what arises and then ceases because each moment will be contextualized very narrowly only to itself. You will have already reached the limit of your spiritual knowledge. You won't advance any further in deepening your knowledge of the human condition. Maybe you will become an "arhant," a dispassionate and blissful dumb fool, but that would only be a glimpse of the potentials of your being, of what you can know and do. You will become incurable by the disease called emptiness, and your enlightenment will be very shallow.

The current world is not looking for teachers like you. You won't hold to the questions of the Western mind that go beyond what anatta, your idea of dependent origination or even Actual Freedom has to teach.

Ask Thusness how much he truly knows about this world we live in, about the afterlife, about mankind's origins, about the causes of birth and karma, about the possibilities of a human being. He probably doesn't, and accepts a majority of his knowledge of such subjects through his faith in Buddhist teachings. He only knows about the transformation of one's view into a perpetual non-clinging state that ends suffering arising from mental afflictions. This is a great achievement nonetheless, and you can call it a type of enlightenment to non-mental suffering.

However this is only a fraction of what I seek. I seek knowledge and wisdom, which is ultimately power over my own existence.

"Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic."

That's right. And after a bit more investigation, you will realize the the principle of reasoning is an inseparable aspect of knowing and awakening. That to know is equivalent to the experience of awareness as its luminosity. To be is to know and understand.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

xabir2005 · January 15, 2012

Actually it does mean you can't express yourself adequately. Hence you think someone else does it better than you. But the point is, what you quote really isn't all that special, or the wording isn't all that poetic or more detailed. It's just mostly snippets taken out of context to match your own language. And you do it to lend authority to your points, because oooOOH Dogen said it! Candrakirti said it! the Buddha said it! It speaks to your mentality of a follower. The way we communicate reveals very much about our latent characteristics. And your own insecurity regarding the knowledge you say you possess shows how much you feel the need to be verified by figures you deem superior than you are.

I have no insecurity about my knowledge especially when it comes to anatta and emptiness. However I am not omniscient like a Buddha.

This is where you are wrong. At any given moment, unbeknownst to the conscious mind, the unconscious mind gathers an incredible amount of information to act and react in that moment. Your body, brain, latent tendencies, all are in synchronized movement. You cannot function without conceiving this entirety of your so called "conventional truths." It's never "just the seen," there is an entire subtext happening within a moment that you are choosing to ignore because you are unable to "see it." The conscious mind is not the only event that is happening in a given moment, just as your "seen" is not the only "seen" happening (unless you are a solipsist, in which I will drop this conversation), since there are other conscious beings also. It is not a magic trick as you often phrase it, because it is indeed happening. Events produce effects that are experienced. Other people exist in a consistent manner. Thus, they are very real in that sense.

It is not necessary to conceive 'conventional truths' since 'conventional truth' is simply a false way of perceiving reality. There is no truth to it. You do not need to conceive 'there is an existing weather' - just as you do not need to conceive 'there is an existing self' - there is none. But this does not mean spontaneous action to avoid being drenched by the rain cannot happen, but it does not happen due to conceiving a conventional truth which is ultimately untrue. The Buddha's actions are totally spontaneous and non-conceptual.

Then you're only swimming in the shallow waters. Not only that, you think that's as deep as it gets.

Anything more than freedom from proliferation is delusion. Anything other than the middle way is extreme.

Uh uh. Now please read this carefully and try to actually understand what I am writing. You are establishing A and B to break the flow of phenomena. You are in fact suggesting that phenomena does not flow, because there are disparate moments of just-A then just-B.

And then you go on to deny the A and B altogether on the basis that phenomena is dependently originated, which suggests a link, a flow, from cause to effect in how moments are perceived.

The link is a conventionally observed phenomena so on that level it can be accepted.

But ultimately, what dependently originates is empty. Both cause and effect are illusory, there is no real arising, and no real cause.

What we deem the cause and what we deem the effect is rather arbitrary: the principle of cause and effect notes a continuation observed from a designated (not inherent) moment A then to moment B. So you say A and B are empty and unestablished. Do you see the problem here? You are using the point you already dismissed (that there is continuation, a link) to counter a point you used to make that initial dismissal.

Cause and effect is illusory.

But even at the anatta level, you already know that there is no continuation of A to B in causality - in other words as said earlier, when rebirth takes place, it is the psychophysical phenomena that 'reborns' but it is NOT the same psychophysical phenomenon as this birth. Rather, the karmic cause of this birth ripens as a unique, new, psychophysical phenomenon. There is no real continuity of any entity at all. B is not A, it is utterly new and unique.

Inference and conclusion are not properties of concepts. They are also activities of the instinct, of one's awareness.

You don't see how inference is in fact, the activity of the non-conceptual that is only often expressed conceptually. You are arguing with the surface, not the root.

Inference cannot be made without concepts.

If a spontaneous action arise without concepts, it is not via inference.

So your wisdom is merely explained via visions and appearances? Shining right in your face huh? I remember this type of language in numerous other religious texts and speeches of Gurus. Relying on mere appearances can blind you.

Not vision. Anyway there is no luminosity apart from appearance, from manifestation.

Not really. I'm not in any serious hole what so ever. In any case what you say may be true, or what vedanta says might be true, or what muslims say may be true, or what christians may be true, or what scientists say may be true. I preserve my own choice to investigate multitudes of possibilities I see that best fits reality. I am open to exploring ideas and practices that may widen my vision. I am filled with questions and uncertainties about what being alive means, of what I am capable of. So I am certainly in no hurry to figure it all out by tomorrow; I don't have an agenda, but I do have a direction.

Yet, the reason why you are becoming entrapped in your vision is because you have thrown away potentialities and choice.

I have seen through a delusion as a delusion. It is permanent. The fetter of self-view is permanently ended, but it does not mean I have achieved the final goal.

You have basically cut off any new roads that will further progress.

My further progress is in allowing right view to burn away all my latent tendencies and defilements so that I may achieve complete liberation, and further the omniscience of Buddhahood.

You will simply be what arises and then ceases because each moment will be contextualized very narrowly only to itself. You will have already reached the limit of your spiritual knowledge. You won't advance any further in deepening your knowledge of the human condition. Maybe you will become an "arhant," a dispassionate and blissful dumb fool, but that would only be a glimpse of the potentials of your being, of what you can know and do. You will become incurable by the disease called emptiness, and your enlightenment will be very shallow.

No arhant have the delusion of self, much less a Bodhisattva or a Buddha.

There can be no disease of emptiness unless I hold on to a position of non-existence. I do not, as I said, emptiness is a non-asserting rejection of existents (and the other extremes) without positing anything. Like the raft that has been discarded, the fire that ceases after burning away the candle, I do not have any notions or positions of emptiness whatsoever.

Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

xabir2005 · January 15, 2012

The current world is not looking for teachers like you. You won't hold to the questions of the Western mind that go beyond what anatta, your idea of dependent origination or even Actual Freedom has to teach.

All metaphysical assertions can be solved/resolved/dissolved through the insight of anatta and emptiness. But things like detailed knowledge of karma, etc, maybe only a Buddha has.

Ask Thusness how much he truly knows about this world we live in, about the afterlife, about mankind's origins, about the causes of birth and karma, about the possibilities of a human being.

Only a Buddha with omniscience is able to know in details all those matters.

I am not aware of ANY teachers in this age who have such omniscience. But if there is really a living Buddha right now, I'm happy to look into his/her teachings.

As for karma, it is one of the imponderables. Only a Buddha is able to know the exact details of it. But in actual fact you can trace your karma and rebirth in meditation, but only to a limited extent (only Buddha is able to trace indefinitely). My friend Simpo who is another 'student' of Thusness has talked to me in details his many past lives (fighting in WW1, being a Nyingma lama in Tibet, being a Japanese, a Chinese, etc etc) and the effects of karma of past life in present life when I met up with him. So this is how I know it is possible to have knowledge of karma and past life in meditation - in fact not even enlightenment is needed for it, as he already started recalling past lives before he realized anatta or emptiness (he was in the I AM stage for about two decades before knowing Thusness).

Buddha recalled his past lives and realized the effects of karma even before his liberation/awakening. 1st knowledge is past life, 2nd knowledge is karma, 3rd knowledge is 4NT and liberation. Therefore, he only attained liberation AFTER his knowledge of past life and karma.

Buddhists are well aware that many unenlightened yogis have access to powers, past lives, etc, even evil persons like Devadatta was once praised by Sariputta (it became something of a slight embarrasment later) in his mastery of psychic powers. You do not need to be a Buddha - heck, you don't even need to be enlightened, or Buddhist, or wise, or ___ in order to achieve these powers. You just need some mastery of shamatha.

He probably doesn't, and accepts a majority of his knowledge of such subjects through his faith in Buddhist teachings. He only knows about the transformation of one's view into a perpetual non-clinging state that ends suffering arising from mental afflictions. This is a great achievement nonetheless, and you can call it a type of enlightenment to non-mental suffering.

However this is only a fraction of what I seek. I seek knowledge and wisdom, which is ultimately power over my own existence.

I too seek for omniscience like that of Shakyamuni Buddha. However, this takes a very long time, so I'd focus on my liberation first as a more immediately achievable thing, while not forgetting the more long-term goal.

That's right. And after a bit more investigation, you will realize the the principle of reasoning is an inseparable aspect of knowing and awakening. That to know is equivalent to the experience of awareness as its luminosity. To be is to know and understand.

Luminosity is not about concepts... True understanding is not touched by reasoning, or the 'sphere of logic'. Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

Lucky7Strikes · January 15, 2012

If you are going to reply with just blatant and unsupported statements I will no longer see this as a discussion but a shouting match. You are not replying to what I write, but writing over with whatever convictions you hold. That's a shouting match. And you are wasting both of our time.

I am not aware of ANY teachers in this age who have such omniscience. But if there is really a living Buddha right now, I'm happy to look into his/her teachings.

You don't have to be omniscient to have insight and experience into these matters. You've just been looking so narrowly into the concept of enlightenment there's not even an idea of how to approach the broader human condition outside of the words anatta, emptiness, maha, dependent origination, blah blah blah.

Knowledge of past life is only one aspect of our existence. You, admittedly don't have a clue about omniscience, so how do you know what the Buddha went through in awakening? Why, just because it's written in a text? :lol:

I too seek for omniscience like that of Shakyamuni Buddha. However, this takes a very long time, so I'd focus on my liberation first as a more immediately achievable thing, while not forgetting the more long-term goal.

You have no idea how to even approach omniscience because you don't even know what knowing is. You're right it will take you a very long time. You're going to be running a treadmill for an incredibly long time.

There can be no disease of emptiness unless I hold on to a position of non-existence. I do not, as I said, emptiness is a non-asserting rejection of existents (and the other extremes) without positing anything. Like the raft that has been discarded, the fire that ceases after burning away the candle, I do not have any notions or positions of emptiness whatsoever.

That's funny, because all these 13 pages, seems like you have a position to defend and assert.

My further progress is in allowing right view to burn away all my latent tendencies and defilements so that I may achieve complete liberation, and further the omniscience of Buddhahood.

That's also funny, because "you" don't exist after this moment. Then there's the next moment. So what defilements can you burn away? How can you even achieve omniscience? What progress are you going to make? For whom?

The link is a conventionally observed phenomena so on that level it can be accepted.

But ultimately, what dependently originates is empty. Both cause and effect are illusory, there is no real arising, and no real cause.

I think I missed the part where you explained why and how you have come to the conclusion that cause and effect is illusory.

But this does not mean spontaneous action to avoid being drenched by the rain cannot happen, but it does not happen due to conceiving a conventional truth which is ultimately untrue.

Yes it does. If you don't know you are going to get wet because of the rain, you are going get wet. You know you are going to get wet because you have previous experience with the rain. This isn't just spontaneous knowledge that comes up. It a built habit.

As for observing causality to deny A and B, you write:

The link is a conventionally observed phenomena so on that level it can be accepted.

Hmm, wait a second, a moment ago you said,

It is not necessary to conceive 'conventional truths' since 'conventional truth' is simply a false way of perceiving reality. There is no truth to it.

So then your line of reasoning is based on false perceptions, by your own words of course.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · January 15, 2012

. Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

Lucky7Strikes · January 15, 2012

. Edited January 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

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