Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[Jeff]

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is no principle apart from phenomena. Phenomena dependently originates. If no phenomena, no dependent origination. The same goes for the ultimate nature of mind. As Namdrol nicely puts, If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other. .... It was queried whether the nature of the mind could exist whether there was a mind or not -- but such an assertion has obvious flaws, like asserting wetness without water, or heat without fire.

Make your point clear.

 

Are you saying wetness and water are two different things dependently originating one another? Or are you saying wetness and water are inseparable, as in there is "no principle apart from phenomena?"

[Lucky7Strikes]

The 'there is hitting, bleeding, and hammer' is simply a conventional observation. Ultimately, there is no 'thing' that can be observed. Concepts is our imputation on appearances. Appearances are just like dreams, illusory, nothing real. The cause is illusory, the effect is illusory, which is to say that there is no real cause and no real effect. The 'conventionally observed' transformations in a dream does not make the [conventionally imputed] cause and effect of a dream real.

 

This is why the Buddha said "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

I think you are missing the point here. The idea of a dream or the idea of something illusory or unreal does not come about because something lacks imputed concepts. If a man is stabbed by an unknown object that he does not have a conventional term for, he does not think "ah, this is unreal, because I have no term to impute on it." It is real because it has a profound change on his body and can ultimately cause death.

 

On the other hand, if you are stabbed by a known knife in a dream, you realize that it is a dream and unreal because you wake up from the dream unharmed by the wound. It's effects are not profound but ephemeral. The same idea is applied to cause and effect. A cause is real if it's effects are observed routinely. It is illusory if the effects are inconsistent.

 

Just because something does or does not have a conventional label to it, it doesn't change its reality.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Since there are no permanent phenomena, claims for the existence and non-existence of phenomena are completely naive on anything other than a conventional level.

 

So you can keep insisting that salt harms snails as much as you like. Since you are making a conventional statement you are not going to get any complaint from me, but if you assert that there is saltiness in salt, for example, you have only two courses -- mire yourself in the myriad contradictions of asserting that there is an essence of salt or simply accede the point that "salt" is a conventional identity proposition that is at best a functional imputation and nothing more than that.

 

N

IMO Namdrol is being very impractical and does not have insight into how the idea of something's essence arises.

 

The conventional level is very real. It's effects, like saltiness, the sodium that enters the body, are all inevitable relationship we have with the object called salt. Objectively, salt may b different altogether, but it does not make the saltiness something illusory. It is real in that if you take salt and taste it a thousand times, the saltiness will be consistent, as with its effects on the body. So we say there is saltiness in salt.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The key is that though appearance is appearing, or felt, to reify it as 'the hammer is there' or 'that IS there', this is the state of delusion. The 'is' and 'is not', 'existence' or 'non-existence' are false views about the world.

....No one says, "here, the hammer is there," while they are being hit by it. They just get hit by it. No matter how much you deny the reality of the hammer, the hammer is going to strike you, and you will bleed. So how does your point make the hammer any less real than to this so called "deluded" person?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ultimately there is no 'myself and others', but when dealing with the area of morality, you have to use conventions (including 'myself and others') just for practical purposes of communicating. But in action, it can be completely spontaneous with no perceived projected conventions. This is the state of a Buddha.

Then you are saying your morality is based on what you perceive as illusory principles. Thus that makes your morality fake.

 

Also it does not matter if you think conventional truths are real or not. Their reality is measured by their ability to have a consistent and lasting effect on you. And when someone hits you, you will feel it. It will be very real.

[xabir2005]

I think you are missing the point here. The idea of a dream or the idea of something illusory or unreal does not come about because something lacks imputed concepts. If a man is stabbed by an unknown object that he does not have a conventional term for, he does not think "ah, this is unreal, because I have no term to impute on it." It is real because it has a profound change on his body and can ultimately cause death.

 

On the other hand, if you are stabbed by a known knife in a dream, you realize that it is a dream and unreal because you wake up from the dream unharmed by the wound. It's effects are not profound but ephemeral. The same idea is applied to cause and effect. A cause is real if it's effects are observed routinely. It is illusory if the effects are inconsistent.

 

Just because something does or does not have a conventional label to it, it doesn't change its reality.

Things are empty not because they 'lack imputed concepts'. In fact sentient beings always see in terms of existence and nonexistence, is and is not, so imputation is always going on. Only in awakened beings does imputation start to stop, and in Buddha is fully stopped.

 

Things are empty by nature, without core, without substance - what dependently originates is empty.

 

All that you are putting forth here are conventionally observed cause and effect. Conventionally observed cause and effect (knife stabs = profound change in body) are all fine observations but only on the conventionally level, pre-analysed level. But a conventionally observed cause and effect does not mean they are actually real or substantial, or that there is actually a real cause and a real effect. If you realize emptiness you realize there is no self, no body, no knife, no pain, no .... let alone a real knife that caused a real body to transform, etc. All these without denying of course luminosity and appearance. But nothing can be established.

 

When you realize emptiness, you stop conceiving of such entities...

 

What it feels like in direct experience is that everything becomes vividly clear, luminous, and yet because nothing whatsoever is established, there is nothing whatsoever that becomes an object of clinging... so all appearances are self-arisen and self-liberated without action.

Then you are saying your morality is based on what you perceive as illusory principles.

For a sentient being yes. For an awakened being, there is just spontaneous action without perceiving conventions... of course all these actions are wholesome, because they arise from wisdom and compassion, and are spontaneous, but does not require perceiving conventions like 'I' and 'others' which is why Diamond Sutra talks about the need to give rise to the thought of saving sentient beings without conceiving of an 'I' and 'sentient beings' that are 'saved'.

....No one says, "here, the hammer is there," while they are being hit by it. They just get hit by it. No matter how much you deny the reality of the hammer, the hammer is going to strike you, and you will bleed. So how does your point make the hammer any less real than to this so called "deluded" person?

 

....

 

Also it does not matter if you think conventional truths are real or not. Their reality is measured by their ability to have a consistent and lasting effect on you. And when someone hits you, you will feel it. It will be very real.

Conventional truths are valid only on that level so I do not fault you for making the observation 'when someone hits you, you will feel it'. But ultimately there is no someone, no me, and no hitting, and no feeling. But this is not like a nihilistic absence... as form is emptiness, emptiness is form, so emptiness, luminosity and appearances are inseparable.

 

Vividly manifest, yet utterly empty and insubstantial, like a breeze.

IMO Namdrol is being very impractical and does not have insight into how the idea of something's essence arises.

 

The conventional level is very real. It's effects, like saltiness, the sodium that enters the body, are all inevitable relationship we have with the object called salt. Objectively, salt may b different altogether, but it does not make the saltiness something illusory. It is real in that if you take salt and taste it a thousand times, the saltiness will be consistent, as with its effects on the body. So we say there is saltiness in salt.

Conventionally observed truths are consistent but by no means ultimately real. On the level of conventional truth, there is valid and invalid statements - like 'sun causes sunlight' is a valid conventional statement while 'moon is made of green cheese' is an invalid conventional statement.

 

But ultimately, there is no sun, no sunlight, to even speak of a sun that caused a sunlight.

Edited January 24, 2012 by xabir2005

[C T]

Conventionally observed cause and effect (knife stabs = profound change in body) are all fine observations but only on the conventionally level, pre-analysed level. But a conventionally observed cause and effect does not mean they are actually real or substantial, or that there is actually a real cause and a real effect. If you realize emptiness you realize there is no self, no body, no knife, no pain, no .... let alone a real knife that caused a real body to transform, etc. All these without denying of course luminosity and appearance. But nothing can be established.

 

 

But ultimately, there is no sun, no sunlight, to even speak of a sun that caused a sunlight.

 

Are you certain the pre-analytical level is the level where conventions take formation? I would argue otherwise.

 

Imo, i would say all things can be established, just as the sun can be established. Clinging arises when the observer cannot move past viewing/grasping at things from a limited, conventional level. Here, its as if you are saying one who awakens no longer see the sun, feel the warmth. I hope this is not what you are implying?

 

An awakened mind has the flexibility to move in and out of conventions at will, whereas them that has yet to awaken do not possess this option. Hence the popular term, 'mired in conventions'. In addition, one who has awakened becomes unbound by both the absolute and the relative, thus seeing one in the other, one is able to move freely in the mind, and since the universe arise with mind, it follows that one simultaneously can move unhindered thru all of the universes in the various dimensions.

 

Sorry for butting in. Had some free time, so just popped in to say 'Hi'.

Edited January 24, 2012 by C T

[Lucky7Strikes]

 

Are you certain the pre-analytical level is the level where conventions take formation? I would argue otherwise.

 

Imo, i would say all things can be established, just as the sun can be established. Clinging arises when the observer cannot move past viewing/grasping at things from a limited, conventional level. Here, its as if you are saying one who awakens no longer see the sun, feel the warmth. I hope this is not what you are implying?

 

An awakened mind has the flexibility to move in and out of conventions at will, whereas them that has yet to awaken do not possess this option. Hence the popular term, 'mired in conventions'. In addition, one who has awakened becomes unbound by both the absolute and the relative, thus seeing one in the other, one is able to move freely in the mind, and since the universe arise with mind, it follows that one simultaneously can move unhindered thru all of the universes in the various dimensions.

 

Sorry for butting in. Had some free time, so just popped in to say 'Hi'.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Things are empty not because they 'lack imputed concepts'. In fact sentient beings always see in terms of existence and nonexistence, is and is not, so imputation is always going on. Only in awakened beings does imputation start to stop, and in Buddha is fully stopped.

 

Things are empty by nature, without core, without substance - what dependently originates is empty.

 

All that you are putting forth here are conventionally observed cause and effect. Conventionally observed cause and effect (knife stabs = profound change in body) are all fine observations but only on the conventionally level, pre-analysed level. But a conventionally observed cause and effect does not mean they are actually real or substantial, or that there is actually a real cause and a real effect. If you realize emptiness you realize there is no self, no body, no knife, no pain, no .... let alone a real knife that caused a real body to transform, etc. All these without denying of course luminosity and appearance. But nothing can be established.

 

When you realize emptiness, you stop conceiving of such entities...

 

What it feels like in direct experience is that everything becomes vividly clear, luminous, and yet because nothing whatsoever is established, there is nothing whatsoever that becomes an object of clinging... so all appearances are self-arisen and self-liberated without action.

You are being very bull headed here without really giving what I write consideration. You can say to yourself with some sort of crazy reasoning that there are elves that live in the sky. But when there isn't, you should reconsider the analysis, because there apparently are no elves. If else, you are just functioning on blind belief.

 

Similarly, you can say something is empty, illusory, ultimately unreal, and what not, but the cause and effect of events still do occur to you. No matter how empty you think a knife wound is, it will make you bleed, it will cause tangible physical change. That makes it real, not whether or not you say it is empty or not. A knife wound to a Buddha is no less real to a Buddha than to a deluded sentient being. Also conventionality means something that is a conceptually agreed, but not objectively true. So names are conventional truths, but not physical laws of cause and effect your body is bound to. It doesn't go away because you analyzed it away.

 

Conventional truths are valid only on that level so I do not fault you for making the observation 'when someone hits you, you will feel it'. But ultimately there is no someone, no me, and no hitting, and no feeling. But this is not like a nihilistic absence... as form is emptiness, emptiness is form, so emptiness, luminosity and appearances are inseparable.

Whether or not I make that observation does not change the fact that when someone hits me, I will feel it. If otherwise, you are either denying reality, or mentally handicapped and cannot link two phenomena together.

 

Conventionally observed truths are consistent but by no means ultimately real. On the level of conventional truth, there is valid and invalid statements - like 'sun causes sunlight' is a valid conventional statement while 'moon is made of green cheese' is an invalid conventional statement.

 

But ultimately, there is no sun, no sunlight, to even speak of a sun that caused a sunlight.

You have no grounds to deny that there is no sunlight. This is extreme. The sun makes it possible that you are alive, it gives you heat and warmth. It nourishes the earth. The Sun doesn't just disappear because your conventionality of it is gone. You are talking crazy. And indeed, this is the nihilist position.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

 

Are you certain the pre-analytical level is the level where conventions take formation? I would argue otherwise.

 

Imo, i would say all things can be established, just as the sun can be established. Clinging arises when the observer cannot move past viewing/grasping at things from a limited, conventional level. Here, its as if you are saying one who awakens no longer see the sun, feel the warmth. I hope this is not what you are implying?

 

An awakened mind has the flexibility to move in and out of conventions at will, whereas them that has yet to awaken do not possess this option. Hence the popular term, 'mired in conventions'. In addition, one who has awakened becomes unbound by both the absolute and the relative, thus seeing one in the other, one is able to move freely in the mind, and since the universe arise with mind, it follows that one simultaneously can move unhindered thru all of the universes in the various dimensions.

 

Sorry for butting in. Had some free time, so just popped in to say 'Hi'.

For one who realizes true wisdom, conventions cease to take place, because conventions take place solely on the level of delusion. A Buddha only perceives wisdom.

 

Therefore the Buddha said himself, "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer... ...Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.

 

So in reference to your question, I do not conceive or construe of 'warmth' and so on as being true, I do not construe anything whatsoever in the suchness of cognition, and being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.'

 

I have to agree with Longchenpa here:

 

“From the [ultimate] perspective the meditative equipoise of the realised (sa thob) and awakened beings (sangs rgyas), there exists neither object of knowledge (shes bya) nor knowing cognitive process (shes byed) and so forth, for there is neither object to apprehend nor the subject that does the apprehending. Even the exalted cognitive process (yeshes) as a subject ceases (zhi ba) to operate.” (Longchen 1983: 201f) Therefore “At this stage, [Nyingma] accepts the total termination (chad) of all the continua (rgyun) of the cognitive processes (‘jug pa) of the mind (sems) and mental factors (sems las byung ba). This exalted cognitive process which is inexpressible beyond words and thoughts (smra bsam brjod du med pa'i yeshes), and thus is designated (btags pa) as a correct and unmistaken cognitive process (yang dag pa'i blo ma khrul ba) as it knows the reality as it is.” (Longchen 1983:201f)

 

And a Buddha is someone who never leaves equipoise. Only awakened beings below Buddhahood switch.

 

Anyway your view point may be more similar to Tsongkhapa's view (a view at odds with all other traditions) which Namdrol (and I) rejects. Only Tsongkhapa thinks that awakened beings perceive conventions. There's a discussion about this in http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=5770&start=80

Edited January 24, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

You are being very bull headed here without really giving what I write consideration. You can say to yourself with some sort of crazy reasoning that there are elves that live in the sky. But when there isn't, you should reconsider the analysis, because there apparently are no elves. If else, you are just functioning on blind belief.

 

Similarly, you can say something is empty, illusory, ultimately unreal, and what not, but the cause and effect of events still do occur to you. No matter how empty you think a knife wound is, it will make you bleed, it will cause tangible physical change. That makes it real, not whether or not you say it is empty or not. A knife wound to a Buddha is no less real to a Buddha than to a deluded sentient being. Also conventionality means something that is a conceptually agreed, but not objectively true. So names are conventional truths, but not physical laws of cause and effect your body is bound to. It doesn't go away because you analyzed it away.

No, cause and effect cannot be truly established. It is only a valid statement on the conventional level where the existence of 'knife wound', 'bleed' and so on is imputed.

 

There is nothing tangible at all. Nothing can go away because nothing has come into being in the first place - there is no thing that comes into being or ceases. It is like it is not the case that 'self' goes away when you stop thinking about it - it is that you realize all along, there is no self.

 

Also as Namdrol just said today:

 

You need to examine your attachment to the imputation you label "reality". That is the rabbit horn to which you are attached.

 

But part of the problem is that what you think is real is the external whole. You are happy to accept that your mental functioning creates an illusory identity, but you seem to think inert things like lettuce to be more real than your mind. Minds and lettuce however are of a piece, they are both depend phenomena and therefore, amount to no more than passing illusions.

 

N

Whether or not I make that observation does not change the fact that when someone hits me, I will feel it. If otherwise, you are either denying reality, or mentally handicapped and cannot link two phenomena together.

It is nothing about being mentally handicapped. It is about seeing an untruth as untruth, it is about waking up from pure delusions and seeing that no one phenomena can be established, let alone two. It is that your presuppositions of existents are utterly unfounded upon analysis.

 

You keep saying 'when things hit you, *I* will feel pain, so *I* must exist' but all these statements are made on the assumption that *I* exist and is the feeler of pain (and not the other way round - that I exist because of the pain felt, etc) - but I clearly realize that there is no self at all, and no matter what statements you make it doesn't change the fact that there is no self. Even if pain is felt, there is still no self. This is what is always already the case.

 

But this no self also goes to all phenomena so all the five aggregates are empty as per heart sutra - no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no volition, no consciousness. So likewise there is no real pain and no real cause of pain either. Your establishing of pain and likewise cause of pain is based on the pre-analyzed assumption of existents. Cause and effect is established dependent on the view that something has come into being, and that coming into being has a cause of that being. Pain is a phenomena that dependently originates and thus coreless and substanceless - no pain can be established, not a thing that has been created or comes into being, hence pain being merely illusory - there is no pain, how could there be said to have a pain that has a real cause?

You have no grounds to deny that there is no sunlight. This is extreme. The sun makes it possible that you are alive, it gives you heat and warmth. It nourishes the earth. The Sun doesn't just disappear because your conventionality of it is gone. You are talking crazy. And indeed, this is the nihilist position.

No... sun is empty because all dependently originated phenomena are empty by nature. There is no sun. It cannot disappear (or rather, there is no 'it' to disappear) because there is no 'the sun' that came into being.

 

Same goes for no self. No self is not so because you lose your label of self or you stop thinking of self. It is that always already, there is no self. It is pure delusion. It is like santa claus.

Edited January 24, 2012 by xabir2005

[konchog uma]

Saying 'there is no sun' is like typing 'i am not typing this'. It might be half-true, but it begs the question: whats that thing in the sky?

 

I think it alienates people from buddhism to speak about non-existence in absolute terms. The sun might be D.O. and have no existence independent of the rest of reality, but if the rest of reality exists, so does the sun. Hence half-true.

 

You can say "well reality does not exist" but i dont think that is what the sages were trying to say. Reality obviously exists, if you think the truth ends with "reality does not exist" you are not realized. That is, as someone noted, nihilist and escapist. Dealing with reality on its own terms, as something that does exist and needs to be reconciled with all its illusions and tricks, is much much more difficult than the cop-out "reality? oh that doesn't exist, therefore i'm done considering it". That is not the core of (my) buddhism.

[xabir2005]

Saying 'there is no sun' is like typing 'i am not typing this'. It might be half-true, but it begs the question: whats that thing in the sky?

 

I think it alienates people from buddhism to speak about non-existence in absolute terms. The sun might be D.O. and have no existence independent of the rest of reality, but if the rest of reality exists, so does the sun. Hence half-true.

There is no 'thing' in the 'sky'. Whatever seen and felt are just shapes and colours and forms that are utterly insubstantial - dependently originated, empty, dream-like appearances.

 

 

If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

You can say "well reality does not exist" but i dont think that is what the sages were trying to say. Reality obviously exists, if you think the truth ends with "reality does not exist" you are not realized. That is, as someone noted, nihilist and escapist. Dealing with reality on its own terms, as something that does exist and needs to be reconciled with all its illusions and tricks, is much much more difficult than the cop-out "reality? oh that doesn't exist, therefore i'm done considering it". That is not the core of (my) buddhism.

The Buddha's rejection of the four extremes of existence, non-existence, both existence and non existence, neither existence nor non existence, is at the center of the whole emptiness teaching.

 

So there is no such thing as 'existents' or something 'non-existent' since 'non-existence' here implies an existence that came into being and then ceases or enter non-being.

 

This has nothing to do with nihilism - it is not a s statement about the non-existence of anything but merely the non-asserting removal of the claims of existents. This has nothing to do with escapism - there is no escaping from anything.

 

Diamond Sutra: How should this Sutra be explained for others? By not grasping at appearances and being in unmoving thusness. Why? All conditioned dharmas Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble or a shadow, Like dew or like a lightning flash. Contemplate them thus."

 

Heart Sutra:

 

Therefore, O Sariputra,

 

in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness;

 

No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, objects to touch, or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to:

 

No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to:

 

There is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, and no path.

 

There is no cognition, no attainment and no non-attainment.

Edited January 25, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have suddenly realized the futility in having a discussion with someone who denies reality. It is like having a discussion with a solipsist. Or a true believer. They are trapped in their own circle of delusion, and justify everything through a paradigm of ultimatums (God is everything, everything is dependently originated, nothing exists, everything is creation of mind, i.e. a simpleton's categorization of everything), and since Xabir's attachment to his beliefs are so strong and so rooted in what defines him, anything I write he will simply override it without giving it a bit of contemplation.

 

When the opponent in a debate does not reply to your points with constructive criticism and questions, but merely repeats his point over and over, almost verbatim, it points to how 1) the "truth" does not belong to him, but is learned, therefore he has no ways of approaching it from different angles, and 2) he is unable to support his own views (which he believes is "the truth") in multitude of ways since they are heavily dependent on experiences and feelings rather than contemplation and insight (hence the reliance on quotations by authority). His exercise in ceaselessly replying here is ironically driven by the need to override my criticisms, not through a constructive investigation, where we can both observe the process of contemplation by which the conclusion is arrived at, but through boorish, "this is how it is," "this is the truth," statements sprouting from an observation or experience he deems the truth, not from an inquiring mindset.

 

If anybody has been reading this thread or Xabir's posts on thetaobums, please consider these bits before really considering what he has been writing about.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, cause and effect cannot be truly established. It is only a valid statement on the conventional level where the existence of 'knife wound', 'bleed' and so on is imputed.

If it is a valid conventional observation, and one experiences conventions, what makes that experience illusory or invalid? Also please address the point I made earlier about the principe of cause and effect and cause and effect itself.

 

It is nothing about being mentally handicapped. It is about seeing an untruth as untruth, it is about waking up from pure delusions and seeing that no one phenomena can be established, let alone two. It is that your presuppositions of existents are utterly unfounded upon analysis.

 

You keep saying 'when things hit you, *I* will feel pain, so *I* must exist' but all these statements are made on the assumption that *I* exist and is the feeler of pain (and not the other way round - that I exist because of the pain felt, etc) - but I clearly realize that there is no self at all, and no matter what statements you make it doesn't change the fact that there is no self. Even if pain is felt, there is still no self. This is what is always already the case.

 

But this no self also goes to all phenomena so all the five aggregates are empty as per heart sutra - no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no volition, no consciousness. So likewise there is no real pain and no real cause of pain either. Your establishing of pain and likewise cause of pain is based on the pre-analyzed assumption of existents. Cause and effect is established dependent on the view that something has come into being, and that coming into being has a cause of that being. Pain is a phenomena that dependently originates and thus coreless and substanceless - no pain can be established, not a thing that has been created or comes into being, hence pain being merely illusory - there is no pain, how could there be said to have a pain that has a real cause?

Do you feel pain? This is a yes or no question.

 

No... sun is empty because all dependently originated phenomena are empty by nature. There is no sun. It cannot disappear (or rather, there is no 'it' to disappear) because there is no 'the sun' that came into being.

 

Same goes for no self. No self is not so because you lose your label of self or you stop thinking of self. It is that always already, there is no self. It is pure delusion. It is like santa claus.

Just because something is dependently originated it does not make it an illusion. You need to define what an illusion is to make that statement in the first place. Perhaps your idea about experience is illusory, but conventional reality affects us, hence they are real, not because they have an essence behind them. The sun affects your livelihood, the weather and all these other phenomena that are, no matter how much you say is conventional and empty, observable, and tangible to our daily lives. You may not perceive conventions, but alas, you are governed by them.

 

Unless you are denying the very experience of the sun, what you seem to be addressing is one's perception of the sun. Whether one views it as something impermanent and "empty" (as you put it) vs. something that is existent with a core. But whether you think the former or the latter, it does not make the experience of the sun illusory, nor its properties of heat, distance from earth, effect on life forms etc. They are real events that are occurring. The so called conventionalities are of course not realities, but our perception of realities. You can say (at least from your line of reasoning) our perceptions are not set in stone, but I don't see how you have sufficient grounds to deny reality itself as all an illusion.

 

And I've never brought up the notions of self or no self. See how you are bringing this topic out of nowhere? It's funny you wrote, "you stop thinking of self," because surely I didn't bring the subject up. It must cross your mind often, the "no self."

Edited January 25, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

[C T]

For one who realizes true wisdom, conventions cease to take place, because conventions take place solely on the level of delusion. A Buddha only perceives wisdom.

 

And a Buddha is someone who never leaves equipoise. Only awakened beings below Buddhahood switch.

 

Anyway your view point may be more similar to Tsongkhapa's view (a view at odds with all other traditions) which Namdrol (and I) rejects. Only Tsongkhapa thinks that awakened beings perceive conventions. There's a discussion about this in http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=5770&start=80

This (the highlighted statement above) is a mistaken view, my friend. If conventions exist solely on the level of delusion, Buddha would never have placed such primary emphasis on the cultivation and practice of Sila, and the importance of accumulating Punna (merit), as means (on the path) towards achieving Enlightenment. (Ref: Kimattha Sutta)

 

You say a buddha perceives only wisdom... this is predicated on the conventional assumption that there is such a concept as 'wisdom' as opposed to...??? This assumption is itself derived from a relative standpoint, so you appear to have volitionally brought upon yourself a slight problem here with your argument.

 

Buddhism speaks of Suchness... what is suchness? Suchness, in one way, means, (according to my understanding of the teachings) that one ought not to assert nor deny anything, so to say 'A buddha perceives only wisdom' is incorrect, on the level in which your argument is based upon, at least. Suchness could also mean the way things are... when the sun rises, there is brightness - when it sets, night comes, bringing with it a different kind of light - do you think a buddha has no recognition of this? A buddha sees and feels the same as anyone, because a buddha is not dependently originated any different from anyone else.

 

Tsongkhapa is the founder of the Gelug lineage, of which the Dalai Lamas are successive lineage holders to the present day. To say Tsongkhapa's view is at odds with all other traditions is none too wise, for he ranks among the top three most respected figures in the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon (the other two being Lord Buddha and Guru Padmasambhava). Even though i do not adhere to the lineage, i retain much respect for the scholars and siddhas of the Gelug tradition.

 

Lastly, i think Namdrol is a funny guy. He thinks he knows more than any one else. Thats ok... by our thoughts we create our own destiny.

[xabir2005]

@C T: no time to do detailed reply in camp, might reply more another day.

 

Buddha engages sentient beings in conventional truth precisely because sentient beings are deluded and perceives conventions. Anyway, it is a fact, not an opinion, that Tsongkhapa's views are at odds with other traditions. And it is solely in the Gelug tradition that Tsongkhapa's statements hold any weight. Take your time and read this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/

Edited January 25, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

@lucky7strikes: on a not so related yet related note

 

You seem to be expecting madyamika style intellectual analysis on "emptiness", but I and thusness are not too keen on these kind of analysis. Our insight is a non-inferrred, non-intellectual realization.

 

Oh and its ridiculous that just because I like to quote people who said certain things very well means I'm insecure. What nonsense.

 

Anyway:

 

Dakpo Tashi Namgyal ("Mahamudra"):

 

"In determining the mind's innate identity or manifesting mode, the meditator should examine if the mind can be identified with the void or with the formlessness of the void. To determine if the mind has a definitive manifesting mode, the meditator examines if it can be identified with the lucidity or with the form of lucidity. Should the mind appear to be of the void state, the meditator should examine if it is a nonexistent void or the void like that of space. Should the mind appear to be luminous, the meditator should examine if this luminosity is like the radiance of the sun, moonshine, or the flame of a butter lamp, or if it is inborn lucidity without light or color. Thus, the meditator should examine the mind in numerous ways. No definite understanding or determinable certainty can be achieved regarding the mind's abiding reality through mere knowledge or intellectual comprehension and without thorough examination. A meditator should therefore examine thoroughly with a persistence in the manner of an inquisitive person crushing a bone with a stone!"

 

Namdrol:

 

intellectual pursuits are like mirages, always promising satiation and just creating more doubt.

 

Proof and rebuttal is merely intellectual accepting and rejecting.

 

N

 

...

 

"Sherab:

 

Mind can never transcend itself. This is why intellectualism is useless.

 

N"

 

...

 

"Madhyamaka is not equivalent with Dzogchen and Mahamudra. As both Longchen pa and Jigme Lingpa points out, while the intellectual structure of the view of Prasanga and Dzogchen are identical i.e. free from all extremes, the former is based on an intellectual analysis whereas the latter is based on a personal experience.

 

In Dzogchen and Mahamudra meditation is based on an example wisdom. This is not the case with Madhyamaka.

 

Since meditation in Vajrayāna systems is based on an example wisdom gained during the introduction of the third and fourth empowerments, Gorampa points out in a treatise refuting some on Tsongkhapa's interperations of the Guhyasmaja sadhana that it does matter very much what your intellectual view might be; whether cittamatra or madhyamaka, since your meditation is not based on an intellectual analysis, but rather a path wisdom derived from the introduction of third and fourth empowerment."

Edited January 25, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

@lucky7strikes: on a not so related yet related note

 

You seem to be expecting madyamika style intellectual analysis on "emptiness", but I and thusness are not too keen on these kind of analysis. Our insight is a non-inferrred, non-intellectual realization.

Oh you're so wrong. You have no clue at all about any of this don't you? I don't expect anything from you nor am I approaching things intellectually or in madhyamika style of analysis. I'm speaking outside of Buddhism, something you just don't seem to be able wrap your head around: the world outside of Buddhism. But what I really want to do is reveal the utter lack of actual insight you and Thusness' ideology have, and the hypocrisy of dismissing other's "personal experiences" while enthroning your own "personal experiences" as the true enlightenment or whatever.

 

I am fine with what you wrote here, that you are an anti-intellectual. You don't like thinking about things or contemplating them. But also know that you likely don't even know what the process of intellect is, since you have merely dismissed it without contemplation just as you did everything else that is not in line with your devoted faith to Thusness' way.

 

The more and more I engage in this discussion, the more you reveal not only a lack of insight but an inability to present your experiences in a coherent manner. The only way you explain yourself is via doctrine, "dependent origination, dependent origination, dependent origination." You don't even know how exactly to support your view of "dependent origination." You take that term simply as this magical tool to dismiss all ideas into the box of emptiness.

 

All the seeming logic or "science" you have to justify the maha, the anatta, the emptiness experiences you have come to are entirely pretentious and laughable. You have come to a certain experience of reality but have no idea how to fully understand it, so heavily rely on experience. At the end of the day, all you have to say, as you say in this post, is mere "I see it this way, this is my personal experience" and say that your vision is the truth while others are false. So all you engage is in is a shouting match and not a constructive discussion. This is bigotry at best.

 

Ha! A future master of insight! :lol:

 

 

Oh and its ridiculous that just because I like to quote people who said certain things very well means I'm insecure. What nonsense.

No it isn't. It shows your incompetence, and incapability to explain or stand up for your own realizations if there are any. It's not nonsense at all, seeing that your excuses for these tendencies, ("they say it more eloquently"), are apparently untrue. We are not on the path of faith, it's not a monotheistic religion where quoting the bible suddenly proves one person right over the other. I am not having this discussion in the realm of Buddhism, but in reality. You have no reason to constantly quote authority figures when they don't add anything to the discussion.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Known, but not established...

Oh so now you switch your position to the Buddha perceiving conventions but not establishing them? Because you said the Buddha doesn't at all perceive conventions.

[xabir2005]

Oh so now you switch your position to the Buddha perceiving conventions but not establishing them? Because you said the Buddha doesn't at all perceive conventions.

I maintain that Buddhas don't perceive convention. There is knowing but no establishment of objects known (conventions).

[Lucky7Strikes]

I maintain that Buddhas don't perceive convention. There is knowing but no establishment of objects known (conventions).

how do you know something without perceiving it.