Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[xabir2005]

Uh...

 

whoever said anything about mind = matter? Huh? Does the article say that?

 

You keep saying thoughts can't be located. Well, here is evidenced experiments showing that indeed thoughts can be located as particular brain waves.

I'm saying that brain waves are not thoughts. Brain waves are related to thoughts, but are not thoughts. Just like smoke is related to fire, but not fire. You cannot locate thoughts this way. Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Reality does not exist based on Buddhism. It's not Buddhism first then reality second. Buddhism is built on a view or a certain understanding of reality. Hence awakening to the truth of reality also does not belong to Buddhism. It belongs to reality.

The point is you need to have correct view, i.e. anatta, d.o., etc. Without that you will not be awakened.

[xabir2005]

OoOoOohhH.....so you're trying to say that these people have genuine abilities to levitate?

 

Interestingly, you seem to have a conflicting opinion over here http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/439655

 

eh? Mr. An Eternal Now?

 

LOLOL

Different contexts.

 

Anyway one of the subjects in the URL I showed you - Prahlad Jnani, who is still living, was being studied by the Indian authorities. Obviously they didn't think he is a fake.

[xabir2005]

Nice find!

 

Yea, so Xabir...why does that seem to you like some fake actor, and suddenly when you need examples to support your points other examples become legitimate?

 

Anyway, you are doing tragically bad in this debate. It's pretty clear by now you don't really have any more insights or perspectives to offer. And can't really explain yourself logically either. All you've done now is just repeat your doctrine over and over and has been awhile since you've directly addressed any of my criticisms. Usually, in a debate if you are confident in your claims one tends to directly address the criticism. When you start losing ground, the participant just becomes repetitive. Kind of like just muffing your ears and blabbering. By now your only support is resorting to authority, quoting Namdrol and the Buddha.

 

So you lose. As childish as that sounds this is what a debate becomes. And honestly I don't like doing it because I just observe how cruel it turns out. But this isn't a constructive discussion where we are trying to figure something out together. Nor is is sharing of insights. You have a very narrow concept of what is correct and what is incorrect and I'm just investing myself into revealing how hypocritical, illogical, and nonsensical the wisdom you promote across varying spiritual sites really is.

 

If you look back on this thread you might find yourself just not answering to certain criticism beyond a point and shifting the discussion to a new topic. And every single instance it's been the same. You first try to answer, then find that you can't, then by the end you just begin quoting the Buddha. Your wisdom is very much a thin coated disguise.

Quoting the Buddha and others is perfectly fine since they address my point rather than me typing out everything.

 

I am not interested in re-typing things again. Sorry, I don't have much time.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

No...don't go contorting definitions. Existence simply means something has reality. Not that something has an essential some entity to it. The flowing of water cannot be said to be a "thing." Because it is in action, a flow, there is no thing about it. Likewise when you swing your arm to throw a baseball, the throwing is not a thing, it is a motion. The vibrations of sound waves also cannot be said to be having an entity. It is also a movement. The rays of light cannot be said to be something either. It is just a particular vision of phenomena we choose to call light. But all these are real, because they have consistency and consequential quality to them.

Those consistency and consequential quality as a basis for 'existence' is all based on conventional view. They require you to establish them as truths, as existences, in order to establish the consistency. In reality, two instances of occurences are neither the same nor different - the previous day's instance of 'moon' is not the same as today's instance of 'moon'. Or today's weather is 'cloudy' and tomorrow is 'cloudy' too doesn't mean there is an entity called 'weather'. Just because they have apparently similar shapes or colours does not imply existence.

Why not can the tathagata be in form, in perception, in feeling, in body? What are we exactly looking for when we ask the question, whether is is in it or not? Why is he not in all these experienced combined together? And you call this type of thinking analysis? Yeah, ok.

In the same sutta:

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."

 

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

 

"Stressful, lord."

 

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

Toni Packer:

 

A somber day, isn't it? Dark, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. Amazing, this whole affair of "the weather!" We call it "weather," but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding, wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amidst darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice-covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So — what is "weather" other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings, and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No entity "weather" to be found except in thinking and talking about it.

 

Now — is there such an entity as "me," "I," "myself?" Or is it just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," "Toni," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I think and believe I am? Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of "myself" from moment to moment? Is this, maybe, the essence of retreat work? Exploring ourselves minutely beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding. Coming upon clarity about this deep sense of separation which we call "me," and "other people," without any need to condemn or overcome.

 

Most human beings take it totally for granted that I am "me," and that "me" is this body, this mind, this knowledge and sense about myself which so obviously feels separate from other people. The language in which we talk to ourselves and to each other inevitably implies separate "me's," and "you's" all the time. All of us talk "I" and "you" talk, we think it, write it, read it, and dream it with rarely any pause. There is incessant reinforcement of the sense of "I," "me," separate from others. Isolated. Insulated. Not understood. How is one to come upon the truth if separation is taken so much for granted, feels so common sense?

So? So that says reality doesn't exist? This somehow concludes to: "reality is an illusion"?

Since existence cannot be pinned down, yet undeniable flow of appearances remain unceasing, reality is indeed illusory like a dream, like a magic show.

I see that now you are strictly quoting Namdrol. Why are so so unable to explain yourself, your own ideas and insights?

 

But getting to the quote, Namdrol's arguments just say that the imputations are subjective and therefore carry no reality in themselves. "Salt" is just a label. "Atom" is just a label. Well ok. But how does this say that reality is an illusion? That there is no reality, no existents? Absolutely not. It just says phenomena works as a whole and dependently originates.

If Salt and Atom is just a label, this means 'salt' and 'atom' does not have any real existence to it - in the way that there is no 'tathagata' in the five aggregates, or a real entity 'weather'.

This logic does not counter the physicalist view of the universe either or that the world works a giant system as a whole, which is actually more akin to Advaita, that the world is One.

Anatta (no tathagata inside or outside five aggregates) contradicts Advaita, while emptiness of phenomena (no 'salt', 'atom' etc) contradicts the view of matter as having inherent existence. But that is on the ultimate level. I am happy to accept generally scientific explanations for most of the things on the conventional level (except when it comes to things like the origin of consciousness). Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'm saying that brain waves are not thoughts. Brain waves are related to thoughts, but are not thoughts. Just like smoke is related to fire, but not fire. You cannot locate thoughts this way.

Yes you can. Just like you can locate fire by tracing the smoke. So scientists say according to brain wave imagery they can reproduce the thought structure of the individual. That's strong evidence linking brain waves to thoughts. The brain is located in your skull. Hence thoughts are in your skull. Easy as pie.

[Lucky7Strikes]

The point is you need to have correct view, i.e. anatta, d.o., etc. Without that you will not be awakened.

Oh god, you're hopeless. No, the point is not anatta or awakening or blah blah. The point is reality and understanding reality and finding wisdom and bliss through that effort. A truly open minded spiritual one at least. It's not, hey let's realize this Buddhist concept called anatta, then become this thing called a Buddha in this religion called Buddhism. Then you are just becoming indoctrinated to Buddhism. If anatta and the idea of awakening is in line with your sensibilities and insight, then good, it's there to help you and transform you. But it should always be reality first. If not, you become just another religious fanatic, a dogmatic follower who worships scripture over truth, doctrine over personal experience and insight. Of course you can travel that path for a while, but ultimately to stand on your own wisdom, one must break from the herd.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Different contexts.

 

Anyway one of the subjects in the URL I showed you - Prahlad Jnani, who is still living, was being studied by the Indian authorities. Obviously they didn't think he is a fake.

Different context?

 

Right, the one in sgforums is just you replying to some video. And the context here is where you conveniently use similar evidence to support your points. It's not even a good example to your point that the world is an illusion. These supernatural abilities just show that physical laws are malleable and nothing more. It doesn't mean the world is without reality.

 

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Quoting the Buddha and others is perfectly fine since they address my point rather than me typing out everything.

 

I am not interested in re-typing things again. Sorry, I don't have much time.

Ah, so you are just going to ignore all the critical errors and just repeat yourself. Good good, I see. Like I said, muff your ears and scream out loud "I believe the spaghetti monster!!"

[Lucky7Strikes]

Those consistency and consequential quality as a basis for 'existence' is all based on conventional view. They require you to establish them as truths, as existences, in order to establish the consistency. In reality, two instances of occurences are neither the same nor different - the previous day's instance of 'moon' is not the same as today's instance of 'moon'. Or today's weather is 'cloudy' and tomorrow is 'cloudy' too doesn't mean there is an entity called 'weather'. Just because they have apparently similar shapes or colours does not imply existence.

Uh, no. You reallllly need everything explained to you, huh...First, consistency is not something you establish. You don't wake up and establish that there is a moon above your head for it to be there. It is just there. You don't wake up and establish a "body" for you to begin walking on the floor. If you think otherwise, I ask you if there is no longer a moon outside the window since you've stop establishing it. Is it still there? Good. Then you are wrong.

 

Second, consistency doesn't mean something is the exact same from day to day. It just means that there is some observable pattern to the behavior, a certain rule to the flow of things that you can observe from one day to another. The moon, even though it may deteriorate day to day has a observable pattern to the rate at which it deteriorates and the way it interacts in space according to gravitational forces. The moon is not going to suddenly defy gravitational law tomorrow and drop from the sky. In other words, the world isn't chaotic and completely random. It has a seeming consistency from day to day like your habits.

 

Coupled that with the world being consequential, in that you are prone to be affected by it, the two categories become good measures in determining the level of reality of experiences and objects. The term "reality" is only to determine what is relatively more real in our experiences since we have experiences that are less real, like dreams and fantasies. Our idea of reality and illusion (I mentioned this awhile ago) is just a degree of measurement. And the reason why you can't just say "everything is an illusion" (remember now?) is like saying "everything is 70 degrees." (in case you don't understand, that would mean there is no such thing as measurement of temperature). The relativity collapses then and the words and ideas don't have meaning any more.

 

In the same sutta:

 

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"

 

"Inconstant, lord."

 

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

 

"Stressful, lord."

 

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

 

"No, lord."

This is just irrelevant. But what the Buddha should've also said was that the inconsistency of specific forms are consistent.

 

Since existence cannot be pinned down, yet undeniable flow of appearances remain unceasing, reality is indeed illusory like a dream, like a magic show.

No...just because reality can't be labeled completely, as in you can't completely and accurately describe with words and concepts what the taste of a cooke is like, it doesn't mean it's like a magic show. This is just idiotic. You are basically trying to justify the point that the world is an illusion by proving the separation of visual and linguistic symbols and the sensory experience. It only shows that the symbolic representations are incomplete and partial. It doesn't at all show the the visual, auditory, and tactile experiences are themselves unreal.

 

If Salt and Atom is just a label, this means 'salt' and 'atom' does not have any real existence to it - in the way that there is no 'tathagata' in the five aggregates, or a real entity 'weather'.

What? Salt and Atom exist without you labeling it. A child can't label salt. But if you give him salt he will experience it. It has existence for him.

 

By the way, as for the toni packer quote, it doesn't say the weather is an illusion or a magic. It basically just says there is no entity called weather. Uh...ok, it's a label for a collective set of phenomena. It doesn't say there is no such thing as weather. Again you are equating imputation for existence. That would mean that before one's capabilities in language and labels the world didn't exist. That's just ridiculous.

 

Anatta (no tathagata inside or outside five aggregates) contradicts Advaita, while emptiness of phenomena (no 'salt', 'atom' etc) contradicts the view of matter as having inherent existence. But that is on the ultimate level. I am happy to accept generally scientific explanations for most of the things on the conventional level (except when it comes to things like the origin of consciousness).

Actually, anatta doesn't contradict universal entity of godhead. Not at all. If the god head is the totality, and you have no individual existence besides the universal totality, that can be labeled Brahman. It's just a matter of interpretation.

 

You have only proven that labels are empty, not the phenomena itself. You have partially shown that maybe individual units of matter lacks no inherent existence, but not matter itself. Not at all.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Now this has become a ridiculous discussion. This is just stupid. You are making extremely nonsensical points like "if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist." Great. So I guess my dog doesn't experience the world since he probably doesn't label things or his experiences. Or maybe to me this new food I ate at some restaurant should've just gone right into the air when I couldn't find a label for it. Or how about I have two labels for my tea pot. I call it a teapot then let me call it a round container. Oh now it must suddenly turn into two things since it has two imaginary conventional existences. Uh I can't or just forgot to label this burn I got on my finger from pouring soup because of the instant pain. Oh hey, it's still there. Ow!

 

...come on, man.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

Oh god, you're hopeless. No, the point is not anatta or awakening or blah blah. The point is reality and understanding reality and finding wisdom and bliss through that effort. A truly open minded spiritual one at least. It's not, hey let's realize this Buddhist concept called anatta, then become this thing called a Buddha in this religion called Buddhism. Then you are just becoming indoctrinated to Buddhism. If anatta and the idea of awakening is in line with your sensibilities and insight, then good, it's there to help you and transform you. But it should always be reality first. If not, you become just another religious fanatic, a dogmatic follower who worships scripture over truth, doctrine over personal experience and insight. Of course you can travel that path for a while, but ultimately to stand on your own wisdom, one must break from the herd.

Well said, L7.

 

Just want to point out the possibility that once an individual finds his or her spiritual direction (to stand on own wisdom.. so aptly put) then whether the herd is there, or not, becomes inconsequential. With true wisdom arises non-attachment; if there are still traces of attachment, then wisdom is still work-in-progress - at its very peak, where wisdom unveils complete knowledge & understanding, all attachments, beginning with attachment to the notion of a concrete self, will have dissolved - and then what is left? Perhaps for this reason ascetics, contemplatives and hermits are at ease wherever they find themselves, whether in the company of men, of wolves, or within their own minds.

[forestofclarity]

Not to wade into this discussion, but this is not necessarily true. Correlation does not mean causation. One of my old friends used to say, the rooster crows. The sun rises. Does the rooster make the sun rise?

 

Consider speech. Speech occurs in the mouth. You can correlate oral position of my teeth, tongue, and haw to every word that I speak. If my mouth is damaged, my ability to speak is impaired. Therefore, speech is contained in the mouth. You can make the same argument that hearing is in the ear, vision in the eye, and so on.

 

 

 

Yes you can. Just like you can locate fire by tracing the smoke. So scientists say according to brain wave imagery they can reproduce the thought structure of the individual. That's strong evidence linking brain waves to thoughts. The brain is located in your skull. Hence thoughts are in your skull. Easy as pie.

[xabir2005]

Yes you can. Just like you can locate fire by tracing the smoke. So scientists say according to brain wave imagery they can reproduce the thought structure of the individual. That's strong evidence linking brain waves to thoughts. The brain is located in your skull. Hence thoughts are in your skull. Easy as pie.

You can locate fire by tracing the smoke, but you cannot locate thought by tracing brain waves. You only see more brain waves, not the thought.

 

Like I said - I never thought otherwise that brain waves are highly linked to thoughts. Obviously it is, and I am not surprised that they are able to translates brainwaves to thoughts, and will not be surprised if one day that technology can be used to 'read' coma patients. This however does not indicate that thoughts are located in your skull, there is no link there. That is like saying fire is located in the smoke - which is not the case, since smoke is different from fire but interdependent.

 

Similarly, you can build a machine that 'translates' the CD to audible music, or the tape to viewable videos, yet this does not mean the CD = music, or that the music is located in the CD - since music is actually an auditory phenomenon, video is a visual phenomenon (and auditory) - and these requires not only the CD or the tape, but also other eletronic devices like the cd player, the TV, electricity, and so on.

 

In Buddhism, Consciousness is a substance different from matter. There are six elements:

 

The Earth Element

The Water Element

The Fire Element

The Air Element

The Space Element

The Consciousness Element

 

Namdrol: No one ever said that consciousness had no cause. Consciousness is a substance, conceived of by the Buddha and Buddhists to be of a different kind than matter. Conciousness has a cause, but not a material cause, even though, according to them, it can be conditioned by material substances.

 

Dharmakirit runs through these reasonings in much detail in the Pramanasiddhi chapter of the Pramandavartika.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Oh god, you're hopeless. No, the point is not anatta or awakening or blah blah. The point is reality and understanding reality and finding wisdom and bliss through that effort. A truly open minded spiritual one at least. It's not, hey let's realize this Buddhist concept called anatta, then become this thing called a Buddha in this religion called Buddhism. Then you are just becoming indoctrinated to Buddhism. If anatta and the idea of awakening is in line with your sensibilities and insight, then good, it's there to help you and transform you. But it should always be reality first. If not, you become just another religious fanatic, a dogmatic follower who worships scripture over truth, doctrine over personal experience and insight. Of course you can travel that path for a while, but ultimately to stand on your own wisdom, one must break from the herd.

The point is that there is no awakening without right view, right view being first and foremost in the noble eightfold path that leads to awakening. In other words, awakening to the nature of reality is dependent upon the adoption of right view through learning the correct teachings.

 

This has been my and Thusness's experience too, not that we just take Buddha's words by faith (but before you awaken, you should take Buddha's words by faith as the sutta I quoted previously have stated).

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bogoda/bl139.html#essay4

 

Against this background, we can now see how the Buddha-Dhamma is related to other religions.

 

As stated earlier, the Buddhist way to Nibbana is the Noble Eightfold Path. The question then arises as to whether arahantship — perfect holiness — or Nibbana is possible outside this path. The Buddha's answer to Subhadda's question, just before he passed away, clarifies our problem: "In whatever teaching, O Subhadda, there exists the Noble Eightfold Path, there is the first saint (sotapanna), there is the second saint (sakadagami), there is the third saint (anagami), there is the fourth saint (arahant). An arahant is a perfect saint. Elsewhere there are mere semblances of saints." As the Noble Eightfold Path is found only in Buddhism, in the Buddha's own words "the other teachings are empty of true saints."

 

They therefore err who say that all spiritual paths lead to the same summit and that the view from the top is identical for all. The reason is simple: the Buddha saw the true nature of things clearly and completely with his own independent supramundane insight — his perfect enlightenment — and so his teaching is an exact reflection of reality, while other religious teachers had only an imperfect view of reality, with eyes dimmed by various forms and degrees of ignorance (avijja).

 

This, however, does not imply that Buddhism is intolerant of other religions. Neither the Buddha nor his followers ever imposed his system of thought or his way of life on anyone who would not accept it of his or her own volition. Acceptance was a purely voluntary matter. Even if accepted, how much of it one should practice is one's own responsibility. But regardless of one's personal inclinations, the universal moral laws operate objectively — action being followed by due reaction, deeds by their fruits. The Buddha merely reveals the laws of life, and the more faithfully we follow them, the better it is for us, for then we act according to the Dhamma.

 

Also as Namdrol said: The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

 

And as Zen writer and speaker Ted Biringer says, "Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring."

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Now this has become a ridiculous discussion. This is just stupid. You are making extremely nonsensical points like "if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist." Great. So I guess my dog doesn't experience the world since he probably doesn't label things or his experiences. Or maybe to me this new food I ate at some restaurant should've just gone right into the air when I couldn't find a label for it. Or how about I have two labels for my tea pot. I call it a teapot then let me call it a round container. Oh now it must suddenly turn into two things since it has two imaginary conventional existences. Uh I can't or just forgot to label this burn I got on my finger from pouring soup because of the instant pain. Oh hey, it's still there. Ow!

 

...come on, man.

No, not 'if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist', but more like this:

 

When the sugata is afterwards spoken of, all are words and all these are spoken with provision or false names; because they are established in false or provisional names.

 

...

 

All things are only provisional or false names and established only in names. That which is capable of speech is not obtained apart from speech.

 

In other words, we realize there is no 'entity' of weather apart from thinking about it - not because 'if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist', but because there is actually simply no real entity to which the label refers to, so it is just a false name and provisional imputation.

 

There is no real entity 'weather' even though the label 'weather' is imputed. Just like there is no real 'self' even though sentient beings falsely conceive there to be one.

 

The same goes for everything else, self and phenomena.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Uh, no. You reallllly need everything explained to you, huh...First, consistency is not something you establish. You don't wake up and establish that there is a moon above your head for it to be there. It is just there. You don't wake up and establish a "body" for you to begin walking on the floor. If you think otherwise, I ask you if there is no longer a moon outside the window since you've stop establishing it. Is it still there? Good. Then you are wrong.

My point is that a consistent entity is an imputation and false establishment.

 

No, yesterday's 'moon' and today's 'moon' are not the same moon. The moon of the last second and the moon of this second is not even the same. Every moment is constantly arising and subsiding.

Second, consistency doesn't mean something is the exact same from day to day. It just means that there is some observable pattern to the behavior, a certain rule to the flow of things that you can observe from one day to another. The moon, even though it may deteriorate day to day has a observable pattern to the rate at which it deteriorates and the way it interacts in space according to gravitational forces.

There is not even an 'it' that 'deteriorates day by day'.

 

Or as Steve Hagen, a deeply insightful Zen teacher (whose books I recommend) writes, the thorough-going flux, the impermanence that "is so complete, so thorough, that nothing is formed in the first place to be impermanent."

 

Or as Thusness puts it, 'change without something changing'.

The moon is not going to suddenly defy gravitational law tomorrow and drop from the sky. In other words, the world isn't chaotic and completely random. It has a seeming consistency from day to day like your habits.

Consistency are conventional observation - which admits things like 'weather', 'cold', 'winter' - e.g. winter weather is almost always cold. Ultimately, there is no 'weather' etc. Conventional truths are not denied on that level in the same way that karma and rebirth are not denied on the conventional level - it is only rejected (as being truly existent) when analyzed and all phenomena are realized to have no real existence.

Coupled that with the world being consequential, in that you are prone to be affected by it, the two categories become good measures in determining the level of reality of experiences and objects. The term "reality" is only to determine what is relatively more real in our experiences since we have experiences that are less real, like dreams and fantasies. Our idea of reality and illusion (I mentioned this awhile ago) is just a degree of measurement. And the reason why you can't just say "everything is an illusion" (remember now?) is like saying "everything is 70 degrees." (in case you don't understand, that would mean there is no such thing as measurement of temperature). The relativity collapses then and the words and ideas don't have meaning any more.

When you cannot pin down a reality anywhere, then all experiences are 100% unreal. This is a yes or no thing... not a percentage thing.

By the way, as for the toni packer quote, it doesn't say the weather is an illusion or a magic. It basically just says there is no entity called weather. Uh...ok, it's a label for a collective set of phenomena. It doesn't say there is no such thing as weather. Again you are equating imputation for existence. That would mean that before one's capabilities in language and labels the world didn't exist. That's just ridiculous.

No entity 'weather' means no weather. Simple as that. Of course Toni Packer aimed her refutations at coarser imputations, such as 'weather', or 'self'. Toni Packer described anatta, but not the emptiness of phenomena which includes the 'feelings... etc'. In other words, her insight only describes up to the Hinayana level (anatta/emptiness of self), and does not extend all the way like Mahayana does to all phenomena.

Actually, anatta doesn't contradict universal entity of godhead. Not at all.

Actually it does. Anatta breaks down the notion of an 'entity', more so a 'universal' one.

If the god head is the totality, and you have no individual existence besides the universal totality, that can be labeled Brahman. It's just a matter of interpretation.

Brahman = permanent self. Anatta = no permanent self, be it universal or individual.

 

When you drop your conceptual image of self and discover the non-conceptual Presence-Beingness, I AM, you reify that as your truest identity.

 

When you realize the falsity of the sense of being a separate self or observer, or a subject-object dichotomy, you drop that and realize One Mind, but you reify that unified Mind or Awareness as ultimate/permanent/self. Nonetheless you no longer hold on to that I AM as anyway more special or ultimate than a transient sight or sound, since all is You.

 

Then when you realize anatta, you discover that there is no self/Self - there is no unchanging substance of mind, or a seer, behind the process of seeing/seen, in seeing always the seen without a seer. No unchanging, independent, permanent or ultimate subject/self.

 

At this point your understanding becomes similar to the Hinayana schools - there is no subjective self or being or soul, nonetheless the analysis does not extend towards all phenomena, so at this point it may seem as the sravaka Abhidhamma states - that all dharmas/phenomena are 'ultimate realities' in contrast to conventionally conceived realities like 'self, Tathagata, you, me' or gross concepts like 'weather'. Nonetheless dharmas, or phenomena, are conceived to have 'atomic' elemental existences.

 

Then when we realize the emptiness of phenomena, all are realized to be coreless, substanceless, illusory like a mirage, a magician's trick. Then we realize that the 'ultimate realities' that Abhidhamma posits are in fact, no ultimate 'realities' but more 'conventional realities' which when analyzed are seen to be empty. And this is also where 'non-locality' comes in - which does not mean that things exist but cannot be located, but that there is no location of things that can be pinned down because there is no thing-ness of things.

 

So no, Anatta is not the same as One Mind or I AM. I AM is where the conceptual ideation of self in terms of labels and concepts (I am my name, my gender, etc), to be replaced by the identification with the pure sense of being/presence-awareness. One Mind is where subject-object dichotomy is deconstructed but not inherent self. Anatta is where the inherent subjective self is deconstructed. Emptiness of phenomena is where the true existence of phenomena/objects are deconstructed.

 

As long as the subtlest view of inherency is not deconstructed, there will always be some clinging, effort, referencing, even though not detected or seen as such. There can be no liberation with inherent view, therefore the realization of right view is important and necessary, and why Buddhism puts much emphasis on this.

You have partially shown that maybe individual units of matter lacks no inherent existence, but not matter itself. Not at all.

'Matter' is another coarse imputation, like the word 'weather'. There is no 'matter' apart from the 'individual units of matter' which when further analyzed are realized to be empty.

 

What is matter? The ancients analyze them in terms of the five or four elements:

 

The Earth Element

The Water Element

The Fire Element

The Air Element

The Space Element

 

These are not 'elements' that science understands it - obviously there is no atomic element called 'earth', rather, it simply means solidity (earth), liquidity (water), heat (fire) and mobility (wind) are observable fundamental 'building blocks' of nature or matter as we observe it.

 

Then in modern science, the scientists through the use of telescope is able to discover over a hundred various elements with different structures.

 

So 'matter' is really just a vague imputation like the word 'weather', there is no 'matter' apart from the elements, which can be analyzed in different ways.

 

Whether we take Buddhism's conventions or modern science conventions, which are all valid conventional observations, the ultimate truth is that of emptiness.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Unrelated to the current discussion, I was just going through Alex Weith's postings yesterday and found them to be deeply insightful even after re-reading the second or third time.

 

Just a sharing:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html

 

A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta

Posted by: An Eternal Now

Some excerpts of postings about Bahiya Sutta by AlexWeith (who is a lay Soto Zen priest who recently realized anatta) from http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4765011/A+Zen+exploration+of+the+Bahiya+Sutta?offset=0&maxResults=20

 

Thusness told me that he thinks all these are very well written, which I fully agree.

 

 

"In the seen, there is only the seen, in the heard, there is only the heard, in the sensed, there is only the sensed,

in the cognized, there is only the cognized. Thus you should see that indeed there is no thing here;

this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself. Since, Bahiya, there is for you

in the seen, only the seen, in the heard, only the heard, in the sensed, only the sensed,

in the cognized, only the cognized, and you see that there is no thing here,

you will therefore see that indeed there is no thing there. As you see that there is no thing there,

you will see that you are therefore located neither in the world of this,

nor in the world of that, nor in any place betwixt the two.

This alone is the end of suffering.” (Ud. 1.10)

 

.............

 

There is no end to the process of awakening, but in Zen Buddhism there are steps and strategies. These introductory posts will explain my position, what I discovered so far, and how it unfolds.

 

Having got hold of the ox, one has realized the One Mind. In Zen literature this One Mind has often been compared to a bright mirror that reflects phenomena and yet remains untouched by appearances. As discussed with one of Sheng-yen's first Western students, this One Mind is still an illusion. One is not anymore identified to the self-center, ego and personality, yet one (the man) is still holding to pure non-dual awareness (the ox). Having tamed the ox, the ox-herder must let go of the ox (ox forgotten) and then forget himself and the ox (ox and man forgotten).

 

The problem is that we still maintain a subtle duality between what we know ourself to be, a pure non-dual awareness that is not a thing, and our daily existence often marked by self-contractions. Hoping to get more and more identified with pure non-dual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls "stagnating waters" for about a year.

 

This is however not seen as a problem in other traditions such as Advaita Vedanta where the One Mind is identified with the Brahman that contains and manifests the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep within itself, yet remains untouched by its dreamlike manifestation.

 

.............

 

So what has been puzzling me what the sense of presence, the sense of being and its relation with the sense that things around me manifest their presence. Over the months I realized that if this beingness seems to be located as the center of our being, it is actually the flavor of all things.

 

Reading the blog "Awakening to Reality" that has become my main source of inspiration, I realized that this presence felt as the presence of 'what is' is the *luminosity* that the Mahamudra teachings are talking about. Gradually, feeling my own sense of being has become feeling the beingness of all things, leading to a deeper non-dual realization that gradually colapsed the sense of a Primoridal Awareness, True Self, or Bright Mirror into what is present here and now.

 

The conclusion is that all phenomena are in themself empty and luminous, ungraspable and self-aware, ever changing and alive. The conclusion is also that there is nothing beyond that; no permanent pure potential beyond phenomena, no true self that would be the source and substance of phenomena and above all no primordial awareness or Consciousness that would contain the five aggregates.

 

The whole universe is contained and expressed in a the "cypress tree in the court", simply because in the absence of a super Self in the background, the cypress tree brightly present in this very moment is the absolute reality made manifest in its suchness (tathata). Most Zen koans point to this realization, together with Hui-neng poem "Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists, Nor the stand of a mirror bright. Since all is empty from the beginning, Where can the dust alight".

 

Surprizingly this deconstruction leads to a deeper level of non-duality. Huang-po's "One Mind' is starting to become Mazu's "No Mind, no Buddha".

 

.............

 

Practically speaking this means:

 

1). becoming aware of one's sense of existence and focusing on it until it starts to feel as if the only reality is this pure presence-awareness containing everything;

 

2). shifting this sense of being-existence-presence-awareness to apprehend the beingness of all things, until everything starts to feel bright, luminous, present and alive. At this stage, there is no more "self" and "other", nor is there any subtle duality between primordial awareness and phenomena arising and passing away within it. There is only "seeing seeing the seen" without a seer, nor solid material objects behind the seen.

 

This does not mean that there is absolutely no Primordial Awareness, Self or One Mind. This would be an extreme position rejected by the Buddha. This explains why the Buddha remained silent when asked about the existence of a Self. Answering "Yes" would mean that there is an eternal abiding inherent essence beyond phenomena (eternalism), while answering "No" would lead to nihilism, the other extreme view. The Buddha's way is the middle way, between these two extremes. There is a self, but this self is an conventional concept to describe something that appears to be and is experienced as such, but it not an abiding ultimate reality.

 

There is a Mind, but this Mind is empty [of an abiding essence]. This Mind is the *non-abiding mind* of the Diamond Sutra. Therefore, *Mind* is *No Mind*.

 

 

.............

 

This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go.

 

The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

 

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).

 

At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

 

 

 

.............

 

This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go.

 

The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

 

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).

 

At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

 

 

 

 

 

.............

 

 

@beoman & @giragirasol:

 

Yes, when we realize that there is no super Awareness beyond consciousnes and become mindful of

consciousness as it manifests at the 6 doors of the senses, we also realize that everything that we can ever experience is contained within one of these 6 streams of consciousness, including the 4 other aggregates that are known through the agregate of consciousness and the arupa jhanas that are in reality very subtle non-conceptual mind-states of the cognizing-consciousness.

 

Arriving at this point, we can start to investigate the 5 aggregate as well as the sense of self.

 

If we start with the aggregate of form (the physical body), we realize that our direct experience of the body is nothing more than stream of images (seeing legs, arms, a nose), the other senses and above all sensations. Exploring these sensations we realize that there is an impermanent stream of sensations that more of less matches the images of the body. However, the stream of seeing-consciousness is always distinct from the stream of sensing-consciousness. One never sees a sensation, but an unpleasant sensations can match the sight of a wounder arm. These stream are therfore seem as independent, yet totally interdependent. A sound, can trigger a thought that can trigger a sensations, that can trigger the images of a hand moving. Altogether, these 6 impermanent every changing streams of consciousness create the illusion of a solid substancial body. The same method applies to the other aggregates.

 

 

 

 

 

.............

 

 

When it comes to the investiation of the sense of self, we must first realize that, even after what some have called technical 4th path, and even if we know that what we are is not any of the 5 aggregates, we still have a sense of self, a sense of existence. The sense "I am" has not been overcome yet.

 

This issue is discussed in the Khemaka Sutta.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html

 

In this text, Ven. Dasaka meets the Arhant Khemaka and tells him that "there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this." (...) ""Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"

 

The Arhat answers saying "friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession."

 

Abendoning the five lower fetters means being an Anagami. Here the Arhant says that that even Anagami may still have a residual sense of self that he calls, the 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession."

 

 

As to how this sense 'I am' is experienced, the Arhant asks: "then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"

 

And the monk replies, "as the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly." he sense of self is like the scent of the flower. It is the flavor of being.

 

In order to get rid of this residual sense of self and become an Arahat, the sage explains:

 

"As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated. Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated".

 

This means observing the arising and passing away of the 5 aggregates until "the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated".

 

 

 

 

 

.............

 

Practically speaking, the above mentioned method works in the same way. One can either split each of the 5 aggregates into 6 streams of consciousness, to see how the sense of "a body" (aggregate of form) arises when all senses working together create the illusion of substantiality, pretty much like the images track and the sounds tracks of a movie that together create the illusion of reality. Using the same method we can also see how the illusion of a solid body dissolves when we look deeply and see that what we had assumed to be a body is nothing more than an illusion created by 6 impermanent, separate-yet-interdependent streams of consciousness.

 

We can also investigate the sense of self as such.

 

In the seen, only the seen. We first realize that we cannot know the objects seen as such, but only the seen (shapes, colors, textures, etc.). We also realize that there is no separate entity that sees. There is seeing, but no seer. Seeing is seeing. Same with the other streams of sense consciousness.

 

Then, what I do is to look for a sense of self, and see whether it is more assocated to one of these 6 streams of consciousness. It is generally associated with a physical sensation around the solar plexus or gut, and is therefore related to the stream of sensing-consciousness. When this is seen for what it is, the sense of self drops. There is nothing beside the spontanious functioning of the senses.

 

Here the purpose is not to lock and make permanent a special state of consciousness, but only to gain deeper and deeper insights into Anatta and Shunyata until we become absolutely unable to make anything into "me" or "mine".

 

 

 

.............

 

@giragirasol - and yes the results experienced during meditation when we stop investigating and let go of clinging that what has been seen as an illusion does match the traditional description of Rigpa. It first come for a brief moment, until it eventually becomes the only game in town. This is no surpize, since the Dzogchen teachings are basically about seeing the fruit (of mainstream Buddhism) as its ground (view) and the path (practice).

 

But here one should clearly mention that there is absolutely no inherently existing "Awareness" that is felt as existing separately from "phenomena arising witghin awareness", which would be Advaita Vedanta and maybe Kashmir Shaivism, but not Dzogchen. The Dalai Lama was very clear about that and insisted on the fact that Dzogchen can lead people astay if they lack a clear understanding of no-self, emptiness, co-dependent origination, interdependence, etc., recommending the in-depth study of Longchenpa with a solid background rooted in Tsongkapa's Lam Rim or other similar treaties.

 

 

 

.............

 

With respect to the Zen 10 ox-herding pictures this above deals with "ox forgotten, man remains" (no more super-Awareness, One Mind beyond the 18 dhatus, 6 senses) and then "ox and man forgotten" when the lingering "sense I am" that used to apprehend the aggregate of consciousnes as the One Mind is also extinguished. This is not the only interpretation, but it does match Zen master Sheng-yen's commentaries.

 

 

.............

 

 

And of course, mindfulness of the mind/6 sense doors/citta, being totally one with the seen, the heard, etc. is at the heart of Zen practice.

 

Ultimately, meditation practice is always "allowing everything to be as it is". However can only let go of what we see as an illusion. As an exemple disembedding from thoughts, sensations and perceptions allows us see them as mere reflexions. It then becomes easier to let go of thougths, sensations and perceptions. However, the same practice will also crystalize the sense of a witness untouched by phenomena that gradually evolves into a super non-dual Awareness seen as the source and substance of phenomena. Without further investigation, letting go is letting go thoughts, sensations and perceptions, but unknowingly also holding on to the Witness, Awareness or some other illusory inherent self hanging somewhere in the background. It is only when we investigate and look deeply into this awareness that we become able to let go of clinging to what looked like the Absolute leading to a deeper non-dual realization from the Awareness vs reflections-within-awareness duality.

 

 

 

.............

 

@jhsaintonge - hi, it's pretty much on topic actually. On May 12, 2011, I was doing the laundry after struggling for days on the fundamental koan "if you knew that you couldn't do anything to gain elightenment, then what do you do?" Suddenly, everything felt dreamlike, everything namely may life, the universe, several past lives, everything felt like a dream, something that never happened, something illusory arising from a great void, a creative nothingness, unborn, uncreated, beyond birth and death, beyond time, non existing yet source and substance of all things; me, awareness, consciousness was seen as being nothing more than its projection that would then get identified with its projected dreamlike appearences to create the illusion of a real life in a real world. As a result of this event, everything felt perfect, whole and complete for weeks. And something did shift permanently.

 

Now what is that? Advaita Vedanta Jnanis told me you are That". You are a jnani. Zen masters said, "you have seen the ox", the essence of the Mind. Reading Christian mystics, it is clear that this event is seeing God as the Ground of Being, the unmanifest source of all things. Nothing wrong with the experience. It is great, awesome, and enlightening in the sense that it opened the an abiding non-dual state that some call technical 4th path.

 

But then, iis this the Buddha's awakening? Not so sure. Because although this event does validate the teachings of Neoplantonism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian mysticsm, there is no real insight into "Co-dependent origination" and most as the other things that set the Buddha's teachings apart from other great Indian spiritual traditions.

 

 

 

.............

 

There remains a duality between "That" and phenomena. "That" feels like an impersonal uncreated clean mirror in the background that reflect phenomena, yet remains untouched. As a matter of fact that is the Self that Raman Maharishi talked about. That is the Arma (or Atta in Pali).

 

On a later stage, we realize that "That" can self-contract or on the contrary expend. It is like zooming in an out. In reality, it never changes, but gets more or less identified with phenomena. Attending to this pure presence-awareness, it naturally grows and overpowers phenomena to the point where everything is seen as appearences reflected within it. Yet "That" is the Self.

 

The problem is not the Self, but what we make out of it. Grasping at it tends to create a subtle duality, since we can become more or less identified with its dreamlike projections. There is Awareness vs phenomena arising within awareness. Awarenees is IT. Phenomena arising within it are Maya, illusions. We must cease identification with, or disembed from illusory (empty, impermanent, not-the-self) phenomena. This is precisely what great Advaita Jnanis did, like Ramana Maharishi who meditated for years in a cave after his awakening.

 

The problem is that the more we disembed as this stage, the more we grasp at this pure non-dual Awareness, Absolute or Self and fail to realize what the Buddha realized under the Bodhi Tree.

 

My conviction is that in order to realize No-Self (Anatta), the Buddha has realized the Self. He was already an accomplished yogi, a master in his own right. But he still wasn't satisfied, because it wasn't yet the end of suffering. Why, because as long as there remains any tiny sense of "me" or "mine" either in relation with body and mind, or with a Self, primordial awareness, Consciousness, Brahman, the One Mind, God, etc. there will be suffering.

 

 

 

 

.............

 

My guess is that the Buddha first realized the Self and then started deconstructing it. He took this non-dual awareness and thought, "how can I be sure that this will not perish with the body?", "isn't awareness nothing more than something that arises as the result of sense contact"; "can awareness or consciousness exist beyond the 5 aggregates?", "what is the sense of self, being, existence?", "how does it arise?", "why is it still there after self-realization?", "why is it still there in the highest arupa jhanas?", "how can it be extinguished without dying?"

 

Then one day, Gautama awakened to impermanence, co-dependent origination, no-Atma (antta), emptiness, suchness, etc. and knew that, "this is the end of suffering", "the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming and going, etc.".

 

I am far from that, but I am starting to realize that the Buddha did go beyond what everybody saw (and still seem to see -even Buddhists- as enlightenment, awakening or self-realization. Something that implies the realization of the Self, but goes further.

 

 

 

 

 

.............

 

So what is this pure, unborn, empty, timeless and nondual Awareness? As I see it now, it is just the non-arising, unsupported, empty and self-luminous nature of what is that the mind grasps and imagines to be an essential sustancial inherhent ultimate reality beyond phenomena. Seeing a white ox on a while empty field covered with snow (common Zen simile for the experience of the One Mind), the mind assumes that there is a pure "Whiteness" beyond all white objects.

 

Why? Because when the mind is not yet freed from ignorance, it needs to hold on to some kind of stable reference point, reifying its unconditioned and nonabiding nature realized in a moment of total surrender into seeing the eternal Source and substance of all things.

 

As I am starting to see it now, there is no clean mirror behind the images reflected in the mirror.The mirror cannot be separated from its reflected images. The reflected images are the mirror. Reality is like a lucid dream, but there is no dreamer, nor dreamed reality beyond the dream. There is just an timeless flow of dream images dreaming themselves within the dream. In dreaming, only the dream / in seeing, only the seen / in hearing, only the heard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.............

 

Padmasambhava's take on the same subject (where we see that Dzogchen and Vajrayana do not contract Pali Buddhism):

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

.............

 

 

The suggestions that I have received were to acquire 'right view'. The mind needs to acquire some form of conceptual model that allows it to accept the possibility of its own non-abiding ungraspable empty nature. Right view is therefore required to facilitate the shift of perspective from "I am Awareness, everything is in me" to "nothing whatsoever is me or mine, all dharmas are empty".

 

A good start would be Walpola Rahula's classic "What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada". It can be completed by "The Way to Buddhahood: Instructions from a Modern Chinese Master" by Ven. Yin-shun. A great autoritative summary of the Mahayana path. Then, based on a solid understanding of the core insights of Buddhism, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's "Clarifying the Natural State" (if still in print, or anything from the same great 16th century yogi) will be the best introduction to the Mahamudra and indirectly to the the sem-de series of Dzogchen.

 

The logical progression is therefore:

 

- Advaita Vedanta

- Pali Buddhism

- Mahayana Buddhism

- Mahamudra, Dzogchen

 

If we skip Pali and Mahayana Buddhism and jump directly to Mahamudra or Dzogchen, the risk is to interpret Mahamudra or Dzogchen as a Buddhist version of pop-neo-advaita, equating emptiness and rigpa with awareness.

 

This is very common nowadays and some Western lamas seem to encourage this trend to water-down the Dzogchen teachings, as always in order to appeal to a larger public. Business is business.

 

 

.............

 

 

The great thing about Buddhism is that is never goes beyond our direct experience.

 

In our direct experience, "the seen" does not imply the existence of solid objects out there that are the objects of what is seen. They may or may may not exist, but our direct experience is only "in seeing, only the seen".

 

In our direct experience, "the seen" does not imply the existence of a subject (an entity located in our brain looking through our eyes) or an impersonal unmanifest eternal witness (the Self, Awareness). In our direct experience there is only "the seen", without anybody seeing.

 

The dream is just a metaphor. "The seen" is itself: not existing, not non-existing, nor both existing and non-existing ;-)

 

 

 

.............

 

Mahamudra is often defined as the union of emptiness and clarity. In Zen we call it the inseparability of the empty essence and luminous function of the mind.

 

What does it mean exacty and how is it related to practice.

 

As I see it, the practice of what Kenneth called 1st and 2nd gear (noting vipassana and self-inquiry) allows us to witness the impermanent nature or phenomena that are gradually seen as being dreamlike, impermanent and ungraspable. As a result, we disembed from our identification to phenomena and wake up to our existence as pure awareness, first as the silent witness untouched by thoughts, then as an impersonal presence-awareness somehow detached from phenomena (3rd path) and finally as a non-dual awareness [that is not a thing] that includes phenomena and manifests as phenomena (4th path).

 

Through this process, the witness crystalizes the *clarity* aspect of what is, while phenomena manifest the *emptiness* aspect of what is. When the separation is complete, empty phenomedna are seen as dreamlike apprearences within pure clarity apprehended as non-dual awareness.

 

In the Direct Mode (3rd gear?) some have noticed that phenomena become more alive, luminous, clear, in a way hyper-real, while the sense of an observing witness tends to dissolve.

 

 

Why? Because at this stage the direct mode shifts the our attention for the witnessing position beyond or behind phenomena towards phenomena and objects on the foreground. As a result phenomena (the seen, the heard, etc.) become more clear, alive, actual and hyper-real revealing its *clarity* aspect, while the sense of self, the witness, the observer or the sense of existing as a pure impersonal univolved awareness dissolves and fades away, revealing the *emptiness* aspect.

 

In both cases, *emptiness* and *clarity* are present but are somehow divided into two opposites sides:

 

a). The subject is the only reality: the all pervading witnessing non-dual awareness (clarity) on one side, and empty impermanent phenomena reflected within awareness on the other (emptiness), or

 

b.) The objects are the only reality in the absence of a knower: the "actual" world bright clear and luminous out there (clarity) and no self, witness or presence on the other side (emptiness).

 

Both states are valid point of views as long as we understand that everything is both *empty* and *luminous*. Then there is no opposion or conflict between cycling mode and direct mode, this or that. Gaining freedom from fixed views we gradually realize the union of emptiness and clarity.

 

Zen master Linji (Jap. Rinzai) illustrates a). and . as the 1st and 2nd of his Four Positions:

 

1). Remove the objects, not the man (non-dual awareness that is both the source and substance of all things)

2). Remove the man, not the objects (no sense of self or agency, all that remains is the functioning of the six senses)

3). Remove both man and objects (emptiness of both self and phenomena)

4). Remove neither man, nor objects (traceless enlightenment beyond enlightenment)

 

 

 

.............

 

What is nibbana?

 

"If we wish to go by the Buddha's words, there is an easy principle that the Buddha taught to a disciple named Bahiya. "O Bahiya, whenever you see a form, let there be just the seeing; whenever you hear a sound, let there be just the hearing; when you smell an odor, let there be just the smelling (...) When you practice like this, there will be no self, no "I". When there is no self, there will be no running that way and no coming this way and no stopping anywhere. Self does not exist. That is the end of dukkha. That itself is nibbana". Whenever life is like that, it's nibbana. If it's lasting, then it is lasting nibanna; if it is temporary, then it is temporary nibanna. In other words, there is just one principle to live by".

 

- Buddhdassa Bhikkhu, 'Heartwood of the bodhi Tree'

 

.............

 

Hello Zyklops,

 

I know that it sounds strange and counter-intuitive. To bring it back to the reality of our direct experience of things as they are, let me try answer with the following questions:

 

- Have you noticed that no sunlight ever enters into the mind, nor even into the brain?

 

- Have you noticed that even in dreams, while sleeping in a dark room with our eyes closed, we experience bright vivid dreams?

 

- Have you noticed that when the sense of self fades away, everything becomes more vivid, bright and luminous?

 

- Have you noticed that when I am aware of something, this "I" is itself a thought and/or a feeling?

 

- Have you noticed that althought our sense of existence seems to imply the existence of a knower located somewhere behind the eyes, the sense of existence-presence-being is only the actualization of an ungoing impermanent flow of phenomena [coming into being], including what we had assumed to be the subject of all experiences?

 

When the self/Self is seen as an illusion, awareness is also revealed as a quality of phenomena. In other words, there is no Awareness out there aware of phenomena. Phenomena are themselves self-aware, empty and luminous.

 

This is also what Dogen means by "to study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away" (Genjokoan).

 

 

.............

 

The notion of a 'primordial awareness', 'knowingness' or 'buddha-nature', seem to find its origin in the 'tathatagarbha' (Buddha's embryo) described in the Lankavatara sutra that soon became very popular in China, Korea, Japan and Tibet, in relation with Yogachara (Vijnanavada, mind-only) Buddhism that strongly influenced the Zen (that used to be called the Lanka school), Mahamudra (also called the 'Mind Seal') and Dzogchen traditions.

 

Scholars agree to find its root in the Anguttara Nikaya, where the Buddha talks about the 'luminous mind' ('pabhassara citta' in Pali):

 

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements".

 

As mentioned above -at least as far I am concerned- there is nothing wrong with it, provided that we clearly understand that the Buddha did not talk about a permanent unconditioned entity untouched by phenomena. There is a "luminous is the mind" and "the triple world is mind-only" (Avatamsaka sutra), yet this mind is empty [of an abiding essence]. This mind is a more like a stream of interdependent luminous phenomena, a flow of seeing, hearing, sensing, thinking, etc.

 

 

 

 

.............

 

 

Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

 

On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,

 

As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

 

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).

 

.............

 

What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).

 

It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.

 

.............

 

Thanks, sure. I especially like the "In lhatong—in terms of the Four Naljors—one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises".

 

This is how the practice these days. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc. out there trying to dis-embed from the seen, the heard... If it seem that someone or something is investigating, seeing, practicing, it soon appears that this sense of a doer, an observer or even this abstract and impersonal sense of being is just thinking, feeling, sensing.

.............

 

As a matter of far, I am not familiar with noting vipassana. What I do is to hold on the 'sense of being' or 'sense of presence'.

 

This presence that first felt like "I am presence-awareness" now turns into the direct apprehension of the beingness, presence or actuality of seeing, hearing, sensing, etc. in the absence of a subject, knower, self or non-dual awareness-super-Self.

 

The sense of being (or feeling of existence) is not anymore the sense of my being as a sentient being or even as pure non-dual awareness, but is simply experienced as the beingness of 'what is' manifesting its presence.

 

 

 

For more, see the original link

 

Labels: Alex Weith, Anatta, Stages of Enlightenment, Zen 2 comments | |

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not to wade into this discussion, but this is not necessarily true. Correlation does not mean causation. One of my old friends used to say, the rooster crows. The sun rises. Does the rooster make the sun rise?

 

Consider speech. Speech occurs in the mouth. You can correlate oral position of my teeth, tongue, and haw to every word that I speak. If my mouth is damaged, my ability to speak is impaired. Therefore, speech is contained in the mouth. You can make the same argument that hearing is in the ear, vision in the eye, and so on.

Your rooster and sun example is not really an accurate comparison. From the article:

 

"They were even able to reconstruct some of the words, turning the brain waves they saw back into sound on the basis of what the computer model suggested those waves meant."

 

We can't reconstruct specific types of sunrises by making the rooster crow in one way then another. The fact that the particular brain waves could match up with different words show strong correlation since in thought no other part of the body changes as accordingly. Hence we can safely assume that the two are linked and the likelihood that the thoughts take place in the brain, just as sounds in your vocal chords is high.

 

All observations of causations begin with correlation. And in the case of the relationship between the brain and language the correlation is very high. There are enough studies done on autism and language development to link the organ and the function together.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

You can locate fire by tracing the smoke, but you cannot locate thought by tracing brain waves. You only see more brain waves, not the thought.

 

Like I said - I never thought otherwise that brain waves are highly linked to thoughts. Obviously it is, and I am not surprised that they are able to translates brainwaves to thoughts, and will not be surprised if one day that technology can be used to 'read' coma patients. This however does not indicate that thoughts are located in your skull, there is no link there. That is like saying fire is located in the smoke - which is not the case, since smoke is different from fire but interdependent.

Uh...so you say brain waves are highly linked to thoughts...but thoughts aren't linked to the skull. Well, sorry to break it to you but brain waves happen...in the brain...which is in...your head.

 

It's not like saying fire is located in the smoke at all! It means fire can be traced via smoke to a particular location.

 

As for this very ludicrous claim: "You can locate fire by tracing the smoke, but you cannot locate thought by tracing brain waves. You only see more brain waves, not the thought." You are basically demanding that for something to be located it must be experienced first hand. So a fire can't be located because...you aren't being burnt by it? That's unreasonable don't you think?

 

Similarly, you can build a machine that 'translates' the CD to audible music, or the tape to viewable videos, yet this does not mean the CD = music, or that the music is located in the CD - since music is actually an auditory phenomenon, video is a visual phenomenon (and auditory) - and these requires not only the CD or the tape, but also other eletronic devices like the cd player, the TV, electricity, and so on.

 

In Buddhism, Consciousness is a substance different from matter. There are six elements:

 

The Earth Element

The Water Element

The Fire Element

The Air Element

The Space Element

The Consciousness Element

 

Namdrol: No one ever said that consciousness had no cause. Consciousness is a substance, conceived of by the Buddha and Buddhists to be of a different kind than matter. Conciousness has a cause, but not a material cause, even though, according to them, it can be conditioned by material substances.

 

Dharmakirit runs through these reasonings in much detail in the Pramanasiddhi chapter of the Pramandavartika.

LIstening to music is an activity and not a thing. It is a happening, a verb. So it makes no sense for someone to go try to locate "music" in an object like a CD, but it also doesn't mean that listening to music has no local point. It happens via your ear and your brain, the cd, and the headphones, in a specific channel of causation producing that experience. It has a locality because the activity is condensed to a specific point and as you travel further away from it, the level of effect on the activity itself is loosened. For instance, a squirrel falling in China will have little to no measurable effect on someone listening to music in California.

 

Similarly, it's not so wrong to say that thoughts are located in the brain because the activity is condensed in that region of the body. Surely you don't believe the hand is the focal point or the foot.

 

As for your Namdrol quote, if consciousness is understood as a substance, and there are other substances relative to it, then it points to a relative location. There is no reason to deny the location of thoughts in the head.

[Lucky7Strikes]

The point is that there is no awakening without right view, right view being first and foremost in the noble eightfold path that leads to awakening. In other words, awakening to the nature of reality is dependent upon the adoption of right view through learning the correct teachings....

As I have observed, you are a Buddhist fanatic. A dogmatic Buddhist.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, not 'if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist', but more like this:

 

When the sugata is afterwards spoken of, all are words and all these are spoken with provision or false names; because they are established in false or provisional names.

 

...

 

All things are only provisional or false names and established only in names. That which is capable of speech is not obtained apart from speech.

 

In other words, we realize there is no 'entity' of weather apart from thinking about it - not because 'if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist', but because there is actually simply no real entity to which the label refers to, so it is just a false name and provisional imputation.

 

There is no real entity 'weather' even though the label 'weather' is imputed. Just like there is no real 'self' even though sentient beings falsely conceive there to be one.

 

The same goes for everything else, self and phenomena.

Ok let's see. This just says a) names are provisional and ultimately false. and B ) that phenomena are not set entities.

 

So how does the analysis that phenomena are just interacting interconnected activities, like clouds forming, rain raining, the winds blowing, say that the phenomena itself is an illusion? That it has no reality to it? This just says that the viewing of phenomena as separate entities and truly imputed nouns is false.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

My point is that a consistent entity is an imputation and false establishment.

Mhmm.

 

No, yesterday's 'moon' and today's 'moon' are not the same moon. The moon of the last second and the moon of this second is not even the same. Every moment is constantly arising and subsiding.

There is not even an 'it' that 'deteriorates day by day'.

 

Or as Steve Hagen, a deeply insightful Zen teacher (whose books I recommend) writes, the thorough-going flux, the impermanence that "is so complete, so thorough, that nothing is formed in the first place to be impermanent."

Yes...

 

Or as Thusness puts it, 'change without something changing'.

Ok...

 

Consistency are conventional observation - which admits things like 'weather', 'cold', 'winter' - e.g. winter weather is almost always cold. Ultimately, there is no 'weather' etc. Conventional truths are not denied on that level in the same way that karma and rebirth are not denied on the conventional level - it is only rejected (as being truly existent) when analyzed and all phenomena are realized to have no real existence.

Whoa! Wait now. Just because there are no existent "things" it doesn't mean phenomena has no real existence. As I have suggested before it just points to a new perspective that phenomena work like the flow of water, or the steaming of gas, that it is in constant movement, a "sea of energy." Your analysis here is extreme and unsupported.

 

When you cannot pin down a reality anywhere, then all experiences are 100% unreal. This is a yes or no thing... not a percentage thing.

No it just means your view of reality as "things" and nouns is problematic and inaccurate.

 

Seems you haven't yet contemplated the difference between illusion and reality and what the terms gain there definitions from.

 

No entity 'weather' means no weather. Simple as that. Of course Toni Packer aimed her refutations at coarser imputations, such as 'weather', or 'self'. Toni Packer described anatta, but not the emptiness of phenomena which includes the 'feelings... etc'. In other words, her insight only describes up to the Hinayana level (anatta/emptiness of self), and does not extend all the way like Mahayana does to all phenomena.

No no entity weather means the label is not perfectly representative of the phenomena of weather. Doesn't make the weather itself an illusion. Don't push your conclusions without support.

 

Actually it does. Anatta breaks down the notion of an 'entity', more so a 'universal' one.

Brahman = permanent self. Anatta = no permanent self, be it universal or individual.

No Brahman just means a totality of all as One phenomena.

 

'Matter' is another coarse imputation, like the word 'weather'. There is no 'matter' apart from the 'individual units of matter' which when further analyzed are realized to be empty.

I missed the part where you analyzed atoms, protons, quarks, and quantum strings to be nonexistent.

 

What is matter? The ancients analyze them in terms of the five or four elements:

 

The Earth Element

The Water Element

The Fire Element

The Air Element

The Space Element

 

These are not 'elements' that science understands it - obviously there is no atomic element called 'earth', rather, it simply means solidity (earth), liquidity (water), heat (fire) and mobility (wind) are observable fundamental 'building blocks' of nature or matter as we observe it.

 

Then in modern science, the scientists through the use of telescope is able to discover over a hundred various elements with different structure

 

So 'matter' is really just a vague imputation like the word 'weather', there is no 'matter' apart from the elements, which can be analyzed in different ways.

 

Whether we take Buddhism's conventions or modern science conventions, which are all valid conventional observations, the ultimate truth is that of emptiness.

...you are again equating imputation with existence. Labels don't give phenomena their reality. "Matter" does not make elements real, nor do the names of the elements. Your attempts at insights are just sad.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Uh...so you say brain waves are highly linked to thoughts...but thoughts aren't linked to the skull.

No. I say thoughts are linked to brain/head/skull/whatever. But they are not to be equated with brain/head/skull/whatever, in the way that smoke is linked to fire, but not to be equated with fire.

It's not like saying fire is located in the smoke at all! It means fire can be traced via smoke to a particular location.

It is an inapt analogy. Whereas you can actually trace the smoke to a fire you can see, you cannot trace brain to a thought you can see.

 

All you can see is brain waves - not the thought of another person. Science is now able to 'decode' what the brainwaves may mean, but that is like 'decoding' the CD into the form of a music using another machine/cd player. You do not actually 'see' the music in the CD, and you cannot say music is in the CD, when music is an auditory phenomenon.

As for this very ludicrous claim: "You can locate fire by tracing the smoke, but you cannot locate thought by tracing brain waves. You only see more brain waves, not the thought." You are basically demanding that for something to be located it must be experienced first hand. So a fire can't be located because...you aren't being burnt by it? That's unreasonable don't you think?

No, 'being burnt by fire' is a conventional observation. It is not ultimate reality.

LIstening to music is an activity and not a thing. It is a happening, a verb.

And so is thinking.

So it makes no sense for someone to go try to locate "music" in an object like a CD, but it also doesn't mean that listening to music has no local point. It happens via your ear and your brain, the cd, and the headphones, in a specific channel of causation producing that experience.

 

It has a locality because the activity is condensed to a specific point and as you travel further away from it, the level of effect on the activity itself is loosened. For instance, a squirrel falling in China will have little to no measurable effect on someone listening to music in California.

Location is relative and cannot be established as a true existence, and is merely a false conventional imputation. Location is dependent on many variables... dependent on the object, the object in relation to other objects, etc.

 

Our planet is moving around the sun at 66,630 MPH... so even though it appears we are sitting on a chair unmoved, yet it is revolving around the sun at 66,630 MPH, and the solar system and galaxy may be moving as well.

Similarly, it's not so wrong to say that thoughts are located in the brain because the activity is condensed in that region of the body. Surely you don't believe the hand is the focal point or the foot.

Thought is just an activity and not a thing.

 

Just as music playing is not located in the CD.

 

Ultimately, everything are dependently originated activities and hence empty.

As for your Namdrol quote, if consciousness is understood as a substance, and there are other substances relative to it, then it points to a relative location. There is no reason to deny the location of thoughts in the head.

On the ultimate level, you cannot find the core or substance of thought (or any of the other elements for that matter).

 

On the conventional level, a thought, which is a form of consciousness, being the element of consciousness, is distinct from the other elemetns of matter, and therefore spatial location does not apply in this way. Correlation takes place but does not reduce thought to matter.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

As I have observed, you are a Buddhist fanatic. A dogmatic Buddhist.

It is just my observation that only Buddhism teaches the right view that leads to liberation of inherent view, which is the cause of all clinging and suffering.