Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Yeah and what other spiritual disciplines have you studied thoroughly in your 21 years of being alive (besides your pseudo advaita study done under the premises that it was inferior to Buddhism all under Thusness)?

[xabir2005]

Yeah and what other spiritual disciplines have you studied thoroughly in your 21 years of being alive (besides your pseudo advaita study done under the premises that it was inferior to Buddhism all under Thusness)?

I have never seen any living Christian, a Taoist, a Hindu, etc describe the realization of anatta and emptiness, nor are these things taught in their doctrines. If you find evidence to the contrary, tell me.

 

But I do not want to dwell into this - because anyway, not everyone has awakening and liberation from suffering as their goals. Some may want to seek immortality, etc.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Whoever equated thoughts with the organ of the brain or the skull? I mentioned that to say that thinking takes place in the skull since you are always going on about "ohh thoughts just arise and disappear and have no location" non sense.

 

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.

Um, you are the one who suggested this "inapt" analogy.

 

You can't see thoughts. That's a stupid expectation, like saying, "oh,you can't see wind" or "you can't see sound" so it must not be there. Visionary location is different from auditory and tactile location. This is like saying, "oh you can't smell square, so it must no be there." But particular phenomena have multiple facets of conscious experiences to them, like a piece of wooden block you can touch and see and smell.

 

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.

What are you talking about? Do you think I'm saying that the object of CD equates to the music itself? You are completely missing the point here and just being stupid. We are talking about location of phenomena not whether phenomena belongs to objects. Since the activity of the brain waves correlate strongly to the formulation of thoughts, and the brain is located in the skull, we can safely say that the whole phenomena called "thinking" takes place in the skull.

 

And if one does trace the brain waves and finds a device that can translate that into audible sound that can be communicated to a third party, that does indeed mean you get to trace thoughts to brain waves that are in turn given a device to be expressed via sound. So when we are able to hear brain waves through our auditory functioning, that indeed means thoughts can be traced back to the location of the brain.

 

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

 

And so is thinking.

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.

Yes....um. So? Good god your little insights are pitiful. Go take a philosophy class or something because you really need to get your thinking straightened out. So what if location is relative? It doesn't make the entire realm of locations false. It only shows that specific sense of location is relative and hence depends on the one who is viewing it. It's merely relative and not illusory. In fact, since relativity is the reality, we can say it's very real according to how one views the location of a particular instance or object.

 

Thought is just an activity and not a thing.

Yeah. I was the one who said that. Good job. At least you got one thing through your head.

 

Just as music playing is not located in the CD.

No...but the sound that is perceived is located in the system of ear and the brain and the awareness of them. So in that instance in which the music is playing, the music has a location in which it is happening.

 

Ultimately, everything are dependently originated activities and hence empty.

Whatever. God is great. All worship Allah.

 

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.

And you also have no evidence of saying that thought is not matter, besides what Buddhism says about it. Scientific evidence has so far not shown that thought is in fact no matter, but in fact strongly suggest that it has a physical (not necessarily material) form to it.

 

There is no proof whatsoever to show that consciousness is separate from the elements or of any physical properties. There certainly hasn't been anything observed called the element of consciousness. So all these statements are just conjectures and beliefs on your part and nothing more.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

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.

They are illusory in the sense that while having no substance, core, true existence, true locatable existence, and yet while not truly existing nonetheless appearances are unceasing and undeniable, so its like a magic show.

 

What manifest, having no real existence, core, substance, like a hollow bamboo, have no place of abidance, an origin, or a destination... via dependent origination the appearance (activity) manifest but what dependently origintaes are empty of a core or substance, and hence are illusory, like a mirage or a bubble - appearing yet empty, empty yet appearing.

 

I have already discussed about the analysis of matter and elements and their emptiness earlier. A substantial entity cannot be pinned down in impermanent and dependent conglomerates.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have never seen any living Christian, a Taoist, a Hindu, etc describe the realization of anatta and emptiness, nor are these things taught in their doctrines. If you find evidence to the contrary, tell me.

 

But I do want to dwell into this - because anyway, not everyone has awakening and liberation from suffering as their goals. Some may want to seek immortality, etc.

.............................. :wacko:

 

....ok...

 

I'm speechless. What?

 

Of course a Chrsitian doesn't realize anatta or emptiness!!! Anatta and emptiness are Buddhist terms, and Buddhist descriptors and understanding of reality.

 

A Christian see the world in terms of the bible, or heaven and hell, in terms of God the spirit, and the son, Jesus pardoning orginal sin etc. It has an entirely different paradigm of reality than Buddhism.

 

Same with Taoism and Hinduism. They are more similar to Buddhism but the teachings and methods can vary depending on the teacher and their interpretations of the world.

 

You are completely and totally brainwashed. You can't think outside of the Buddhist box.

[xabir2005]

Mhmm.

 

 

Yes...

 

 

Ok...

 

 

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.

I have already explained earlier that the four extremes are due to the positing of an 'entity'.

 

For example as said earlier, 'Tathagata exists' (or becomes non-existent) cannot be stated to be so when no 'Tathagata' entity can be pinned down, and the same goes for everything else.

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.

It actually means that there is no 'weather' entity at all - it is a baseless imputation without any actual reality (illusory appearances, no true existents). The same analysis can apply for rain, clouds, etc.

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

No, Brahman is defined as a non-phenomenal noumenon. In other words, a truly existing self. And it subsumes everything to be that.

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

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

 

The emptiness of matter.

 

The ancient Greeks believed that matter is composed of indivisible small elements with certain characteristics, such as the characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire. They called these elements atoms and they held that atoms were solid and fundamental, like microscopic billiard balls. Ernest Rutherford invalidated the billiard ball theory by conducting an experiment, which suggested that atoms have an internal structure. He established that atoms have a nucleus containing most of its mass and that electrons orbit the nucleus. Moreover, he established that the nucleus of an atom is only about one ten-thousandth of the diameter of the atom itself, which means that 99.99% of the atom's volume consists of empty space. This is the first manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. Not long after Rutherford's discovery, physicists found out that the nucleus of an atom likewise has an internal structure and that the protons and neutrons making up the nucleus are composed of even smaller particles, which they named quarks after a poem of James Joyce. Interestingly, quarks are hypothesized as geometrical points in space, which implies that atoms are essentially empty. This is the second manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

 

The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

 

An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the molecule- are sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.

...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.

Labels do not give phenomena their reality, because there is no reality (as in true existents). Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

.............................. :wacko:

 

....ok...

 

I'm speechless. What?

 

Of course a Chrsitian doesn't realize anatta or emptiness!!! Anatta and emptiness are Buddhist terms, and Buddhist descriptors and understanding of reality.

 

A Christian see the world in terms of the bible, or heaven and hell, in terms of God the spirit, and the son, Jesus pardoning orginal sin etc. It has an entirely different paradigm of reality than Buddhism.

 

Same with Taoism and Hinduism. They are more similar to Buddhism but the teachings and methods can vary depending on the teacher and their interpretations of the world.

 

You are completely and totally brainwashed. You can't think outside of the Buddhist box.

And the point I made is that suffering comes from view of inherent self and existence, which leads to clinging, which leads to suffering, and therefore the only way to overcome that is to overcome ignorance that grasps at true existent self.

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Lucky7Strikes]

And the point I made is that suffering comes from view of inherent self and existence, which leads to clinging, which leads to suffering, and therefore the only way to overcome that is to overcome ignorance that grasps at true existent self.

Oh, I thought you were making all these claims about reality and how the world was.

 

If you are speaking just about suffering, well, I'll be the first one to tell you that Buddhism is not the only way out of suffering. What a boastful things to say. There are plenty of happy people who are not Buddhist.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have already explained earlier that the four extremes are due to the positing of an 'entity'.

 

For example as said earlier, 'Tathagata exists' (or becomes non-existent) cannot be stated to be so when no 'Tathagata' entity can be pinned down, and the same goes for everything else.

Uh, no, you are just labeling things wrong. Thathagata may not be a solid entity, but a verb. Like jumping. When you see someone jump you don't go, "look, there is jump," because the label refers to a series of actions. So a tathagata may point to an activity of being, which does not indicate his non-existence at all, just that it is not some solid thing, but a movement.

 

It actually means that there is no 'weather' entity at all - it is a baseless imputation without any actual reality (illusory appearances, no true existents). The same analysis can apply for rain, clouds, etc.

No it just says weather is an activity.

 

No, Brahman is defined as a non-phenomenal noumenon. In other words, a truly existing self. And it subsumes everything to be that.

No other understandings of the Brahman state thus:

 

The world is an illusion

Brahman alone is real

Brahman is the world

 

Flee the many,

Find the One

Embrace the Many as the One.

 

If the world has no individuality, of selves, but is a totality of movements, then the multitude is united into One sea of activities.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

I'm not saying I am a proponent of this view, but from what you are suggesting, there is no conflict.

 

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

What did I say about posting things you don't understand. Don't be pretentious.

 

Anyway, all that article says is that objects are densification of fields of space. It also doesn't mention that hadrongs, namely protons and neutrons are held together by an incredible force of energy, i.e. movement and interaction between geometrical points.

 

So...it just reveals a different model of reality. No where is it indicative of reality being an illusion or a trick. Remember you yourself wrote above that appearnaces are undeniable. Well, if reality is the appearance themselves, the term "appearances" no longer has any valuable meaning to it. So reality is the appearance.

 

Labels do not give phenomena their reality, because there is no reality (as in true existents).

True existents is not the definitions of what constitutes the idea of reality. Go back a few pages and trace our discussion on the understanding of reality vs. illusion.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

What are you talking about? Do you think I'm saying that the object of CD equates to the music itself? You are completely missing the point here and just being stupid. We are talking about location of phenomena not whether phenomena belongs to objects. Since the activity of the brain waves correlate strongly to the formulation of thoughts, and the brain is located in the skull, we can safely say that the whole phenomena called "thinking" takes place in the skull.

It still doesn't show brain waves to be thoughts - two completely different classes of phenomenon, in the same way that you cannot say that the CD correlates with the music and therefore music is located in CD.

So what if location is relative? It doesn't make the entire realm of locations false. It only shows that specific sense of location is relative and hence depends on the one who is viewing it. It's merely relative and not illusory. In fact, since relativity is the reality, we can say it's very real according to how one views the location of a particular instance or object.

If location is relative it means cannot pin down a real existence or entity of location. It means what is conventionally called location appears so, but not being truly existent.

There is no proof whatsoever to show that consciousness is separate from the elements or of any physical properties. There certainly hasn't been anything observed called the element of consciousness. So all these statements are just conjectures and beliefs on your part and nothing more.

The element of consciousness is simply your conscious experience.

[xabir2005]

Oh, I thought you were making all these claims about reality and how the world was.

 

If you are speaking just about suffering, well, I'll be the first one to tell you that Buddhism is not the only way out of suffering. What a boastful things to say. There are plenty of happy people who are not Buddhist.

Like even if their sons and daughters die, they get cancer, and so on? That they never get haunted by their anxiety, fear, anger, craving, etc? And to add in rebirth and karma: that they will never suffer in the three lower realms in the next life?

 

It is naive to think that just because someone is happy (lots of people are happy in good times) at the moment, they never suffer ever. All of the unenlightened suffer more or less to varying degrees depending on their circumstances, when the roots of afflictions are not cut off.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Gahahhahahahah!

 

What? ...

 

So because life is happening in an activity, it is a magic show? Wahahah!

 

You really need to make yourself clear. Let me give you some definitions:

 

il·lu·sion

 

noun /iˈlo͞oZHən/ 

illusions, plural

 

A false idea or belief

- he had no illusions about the trouble she was in

 

A deceptive appearance or impression

- the illusion of family togetherness

- the tension between illusion and reality

 

A thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses

- Zollner's illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background

It is not "a false idea or belief" in my case, and therefore I distinguished 'illusory' from 'delusional'. Experience remains illusory (empty yet appearing), delusions can be removed.

 

A deceptive appearance seems close - such as a mirage or a magic trick.

you are suggesting that existing phenomena itself is false, deceptive, an impression (this doesn't make sense for the world to be an impression...impression of..what..the world?) or wrongly perceived. That it is often wrongly perceived we have established.

Perceiving phenomena to be truly existing is delusional, appearances are illusory - appearing yet empty, is a fact.

 

So where in these definitions can you justify your claims that the world itself is an illusion? That it doesn't have a core? Maybe the world is in constant movement. What and movement suddenly equates to illusions and non-existence? Movement = non-existence? Ha! That's just ridiculous

Because you cannot pin down an entity anywhere - self or phenomena.

A hollow bamboo exists.

You miss the point. The hollow bamboo is pointing to the corelessness, substancelessness of phenomena. It is just metaphor.

The only thing you are saying is basically: there are no ultimate "things." But that doesn't means there is no reality. As I have said before, reality then may be just a fluid procession of movements, or energy, matter, light, etc.

Reality as I define it means 'truly existing'... as distinguished from appearances, which are appearing yet no 'true existents'. If you say 'there is reality', you have to pin down what that reality 'is'. You cannot pin down such a reality anywhere - self or phenomena. So 'there is', 'exists', 'it is' all don't apply.

All you are able to deny is the "entity." Not even that. All you are able to really deny is the ultimate label of an entity. That is it.

Nope. The point is about rejection of the view of entity.

And to be honest you don't even know that for certain because once you go into the make up of matter, into quarks and string theory, no one has a true idea whether the world is indeed made up of small energy particles or not.

Like I said, you don't have to investigate all classes of phenomenon. Just one will do. For me it was a thought. Because this is about discovering the Nature of phenomenon (e.g. dharma seals), not the individual characteristic of each phenomenon (which is endless and infinite since phemonenon are infinite - and as such only an omniscient Buddha would have been capable of realizing emptiness, which is not the case).

 

Those who meditate on a single phenomenon and thus understand

That all phenomena are like an illusion and a mirage,

Ungraspable, hollow, false, and not solid,

Will soon proceed to the heart of enlightenment.

 

~ The Sutra Requested by Sky Treasure

 

 

Through one, you will know all.

Through one, you will see all.

 

~ The Sutra of the King of Meditative Concentration

 

SO really, the insight you offer is something understood by innumerable people in the field of linguistics and epistemology, that our knowledge of the universe, as framed by terms and definitions, are themselves not true because they are only symbols mirroring reality.

Not what I was saying. Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

No it just says weather is an activity.

Toni specifically explained how there is no entity called weather. Since weather cannot be pinned down apart or within any of the everchanging, impermanent flow or conglomerate or aggregation of varying activities. It is not 'weather is just an activity' - if weather can be equated with one particular activity, that doesn't make sense since an activity lasts an instant, and if it it is to be equated with all activities, then it is merely an imputed phenomena without true existence, or if you see weather as something underlying all activities - that is also a delusion - there is truly no weather to be established apart from phenomenon.

No other understandings of the Brahman state thus:

 

The world is an illusion

Brahman alone is real

Brahman is the world

 

Flee the many,

Find the One

Embrace the Many as the One.

 

If the world has no individuality, of selves, but is a totality of movements, then the multitude is united into One sea of activities.

 

Makes sense to me.

The point about anatta is that there is no 'One'. The 'One' is broken down into its constituents, in the same way 'Weather' is broken down into the constituents, therefore realizing there is no 'The One', or 'The Weather'. Therefore, nothing unchanging, independent, like Brahman. In seeing just the process of seeing, the experience of the seen, without a seer.

 

Also Brahman is not seen as 'totality of movements' (in the sense of 1 + 2 + 3 + ... to infinity = the one phenomenon Brahman) since Brahman is non-phenomenal and without movement - rather it subsumes all movements to be the one unchanging substance in its final analysis (1, 2, 3, are all false phenomenal projections upon infinite non-phenomenal Brahman), i.e. all is only Brahman, since all are illusory images appearing within and as the one unchanging substratum of Brahman - no combination of phenomenon will add up to become that noumenon - only when all superimpositions of phenomenon are removed is Brahman revealed, or when you stop seeing the necklace as necklace do you see it as the substratum of gold. This is obviously different from Buddhism since we analyze consciousness into constituents and do not subsume all into one single unchanging substratum or entity. Or in the words of Alex Weith, "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,"

 

Anyway here is something about Adi Shankara:

 

Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyze Adi Sankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered real (true).

 

Adi Sankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real (true).

Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real (false).

Whatever is independent of space and time is real (true), and whatever has space and time in itself is not real (false).

Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream.

The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real (true).

 

On the other hand, Adi Sankara claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely real—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Sankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993):

 

If the world were unreal (false), then with the liberation of the first living being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a living being attains liberation.(but it is possible that no living being attained the ultimate knowledge (liberation) till now.

Adi Sankara believes in karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal (false).

The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal (false).

False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing which is perceived by our senses and exists but is not the truth.

 

Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.

 

Well, if reality is the appearance themselves, the term "appearances" no longer has any valuable meaning to it. So reality is the appearance.

Undeniable does not mean reality (truly existent) - it simply means undeniable because vividly manifest, appearing.

 

You cannot pin down the existence or entity of appearance, so appearances are empty.

Edited February 4, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

It still doesn't show brain waves to be thoughts - two completely different classes of phenomenon, in the same way that you cannot say that the CD correlates with the music and therefore music is located in CD.

If location is relative it means cannot pin down a real existence or entity of location. It means what is conventionally called location appears so, but not being truly existent.

It does show the high probability that thoughts happen in the brain. Just as music happens with the CD being part of the whole phenomenon when you listen to it. Remember why I brought this into the discussion? It's to show you that thoughts are indeed locatable consistently, that it just doesn't pop out of no where spontaneously.

 

Also you admitted brain waves and thoughts are linked and correlated. So why are they suddenly two different classes of phenomenon. The CD of course correlates with the phenomena of music, it's an intrinsic part of the production of that experience. The phenomenon of music is densely focused in the hearing and the interpretation of the soundwaves by the brain. The density of activity makes the idea of location viable. The CD, the ear, the hearing, the brain are all locations in how and where the music takes place.

 

And, no, if location is relative that's just what it means. If it appears so, then it is so. What do you have any other way of measuring or understanding reality beyond what appears so? Our understanding of the world comes from appearances and our observation about these appearances. Come on, these are some elementary concepts.

 

The element of consciousness is simply your conscious experience.

Well then that begs a new question doesn't it? Whether a conscious experience has a tangible property to it that can be captured and reproduced. But so far no one has been able to reproduce consciousness, so we have yet to understand anything about such element called a consciousness.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Like even if their sons and daughters die, they get cancer, and so on? That they never get haunted by their anxiety, fear, anger, craving, etc? And to add in rebirth and karma: that they will never suffer in the three lower realms in the next life?

 

It is naive to think that just because someone is happy (lots of people are happy in good times) at the moment, they never suffer ever. All of the unenlightened suffer more or less to varying degrees depending on their circumstances, when the roots of afflictions are not cut off.

Woooow!!!

 

Haha! You are a reeaaaalll ass aren't you?

 

People with cancer learn to deal with their pain through different ways of justification and beliefs. And they might not believe in real life or karma either so those terms are just irrelevant. For all I care karma and past life memories can be just delusional plays of the mind.

 

I'm pretty sure there are as many happy daoists and happy buddhists, because I've heard a lot about miserable Buddhists as well. Happiest people also tend to be atheists who live life as if it is the only chance and who view the passing of people and life's troubles as just mere natural occurrances.

 

Anyway, some people enjoy their sufferings because it's the way they have chosen to live their lives. You are a different individual so happiness means something different for you. Or people find happiness through their own religion or their own spiritual practices like yoga or exercise. Or people just find a way to be happy without wanting things and without the help of Buddhism.

 

It's a frightening thing for you to assume what's good for someone else you don't know much about.

 

Buddhism does not have a monopoly on happiness. To think so is quiet distasteful.

 

But I didn't realize we are talking about suffering. We are talking about the nature of reality. Suffering really doesn't concern myself, because I know I can find happiness without the help of Buddhist doctrine.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Toni specifically explained how there is no entity called weather. Since weather cannot be pinned down apart or within any of the everchanging, impermanent flow or conglomerate or aggregation of varying activities. It is not 'weather is just an activity' - if weather can be equated with one particular activity, that doesn't make sense since an activity lasts an instant, and if it it is to be equated with all activities, then it is merely an imputed phenomena without true existence, or if you see weather as something underlying all activities - that is also a delusion - there is truly no weather to be established apart from phenomenon.

Uh...activities don't last an instant. Where in the world did you get that idea? Actually activities are mostly drawn out through time. But it doesn't have to be one particular activity, it can be a collection of activities which is what "weather" indicates. The formation of clouds, rain, the thunder, yada yada are all what we choose to call weather. It's not equated with all activities. Your line of reasoing are all really strangely extreme. There are activities we don't call "weather" like watching tv. Watching tv is not weather.

 

I never said weather is separate from the whole phenomena we choose to call weather. But that weather, the activity of weather I should say so not to confuse your poor mind, is indeed real. It's not some illusion.

 

I think a problem here is that your understanding of english terms are a bit off.

 

The point about anatta is that there is no 'One'. The 'One' is broken down into its constituents, in the same way 'Weather' is broken down into the constituents, therefore realizing there is no 'The One', or 'The Weather'. Therefore, nothing unchanging, independent, like Brahman. In seeing just the process of seeing, the experience of the seen, without a seer.

What? I thought there were no constituents, no "entities." SO how are you going to break something down into separate constituents? Now you are just contradicting yourself.

 

Also Brahman is not seen as 'totality of movements' (in the sense of 1 + 2 + 3 + ... to infinity = the one phenomenon Brahman) since Brahman is non-phenomenal and without movement - rather it subsumes all movements to be the one unchanging substance in its final analysis (1, 2, 3, are all false phenomenal projections upon infinite non-phenomenal Brahman), i.e. all is only Brahman, since all are illusory images appearing within and as the one unchanging substratum of Brahman - no combination of phenomenon will add up to become that noumenon - only when all superimpositions of phenomenon are removed is Brahman revealed, or when you stop seeing the necklace as necklace do you see it as the substratum of gold. This is obviously different from Buddhism since we analyze consciousness into constituents and do not subsume all into one single unchanging substratum or entity. Or in the words of Alex Weith, "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,"

If the origin of the reflection comes from something that is deemed real, the reflection is also an extension of that which is real. Only considering the reflection as the reality is false, because then you are not seeing things in their totality, but only the partial reflection. So in the end, it's just saying everything is One, the noumenon and phenomenon are together of one source.

 

As for that Alex Weith quote, if luminosity is the characteristic of phenomena and inseparable, and everything is phenomena, then luminosity is indeed the totality. There is nothing that is not luminous and it is in everything...so what difference does it make whether we understand it as universal awareness or not. Again, I'm not saying this is my position, but I'm just showing inconsistencies in what you say.

 

Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.[/i]

It is true. There is nothing about the reflection that is false unless you think that it is not a reflection. The reflection stands as true as the original object but just of a different characteristic in that it is not as dense of a material but an impression left by the light.

 

Undeniable does not mean reality (truly existent) - it simply means undeniable because vividly manifest, appearing.

 

You cannot pin down the existence or entity of appearance, so appearances are empty.

Pinning down doesn't mean reality. As I have said before, just because you don't pin down the collective phenomena of moon, doesn't make it disappear into the air. Nor is the appearance of the moon not there. As you have said, it is undeniable.

 

If reality functions by appearances and activity then that is the nature of reality. Then the word "appearance" no longer serves its function because that is simply the reality itself with no other truth behind it. You are merely suggesting a different paradigm of reality and not proving that it is an illusion or that reality does not exist.

 

Truly existent is a different definition then truly existent with a core. No where in our understanding of the definition of reality or our understanding based only on the idea of something's core or essence. That is just one part of it.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Birch]

.............................. :wacko:

 

....ok...

 

I'm speechless. What?

 

Of course a Chrsitian doesn't realize anatta or emptiness!!! Anatta and emptiness are Buddhist terms, and Buddhist descriptors and understanding of reality.

 

A Christian see the world in terms of the bible, or heaven and hell, in terms of God the spirit, and the son, Jesus pardoning orginal sin etc. It has an entirely different paradigm of reality than Buddhism.

 

Same with Taoism and Hinduism. They are more similar to Buddhism but the teachings and methods can vary depending on the teacher and their interpretations of the world.

 

You are completely and totally brainwashed. You can't think outside of the Buddhist box.

 

I thought the point of the bhuddist box was that it helped lead people out of all boxes, including itself. What's the point of it then if it's not doing what it's supposed to? I found it quite helpful. But I prefer other things. I wonder if telling someone they are brainwashed would help them break out of it? What if they don't want to? I think my only caveat could be that they avoid going around attempting to brainwash anyone else.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think my only caveat could be that they avoid going around attempting to brainwash anyone else.

Well he does. Xabir trolls around other spiritual websites to propagate his message. And since no one is willing to answer to all the pages of his quotes and his relentless repetition at the end of the day he just appears to have had the last word.

 

Honestly, I hate doing this. I don't like debating someone who is as close minded as he is and whose entire spiritual vocabulary in entrenched in one dogmatic paradigm. It almost feels like having a debate with someone who speaks a foreign language. If you go on atheist or Christianity boards you'll see a similar thing. Just adamant insistence on their own beliefs. No discussion period.

 

Xabir is as stubborn as anyone I know. He will never ever admit his own flaws in a discussion. In the four years I have observed him in any discussion boards and on the tao bums, even on the instances where he is clearly wrong or being self contradictory, he will just mute the point and move on to another one without mentioning anything about the error. He hates being wrong and he despises being vulnerable when he is called out. Once Thusness pointed to the carelessness of what he said on his own board on sgforums once, and you could tell Xabir just hated it and let it out on some other guy on the forum.

 

And here he is also clearly flawed mostly in the usage of his language. But he won't have it. He won't alter anything just so that he will be right. All the while claiming to be enlightened. If you notice he doesn't cater his definitions and message around the other person he is having a discussion with. He will just shove his own dogma down the other's throat. That's just violent. Anything the other person says is almost irrelevant besides his own message. How many times has he addressed question and inquiry into what I have said throughout this twenty page thread? None. Zero. It's just me, me, my Buddhism, my points, my ideas, my words.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Birch]

That seems quite a long time to discuss with someone you think is wrong.

I personally think there are bits of bhuddism that are dogmatic but I can't tell for now whether that's an inherent flaw in the process of it through bhuddist practices, whether maybe it's more about my flaws as a person, perhaps it's cultural and bhuddism just doesn't set well over the top of existing conditioned frameworks, maybe there's a point at which no vehicles will work for anyone except the person that created it.

Anyway, I enjoy reading the back and forth.

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Xabir

 

This is my last message on this thread. There's no need to bicker with you since hopefully enough people have seen your egotistical stubbornness and complete lack of the ability to formulate insights according to the topic or the person being engaged. You have no genuine interest in other people's insights or experiences as made clear by the sheer lack of questions or attitude of inquisitiveness on this board (even Vaj was a lot better than you). All you have is your own fixed language like (ironically) a fool who clings to names and ideas. You are a mere religious fanatic: the response that "oh other religions aren't true because they don't realize anatta" show how incurable you are like asking a devout Muslim whether he considers the veracity of other religions to which he says "oh other religions aren't true because they don't worship Allah." And don't give me that crap about seeing it yourself or understanding it directly. You were just as devout before you claim to have had these insights four years ago as you are now. So the worshipper dreamed of Allah, and now he suddenly has personal proof.

 

As GIH once said very aptly, you are a mere voice hearer and a follower of dogma. It is unfortunate really that since the time you were only two years old you didn't know any other ways of understanding the world outside of Buddhism. All the pride and identity that you have as a person is wrapped around your faith and another man's insights, Thusness's. Your words are not your own and your pitiful wisdom is just a repetition of others, and hence you are inflexible with the usage of language. It's not that important what we are debating about here, the significance is really in the type of responses you are generating: repetitive, rigid, stubborn, and most of all unimaginative. It is my experience that with the growth of spiritual insight and awareness, one's creative capacity increases, as with imagination. For the last six or so years you could only use a handful of examples to explain yourself, the "weather" the red "flower" and the "wind" (actually, I think that's it really) that are all someone else's. This shows that you don't really own the insights they point to, but just regurgitate the example for the sake of the message. Any other examples you have shown are just plain shallow and backfire (like the "santa claus.")

 

As I have mentioned to -K- above, the way you engage others in discussion is quiet disheartening. The tone of authority and the violent propagation of your views without really considering the other person's experience outside of your own paradigm is an unfortunate display of bigotry and haughtiness. How many times have you tried to sincerely learn from someone's experience on thetaobums? Probably none. Why? Because you think you are better than everyone and know what everyone is going through, and believe that your way is the only way to salvation. The most alarming thing is you do it under the disguise of wisdom. But that's only because you fool yourself more than anyone else. You give the same vibe as an evangelical Christian out to "save" everyone, no different and just as violent and unsympathetic: never truly for the sake of others but for the sake of Buddhism, and merit points.

 

Again, don't give me that crap about "oh but I discovered it to be so." Four years ago for the entire time we had the lengthy discussion here on the taobums passionately for your views (for something like 40 pages), it was revealed later that you really had no direct insight into any of the stuff you debated for. You just argued on and on with dwai on mere belief, on mere theory pretending all the while that it was something you were certain about. And now you say it's not something one can understand through theory. So basically you are saying back then you were just debating on grounds of faith alone, pretending it was wisdom. That stubbornness is no different now. Oh, and I forgot, you are really here to gain merit by proselytizing so to speed up your own meditative progress.

 

To me you are a great example of how eastern spiritual traditions are not exempt from becoming a mirror to the west's religious infatuation. The fact that people will see you as some wise practitioner is what I am concerned about, but hopefully people like Seth can make their own judgments after interacting with you for a while. It will take a while because the disguise you put on is good enough. You are going to merely waste a lot of people's time. At worst I think you are toxic and joykill because you no longer have an open mind, absolutely no sense of exploration, no creativity. Just sheer ego and dogma; violence shrouded in pretentious compassion.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

 

Buddhism does not have a monopoly on happiness. To think so is quiet distasteful.

 

Most Buddhists are not suffering a lot more or less than the Christian counterparts, or the atheist counterparts (at least in this life). They are happy yes, but not 'free from suffering'.

 

This is because they are not awakened, not liberated. Just because you are a Buddhist doesn't mean you are awakened and liberated from your afflictions. It just means you believe in the triple gems and take refuge in the triple gems.

 

In actual fact the only way to cease suffering totally is to cease ignorance, clinging, craving. Otherwise you are just using mental antidotes like "positive thinking", "have more compassion" and so on - which builds up positive mental factors but does not permanently eliminate afflictions. Therefore no matter how happy that person is, he will not achieve what the Buddha "highest happiness" called nirvana, he will never achieve the complete end of suffering, and he will not achieve liberation from the cycle of samsara.

 

In principle, Buddhism does not have monopoly over truth and happiness, yet practically speaking, only Buddhism has taught the right view and path that leads to the end of suffering.

Edited February 5, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Also you admitted brain waves and thoughts are linked and correlated. So why are they suddenly two different classes of phenomenon.

In the same way that smoke is related to fire, but are different phenomena.

[xabir2005]

Oh, so now you won't deny the reality of appearances?

I don't deny appearance, but do not assert any existence or reality.

 

In short, like Kalaka Sutta:

 

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

 

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.

Well, then you were just being stupid. As I have said, no one experiences a breeze and goes, "hey, I need to establish the core of this breeze to see if it has reality." Measure of reality is not pinning it down. Did you while you were growing up pin down all the experiences in the world to see if they were real or not? That's ludicrous.

As the Buddha said you can't pin down Tathagata in or apart from the five aggregates, so how is there a basis for 'the Tathagata exists' and so on?

 

The point is that 'existence' is untenable, and when 'existence' is untenable it means the view that 'the breeze is there', 'it is', and so on are untenable. It is without basis.

 

When you realize that nothing has real existence, that 'real existence' simply do not apply and cannot be asserted, the notions 'it is', or 'it is not' ceases to take hold of you.

"As opposed to idealistic or notional idea of them" is the key phrase here. We understand what is real based on what is not. So it doesn't really matter if you say reality is just appearances and has no core. That doesn't deny reality at all, but just describes it in another manner.

No, the point is there is no 'it' that you can make assertions like 'it is so and so'. 'It is', 'It is not' don't apply when there is no 'it'.

Is it the same for "true existents" and "false existents." The comparing ideas are understood only because in our experience dreams and hallucination occur that are less consistent and consequential than the every day world. So we say the every day world is more real than the dream one. That's how we understand reality, not whether or not is is pinned or has a core.

That is how you understand existence - through conventional relations. But the path of insight is that which analyzes the assumptions of 'existence' behind them - and discovers there to be no subjective self and objective core of phenomena.

That's just lazy. Different types of phenomena behave differently. Water does not behave like fire. If you want to be wise you better start being inquisitive about everything and not try to just claim yourself wise and awakening after observing one thing.

You are talking about conventionally observed characteristic of each phenomena, while I am talking about their ultimate nature.

 

Conventional characteristics are infinite, but when you realize phenomena are fundamentally empty and non-arising, without characteristics, that the notion of existence, entity, and so on are utterly delusional and baseless, then you have 'seen all'.

 

Emptiness is not a characteristic of phenomena, but the nature of all phenomena - i.e. impermanent, suffering, non-self, empty.

Edited February 5, 2012 by xabir2005