Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[Lucky7Strikes]

The above applies when compassion is viewed as a personal, cultivatable virtue.

 

However, compassion has many levels. At the peak, its simply the force that re-animates the cycle of life, and robots are not exempted from the impersonal workings of the process; hence, it can be ascertained that compassion (as energy) is necessarily involved in the creation of robots. Its not what the robot has, its what goes into its creation. Same with humans. What can/do we really possess?

...well, now we are really off topic. But I like it. I think at the core, the energy of compassion and creativity are really one and the same. It's just applied in different human contexts, one may be for people and we call it compassion, and the other may be for art, which we call creativity or artistic passion. It's when we begin to possess it that it becomes an obsession. Ok, enough word play I guess.

[xabir2005]

Then what's the difference between lucid dreaming and waking states?

 

By the way, way to keep it concise. .

Ultimately no difference (all states are empty), conventionally one is a projection of thought or intention as in lucid dreaming, while waking state is not a projection of your intention - i.e. you cannot fly in the sky or change scene just by your own intention, even though waking is also dream-like and illusory doesn't mean its a dream. Of course in waking state your intention can accomplish many things - like walking to the toilet. But you can't fly to the toilet because there are many other limitations and conditions apart from intention - physical limitations, etc. Whereas, lucid dreaming does not have any such limitations and operates solely via intention and thought projection.

Let's look a bit deeper into this "recognition" of an illusion. How do you recognize something as an illusory appearance? By having an idea of something that is non-illusory.

The notion of something non-illusory is already present prior to realization - it is more like, you once thought the mirage was real and there was a real city over there, and now you realized there is no real city over there, its just a mirage, an illusion. That moment of realization is a non-conceptual seeing - it is a Eureka discovery of something amazing - the fact that everything is vividly appearing and yet not truly 'there'! Illusory simply means no core, no substance in anything. Now of course even emptiness is empty - emptiness being an Ultimate Truth but not an Ultimate Reality - emptiness being the absence of inherent existence but not the presence of some metaphysical reality or a position of non-existence - it is taught so that one can relinquish false notions or views about self and objects instead of holding to a new view or belief, and when it has done its job, you totally forget about something called 'emptiness' and just live life without any more delusions. Just luminosity without reifying anything. I never have any thoughts about 'emptiness' or 'no self' nowadays - 'emptiness' or 'no self' simply rejects existents but does not posit a position of non-existence as truth. In other words, I don't perceive a self, but I also don't perceive a no-self - just the suchness of seeing, hearing, without a sense or illusion of self or even a no-self. Make sense?

And there is no agent either yes? So in your paradigm that recognition of something being illusory arises with the condition of recognizing something as true. It makes no sense to have something be false, without an opposite context of something being true.

Yes thats right.

But you say everything is mere appearance. And that appearances are illusions. IMO, there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because you are giving legitimacy to a certain experience calling is wisdom over another way of experiencing which is delusional. But that so called "wisdom" is seeing everything is illusory and baseless:

Have already explained very clearly - there is a difference between delusory and illusory. Wisdom is the correct cognition of reality even though ultimately empty, while ignorance is delusional even though ultimately empty.

 

Nope. I'm not saying that at all. In fact it seems like you are without even recognizing it.

I'm not.

If the dream tiger is real in your mind, it will also bite your dream body in the dream world and give you dream pain.

Yeah but its all a dream.

If in the dream there is the arising of through that it is "not real" then there will be dream peace of mind, in a dream safety in the dream world. Which one is illusory tiger and which one is the illusory safety?

All are illusory, but the latter is NOT delusional (you recognized the dream to be dream) while the prior IS delusional (you thought the dream scene was real).

On the contrary that is what you are saying. You give reality to one experience over the other, saying one is wisdom and the other is delusional.

I do not give reality to anything - if 'reality' (in Buddhist definition) implies something real or substantial, then both wisdom and ignorance is equally empty, illusory, and unreal. However, there is a truth: the truth is emptiness, and wisdom is the cognition or recognition or realization of that truth, while ignorance is the non realization of that truth and therefore operating under false cognition of the nature of reality (as inherently existing).

 

So yes, one is wisdom and one is delusional even though both are empty.

 

You may think that to say something is true and unreal is contradictory but its not - its just because you have an assumption that something true must be something real (substantial). As I said, the truth is the unreality of self and things, and untruth is the (notion of) reality of self and things.

then It's not "things" you are giving reality to, but modes of cognition and states of mind. As we agreed on the snake analogy, really there is no difference between "things" and "states of mind."

I do not give reality (as in substantiality) to modes of cognition. I am just saying, there is a truth - the truth is emptiness, and wisdom is the undeluded cognition due to realization of that truth while ignorance is deluded cognition due to ignorance of that truth, all the while both modes are utterly empty and merely conventional.

So your "true" falls under "false."

No - true is true false is false. Truth is emptiness, false is all notions of inherent existence. Or in another way of explaning, true is ultimate truth, false is conventional truth (put in another way: conventional truth is ultimately not true), but conventional truth also have truths and untruths.

 

There is two truths: conventional truth, and ultimate truth.

 

Ultimately, there is only One Truth - not two. So conventional truth falls under 'false', however under that category of things (conventional) you can distinguish false and true - as in conventionally, rebirth and karma is true (The conventionally observed efficacy of karma and its results cannot be denied. But even karma is ultimately illusory.), and conventionally, a moon made of green cheese is false. Ultimately, the only truth is emptiness, and conventional truth is not true.

 

As an analogy - in a dream you can say you saw this and this, those are conventional truth. Even though certain things can be said to be true and certain things false in the context of the dream, ultimately whatever can be conventionally said about the dream is false in the perspective of ultimate truth - since the dream is entirely illusory and empty to begin with, so in final analysis the only truth is emptiness.

Edited December 23, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

What you are basically saying above is True is "false," therefore "false." And since False is False, it is then True. This is a blatant logical fallacy and obliterates the point of distinguishing True and False.

Never said anything like that.

Haha! What? You don't make too much sense towards the end there do you. Let's examine a few things you said here: "Correct cognition" or "false cognition"...of what? Of reality?

Emptiness, and non-emptiness. Truth is emptiness. False is non-emptiness (inherent existence).

Cognition "of" reality indicates dual perception which I thought you don't have. You just have arising perception, which is not really perception, but more an experience and appearance. What reality are you cognizant of as "false" then or true, unless you label one type of appearance more real than some other way you are aware of through memory.

Cognition of reality simply means correct cognition in the authentication of true wisdom (such as the wisdom of the twofold emptiness). Cognition 'of' does not imply subject/object duality, just as 'cognition of red apple' does not imply 'cognizer' - it just means 'cognition of red apple'.

 

Cognition of red apple can have two types: false cognition and correct cognition. False cognition cognizes a seer seeing an inherently existing red apple. Correct cognition simply cognizes suchness, as Buddha says, "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."

Uh...this is totally random. Why are you bringing this up? Do you have trouble feeling truly compassionate for others? I just don't see why you brought this up..

Just because all are empty doesn't mean there isn't a correct and false way of cognition, the prior leading to wisdom liberation, the latter leading to suffering and delusion. So our compassion goes for those in delusion and suffering as a result of that delusion.

 

Of course even to talk about wisdom and ignorance is also to speak in conventional terms because ultimately there is no wisdom, no ignorance, no ... . So if wisdom and ignorance are conventional truths why bother talking about it? Why bother talking about conventional truths if they are ultimately not true? Firstly as I said, karma, ignorance and its effects can be observed on the conventional level. If there is no sentient beings and no suffering, why talk about saving sentient beings? Even though Buddhas only perceive wisdom/ultimate truth and not conventional, nonetheless as Namdrol says "if you suffer from delusion, then you are still beholden to the two truths. It is inescapable."

 

As an analogy, if you suffer from delusion, you require realization. Actually emptiness is always already the case and requires nothing - realization is only relative to ignorance (trees have no ignorance and no wisdom) - but the only cure to delusion is realization and the only way to attain realization is to walk the eightfold path. Then as an awakened being you become aware of the ultimate truth and know there is no ignorance, no realization, no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end of suffering, no path to end suffering, no

1. . So everything becomes like 'dream-talk' - even talks about four noble truths are 'dream-talk', but it is nonetheless necessary for someone still trapped in the 'dream' (as in, trapped in delusion). A buddha however don't need it anymore but to teach sentient beings he has to engage in dream talk - mere skilful means. Ultimately, as Buddha himself said, he taught nothing at all - because ultimately nothing can be said.

 

Thats like saying - there is already no self, you don't have to get rid of self, you don't have to practice anything to be no-self, you don't have to do anything. But that doesn't work for most of us - we can't realize it so such a statement is as good as useless. But once we have a method in which we can practice to realize the truth, then that means something for us. Insofar as there is the slighest trace of delusion left, you have to engage in further practice and contemplation.

 

So there is a place for compassion, for skillful means, for dream talk. They are all in reference to sentient beings trapped in delusion.

Edited December 23, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

A robot has no compassion

:lol:

[Aetherous]

[C T]

...well, now we are really off topic. But I like it. I think at the core, the energy of compassion and creativity are really one and the same. It's just applied in different human contexts, one may be for people and we call it compassion, and the other may be for art, which we call creativity or artistic passion. It's when we begin to possess it that it becomes an obsession. Ok, enough word play I guess.

Promise i wont derail a most interesting tennis match between Xabir and your good self...

 

The above was merely a spontaneous, off the cuff response to Headless' statement.

 

One thing though, i think creativity is only one aspect of compassion, so, in essence, its not one and the same. Ah, yes, this is veering off the side road, like you said, so i agree, enough word play. Lets just enjoy the space where this time of year seems to always bring.

 

Blessings!

Edited December 23, 2011 by C T

[C T]

On second thoughts, its not different either.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ultimately no difference (all states are empty), conventionally one is a projection of thought or intention as in lucid dreaming, while waking state is not a projection of your intention - i.e. you cannot fly in the sky or change scene just by your own intention, even though waking is also dream-like and illusory doesn't mean its a dream. Of course in waking state your intention can accomplish many things - like walking to the toilet. But you can't fly to the toilet because there are many other limitations and conditions apart from intention - physical limitations, etc. Whereas, lucid dreaming does not have any such limitations and operates solely via intention and thought projection.

Gagh, this is such a disappointing answer...your abilities in the dream are just as limited as in the waking world. Of course lucid dreams have limitations, the very dream itself, the fact that you are playing with the "sky" is a form of limitation isn't it? Just because one has more boundaries than the other, or the quality is different doesn't say anything about whether one is a projection and the other is not. Perhaps the field of influence varies. A teacher of mine once said that the mahasiddhas simply switch their dream world for the real one and that's how they can perform what we perceive as miraculous powers effortlessly.

 

That moment of realization is a non-conceptual seeing - it is a Eureka discovery of something amazing - the fact that everything is vividly appearing and yet not truly 'there'!

 

Is this an appearance? If yes, then by your standards it is illusory. So why is this anymore real than the mirage?

 

you totally forget about something called 'emptiness' and just live life without any more delusions. Just luminosity without reifying anything. I never have any thoughts about 'emptiness' or 'no self' nowadays - 'emptiness' or 'no self' simply rejects existents but does not posit a position of non-existence as truth. In other words, I don't perceive a self, but I also don't perceive a no-self - just the suchness of seeing, hearing, without a sense or illusion of self or even a no-self. Make sense?

Yes thats right.

You know people who believe in a "self" don't go around saying to themselves, "here I am! this I, "me" interacting with "him." They, like you don't purposefully ascertain a self or a non self. I sure didn't before I delved into spiritual stuff. If people did they would be far more aware of their egoic tendencies than they are most of the time. It is a matter of habit, ways of being. They forget why they live that way though, what is at the basis of that habit, the beliefs that have spawned it. Your case is no different. You just have another way of experiencing life that's all. It's no more true or false than anyone else's experience.

 

You are being too irrelevantly wordy and repetitive and simply continue to reassert your position. You are not engaging in a discussion with me but talking at me. Instead of replying to my post word by word and taking phrases in their own out of context narrowness, let us both try to reply to the ideas and question we have here concisely. So I'm going to just try to dig out your main points.

 

I do not give reality (as in substantiality) to modes of cognition. I am just saying, there is a truth - the truth is emptiness, and wisdom is the undeluded cognition due to realization of that truth while ignorance is deluded cognition due to ignorance of that truth, all the while both modes are utterly empty and merely conventional.

No - true is true false is false. Truth is emptiness, false is all notions of inherent existence. Or in another way of explaning, true is ultimate truth, false is conventional truth (put in another way: conventional truth is ultimately not true), but conventional truth also have truths and untruths.

Isn't perception of truth a cognition? Do you not have an experience of it in the mind? And you say this is true than other cognitive states. One an awakened state and the other a delusional state. How is this not giving reality to a certain mode of cognition over another?

 

Furthermore, what is the difference in the mind when it is labeling a certain experience as "truth" and something as "substantial"? Isn't it mere semantics? When we say something is substantial, it doesn't necessary mean something has a core to it, or an identity to it. It very much means that we take it to be real, that it is unfixed in its affect on our livelihood. The degree of something's "reality," as in its shades or rigidity, is also another factor in how the mind perceives.

 

There is two truths: conventional truth, and ultimate truth.

 

Ultimately, there is only One Truth - not two. So conventional truth falls under 'false', however under that category of things (conventional) you can distinguish false and true - as in conventionally, rebirth and karma is true (The conventionally observed efficacy of karma and its results cannot be denied. But even karma is ultimately illusory.), and conventionally, a moon made of green cheese is false. Ultimately, the only truth is emptiness, and conventional truth is not true.

 

As an analogy - in a dream you can say you saw this and this, those are conventional truth. Even though certain things can be said to be true and certain things false in the context of the dream, ultimately whatever can be conventionally said about the dream is false in the perspective of ultimate truth - since the dream is entirely illusory and empty to begin with, so in final analysis the only truth is emptiness.

I don't think really understood what I wrote in that phrase. I'll try to be more concise replying to the post below.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Cognition of reality simply means correct cognition in the authentication of true wisdom (such as the wisdom of the twofold emptiness). Cognition 'of' does not imply subject/object duality, just as 'cognition of red apple' does not imply 'cognizer' - it just means 'cognition of red apple'.

Right so there is just appearance of the "cognition of truth."

 

Cognition of red apple can have two types: false cognition and correct cognition. False cognition cognizes a seer seeing an inherently existing red apple. Correct cognition simply cognizes suchness,

If cognition is an appearance, then you are saying one is a false appearance and the other is a true appearance.

 

If cognition is "of" an appearance, as in the example of the apple as the appearance. Then you are saying there is a separation of the apple as an appearance and something having the ability to be cognizant of that apple in a deluded way or a wise way. But you deny this model, so it seems be the former.

 

If it is the former, then you are saying there are true appearance and false appearances without any basis but preference, since you also say that all appearance are illusory.

 

Just because all are empty doesn't mean there isn't a correct and false way of cognition, the prior leading to wisdom liberation, the latter leading to suffering and delusion. So our compassion goes for those in delusion and suffering as a result of that delusion.

Of course even to talk about wisdom and ignorance is also to speak in conventional terms because ultimately there is no wisdom, no ignorance, no ... . So if wisdom and ignorance are conventional truths why bother talking about it? Why bother talking about conventional truths if they are ultimately not true? Firstly as I said, karma, ignorance and its effects can be observed on the conventional level. If there is no sentient beings and no suffering, why talk about saving sentient beings? Even though Buddhas only perceive wisdom/ultimate truth and not conventional, nonetheless as Namdrol says "if you suffer from delusion, then you are still beholden to the two truths. It is inescapable."

If conventional truths are false but if it is observable, in its effects and powers to change, as a dream, why does that make it any less real?

 

As an analogy, if you suffer from delusion, you require realization. Actually emptiness is always already the case and requires nothing - realization is only relative to ignorance (trees have no ignorance and no wisdom) - but the only cure to delusion is realization and the only way to attain realization is to walk the eightfold path. Then as an awakened being you become aware of the ultimate truth and know there is no ignorance, no realization, no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end of suffering, no path to end suffering, no

1. . So everything becomes like 'dream-talk' - even talks about four noble truths are 'dream-talk', but it is nonetheless necessary for someone still trapped in the 'dream' (as in, trapped in delusion). A buddha however don't need it anymore but to teach sentient beings he has to engage in dream talk - mere skilful means. Ultimately, as Buddha himself said, he taught nothing at all - because ultimately nothing can be said.

 

Thats like saying - there is already no self, you don't have to get rid of self, you don't have to practice anything to be no-self, you don't have to do anything. But that doesn't work for most of us - we can't realize it so such a statement is as good as useless. But once we have a method in which we can practice to realize the truth, then that means something for us. Insofar as there is the slighest trace of delusion left, you have to engage in further practice and contemplation.

Again...a lot of irrelevant crap. But you realized you basically said everything you said was useless? And only useful from a conventional point of view, which you said earlier was really false? So you are both being useless and acting on what you perceive to be ultimately false. :lol: Anyway, you bringing up all these issue that I don't mean to discuss about. They just seem to be unsolved contradictions in your mind. For someone who says his happiness is simply, there sure seem to be a lot of complexities underlying it.

 

I just want us to focus on the question of illusion vs. delusion and cognition vs. appearance, and why you consider something to be truth and something to be not the truth. Let's leave the "need for practice or compassion or need for practice" stuff you keep bringing up aside. Also I'm not concerned with what you believe is true, but more so how you came to that conclusion besides the fact that the Buddha said it. We can tackle the other issues later, instead of making so many tangent points we lose sight of each idea.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Gagh, this is such a disappointing answer...your abilities in the dream are just as limited as in the waking world. Of course lucid dreams have limitations, the very dream itself, the fact that you are playing with the "sky" is a form of limitation isn't it? Just because one has more boundaries than the other, or the quality is different doesn't say anything about whether one is a projection and the other is not. Perhaps the field of influence varies. A teacher of mine once said that the mahasiddhas simply switch their dream world for the real one and that's how they can perform what we perceive as miraculous powers effortlessly.

Much less limitations, not no limitations.

Is this an appearance? If yes, then by your standards it is illusory. So why is this anymore real than the mirage?

I am talking about the realization that EVERYTHING is illusory... of course the realization is also empty and illusory (and empty = illusory, so because there is nothing at all - not even nirvana - that is not empty, everything including nirvana or even if there is anything 'higher than nirvana' must be illusory), but at least now you are no longer deluded. For example, the realization that the dream is a dream occurs in the dream setting, but from then on you are no longer deluded that the dream is real.

You know people who believe in a "self" don't go around saying to themselves, "here I am! this I, "me" interacting with "him." They, like you don't purposefully ascertain a self or a non self.

yes I talked about it in my first post - most people live their lives with self-view and sense of self, but a very vague one. They experience alienation between themselves and the world, but they do not know what that 'self' is.

 

But even though they haven't ascertained self or no self, nonetheless they cling to a sense of self which manifest as a form of contraction and alienation and separation - they feel a me inside experiencing things outside. This is why if they experience PCE or NDNCDIMOP - nondual nonconceptual direct immediate mode of perception, suddenly there's a huge contrast - a big WOW moment - when say, seeing a tree or a sunset or something amazing in nature (usually) but it could be anything. In that moment, the sense of self dissolves and there is just the amazing clarity and aliveness of the moment, the sight, the trees, the sound, without a sense of an inside observer separate from an outside world. Not understanding the experience or rather not realizing anatta as a dharma seal or nature of reality, they may later reflect upon it and say "oh my self dissolved into nothingness for a moment" or "I became the tree for a moment" even though these statements are not exactly true (there never was a real self to begin with, only the sense, the illusion of it).

I sure didn't before I delved into spiritual stuff.

Me too, everyone too (or most people I'm sure).

If people did they would be far more aware of their egoic tendencies than they are most of the time.

Agree.

It is a matter of habit, ways of being. They forget why they live that way though, what is at the basis of that habit, the beliefs that have spawned it.

True.

Your case is no different. You just have another way of experiencing life that's all. It's no more true or false than anyone else's experience.

No - you totally do not understand anatta at all. Anatta is not a way of experiencing life. It is discovering there is no self at all to begin with - it is an illusion to begin with. If you realize anatta, you will understand why everyone is living a lie and an illusion, and now finally you are freed from that illusion.

 

Anatta is NOT an experience... not a PCE or a NDNCDIMOP, however PCE and NDNCDIMOP becomes effortless and even perpetual after realization of anatta. However many people have PCE and NDNCDIMOP with NO realization of anatta whatsoever - as a matter of fact PCE and NDNCDIMOP are so common than Richard thinks every person in the world has experienced it some point in their life - usually in their childhood and is forgotten, but can remember it if they look into it deeply enough (he claims that every person he has spoken to at length can remember an instance in life usually in childhood when they experienced the PCE/NDNCDIMOP).

 

Anatta realization however, is far different from any of those experience... it is a realization that always already, there has never been a seer seeing the seen - that is a FALSE delusional framework of reality, that always already, in seeing always just the sene, seeing is JUST the experience of sight without seer... etc.

 

You may say - realization is also an experience isn't it? My answer is yes, but it is not an experience of 'the absence of sense of self' (a common temporary peak experience), but the experience of 'realizing that there is no self - never was, never will, from the beginning!' It is the experience of 'realizing a fundamental TRUTH' by seeing through a delusion, forever, and realizing no-self and shunyata.

You are being too irrelevantly wordy and repetitive and simply continue to reassert your position.

But unfortunately, you don't understand what I'm talking about, otherwise I wouldn't have needed to repeat.

Isn't perception of truth a cognition?

It is not just a mode of cognition such as the NDNCDIMOP or non-dual non-conceptual direct immediate mode of perception - it must have realization, and merely accessing a mode of cognition say a state absent of sense of self, is not the same as realization. For example as I explained above, NDNCDIMOP is a mode of perception and is extremely common such that everyone or almost everyone has had it before, however Anatta is a (permanent) REALIZATION about a truth, and is truly rare. Edited December 23, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Do you not have an experience of it in the mind?

The experience of NDNCDIMOP or PCE becomes effortless and perpetual after realization of anatta, as a sideeffect. However you cannot equate experience with realization - as it is obvious most people had it, but not the realization.

And you say this is true than other cognitive states. One an awakened state and the other a delusional state. How is this not giving reality to a certain mode of cognition over another?

You are mistaking anatta to be a state and not understanding realization. As a state, all states are equally empty. However, a realization is realizing a TRUTH about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is the twofold emptiness. It has nothing to do with giving reality to a mode of cognition - it is instead, seeing through the illusion of self and objects, the framework of duality and inherency.

Furthermore, what is the difference in the mind when it is labeling a certain experience as "truth" and something as "substantial"? Isn't it mere semantics?

Not semantics. It is very different... I don't know why you don't understand it.

 

Is it true that there is no inherent self, and no inherent core to all objects? When you realize anatta, and the dependent origination/emptiness of everything, you will realize that yes, emptiness is the TRUE nature of everything. SO emptiness is TRUTH - the lack of substantiality is TRUTH and has nothing to do with substantiality.

 

The truth I'm talking about is the LACK of substantiality... the emptiness of everything. Emptiness means lack of core, substantiality, inherent existence. That's ultimately the only truth there is... all other truths are conventional truths that ultimately are false (from the perspective of ultimate truth).

When we say something is substantial, it doesn't necessary mean something has a core to it, or an identity to it.

Ah and this is where I differ as I follow these dictionary definitions:

 

2.

of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.

3.

of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique.

 

 

Emptiness means nothing (no self or object) has substantiality/reality/core/solidity.

[xabir2005]

If cognition is an appearance, then you are saying one is a false appearance and the other is a true appearance.

 

If cognition is "of" an appearance, as in the example of the apple as the appearance. Then you are saying there is a separation of the apple as an appearance and something having the ability to be cognizant of that apple in a deluded way or a wise way. But you deny this model, so it seems be the former.

 

If it is the former, then you are saying there are true appearance and false appearances without any basis but preference, since you also say that all appearance are illusory.

No - you didn't get me even after I have repeatedly explained myself, perhaps I have not been able to convey my message clearly enough. All appearances are illusory/empty is a TRUTH... so the fact that all appearance is illusory does not mean for example, that 'correct cognition' is ultimately a false cognition (cognition of falsities), since illusoriness does not not make everything false as it is itself a truth - it only makes notions of non-illusoriness or notions of inherent existence false, makes sense? So there is false cognition (cognition of inherent self and objects) and correct cognition (cognition undeluded by false notions of self and objects). Correct cognition is illusory, and precisely because it is illusory that it is correct - because correct cognition here means undeluded by false notions of self and objects which would have contradicted its illusoriness. This is why Diamond Sutra keeps saying apparently paradoxical (but actually not paradoxical) stuff like it is precisely because there is no perfect enlightenment, that the Buddha is known to have attained perfect enlightenment.

 

Illusoriness of something implies that inherent existence pertaining to something is false, and that its Emptiness is the Ultimate Truth, so saying 'everything is illusory' is not saying 'nothing is true' because 'illusoriness' or 'emptiness' is precisely THE truth, as a matter of fact correct cognition is the cognition of the truth of illusoriness, you get what I mean? It is realization and then authentication of the truth of the illusoriness of self and objects in every moment. And false cognition is the non-recognition of the truth of illusoriness.

 

The view/illusion of self and objects is false (not true). The truth of emptiness of self and objects is, well, true.

If conventional truths are false but if it is observable, in its effects and powers to change, as a dream, why does that make it any less real?

They are apparent, not substantial/real/inherent/independent - like a dream. By substantial and real I mean inherent and independent.

Again...a lot of irrelevant crap. But you realized you basically said everything you said was useless?

No, I said its useless for a Buddha, but useful for sentient beings. A Buddha doesn't need four noble truths. He does not conceive anything at all and he needs no remedy about anything. He does not conceive conventional.

 

 

 

p.s. in conclusion, the problem is that you don't understand the diff between peak experience and realization of anatta and emptienss. People can have peak experience where sense of self dissolves, and when their sense of self return, they go on their lives untransformed. They will not think that one mode of cognition is any truer than the other (like that you are implying) - simply because they have not realized that 'self' is an illusion to begin with, there never has been 'self' to begin with. If you have that realization, you will understand why you can either be awakened to Truth, or be trapped in delusions. If you merely have an experience, you will see it in terms of just being an experience wonderful or blissful as it may be - but nothing about realizing a truth, a Eureka realization that overturns your entire framework and view of reality resulting in a permanent transformation.

Edited December 23, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Much less limitations, not no limitations.

I am talking about the realization that EVERYTHING is illusory... of course the realization is also empty and illusory (and empty = illusory, so because there is nothing at all - not even nirvana - that is not empty, everything including nirvana or even if there is anything 'higher than nirvana' must be illusory), but at least now you are no longer deluded.

Ok...so is the realization that everything is illusory also illusory?

 

No - you totally do not understand anatta at all. Anatta is not a way of experiencing life. It is discovering there is no self at all to begin with - it is an illusion to begin with. If you realize anatta, you will understand why everyone is living a lie and an illusion, and now finally you are freed from that illusion.

 

Anatta is NOT an experience... not a PCE or a NDNCDIMOP, however PCE and NDNCDIMOP becomes effortless and even perpetual after realization of anatta. However many people have PCE and NDNCDIMOP with NO realization of anatta whatsoever - as a matter of fact PCE and NDNCDIMOP are so common than Richard thinks every person in the world has experienced it some point in their life - usually in their childhood and is forgotten, but can remember it if they look into it deeply enough (he claims that every person he has spoken to at length can remember an instance in life usually in childhood when they experienced the PCE/NDNCDIMOP).

 

Anatta realization however, is far different from any of those experience... it is a realization that always already, there has never been a seer seeing the seen - that is a FALSE delusional framework of reality, that always already, in seeing always just the sene, seeing is JUST the experience of sight without seer... etc.

I'm just putting your anatta realization in a different context.

 

You may say - realization is also an experience isn't it? My answer is yes, but it is not an experience of 'the absence of sense of self' (a common temporary peak experience), but the experience of 'realizing that there is no self - never was, never will, from the beginning!' It is the experience of 'realizing a fundamental TRUTH' by seeing through a delusion, forever, and realizing no-self and shunyata.

So realization is also an experience. It's a bit different in that realization seems transformative, it's like turning directions or making a decision. But then what is the difference really between a realization, making a decision, making a conclusion, or just normal habitual experience besides the degree of effect they have on the future? ( Wouldn't you say that that is really the only difference, the relative importance one weighs on one moment vs. the "realization" moment of experience? That has to be your conclusion since you propose that there is no one there to realize something, that realization itself is also a non-dual occurance like direct experience of the apple.

 

(If you say realization of the TRUTH, then what says that your realization is more true then some other person's realization? If you say that you have direct experience, how do you know the other person doesn't have a direct experience of another type of realization?)

 

It is not just a mode of cognition such as the NDNCDIMOP or non-dual non-conceptual direct immediate mode of perception - it must have realization, and merely accessing a mode of cognition say a state absent of sense of self, is not the same as realization. For example as I explained above, NDNCDIMOP is a mode of perception and is extremely common such that everyone or almost everyone has had it before, however Anatta is a (permanent) REALIZATION about a truth, and is truly rare.

If realization is only a moment in experience (a very transformative and influential moment at that), and since moments of experiences are appearances, therefore also illusory and empty, how is any realization permanent in itself unless it is given a permanent authority, that your mind labels it as "truth," as in fact "not-illusory"? Or do you mean that the effect of the anatta realization is permanent? But then really every experience can be said to be permanent since they all have an effect of future outcomes. This again blurs the line between realization and experience.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The experience of NDNCDIMOP or PCE becomes effortless and perpetual after realization of anatta, as a sideeffect. However you cannot equate experience with realization - as it is obvious most people had it, but not the realization.

You are mistaking anatta to be a state and not understanding realization. As a state, all states are equally empty. However, a realization is realizing a TRUTH about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is the twofold emptiness. It has nothing to do with giving reality to a mode of cognition - it is instead, seeing through the illusion of self and objects, the framework of duality and inherency.

Yes, but you also agreed that realization is an experience. Perhaps you are thinking of how wrong it is to equate mundane experience with realization. But realization is an experience after all, it happens to you doesn't it, just like any other moment of experience. I mean if it doesn't then you didn't experience it. So what makes this moment of realization any special? That it is about your observations of other moments, their so called nature?

 

But then now we have a moment in which two elements are contained, wherein one moment, other moments are considered. But more importantly we have a reflective moment, both of which are contained in the same medium. If they weren't there would be no way to compare two or more things (an example of this is comparing sizes of apples. You either have to see both in one frame of vision, or remember both in a linked conscious stream, i.e. they must be contained in some unifying element) But you deny the duality of such things, no unifying element underlying moments. So what exactly is you idea of the experience of realization?

 

Is it true that there is no inherent self, and no inherent core to all objects? When you realize anatta, and the dependent origination/emptiness of everything, you will realize that yes, emptiness is the TRUE nature of everything. SO emptiness is TRUTH - the lack of substantiality is TRUTH and has nothing to do with substantiality.

 

The truth I'm talking about is the LACK of substantiality... the emptiness of everything. Emptiness means lack of core, substantiality, inherent existence. That's ultimately the only truth there is... all other truths are conventional truths that ultimately are false (from the perspective of ultimate truth).

Ah and this is where I differ as I follow these dictionary definitions:

 

2.

of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.

3.

of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique.

 

 

Emptiness means nothing (no self or object) has substantiality/reality/core/solidity.

You forgot a few more entries in that definition of the meaning of substantial. From M-W dictionary.

 

a : consisting of or relating to substance

b : not imaginary or illusory : real, true

c : important, essential

2

: ample to satisfy and nourish : full <a substantial meal>

3

a : possessed of means : well-to-do

b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage>

 

When we say something is substantial we usually do not think of a core, but its effects. And this is also how we define "real." A waking state's experience is real and the dream experience is unreal simply because we usually experience the waking state more consistently and more viscerally, the waking experience has more substantial consequences. A dream state, if it began to impose on our waking state (let's say the same monster reoccurs every night to scare the person to wake up at consistently the same hour) it will also be seen as "real." Reality doesn't have to do with searching for something's inner core, but rather its degree of influence in our day to day lives. So imo, you have simply given a very strong conviction and substantiality to the "idea of non-substantiality" which to me merely seem self deceptive and uninsightful. You have basically chosen to give a particular observation of life combined with an experience of life in that way, and given it an ultimatum.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

No - you didn't get me even after I have repeatedly explained myself, perhaps I have not been able to convey my message clearly enough. All appearances are illusory/empty is a TRUTH... so the fact that all appearance is illusory does not mean for example, that 'correct cognition' is ultimately a false cognition (cognition of falsities), since illusoriness does not not make everything false as it is itself a truth - it only makes notions of non-illusoriness or notions of inherent existence false, makes sense? So there is false cognition (cognition of inherent self and objects) and correct cognition (cognition undeluded by false notions of self and objects). Correct cognition is illusory, and precisely because it is illusory that it is correct - because correct cognition here means undeluded by false notions of self and objects which would have contradicted its illusoriness. This is why Diamond Sutra keeps saying apparently paradoxical (but actually not paradoxical) stuff like it is precisely because there is no perfect enlightenment, that the Buddha is known to have attained perfect enlightenment.

 

Illusoriness of something implies that inherent existence pertaining to something is false, and that its Emptiness is the Ultimate Truth, so saying 'everything is illusory' is not saying 'nothing is true' because 'illusoriness' or 'emptiness' is precisely THE truth, as a matter of fact correct cognition is the cognition of the truth of illusoriness, you get what I mean? It is realization and then authentication of the truth of the illusoriness of self and objects in every moment. And false cognition is the non-recognition of the truth of illusoriness.

Yes, yes I understand what you mean, although it is very poorly explained, because rightly explained it is quite the nonsense. Let me point it out to you why so, but before I do so, I need to clarify what you wrote above so we have an understanding. When you write "cognition is illusory" you mean "cognition of experience as illusory" yes? Because if you literally mean that the cognition itself is illusory that makes absolutely no sense unless you are referring to a specific state of cognition. If cognition itself is illusory, then it points to how non-cognition is not-illusory and there is no way for any mind to cognize non-cognition, it's like trying to be aware of not being aware. Ok, if that's the case, I'll go on.

 

So basically you are saying the world is a certain way (all appearances are illusory, and this is the truth). And that there is the correct way of cognizing this world and an incorrect way of cognizing this world. (This suggests there is the world and someone or something cognizant of it in a wrong or right way). But at the same time you deny the agent that cognizes the world. There are just momentary and disconnected experiences. So if there is no cognizer, how can there be a a correct way or an incorrect way to cognize something. Wouldn't there be just mere experiences/appearances? And if there are mere appearance and experiences, you say they are all illusory, and all empty. So why are you purporting a correct way to cognize something over a false way of cognizing something? That's only conventional, right? Isn't it all illusory?

 

But when you write "Illusoriness of something implies that inherent existence pertaining to something is false, and that its Emptiness is the Ultimate Truth, so saying 'everything is illusory' is not saying 'nothing is true' because 'illusoriness' or 'emptiness' is precisely THE truth, as a matter of fact correct cognition is the cognition of the truth of illusoriness," you are referring to the illusoriness of something whether it is perceived as illusory or not. How can this be when there is no one to perceive it in one way or the other? No agent to cognizes it, therefore there is only the experience of the illusoriness of something or the experience of the non-illusoriness of something both of which are, under your view of the TRUTH, illusory, insubstantial, and without foundation? And if that is the case, then that does in fact translate to as "everything is false."

 

You cannot cognize an illusion or cognize a non-illusion and at the same time call both an illusion, because that negates the very meaning of cognizing a non-illusion. Your logic is just caught in a perpetual loop.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

So realization is also an experience. It's a bit different in that realization seems transformative, it's like turning directions or making a decision. But then what is the difference really between a realization, making a decision, making a conclusion, or just normal habitual experience besides the degree of effect they have on the future? ( Wouldn't you say that that is really the only difference, the relative importance one weighs on one moment vs. the "realization" moment of experience? That has to be your conclusion since you propose that there is no one there to realize something, that realization itself is also a non-dual occurance like direct experience of the apple.

I'm not sure why you compare realization with making a decision... if you take it as analogy, maybe there is some similarities (but I can't think of any at the moment) but actually realization has nothing to do with decision making because it is a non-inferred realization of the fact or nature things has always been. Decision is conceptual and inferred - you analyze this and this, and then finally you come to an inferred conclusion of things... like Madhyamaka reasonings. This is very different from realization. So of course it is going to be very different. An intellectual understanding of no-self for example, will not allow you to have NDNCDIMOP - the actual experience of it... but direct experiential realization will make NDNCDIMOP effortless because it burns away the framework you use to view reality and make NDNCDIMOP the natural state. In other words an intellectual understanding of no-self for example will not change your latent view and tendencies and your sense of self will still keep arising as a result of that latent tendencies. Intellectual understanding therefore is not very helpful in itself, except if ou yhave the right practice and contemplation and truly see things for yourself, then with the backing of intellectual understanding it is easier to realize.

 

As an example I have said earlier, you may think "everything is impermanent" sounds very reasonable - everyone does, but it is very different from doing vipassana and truly seeing it is the case.

(If you say realization of the TRUTH, then what says that your realization is more true then some other person's realization? If you say that you have direct experience, how do you know the other person doesn't have a direct experience of another type of realization?

Other people may realize luminosity, which isn't denied. But if they reify luminosity as inherent due to dualistic and inherent framework, thats false. Because the truth is the twofold emptiness. Direct experience of luminosity is not the same as realization of twofold emptiness, and it is only when one has realized anatta and shunyata and not just the luminosity aspect, that one can be considered awakened as an arya in Buddhism. Direct experience of luminosity is most often falsely reified due to delusional framework.

 

You see, you can have any number of realization or direct experience, and still not wake up. Just like you can experience the most amazing thing in the dream and still be deluded in the dream. As long as the deluded framework is in effect, no matter what you experience or realized, will be interpreted through the deluded framework... you are not awake. You have not discovered ultimate truth.

 

Whatever you can realize before waking up are relative truths, not ultimate truth.

If realization is only a moment in experience (a very transformative and influential moment at that),

A realization happens in one moment, but in that moment of seeing a truth, that truth cannot be unseen anymore. For example once you realize in one moment that santa claus is fake, you can never believe in it anymore.

 

and since moments of experiences are appearances, therefore also illusory and empty, how is any realization permanent in itself

Explained above

unless it is given a permanent authority, that your mind labels it as "truth," as in fact "not-illusory"?

No, no labels are needed, it is a non-conceptual realization about a fact... the nature has always been so. It is a truth about illusoriness, not a non-illusory truth. To realize this however is to be free from delusion (not illusion).

Or do you mean that the effect of the anatta realization is permanent? But then really every experience can be said to be permanent since they all have an effect of future outcomes. This again blurs the line between realization and experience.

The effect is permanent, the waking up is permanent. It is not that there is an unchanging thing which would contradict emptiness (it is a changing eternal as Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rinpoche says, or as I say perpetual), but from that moment on, all moments of cognition is correct undeluded cognition - if not all then at least most or much of the time. Actually as I said there can still be residual latent tendencies - but most of it are gone, like for example pouring away the jug may leave a little bit of remnant smell, but the whole lot of the contents are gone, the remnant smell is an analogy for the latent tendencies that can at certain point cause subtle contractions or afflictions and stuff like that. Nonetheless NDNCDIMOP has already become effortless and not really hindered by the remnants. Edited December 24, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's probably Christmas Eve there! Merry Christmas!

[xabir2005]

Yeah.. Merry Christmas

[xabir2005]

Yes, yes I understand what you mean, although it is very poorly explained, because rightly explained it is quite the nonsense. Let me point it out to you why so, but before I do so, I need to clarify what you wrote above so we have an understanding. When you write "cognition is illusory" you mean "cognition of experience as illusory" yes?

It means undeluded cognition is also illusory/empty.

Because if you literally mean that the cognition itself is illusory that makes absolutely no sense unless you are referring to a specific state of cognition.

Yes, undeluded cognition.

If cognition itself is illusory, then it points to how non-cognition is not-illusory

Illusory implies: an appearance of something, which is nonetheless without substance/substantiality, core, inherency, such as a mirage, a dream, etc.

 

There is no such thing as an inherently existing thing called non-cognition, so non-cognition is also empty, but since non-cognition (not sure what you mean by that) is not an appearance, 'illusory' may not make sense in this context.

 

Anyway I did not speak about non-cognition, just deluded and undeluded cognition.

and there is no way for any mind to cognize non-cognition, it's like trying to be aware of not being aware. Ok, if that's the case, I'll go on.

Don't get you.

So basically you are saying the world is a certain way (all appearances are illusory, and this is the truth). And that there is the correct way of cognizing this world and an incorrect way of cognizing this world.

Yes.

(This suggests there is the world and someone or something cognizant of it in a wrong or right way).

No. There is just cognition without a cognizer and something cognizing. You are falling into the error of inference again - that to see requires a seer and an object seen (have already told you earlier this is not required). If you awaken, it is like Kalaka Sutta - you do not establish a seer or sometihng seen, just suchness.

But at the same time you deny the agent that cognizes the world. There are just momentary and disconnected experiences.

Yes, and those experiences are illusory (appearing but without substance)

So if there is no cognizer, how can there be a a correct way or an incorrect way to cognize something.

Why not?

Wouldn't there be just mere experiences/appearances?

And that experience can be tainted with delusion or not - delusion is also part of that experience. Edited December 24, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

And if there are mere appearance and experiences, you say they are all illusory, and all empty. So why are you purporting a correct way to cognize something over a false way of cognizing something?

Thats right.

That's only conventional, right? Isn't it all illusory?

Emptiness is not a conventional truth. Emptiness is ultimate truth. It does not mean emptiness is ultimately existing, it just means its a truth. This is why Emptiness is ultimate truth, not ultimate reality.

 

But when you write "Illusoriness of something implies that inherent existence pertaining to something is false, and that its Emptiness is the Ultimate Truth, so saying 'everything is illusory' is not saying 'nothing is true' because 'illusoriness' or 'emptiness' is precisely THE truth, as a matter of fact correct cognition is the cognition of the truth of illusoriness," you are referring to the illusoriness of something whether it is perceived as illusory or not. How can this be when there is no one to perceive it in one way or the other? No agent to cognizes it, therefore there is only the experience of the illusoriness of something or the experience of the non-illusoriness of something both of which are, under your view of the TRUTH, illusory, insubstantial, and without foundation? And if that is the case, then that does in fact translate to as "everything is false."

Like I already said, illusoriness does not make something false. It only makes notions of non-illusory false. The truth is that of emptiness, illusoriness.

You cannot cognize an illusion or cognize a non-illusion and at the same time call both an illusion, because that negates the very meaning of cognizing a non-illusion. Your logic is just caught in a perpetual loop.

No - it seems you did not grasp my explanation on the difference between illusion and delusion. Everything is illusory, but not necessarily delusional. You can never cognize a non-illusion because there is nothing not illusory - however cognition can be freed from delusion. As already explained - illusion does not mean 'incorrect'. Illusion just means there is no inherent existence or substance. Your realization of truth is also without inherent existence or substance, thus illusory. Thats why I said it is illusory but NOT delusional and therein lies the difference. Edited December 24, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Ok just found something from Namdrol today which is well said:

 

The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth. The word brdzun pa means "to lie" as well.

 

....

 

But false perception is mthong brdzun, so what Candrakirti is clearly saying is that false/faulty/incorrect perception is relative, or totally obscuring, truth.

Edited December 24, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

 

Whatever you can realize before waking up are relative truths, not ultimate truth.

Even if you discover luminosity, I AM or non dual, or have whatever amazing experience, you are still dealing with relative and not woken up to ultimate truth.

 

The Dalai Lama:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/His%20Holiness%20the%20Dalai%20Lama

 

Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind.

 

There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state.

 

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Even if you discover luminosity, I AM or non dual, or have whatever amazing experience, you are still dealing with relative and not woken up to ultimate truth....

Xabir, the Dalai Lama or Namdrol quote doesn't add anything to the discussion. . You are capable of putting those similar ideas together for yourself. I really don't care what the Dalai Lama said or what Namdrol said because they are not here to have a discussion with me. I'll care about what they said if I am curious about their perspectives. This thread started out as me sharing my observations of your reasoning and your path, so I care mostly about what you say.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'm not sure why you compare realization with making a decision... if you take it as analogy, maybe there is some similarities (but I can't think of any at the moment) but actually realization has nothing to do with decision making because it is a non-inferred realization of the fact or nature things has always been. Decision is conceptual and inferred - you analyze this and this, and then finally you come to an inferred conclusion of things... like Madhyamaka reasonings. This is very different from realization. So of course it is going to be very different. An intellectual understanding of no-self for example, will not allow you to have NDNCDIMOP - the actual experience of it... but direct experiential realization will make NDNCDIMOP effortless because it burns away the framework you use to view reality and make NDNCDIMOP the natural state. In other words an intellectual understanding of no-self for example will not change your latent view and tendencies and your sense of self will still keep arising as a result of that latent tendencies. Intellectual understanding therefore is not very helpful in itself, except if ou yhave the right practice and contemplation and truly see things for yourself, then with the backing of intellectual understanding it is easier to realize.

Is there truly a divide between conceptual realization and a more direct realization of the way things are, or is it just a matter of application? Namely, simply because conceptual realization involves words and reflective analysis of something that is experienced it does not make it indirect. This so called non-inferred realization is only experienced as if it is direct because it is applied to oneself, one's own way of experiencing life, and its effects are felt directy without reflective analysis. But the process by which both happen are very much the same. The mind observes and then makes a conclusive conviction of that which is experienced and alters its future ways of experiencing accordingly

 

As an example I have said earlier, you may think "everything is impermanent" sounds very reasonable - everyone does, but it is very different from doing vipassana and truly seeing it is the case.

No, that's a different case involving the depth of conviction. If someone comes to the conclusion with great conviction that "everything is impermanent," his way of experiencing will also be directly affected. But you are thinking of conceptuality as shallow mind games, which in most cases are, but not always.

 

Other people may realize luminosity, which isn't denied. But if they reify luminosity as inherent due to dualistic and inherent framework...As long as the deluded framework is in effect, no matter what you experience or realized, will be interpreted through the deluded framework... you are not awake. You have not discovered ultimate truth.

And what backs your enlightened framework other than logic and personal observation?

 

Whatever you can realize before waking up are relative truths, not ultimate truth.

A realization happens in one moment, but in that moment of seeing a truth, that truth cannot be unseen anymore. For example once you realize in one moment that santa claus is fake, you can never believe in it anymore.

The permanency of a moment's effect is universal to all moments according to your dependent origination. Of course the belief in santa claus can be believed in again! Santa claus is an idea, and as long as the potentiality of santa claus resides in the mind, he can be experienced. You can still very much dream about a world in which santa claus exists. Or we can trace back to how you came to learn that santa claus did not exist, i.e. how you saw your parents wrap presents one christmas, or some guy on t.v. saying so. But upon reviewing the evidence, you can still conclude how it's not enough to deny the true existence of santa claus, and believe in him again!

 

No, no labels are needed, it is a non-conceptual realization about a fact... the nature has always been so. It is a truth about illusoriness..

You are simply stating your convictions. You are relying too heavily on personal experience to be drawing universal conclusions while claiming that's what other people do. I am not very interested in that. I am more interested in how you came those convictions, as in what process led you to stop believing in santa claus, because I think your insight is very lacking in that regard.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Is there truly a divide between conceptual realization and a more direct realization of the way things are, or is it just a matter of application? Namely, simply because conceptual realization involves words and reflective analysis of something that is experienced it does not make it indirect. This so called non-inferred realization is only experienced as if it is direct because it is applied to oneself, one's own way of experiencing life, and its effects are felt directy without reflective analysis. But the process by which both happen are very much the same. The mind observes and then makes a conclusive conviction of that which is experienced and alters its future ways of experiencing accordingly

The process is somewhat similar in that both requires contemplation, but not so similar because your conclusion is not made based on inference but by direct seeing.

 

Analysis has its place in the process of contemplating... but the realization is non-conceptual. Because concepts cannot directly cognize ultimate truth, the most concepts can do is serve as a raft - such as a fire on the candle that when finished burning the candle, consumes itself - no more candle, no more fire.

 

Realization of the nature of reality thus is a non conceptual realization that burns away all concepts leaving equipose of reality non-conceptually - perception of reality as it is non-conceptually.

 

If you still rely on conceptual understanding, realization has not arisen... so thats what I mean. There is no inference at all involved - do you use inference to come to the realization of I AM, of luminosity, of non dual? No you simply see it, but it is not without a process of contemplating before it is seen.

 

Do you say for example after you analyzed this and this (tha I am not my body and not my mind) then you infer that there is an I AM Presence... of course not, you either see it directly or not. That inferred understanding is at most a vague glimpse or experience but not the doubtless non-inferred I AM Realization - so this is how the 'conclusive conviction' arises as contrast to inference. The same goes to any other realization including anatta.

No, that's a different case involving the depth of conviction. If someone comes to the conclusion with great conviction that "everything is impermanent," his way of experiencing will also be directly affected. But you are thinking of conceptuality as shallow mind games, which in most cases are, but not always.

Sorry to say, I do not follow your line of reasoning because this has not been my experience. My experience is that though I had an intellectual conviction of anatta and impermanence, at some point in my practice I still felt very much 'permanent', 'self', etc. Until further insights arose. That is conceptuality in itself is incapable of really shifting your way of perception until direct insight.

And what backs your enlightened framework other than logic and personal observation?

"Hard to perceive and understand, Vacchagotta, is this Dharma, rare, excellent, beyond the sphere of logic, subtle, to be understood only by the wise..." - Buddha

 

Logic can only serve as a raft and not to direct insight. Anyway I didn't use a lot of logic - unless you are into Madhyamaka. An understanding of things before contemplating will help as an antidote to wrong understanding (with wrong understanding one cannot even begin to look at the right direction), however it is not the same as realization.

The permanency of a moment's effect is universal to all moments according to your dependent origination. Of course the belief in santa claus can be believed in again! Santa claus is an idea, and as long as the potentiality of santa claus resides in the mind, he can be experienced. You can still very much dream about a world in which santa claus exists. Or we can trace back to how you came to learn that santa claus did not exist, i.e. how you saw your parents wrap presents one christmas, or some guy on t.v. saying so. But upon reviewing the evidence, you can still conclude how it's not enough to deny the true existence of santa claus, and believe in him again!

I don't know if anyone believed in santa claus in adulthood again - apparently, I have never heard of any such persons and if you can find one news article that says an adult suddenly believed in santa claus again, that makes it plausible. Until then, lets not make ridiculous statements without evidence.

 

But whether you can personally believe in santa claus again, what I can say is that I can never, never believe in a Self again because this is not an inferential understanding but a direct unshakeable insight.

You are simply stating your convictions. You are relying too heavily on personal experience to be drawing universal conclusions while claiming that's what other people do. I am not very interested in that. I am more interested in how you came those convictions, as in what process led you to stop believing in santa claus, because I think your insight is very lacking in that regard.

As I said - ultimate truth is universal. And ultimate truth is not A personal experience, it is a discovery about the nature of ALL phenomenon as being so - without self, without substance, dependently originated. While realization is an experience, it is not merely a peak experience of something, but an experience of realizing the nature of reality.

 

i.e. An experience is like NDNCDIMOP

 

A discovery or realization is like the realization of anatta.

 

How I came to the conviction is not through inferrential, but a contemplative exercise (combined with all my previous experience and insights at that moment) that resulted in a direct, non-inferential seeing.

Edited December 25, 2011 by xabir2005